Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDETROIT -- The question in Tuesday's Michigan Democratic primary was not whether Hillary Clinton could beat anybody.
The question was whether Clinton could beat nobody.
As the only leading Democratic contender to keep her name on the ballot after Michigan officials moved their primary ahead of the opening date scheduled by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.
Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. That's how it went for George Bush when he was running without serious opposition in Republican primaries in 2004, and for Bill Clinton when he was essentially unopposed in the Democratic primaries in 1996.
But Hillary Clinton got nowhere near 90 percent of the vote in Tuesday's Michigan primary.
With most of the ballots counted, the New York senator was winning uninspiring 55 percent of the Democratic primary vote.
A remarkable 40 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. Another 4 percent backed Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who brought his anti-war, anti-corporate campaign to Michigan and made some inroads among Muslim voters in the Detroit area and liberals in Washtenaw County -- where he was taking almost 10 percent.
But "Uncommitted" was Clinton's most serious challenger in Michigan.
"Uncommitted" was actually beating Clinton in some counties and holding her below 50 percent in others, including Detroit's Wayne County.
Ominously for the Clinton camp, the former First Lady was losing the African-American vote -- in Wayne County and statewide -- to "Uncommitted." African-American leaders such as Detroit Congressman John Conyers, who backs Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, had urged an "Uncommitted" vote. And the message seemed to connect. Exits polls showed "Uncommitted" winning by a 70-26 margin among African-Americans. (Had Michigan voters been allowed to choose between all the serious contenders for the Democratic nod, CNN's exit poll found, Obama would have won the African-American vote by a 73-22 margin over Clinton.)
"Uncommitted" also beat Clinton among independent voters who participated in the Democratic primary, and among young voters.
The message from Michigan, suggests veteran Detroit Free Press columnist Stephen Henderson, is that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee she'll "have a real challenge building an electoral coalition that can win in November."
"(A) Democrat won't win without carrying a significant slice of the African-American vote or reaching out to independents," explained Henderson.
It is hard to argue with that assessment.
It is harder still to believe that Clinton will get very far claiming Michigan handed her a meaningful victory Tuesday night. When two out of every five voters choose nobody rather than a prominent candidate who is running with little or no opposition, that candidate's got no reason to celebrate.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Exits polls showed "Uncommitted" winning by a 70-26 margin among African-Americans. (Had Michigan voters been allowed to choose between all the serious contenders for the Democratic nod, CNN's exit poll found, Obama would have won the African-American vote by a 73-22 margin over Clinton.)
This is the real story from Michigan - 70% of black voters cast their vote for "uncommitted" rather than Hillary. This protest vote based on Hillary's insensitive comments does not bode well for Clinton as the primary season moves to states with significant populations of African American voters.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/15/2008 @ 11:17pm
It took awhile but the rhetoric associated with the Clinton campaign is beginning to take its toll. It will probably get worse. When the attempted Nevada voter suppression information, grows legs, and takes wing.
Posted by V at 01/15/2008 @ 11:23pm
You can't conclude anything from Michigan. It's pointless to even speculate.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/15/2008 @ 11:35pm
NICHOLS: ..."Uncommitted" winning by a 70-26 margin among African-Americans. ....Obama would have won the African-American vote by a 73-22 margin over Clinton.
Hey, FRANKG! I've hit `pay dirt'!!!!!
Look, look......it was up from 60% to 66% and today, it's up to 70~73%......didn't I ask you to "trust me" that 2/3 to 3/4 of black votes will go to Obama? Huh, huh...Huh...?? Didn't I???
I'm now raising my `guidance', Obama, the UnComm, will get 70% to 90% of black votes in coming Primaries!!
Posted by Happy at 01/15/2008 @ 11:46pm
REVOKE MSNBCs BROADCAST LICENSE.
Posted by conshame at 01/15/2008 @ 11:55pm
Frank, if she is so damn knowledgable how come she was wrong about the disaster in Iraq and if she is so adult how come she still has to lie about it.
Posted by conshame at 01/16/2008 @ 12:08am
Unfortunately, I suspect that this exactly what the Clinton camp was trying to accomplish. A polarized electorate will make Obama appear to be the African American candidate rather than a candidate for all Americans. As such he will be regulated to the corner of minor candidates. Clinton supporters figure that African Americans will have little choice but to support her in the general election and bygones will be bygones.
Posted by kimbiaje at 01/16/2008 @ 12:25am
You can't compare the vote in Michigan tonight to the vote for Bush in 2004 and Clinton in 1996. Hillary Clinton isn't running unopposed this year. Naturally Obama and Edwards (and Kucinich) supporters voted uncommitted.
Posted by mcg46 at 01/16/2008 @ 12:29am
The vote was set up such that if one wrote in a vote for Edwards or Obama the vote would be thrown out. That is simply unacceptable. It pains me that Hillary got as many votes as she did.
Her husband signed NAFTA and expressed tens of thousands of auto related jobs south to Mexico. She agreed with his decision and has never disavowed it. She shouldn't have gotten a single vote.
Posted by NoPCZone at 01/16/2008 @ 01:05am
What a snarky piece of opinion. Hillary did not run against "nobody". Supporters of both Edwards and Obama were lobbied vigorously to vote "uncommitted" so that they could send uncommitted delegates to the Convention. After reading several articles here online today, the Obama prefererence by the Nation is palpable. The media, including the so-called progressive media, has been flat-out guilty of pushing non-issues about Clinton, and making the most ridiculous claims regarding race bias. What a shame to have our nominee crowned for us by a bunch of pen-pushers.
Posted by catriley at 01/16/2008 @ 01:08am
And regarding the black votes for "uncommitted" and people here congratulating themselves for the idea that blacks will vote for Obama in the 70% range. I had always assumed that people would vote for a candidate based upon their qualifications.. not their race. But apparently I was wrong. Sad.
Posted by catriley at 01/16/2008 @ 01:10am
John Nichols analysis of the Michigan Democratic vote may be either agenda-based or naive. Does he really believe people are voting for "nobody" when they checked "uncommitted"? Sir, when your candidate is NOT on the ballot (Obama, Edwards), then your options are (1) not to vote or (2) to check uncommitted. The tally for "uncommitted" represents votes that couldn't be cast for Obama or Edwards or other candidates not on the ballot. So, 55 percent is a pretty darned good showing, I'd say.
Posted by newsguy98 at 01/16/2008 @ 01:22am
Whoops! I left the apostrophe off Nichols' name. :-)
Posted by newsguy98 at 01/16/2008 @ 01:25am
The whole house is on fire, and the Dems are inside fetishizing identity politics and crusading against alleged thought crimes and speech crimes. Sadly, it was all too predictable. PC is the big fat fluffy pillow--so cozy, so familiar--that threatens to smother the progressive cause.
