In A World Where 90+ Blacks Vote Obama, Does Clinton Need The 'White' Vote?

Thanks Lana, for your unsubstantiated, cookie-cutter rant. Btw, I'm wondering. Not only do you have a generic name followed by a number, but you just signed up today, and this is the first post you've ever made. Are you a sock-puppet, or has the RNC gotten good at creating generic, emotional rants attempting to mimic a Hillary backer?

Well, if there's actually someone behind you who will bother to read this-doubtful-; tell him no real liberals are going to abdicate their responsibility to vote for the first candidate in years who's not in the pocket of the corporate aristocracy.

Choosing not to vote because your candidate is not the nominee is a slap in the face to the veterans and servicemen who have given their time, their limbs and their lives defending this country and what it stands for (and your right to vote).

Unless you are clairvoyant, you have no way of knowing how an Obama or Clinton Adminstration would work out. To automatically assume that the Clinton(s) and their supporters know what is best for this country is rather elitist. Her experience as a first lady doesn't automatically mean that she has good judgement or knows what is best for this country. Just because she is the consummate politician doesn't prove she'd be a good president. Sabre-rattling and mistruths are reminiscent of what we've had these past 7+ years. We certainly don't need to be repeating the mistakes of the past.

See, I actually considered voting for McCain if Obama didn't get the nomination. But when you look at the stakes, they're just too high to be stubborn and childish with your vote. Even at this point, if she somehow became the nominee, I would still vote for her, despite her shenanigans and slanderous style of politics. Again, the stakes are just too high, and I suspect most Hillary supporters will get over the loss and come around. I have faith that Hillary won't drag her feet to the convention.

To those favoring Obama, he is and has been the choice of "Democrats" for at least the past four months. Since Super Tuesday, Obama has stated that he has the votes necessary to win the presidency, citing to winning Republican states and various constituencies who are in no way certain to vote for him in November.

The double thinking of Limbaugh is just part of the work against Hillary Clinton. Until she began to win Republican voters, they were going to vote for Obama. Now the claim is that independents will do so, with some Republican votes thrown in.

It is hard to go to places like Daily Kos and find thinking that is not far left. Indeed, one voter there claims that it is time to "take back the party for those of us who are really Democrats and throw the fake Democrats out" or words to that effect. Most of those at Daily Kos are socialists and some are farther to the left than that.

There is little doubt but that the divide begun by Obama and his Old Democratic Party far left, the Kennedys, Kerrys, and Dukakises (all ironically from Massachusetts and all voting against their constituents' preferences) and the Pelosis, McGoverns and Mondales, and his rejection of the DLC some time ago, has resulted in an obvious schism that will last far beyond November.

Many lifelong Democrats are now not only not planning to vote, they are planning to vote for and work for McCain.

John Kennedy was never a liberal. His brother may have been. What is clear, however, is that the Kennedys view the Democratic Party as their own domain and have and will demand their pound of flesh from Obama if he becomes the nominee. Our country will be much the worse for this.

Jack Kennedy (indeed most of the post WWII Democrats prior to the party's McGovernization in '72) would have found today's Democratic Party terra incognita.

Yes, but Jefferson would have found Kennedy's Dem party the same. It's a differnt time, different national challenges, different constituents.

Hillary sounded exhausted when interviewed, and spoke in broken response to who was voting for whom. Is this a continuation of Hillary Clinton is a racist? You bet it is. And by everyone.

What is most shocking is that this is working out just as Republicans planned. The only people more stupid than those truly claiming that Obama can win in November are those who believe the Republicans want Hillary Clinton as their opponents. Give them instead the very person they planned on having.

A far left drug taking, street buying, man whose friends include an unrepenetant terrorist and a black racist and whose church preaches black improvement in a segregated milieu.

What in the world is this? Someone even better than Kerry. Just icing on the cake that the car abandoning drunk from Massachusetts and the governor of that fair state all want Obama in a state that went decisively for Hillary Clinton.

What's wrong with this picture? Nothing for Republicans. Nothing at all.

politicalcenter, you sound more scary than the scary man you're trying to paint. Clinton supporters are flooding the internet saying Obama sold drugs on the streets. Can you believe that? Remember when it was the crazy zany ultra-rightwing jackasses saying the Clintons were running drugs out of Arkansas? You guys have lost every single argument, and now you're individually losing it it seems.

Reminds me of the movie Forrest Gump. Where Forrest has been jogging across America and all of a sudden he stops, turns around to his followers and he says 'What's up Forrest'' and he says "I'm Tired"
and one of the number of followers that were jogging behind him say, "What will we do now ?"

(~)

Obama has won darn near ALL of the black vote---which is INDEED reverse racism in and of itself.