Posted by feinfein at 01/16/2008 @ 01:42am
"Uncommitted" was actually beating Clinton in some counties and holding her below 50 percent in others, including Detroit's Wayne County.
those people are black. (hi guys).
look out south carolina.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 01:52am
hey CRABS,
were you "uncommited" or kuciniched or fedupped?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 01:54am
When two out of every five voters choose nobody rather than a prominent candidate who is running with little or no opposition, that candidate's got no reason to celebrate.
nobody? i "know where" he comes from.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 02:04am
MCG46 said "You can't compare the vote in Michigan tonight to the vote for Bush in 2004 and Clinton in 1996. Hillary Clinton isn't running unopposed this year." Not only that, Mrs. Clinton is hardly a sitting President running for a second term. I've heard that can be somewhat of an advantage.
Posted by dlw9960 at 01/16/2008 @ 02:07am
I have never read such a blatant hit piece on a candidate. You state that Clinton should have received 90 % or more such as Bill Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2004. First of all, B. Clinton and Bush were incumbent Presidents running unopposed nationally. To compare their 90% to that with a primary with three strong contenders is ludicrous. The "uncommitted" vote was for Obama and Edwards. So let's say all those votes were for Obama, Clinton beat him 57-38 percent. Let's say Edwards would have received 10%. That means Clinton beat Obama 57-28 percent. I can't believe you have the gall to write such a blatant fraud.
Posted by donsf2003 at 01/16/2008 @ 02:11am
Posted by CATRILEY 01/16/2008 @ 01:10am
I think whites should also be breaking for Obama 70/30 because Obama clearly is the best Democratic candidate "of any race" that the party has had for several generations.
At some point, I hope white Democrats realize what the black Democrats seem to already know - if we really want true progressive change in the direction of our government, then Barack Obama stands heads and shoulders above the rest of the candidates.
If we want more of the same partisan bickering and gridlock in Washington, then this is what you will get with the other Democratic candidates!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/16/2008 @ 02:19am
Re: Michigan Trouble?
Wow, if you win and they still consider that's a trouble, then you got to wonder if the Nation's turned itself into a GOP propaganda machine.
Posted by HelenDAO at 01/16/2008 @ 02:26am
How much is the Obama campaign paying The Nation for this drivel?
Posted by donsf2003 at 01/16/2008 @ 02:29am
Hey anybody want to explain why, per the exit poll, 3% voting for 'Uncommited' said they were for Clinton... self-hate maybe?
Just plain wacky.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 02:58am
"...any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10th, 2002
"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." -- Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
Posted by HarpoMarxist at 01/16/2008 @ 03:01am
I guess may be now both Hillary and Obama will stop slinging mud so much and get down to the issues. And just may be Bill will realize that he needs to take a backseat for a while because people are now starting to feel like this is Bill's campaign. It's ok to help Hillary, but his choice of words no matter how harmless he claims they are is not going over so well. For just once I would love to see a debate where all candidates just stick to the issues at present, not what you have done, not how much or lack of experience, just what your plans are for now and the future. Stop ducking certain issues and for once just be "honest" with us the people. Wouldn't that be a change?
Posted by ladydi at 01/16/2008 @ 03:30am
As a black voter disgusted and insulted by the racial undertones of the Clintons I'm quite sure that if Hillary wins the nomination I will not vote (for the first time in my life) in the November elections. I'm also noticing most of my friends and relatives are feeling the same way.
The worst thing about Clinton's reaction is not that she and her campaign staffers made them, but that they immediatly tried to blame Obama and paint him as the "whiney black activist" abusing his race to win. The same tactic that republicans, particularly the rascist ones, have used for years.
I think its safe to say that a vote for Hillary is a vote for a republican in the white house. Some whites here in this thread are happily boasting that Hillary will win because white people will choose for her, but they are making a huge mistake underestimating our influence in elections.
Without the black vote and with Hillary doing so abysmall with independents (in all three primaries) Hillary stands no chance whatsoever in the presidential elections.
So in november it will be either Obama in the whitehouse or a republican.
Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/16/2008 @ 03:36am
What hasn't been mentioned is an explanation for the MI primary situation: that MI lost its delagates in response to their decision to move up the primary, and that there has been a lot of promotion to a) get people to vote 'uncommitted' if they support Edwards or Obama and b) vote at all in the Dem primary, to show that MI is serious about being counted as an early primary state.
I was disappointed not to see much mainstream media coverage at all about the party politics going on this primary season -- maybe it was too complicated to cover -- but I think The Nation's readers could handle it!
PS to newsguy98: hooray for correcting one's own grammar :)
Posted by etcetera_d at 01/16/2008 @ 03:37am
"the black voters will come home if they're smart"
Well that does it! If I don't want Frank to think I'm dumb as hell then I gotta follow the automatons and vote for Hillary. Oh joy! For a second there I almost messed myself up. Me being dumb and all I almost cast my support for Obama because he was black. Not because of his stance against the war or his work in civil rights on the grass-roots level in Chicago. Naw, I'm black so I only see race.
Posted by k330k at 01/16/2008 @ 07:22am
You can't conclude anything from Michigan. It's pointless to even speculate.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/15/2008 @ 11:35pm
Egg-zactly. Hello from Michigan! As in HELLLLLL-OOOO!!! When was the last time "uncommitted" was on the ballot? And no delegates were at stake? And no one campaigned? Anyone who draws a conclusion from this is wasting their time.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/16/2008 @ 08:06am
"Black voters will come home if they are smart"
If you think black voters are going to allow a Clinton campaign to win the election against a valid black candidate by injecting both the race and the gender issue, and then forget and forgive all this and "come home" back into those same Clinton arms in November, you are seriously underestimating us.
Black voters won't come home if Clinton wins with her hate campaign. They will stay home. And you can take that one to the bank.
Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/16/2008 @ 08:09am
You can't conclude anything from Michigan. It's pointless to even speculate.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/15/2008 @ 11:35pm | ignore this person
Totally agree. With the delegates being stripped from Michigan, a whole slew of voters didn't even show up. Had there been delegates to award and all candidates on the ballot, then you could give more credence to Michigan's outcome.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/16/2008 @ 08:13am
Interesting premise, Mr Nichols....where'd you come up with that?
"BTW, noted last numbers out of Michigan for Her Majesty....a BIG "Uncommitted" contingent.
Doesn't bode well for Queen of the Damned if she TIES with "We don't like her" (with scraps for Kucinich and Gravel of course)"-----Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 10:05pm
heheh!
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 09:18am
Hillary voted for war without even bothering to read the intelligence reports.She has given the war her full support and would be an extension of the dubya years.Does America want to send the message that you must be named Bush or Clinton if you want to be president particularly since Hillary would be Bush3 and not Clinton2?She is easily as big of a war monger as Dubya is.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/16/2008 @ 09:20am
"When she gets to the general election, the black voters will come home if they're smart. We'll have to wait and see."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/15/2008 @ 11:59pm
Yeah FRANK, I guess in your mind, those Negroes are a tricky lot to predict and it's hard to tell if they're smart enough to figure out to support Miz Scarlett!
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 09:21am
Frank-The same worn out charges are true.She sent people off to die without bothering to read the intelligence report. Get over your cult love for the Clintons.A Hillary nomination will guarantee a GOP victory come November.Hillary will inspire far more people to vote against her than for her.People like me and most everyone I know will either stay home or vote third party or vote GOP.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/16/2008 @ 09:56am
Frank, Hillary Clinton DOES still LIE about Iraq, she refuses to admit that she made a terrible decision to help the idiot George Bush get his war. She quibbles, and says that given the lies she was told she had no choice but to fall for them.
Fact is Frank, Hillary Clinton was merely SCARED TO LOOK SOFT ON WAR, you know it, you know it, and you are being dishonest. Dishonesty is exactly what got us into this damn mess.
Posted by conshame at 01/16/2008 @ 10:07am
What an utterly, utterly TRAGIC failure of judgment. Sending Americans to DIE, Frank, based on lies. Calculating, that it would be better to SLAUGHTER innocent people, than to risk looking soft on war. And to refuse to apologize, to refuse to admit the truth, to continue with the same damndable ruse she used as her excuse to take the easy way out of looking soft? KILLING innocent people, Frank. WASTING American power and influence, Frank. And, continuing to LIE about the reasons for it. Fear of appearing soft, pure and simple, that has led to the wrongful and totally un-justified KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.
Posted by conshame at 01/16/2008 @ 10:12am
DAMN the idiots - every last one of them - who helped George Bush get his opportunity to SLAUGHTER American wealth, power, prestige, and people. What the hell was wrong with those idiots.
Republicans I can understand - they dont have souls - they dont have consciences - they love it when America wastes its awesome power and responsibility - Republicans love it when America does the WRONG thing to innocent people.
Posted by conshame at 01/16/2008 @ 10:18am
FrankGrits - maybe it's time for one of those who-said-it games where you match the quotes with the politician. Because in the fine print, Hillary's analysis was ALWAYS the most objective, complete, and well-stated. A Clinton hallmark. These twits who turn a vote for executive authorization into a "vote for war" can go join their soundbite brothers on the conservative side for all I care. And I can't stand to read one more vacuous post about how Obama or whoever had a better position when they were TOTALLY UNACCOUNTABLE for it.
Honestly, if Hillary Clinton can't get elected, there will never be a woman president of the United States.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/16/2008 @ 10:23am
55% in what was basically an uncontested election is not really a huge show of confidence.
My concern is that the Clintonites and the DNC will pull some stunt at the convention to allow the majority of the MI delegates to go for Hillary. They say they are stripped now, but don't be so sure there won't be any funny business at the convention if Hillary is still within striking distance.
I don't remember who it was, but I saw a Clinton campaign person last night saying that they thought they could get 60%. I think it was on MSNBC. Last I checked, 55% is less than 60%. So by the Clinton's campaign's own standards, they failed. I'm sure that if they would have pulled in 60% or more, the campaign would definitely try to use it to talk about how they should be the front runner.
Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2008 @ 10:27am
Oh, give it a rest John. Michigan means exactly jack-shit and Hillary already has a lock on the superdelegates. Besides, you'll Shill For Hill after the convention just like you did for "Send More Troops" Kerry. Stop pretending to be anything other than the democorporate media drone you are.
Posted by AlanSmithee at 01/16/2008 @ 10:35am
I cant stand Hillary - I dont respect her - I hate her. However, I think she - or anyone else - would make a good president, in the absence of the relentless Republican assault on our honor and dignity, any president other than a Republican is likely to preside over a miraculous recovery because America has alot of resillience. But America must never again do the wrong thing, merely because so-called leaders do not want to risk appearing "soft".
Posted by conshame at 01/16/2008 @ 10:42am
Myparadigm, I disagree completely, executive authorization was well known at the time to be a vote for war. You just had to be, alot worse than a "twit", to buy into the lies at the time, that a vote for Bushs war wasnt a vote for Bushs war. You call people twits, but Myparadigm, if you say the 2002 authorization was not a vote for war, then youre being entirely dis-honest.
Posted by conshame at 01/16/2008 @ 10:45am
Both of my parents made the mistake of writing in Sen. Obama's name as a write in candidate which was by rule determined to be a spoiled ballot. It would be interesting to know if the combination of spoiled and uncommitted ballots outnumbered the votes that Sen. Clinton received.
Posted by evenhouse at 01/16/2008 @ 10:48am
I was at the anti-war rally, PRIOR to the 2002 authorization. I distinctly recall one of the speakers, telling us, how it is practically impossible to stop a war once it is underway, that our ONLY chance was to stop it before it started.
It was sickening, to see idiots falling for obvious lies, that the "authorization" was not a vote for war. George Bush just wants to have options on the table. What a farce, what a damndable idiot you had to be, to buy into it too.
Posted by conshame at 01/16/2008 @ 10:50am
CONSHAME....time for your meds, huh? Anti-spam Promazine maybe?
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 10:54am
Mask - I typed your name - need I say more to counter your ridiculous argument????
MyParadigm, IT JUST SO HAPPENS, MyParadigm, that the "twits" - the brilliant Liberal Patriotic American - who said that the 2002 Authorization was a vote for war - WERE ABSOLUTELY FLAT OUT 100% CORRECT. It WAS a vote for war.
MyParadigm, IT TURNS OUT, MyParadigm, that the people who were running around saying "a vote for authorization is not a vote for war", were flat-out irresponsibly and idiotically wrong. Soon as the idiot George Bush got his authorization, he got his war. FACT.
Posted by conshame at 01/16/2008 @ 11:08am
NO sooner did the idiot George Bush have his authorization, than he had his war, that is an irrefutable fact - and if you deny it youre just exposing your foolishness - and your callousness to the harm that authorization has caused.
Posted by conshame at 01/16/2008 @ 11:13am
frank, you are really treading on thin ice with your comments about black people. if you really want to help hillary, perhaps you should remain silent on this issue.
i am a white feminist and gloria steinem's disgusting article infuriated me personally. i already had lots of hesitation regarding hillary due to the war issues, nafta, the explosion of the prison population, welfare reform....and the article by steinem certainly did not help hillary in my eyes.
Posted by loveloki at 01/16/2008 @ 11:22am
conshame-They're doing the Clinton two step where a vote to authorize military action doesn't count as a vote for war.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/16/2008 @ 11:36am
Posted by CONSHAME 01/16/2008 @ 11:08am
CS, evidence of your bipolar nature is quite obvious...even when you discuss Hillary-
BLOG | Posted 06/20/2007 @ 10:23pm Comments for "Who's Afraid of Liberalism? The GOP" by John Nichols
Hillary is well known for a 2-face, good for a President but bad for a campaign, she is a curse, she would make a wonderful President in my opinion, she should drop out owing to the fact she is damaged goods as are all who voted wrong in October 2002. Certainly in a primary, calling her Conservative is fair game, certainly her vote in October 2002 to authorize the disaster in Iraq."----Posted by CONSHAME 06/21/2007 @ 10:43am
Boy, THAT sure clears it up, doesn't it?
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 12:13pm
The "Race Card" according to Dick....
January 16, 2008
In Contrast to Obama, Hillary Plays the Race Card
By Dick Morris
On the evening of Jan. 3, it became clear that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was going to be a serious candidate for president with a viable chance of winning. The Clintons decided that he was going, inevitably, to win a virtually unanimous vote from the black community. Their own reputation for support for civil rights would make no difference.
.....So the Clintons faced a problem: With Obama winning the black vote, how were they to win a sufficient proportion of the white electorate to offset his advantage?
.....According to the Rasmussen poll of Monday, Jan. 14, Obama leads among blacks by 66-16 while Hillary is ahead among whites by 41-27. The overall head to head is 37-30 in favor of Hillary.
.....the election is suddenly about race....the Clintons will likely take their campaign to a new level, charging that Obama can't win.
They will never cite his skin color in this formulation, but it will be obvious to all voters what they mean: that a black cannot get elected.
The Clintons are far from above using race to win an election. Running for president in the aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles race riots, Clinton seized on a comment made by rapper Sister Souljah...
The Clintons will be very careful about how they go about injecting race into the campaign......if they can get away with it.
Posted by Happy at 01/16/2008 @ 12:13pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/16/2008 @ 12:13pm
Always a little dubious of Morris....seems he's the "anti-matter" version of FRANKGRITS, obsessed with Her Nibs just in a negatively-charged particle way.
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 1:59pm
It's not going away so easily:
King's son says Clinton erred But adds that controversy is overblown
By David Abel, Globe Staff / January 16, 2008
Martin Luther King III, in Boston for an announcement that the city will build a statue to honor his parents, said yesterday that Senator Hillary Clinton made a mistake by saying his father's call for racial equality was realized only with a president's action.
...
King, son of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King, said he thought the controversy had been blown out of proportion. However, he also said that Clinton's words were potentially denigrating.
"I wish it was said in a different way," he said before addressing a packed Twelfth Baptist Church in Roxbury, where his father once preached.
http://tinyurl.com/36l894
Don't think that the repub's won't be using that if only to create black apathy for voting at all in the general if Clinton can win the nom.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 2:11pm
Bill leave a little detail out:
"The former president trumpeted New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's accomplishments while painting Obama as the "establishment" candidate who would bring only the "feeling of change."
"One candidate says you should vote for me because I've not been involved at all in the struggles of the past and therefore we need to turn over a new leaf and (try) something absolutely new. And if you want the feeling of change, then that is the person you should support," Clinton said in a 75-minute speech to about 300 people in a YMCA gymnasium.
"The other candidate says vote for me because I spent a lifetime making change, raising hopes and fulfilling dreams for other people," he said about the former first lady."
That Hillary spent a lot of that lifetime making change, raising hopes and fulfilling dreams for other 'repub's' being a pro seg repub herself... Can't say the same for Obama, but then for a now partisan hack ex-pres, he wouldn't.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 2:50pm
What's also clear-- is that Hillary cannot 'control' Bill... even from distorting easily sourced facts.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 2:59pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/16/2008 @ 2:59pm
No surprise there. Had she been able to control him, he wouldn't have embarassed her with a woman half her age. Ooh. You know she was pissed. That's why Bill is doing all he can to get her in the White House. I guess they never thought Obama was actually going to run. 2 bad. So sad.
Posted by k330k at 01/16/2008 @ 3:07pm
Okay. Why in the hell would I want to read anything written, spoken, or typed by Ann Coulter? Isn't it sacreligious to have her on a banner on the website? I would think that would cause the site to shutdown from sheer stupidity but I guess the site is stronger than I thought.
Posted by k330k at 01/16/2008 @ 3:11pm
hey CRABS,
were you "uncommited" or kuciniched or fedupped?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/16/2008 @ 01:54am
fedupped.
Not only was the MI primary worse than a joke, my local repubs have done what they can to lesson the dem vote in my twp. The repubs control our local politics and have for decades. They allowed the twp hall to become so decrepit that they "had" to move the offices, and voting location, out of the twp. The Hall was located nearest the largest population center, which trends democratic. Now it is outside the twp, nearest to the rural republican center. So, many dems now have to drive 20 minutes away from the direction they normally head for work to vote, which means that almost no dems voted in our twp, in a primary that meant nothing.
Most dems I talked to just boycotted the election, except Hillay supporters To me that means that people that really like Hillary showed up in numbers far larger than those that wanted to vote for another candidate. It was an incredibly skewed result. That she only managed to pull what she did shows that she is not wanted around here.
Mark Brewer should be tarred and fathered. With bio-degradable tar, of course.
Whats most interesting is that Romney won, even with the strong American Taliban west coast of MI in play. I think they split their vote between Huckleberry and The Maverick.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/16/2008 @ 3:32pm
Posted by K330K 01/16/2008 @ 3:11pm
They had a banner ad for a "PRO-LIFE" merchandise website...on the Jessica Valenti blog about....phoney "crises pregnancy centers" and Huckabee!
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 3:42pm
The repubs control our local politics and have for decades.----Posted by CRABWALK 01/16/2008 @ 3:32pm
The local populace helpless and unable to vote Democratic, even if they want to?
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 3:43pm
Posted by K330K 01/16/2008 @ 3:07pm
Can you imagine the amount of political damage Bill can do to Hillary and the nation, if she does get into the WH as pres and he wants her to follow a totally different policy. Ouch. Talk about mixed messages. That's totally unlike any other candidates' spouse, ever. One can definitely see how the Bill 'pros' have all too quickly turned into Bill 'cons'.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 3:48pm
Kinda reminds me of that old 'Highlander' saying-- "There can be only one"... CHOP.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 3:50pm
The local populace helpless and unable to vote Democratic, even if they want to?
Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 3:43pm
still working on that comprehension, eh MASK?
Posted by crabwalk at 01/16/2008 @ 4:02pm
More history for you MASK
I know you have read this story before
We held public hearing on land use policy, turnout was anywhere from 6-1 to 8-1 against the policies desired by the repub board. They ignored public comment and instituted what they wanted. We held a referendum and won around a 3-1 victory. The repubs overturned a democratically run referendum and just did what they wanted to do from day one. The republican appointed judges in our county have never overturned a republican decision, but they have overturned democratic board decisions in other twps.
We elected a dem clerk, the repubs refused to work with her, denied her money to upgrade our computer system, harassed her and her family, slandered her in anonymous pamphlets and ran her out of her job. then they appointed a family friend to the job, just like the zoning admin and building inspector. If one is part of the "good 'ol Boy" network, it is not even necessary to pull permits. But, if one writes letters to the board taking them to task for past malfeasance, one gets fined for having a registered, licensed vehicle parked in ones orchard and denied permits to do what the friends of the board do without legal authorization.
Cute, eh?
but, that's OK, because our troops are fighting for democracy....in Iraq.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/16/2008 @ 4:15pm
Our local "drain commissioner" gets bonuses for building new sewers, based on the cost of the contracts.
Suprise! the head of the twp board, and planning commission, got authorization to have a sewer built along his farmland, allowing him to drain wetlands for more tillable land. Even though the "public" opposes the project 4-1, based on public input on the project. Bi-partisan objection, I might add.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/16/2008 @ 4:21pm
Hillary will inspire far more people to vote against her than for her.People like me and most everyone I know will either stay home or vote third party or vote GOP.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/16/2008 @ 09:56am |
YEP.
Just like Tuesday.
20% of registered voters turned out for the primary.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/16/2008 @ 4:24pm
HEY, JOMAMA
Doesn't Mr. Nichols look handsome? Wouldn't you like to introduce him to your daughter when she comes of age?
Posted by crabwalk at 01/16/2008 @ 4:26pm
I think Bill Clinton is Frankgrits ...
"Bill Clinton paints Obama as 'establishment' candidate"
...
"The former president trumpeted New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's accomplishments while painting Obama as the "establishment" candidate who would bring only the "feeling of change.""
Link [tinyurl.com]
There was a Star Trek Next Gen movie when Data's brain froze up ... I feel like that now, after the thaw sets in and I reboot, I'm going to laugh-mao.
He can't be in his right mind bringing the subject up, let alone saying it ...
Posted by V at 01/16/2008 @ 4:26pm
Posted by CRABWALK 01/16/2008 @ 4:02pm
Comprehensions fine, CRAB. YOUR rhetoric could use some work.
How did those Repubs gain power in the first place? Overthrow the "rightful Democratic-rule" with muskets and swords? Or was it an election victory?
Did they do anything illegal to retain that power? Cancel elections, declare martial law?
Is it IMPOSSIBLE for Democrats to re-gain political power in your area?
Okay...then...you're just bitchin' cuz you're on the losing end of democracy. Get over it.
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 4:40pm
How did Hitler gain power in the first place? Overthrow the "rightful Democratic-rule" with muskets and swords? Or was it an election victory?
Did he do anything illegal to retain that power? Cancel elections, declare martial law?
Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 4:46pm
Posted by MASK2 01/16/2008 @ 4:46pm
Besides the obvious invocation of "Godwin's Law"....
so the Repubs in CRAB's area of the country are fascist dictators?!!??!?
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 4:57pm
Would Obama and Edwards do that too?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 5:11pm
Do what? Funny business at the convention? No, they wouldn't since their names weren't on the ballot in MI. Which is interesting in and of itself...why didn't Clinton get her name off the ballot? I didn't hear her or any of ther campaign staff imploring Michiganers to not go vote. I'm telling you..she's very happy with what happened and is keeping it in her back pocket for the convention if necessary.
Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2008 @ 5:19pm
Hillary or anyone else has no business tying the hands of her President in the face of a threat. To do so would have been cowardice and irresponsible.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 5:18pm
Wrong. Congress has the sole responsibility for declaring war. Giving Bush a blank check to do what he wanted was cowardly.
Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2008 @ 5:20pm
You're getting caught up in all the minutia. Relax, we'll have the answer on Feb. 6th.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 5:14pm
When Obama becomes the obvious nominee?
Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2008 @ 5:21pm
How do you know how many people wrote Hillary's name in and had there votes canceled by rule.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 5:22pm
Why would they write in Hillary's name if its ON THE BALLOT?
Frank...I like you and have appreciated your contributions in the past. But your Hillary obsession is really getting old. Can you name some bad thing's that Hillary has done? Or has everything she has touched turned to gold? Please, have a little more objectivity.
Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2008 @ 5:32pm
Congress has the sole responsibility for declaring war. Giving Bush a blank check to do what he wanted was cowardly.
Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/16/2008 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person
it was also dereliction of duty and unconstitutional. congress cannot give up their rights in the constitution. they will all be shamed for the rest of their lives.
Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 5:37pm
grits and mett are two sides of the same coin. completely brainwashed apparatchiks. perhaps they are plants.
Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 5:39pm
Hey Frita, does this sound familiar:
The Presidential elections of 1925 {2000} resulted in the defeat of the Social Democrat candidate and the election of Hindenburg {hsuB}. At the age of 77 he was elected to head the Republic for which he had little sympathy. He was a loyal servant of the Republic, but as he declined into near senility {dry-drunkedness}, his presidential powers were exploited by less scrupulous, anti-republicans {new-cons}. The very election of a person such as Hindenburg {hsuB} indicated that the people's attachment to a democratic, republican government was only superficial.
The character of the Social Democratic Party was important; its leaders came to power unexpectedly and were unprepared to cope with a revolutionary situation. They were accustomed to working through parliament to gain reforms. They had never expected to govern. They had no definite program or policy to put into action. They were reluctant to carry through reforms which touched too closely on the institutions of the old regime.
The German (repub new cons} authoritarian tradition had deep psychological and social roots. There was no deep adherence to parliamentary government as there was in France and England. Particularly in times of crisis the German people expected the government to take strong, decisive action and to take decisions out of their hands. The Weimar leaders failed to do this. This also helped to explain the appeal of Hitler and his authoritarian methods.
Germany suffered a spiritual and material collapse after war and revolution {9/11, Katrina hurricane aftermath/vote corruption/Iraq war/K-St/etc}. The Republican democratic experiment seemed alien to the German tradition and so was never fully accepted.
The Republic was associated from the beginning with a lack of discipline, with anarchy and revolution, with economic distress and international humiliation. Weimar was associated with the instability which was the aftermath of defeat and was saddled with the impositions of Versailles. It represented to many a system of government which had permitted the disastrous hyperinflation of 1923.
Hitler {hsuB} emphasised these points in his propaganda when he labelled the Jews {al Gaeda} and the socialists {dems} as being responsible for all the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Associated with this was Hitler's insistence that the glorious army had been stabbed in the back. The Nazis pledged themselves to wipe out the shame of Versailles and to give Germany a leading place among the powers of the world.
The existence of military bands and private armies {Blackwater}, particularly the Freikorps, was a danger to peaceful political development. They contained violent men whose political objectives were alien to a democratic republican regime. The failure of democratic governments to take firm action to suppress these bands permitted the electorate to be intimidated and contributed to the destruction of democracy.
The operation of the party system and the use of proportional representation multiplied the number of political parties and made coalition necessary. This resulted in unstable government and consequently frequent changes of government. (Look closely at the period from 1930 to 1933 to see the catastrophic effect of this.)
Parliamentary government with its deadlocks, bickering and frequent elections disgusted the German people whose traditions were those of authority and discipline. Parliamentary government and democracy were discredited. {low poll numbers} The Nazis {repub new con} appeared to offer strong, decisive and stable government.
The political instability was heightened by the growth of extremist mass parties -- Nazis and Communists -- neither of whom had any real belief in parliamentary government. Hitler {hsuB} used the smokescreen of working within the democratic political system to undermine it at every opportunity.
The Republic, which was established after the war, was backed by the least influential elements in the nation. The most energetic elements and many of the most influential were anti-liberal, {evangelical} anti-democratic {new con} and anti-republican {K-St/MEC}.
There was a lack of solidarity among the Socialist parties{dems}; they split their vote and therefore divided the loyalty of the electorate.
The existence of emergency powers in the constitution, e.g. Article 48 {Patriot Act} allowed democratic governments to rule in a dictatorial manner thereby setting the ground rules for Hitler's regime.
Inflation {recession/housing bust} did much to wipe out the stable middle class. Depression created over 6 000 000 unemployed, weakened the morale of the trade union movement and produced political instability, which the army, the Nationalists and the Nazis sought to exploit.
As the depression deepened and the extremist parties grew in strength, the Republican forces presented to the country with an uninspiring picture of confusion and disunity.
http://tinyurl.com/3yr9oj
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 5:53pm
Oops didn't mean to hit the key yet, oh well c'est la vie...
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 5:59pm
The term, "Blank Check" is very misleading. If something is voted on and passed, it is limited by the context of its makeup.
People who use this to describe a vote are being disingenuous.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 6:40pm
How do you know how many people wrote Hillary's name in and had there votes canceled by rule.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 5:22pm |
Okay, HSUB....you're tied.
FRANK officially shares #1 with you for "Most Delusional Poster at 'The Nation'"
(He may even pull ahead if you've finally dropped the "Al Gore will win the nomination after a brokered convention in August" thing!.......................sound familiar?)
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 7:16pm
Hillary... is easily as big of a war monger as Dubya is.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/16/2008 @ 09:20am
Let's be fair, IM - no one is that big of a warmonger on the Dem side
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/16/2008 @ 7:21pm
Oh, and here ya go HSUB, in case you missed it [dailykos.com].
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 7:22pm
Let's be fair, IM - no one is that big of a warmonger on the Dem side ---Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 01/16/2008 @ 7:21pm
Among the candidates....but don't forget Joltin' Joe the Schmoe.
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 7:23pm
It sure seems odd to be analyzing the results of this farce as a horse race, when the DNC's threat to not seat the delegates is such a perversion of the Democratic process. The race to schedule early primaries is a real problem, but you don't solve it by disenfranchising an entire state -- especially if you're the party that so often, with good reason, accuses the Republican Party of voter suppression. If this cynical intraparty gamesmanship costs the Democrats a key blue state this fall, they only have themselves to blame. At least Hillary stayed on the ballot. The cynicism of her opponents pulling their names, knowing she had a lock on more than half the vote, is also distressing.
The whole shabby episode is also a reminder of Democrats' tendency to shoot themselves in the foot by being too cute by half. Al Gore lost the election when he started out by calling for a selective recount. As we now know, he would have won if he had called for a recount of the entire state from the beginning.
I'm a huge John Nichols fan, but he blew this one. He should know better -- the DNC also messed with our open primary in Wisconsin a few years ago. Democrats should seat democratically elected delegates. They should be encouraging the electoral process, not discouraging it. Period. Don't like the primary schedule? Fine. Work it out. But not by disenfranchising an entire state.
Posted by Madison Guy at 01/16/2008 @ 7:33pm
SEN. CLINTON: ...And if, of course, you see the vote as I saw it ... I thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in... If those inspectors had been permitted to do the job that they were set up to do, we would have avoided war. It became clear in retrospect, Tim, once people started writing books and information came out of the administration, the president had no intention of letting the inspectors do their job. That's not what I was told by the Bush White House. That's not what we were told in constant briefings from high-level Bush administration officials. That's not what the president told the country in his speech in Cincinnati shortly before the vote. If you remember, he said this vote was the best chance to avoid some kind of confrontation.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 09:40am
Remember, Bush was decietful and it's easy for Barack Obama to throw stones. Hindsight is 20/20...
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 09:43am
Come on Frank! I knew before the Republican primaries of 2000 that Bush was an incompetent, lying warmonger. I KNEW, and most of my family KNEW, that he would have us in a war in the mid east. Most of my family was already thinking about how to keep my service - eligible cousin out of the army way back in 2000!!! Just in case the draft was brought back...
It was so so so fucking easy to see. Bush and his cabal were looking for an excuse, begging for an excuse, and 9/11 made their day. FOR GOD'S SAKE, look at all the asshole neocons Bush put in his administration, or looked to for advice. They were all pushing war against Iraq from way back in 1992!!!
Any non-moron could have seen it, if he/she had bothered to look.
So fuck Hillary. She knew it all. Her vote was a political vote. All that shit she said to Russert was just a bunch of bullshit lies.
Clear in retrospect?? CLEAR IN FUCKING RETROSPECT??? IT WAS CLEAR THREE FUCKING YEARS BEFORE THE FUCKING WAR.
Why not listen to the WMD inspections experts??? Former chief inspector Ritter?? Current (at the time) inspector Blix??? They were yelling it from the rooftops that there were no WMD. Jesus Christ....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/16/2008 @ 7:36pm
I was at the anti-war rally, PRIOR to the 2002 authorization. I distinctly recall one of the speakers, telling us, how it is practically impossible to stop a war once it is underway, that our ONLY chance was to stop it before it started.
It was sickening, to see idiots falling for obvious lies, that the "authorization" was not a vote for war. George Bush just wants to have options on the table. What a farce, what a damndable idiot you had to be, to buy into it too.
Posted by CONSHAME 01/16/2008 @ 10:50am
AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/16/2008 @ 7:40pm
Honestly, if Hillary gets elected, there never be another woman elected president.
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/16/2008 @ 1:19pm
You better be worried about losing our bet, JONNY BOY! Remember? I bet a case of belgian ales with you, that Hillary would not win the nomination! Barrack's gonna get me my 24 pack of Chimay!!! LOL
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/16/2008 @ 7:45pm
But Hillary's and everybody elses vote in the affirmitive were the correct votes under the circumstanses. I'm proud as hell of her for not giving in to her enemies and apologizing for a proper vote.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 5:07pm
It was the wrong vote, always will be.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/16/2008 @ 7:49pm
It's not how she voted. The problem is when she tries to justify her vote by twisting her "understanding" of its meaning.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 7:54pm
Hillary or anyone else has no business tying the hands of her President in the face of a threat. To do so would have been cowardice and irresponsible...
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 5:18pm
Oh my gosh, it's time for a little "International Policy 101"
It is practically a truism that we do NOT go to war with countries that are "threats". For example, the Soviet Union. The exception is when those countries launch a war of aggression against US (e.g., Imperial Japan, 1941)
WE ATTACKED IRAQ SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A THREAT.
We NEGOTIATE with countries that are a threat. For example, nuclear-armed N. Korea...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/16/2008 @ 7:56pm
Hillary did that. Read her speech from the floor. Google it. I've posted it here several times.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 7:54pm
Maybe I am not explaining my point very well, Frank. If so, I apologize. Anyway, I don't hate Hillary, contrary to what you claimed in an earlier post.
What I hate is the farce, of which she is a part. Her speech from the floor was a FARCE and it was in response to a FARCE. The whole drama from mid - 2002 until the invasion was a FARCE. Anyone could tell the Bush administration WAS ALREADY COMMITTED TO WAR!!!! The rhetoric was a dead give away. The rush to reject the Iraqi declaration (IN DECEMBER 2002) within hours (all 12,000 or so pages!!!!!) was an OBVIOUS DEAD GIVEAWAY.
[How could you fucking possibly digest 12,000 pages in a few hours??? COME ON!!!]
Just go back and look at the writings, the essays, of all the neocon assholes that George W took advice from, or put in his administration.
ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION IN 2002 COULD SEE BUSH WAS ALREADY COMMITTED TO WAR. It was so obvious!!!
The "authorization to use force" was a fucking charade - it was a de facto declaration of war. I knew it then!!! And I am not even in one single political inner circle.
Hillary is accountable. As is Edwards. At least he admitted his mistake.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/16/2008 @ 8:09pm
There you go again Frank. The whole point I'm making is that she did know and understood exactly that it was the right thing to do.
Now she is twisting it and saying she didn't understand. But wait until she has to twist it yet again to say how right she was all along to vote with the other 76 senators that voted yes.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 8:18pm
I would like to think that 77% of the senate wouldn't vote for a farce.
Hello!
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 8:23pm
My son had his life in danger in Iraq. I had to suffer through that knowing that we shouldn't be there. So please don't preach to me about Hillary doing her job.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 8:06pm |
Geez Louise....some psych major out there, give me the term.
He blames Bush for putting his son in danger and hates him (rightfully so)...
but TOTALLY absolves Her Majesty's part in putting him in danger and holds only admiration (even love) for her.
What's that called?
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 8:30pm
It astounds me that anyone believes Hill is sincere about anything other than obtaining power. She is a phony.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 8:34pm
Obvious nominee is redundant. If he is the nominee so be it. I will be voting republican in that case.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 7:45pm
In that case, I think I like you less than I thought Frank. Seriously, you'd rather have whatever chump the GOP is going to put up over Obama or Edwards? Pretty sad.
Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2008 @ 8:37pm
Frank, you've been blinded by the light. The books I've read, and the research I've done about who and what she is, would make your skin crawl.
Into the light my friend.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 8:40pm
Frank, you're kidding, right?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 8:51pm
"uncommitted" wasn't "nobody", it was the Edwards and Obama supporters. Clinton won by 15 percentage points.
Romney only won by 9 and his victory is being cast as "decisive".
It shows there's a lot of desperate reframing going on by Hillary bashers.
Posted by lorac at 01/16/2008 @ 8:54pm
"uncommitted" wasn't "nobody", it was the Edwards and Obama supporters. Clinton won by 15 percentage points.
Romney only won by 9 and his victory is being cast as "decisive".
It shows there's a lot of desperate reframing going on by Hillary bashers.
Posted by lorac at 01/16/2008 @ 8:57pm
To give an example of a Clinton's wrongdoing is redundant.
That is to say, if one requires proof of the obvious, what would be the point?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 9:00pm
LORAC - Hillary had no competition and still only got 57% of the vote. If you take a test and have all the answers and the best you can do is 57%, you receive an F.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 9:04pm
"after what I heard today on Limbaugh."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 8:43pm | ignore this person
Now I really understand if you can be swayed by Limbaugh. But as to your other comments ... There is no way you could not know that the two people who took Hillary to task, were not in fact, even remotely associated with the Obama campaign by now. And that the memo, which I posted simply detailed things said by persons who were, indeed, part of the Clinton campaign. This isn't stupidity it's corruption. You're the first person I've ever said this to, and really, really, meant it, counting what goes by posting here sometimes that's a distinct honour. You're beyond merely sick, to so full of shit ... it's sad. You're one of the best reasons there is to vote against Hillary Clinton there is, as you are representative of the mind-set of someone who would willfully suborn out right lies. Contempt by association.
Your characterization is paternalistic, and as condescending as it is racist. I think that's really what upset you, that the African American posters here made you confront the real world, outside of the wholly fictitious, solely self important one, you imagined yourself to live and be in. They showed you exactly how much they valued, and the degree to which they placed the relevance of your opinion. Justifiably so.
You doubtless have another honour other than the one I've bestowed upon you; I bet considering the 800,000 distinct impressions this site gets, that there is another man whom Hillary Clinton wishes would just shut the fuck up.
Posted by V at 01/16/2008 @ 9:31pm
What's that called?
Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 8:30pm
dumb.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 10:18pm
How could someone cast such an important vote and then later say, "oops, my bad."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 8:32pm
but not admitting mistakes is a big part of bushism.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 10:19pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 8:43pm
are you sure mr. jackson is 100% black?
i bet their might even be some "jefferson" in there.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 10:21pm
Yes, I would vote for John McCain and possibly Mike Huckabee but not necessarily for Giuliani or Romney.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 8:43pm
mccain? HUCKABEE?!?!?!?!?!?
frank, put down that bong!
or pick it up.
something..................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 10:23pm
Furthermore, Obama is not a BLACK candidate. Jesse Jackson was a black candidate. Obama is 50% black and 50% white. We can just as easily call him a white candidate. Sound foolish? do the math.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 8:43pm
What's that called?
Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 8:30pm
dumb.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/16/2008 @ 10:18pm
Yep. And that's why the Clinton/hsuB admin are going to loose.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 10:32pm
It's all your fault Frank.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 10:32pm
If he is the nominee so be it. I will be voting republican in that case. -----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 7:45pm
Okay...Final Straw.
If that's not Cult of Personality, I don't know what is.
Jesus Haploid Christ! Even HSUB wouldn't say "If Gore doesn't get the nomination, I'm going to vote Republican"!!!
FRANK officially crossed from "ardant supporter" to "slavish lackey" with an authoritarian mind-set.
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 10:38pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/16/2008 @ 10:21pm
that's thomas jefferson, not george.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 10:54pm
I have fun here on the Nation. While I clearly don't agree with some of the opinions, it's always thought-provoking.
Good stuff.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 11:01pm
...not george.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/16/2008 @ 10:54pm
:~))))))
Posted by Happy at 01/16/2008 @ 11:13pm
Where the fuck is Frank?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/16/2008 @ 11:17pm
FRANK officially shares #1 with you for "Most Delusional Poster at 'The Nation'"
(He may even pull ahead if you've finally dropped the "Al Gore will win the nomination after a brokered convention in August" thing!.......................sound familiar?)
Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 7:16pm
Hey Frita got the post where 'I said' Gore would win a dem brokered convention? I said Gore would ener the race a month after getting the Nobel. (And yes I already said I was off, kinda like I was 3-4 months off about your Frito getting the boot.) However I did not think it would be because Bill would start pulling shit that brings both Hillary and Barack down... And no I am not the only one that is still pulling for Al to enter the scene. I do beleieve that the Gore brokered convention you are refering to was a link I posted about someone theorizing that possibility and probability based on some conditions/if's. (Frita of course confused who said what when, again.)
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/5/125249/6560
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support/index.php?showtopic=8400
http://www.draftgorenj.com/
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2007/Dream-Team/
http://www.agonist.org/poll/who_will_be_the_democratic_nominee
http://tinyurl.com/23qj4t
http://draftgore2008.org/es/node/157
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/gore-leaves-door-open/
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 11:20pm
er, enter
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/16/2008 @ 11:26pm
Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 10:38pm | ignore this person
Frank is "gone ..." If someone storms the Clinton campaign with candy and flowers I'll take odds as to who it is.
Posted by USAPRIDE 01/16/2008 @ 11:17pm | ignore this person
Frank is, how shall I say, "no longer accepting calls ..."
Posted by V at 01/17/2008 @ 01:02am
Boy, Frank is saying more and more wild shit. "Obama is not a black candidate." Why is that Frank? Is it because he's not polarizing like Jesse Jackson is. Is it because he can't be marginalized as a crazy, camera-hogging black activist like some consider Jackson and Sharpton to be. Is it because the Clintons haven't anointed him the "black leader" as the media likes to do. Sorry, Frank. That kind of talk might go over well with folk who still think the Clintons have this magical hold over black folks. That ship has sailed. If you, as a Clinton supporter, think like this, why in the hell would I ,as a black woman, support the Clintons? The frustration from the Clintons is palpable. They are so upset that black folks are considering other options. Boo hoo. Cry me a fucking river.
Posted by k330k at 01/17/2008 @ 12:44pm
Edit: should read - "as the media and some well-to-do liberals like to do."
Posted by k330k at 01/17/2008 @ 12:46pm
Frank, people call him black because that's what he refers to himself as. You're right. It's not complicated.
Posted by k330k at 01/17/2008 @ 2:07pm
I googled myself and found three, count 'em, three links and a bazillion others about elctronic parts. I'm not so popular. I guess I'm not putting out enough.
Posted by k330k at 01/17/2008 @ 2:14pm
Nobody's second place finish in Michigan
On Tuesday, With no other major candidates names on the ballot, Hillary Clinton was able to get 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic primary, but the real story should be the 225,506 + who left their house and went down to their precinct, knowing their state had been striped of its delegates, and voted uncommitted.
When "nobody" runs against her, "nobody" starts with 40%. And "nobody" didn't even have to campaign. "Nobody" spent no money in this race. "Nobody" didn't even run one ad. What happens when you add John McCain or Rudy Giuliani in place of "nobody"?
As democrats we have to think long and hard about nominating a candidate who is so divisive. We shouldn't spend these preciously important years ahead re-fighting old fights or addressing political grudges. If we are what we say we are than we must love our country more than this, and choose a leader who can bring Americans together. Our society's needs are too great, the time to pivotal, for anything but fundamental change backed by broad-based support from the American people. Senator Obama proved in Iowa that he can get this type of support from Democrats Republicans and Independents, and nobody proved it on Tuesday.
Posted by anewdaypost at 01/17/2008 @ 2:28pm
Posted by ANEWDAYPOST 01/17/2008 @ 2:28pm
No doubt FRANK will have an answer for why FORTY-FIVE PERCENT of Michigan DEMOCRATS...would rather vote for "nobody" or Dennis Kucinich than Her Majesty!
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 2:35pm
"If his father was white and his mom black would he be considered white then?"
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2008 @ 9:18pm | ignore this person
Anyone who would dignify such idiot nonsense bullshit, should vote for Hillary.
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 12:10am
Are you insinuating that I put out? OK.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2008 @ 9:16pm
LOL! Of course not, Frank.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2008 @ 9:18pm
Categorizing, Frank. It's the American way. You know the child would be considered black. Let's not be coy. Anyway, nothing good comes out of catergorizations. I say we follow the plan George Carlin laid out.
Posted by k330k at 01/18/2008 @ 07:51am