I think a better term is needed here. Reverse racism isn't exactly it, since it's not really being directed at maintenance of an opressive power structure, or even to opress at all, rather, it's people voting their interests in a way that's (hopefully) going to start putting the final touches on racial equality. Certainly, some people are making a decision about the man's ability based (at least in part) on his skin tone, but that's not all racism entails.

Reversing racism maybe?

at absolute worst, it's the ultimate in affirmative action (which I personally don't believe, that's just the worst motive I can think of) Black people are voting for Obama because it's in their best interest to do so for a different reason from "economy" "war" or whatever else. Why shouldn't any voter vote for someone they feel they can trust? Someone that they feel has more in common with them than the next person? the person that most shares their experience and values? Is that such a bad motive for choosing a candidate?

The thing is, it's rare that there's any one "the" reason anybody does anything. There may be a main reason, one that holds the highest percentage of stock, and that's the one people give when asked, but a little examination reveals that most decisions are based on a number of considerations.

Even the most conservative republican has about 1% reasoning that it might be a good idea to vote for Dennis Kucinich and Kucinich himself has at least about 1% reasoning that the Bush years have been good for the country. Rarely do these small slivers of reasoning get a voice but they're there.

so if a Black person has about 40% of their reasoning that says "Obama will be a good president for the country" and 40% that says the same about Hillary, leaving 20% that thinks racial issues are important....

greck - I thank you for your thoughtful reply---and I tend to agree with you. I think voters are attracted to the candidate in many ways who they feel is most like them.....for GWB it was the guy you could have a beer with---same thing for blacks and obama I'd guess---not to mention the making of history that yes, a black man can indeed be president of the United States of America. And I think that's great---I just wish it was some other black man.

Actually In this article from Black agenda report, Obama would be the worst choice from the black perspective as he would be unable to advance any black agenda without being called a racist. The article is titled Four More Years of Black Irrelevance and it notes that "In a literal sense, Barack Obama never lied to Black people, since he never offered African Americans anything. For their part, Black voters never requested anything from Obama. From Obama's standpoint, it turned out to be a perfect arrangement. Obama suspected he could get virtually every Black vote for free, and he was right. For the rest of the campaign, Black opinion was irrelevant. Black Americans appeared to fear that if they asked for the slightest political assurances on traditional Black concerns over peace, the social safety net, and race-based public policy responses to race-based problems, Obama might go poof!...and disappear. Who could say he wouldn't, since it wasn't Blacks who had summoned him to run for the highest office, in the first place? By saying nothing that might conceivably rock the Obama boat, Black voters (and so-called leaders) made themselves completely and utterly powerless to affect his campaign - which was fine with Obama and his corporate backers."

Maybe ALL voters who support Obama, regardless of color, are really looking for something different than the usual elitist crap, the pandering and warmongering that has long been a mainstay in our government. I know I am.

I see you don't get it Hillary supporters are more moderate - closer to McCain than Obama. Obama supporters are closer to Hillary than McCain. You do the math.

So those people should vote for McCain, and not go whining around about not voting at all like a pouty child. If you're in the Democratic Party and you're voting for change in the White House how exactly is McCain more tolerable than Obama? As for painting HRC as moderate, remind me who's health-care plans have nation-wide mandatory enrollment again?

I think it's funny you see McCain as any kind of moderate as well, since he's promising to follow almost every Bush policy on the board. Is that what Hillary is closest too? I think that characterization by McCain would have been true in the past, but he's had to cozy up to the far Right now just to keep his momentum together and not have the party base crack under him.

I think what's really at the root of what you're pointing out is the fact that Hillary is divisive, insincere, and has a nasty habit of lying when it suits her (watch out, snipers!), and that the easiest switch for people supporting her is to flop over to McCain since most of that load of wonderful character traits seems right in line with his support of Bush policy.

Look, the moral of my story here is simple. Go vote, but don't whine about [B]not[/B] voting for my candidate, that's the lamest limp-noodle tactic i've seen in quite some time. Pony up and vote for the person that represents you the best, and stop crying.

Where on God's green earth did you ever come up with the notion that Jimmy Carter's presidency was held hostage by a "hostile Republican Congress". Until 1994 the GOP did not enjoy the majority in the House for forty years. Likewise, the Senate too was Democratic for all of Carter's term and didn't even have enough votes to filibuster until the very end of Mr. Peanut's term:

94th Congress (1975-1977)

Majority Party: Democrat (60 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95th Congress (1977-1979)

Majority Party: Democrat (61 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96th Congress (1979-1981)

Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

Learn some history and get back to us.

Reality - wow - what a concept

Well put, and nicely summarized!

Did you really call that a piece of garbage. That's very strong damnation of yourself. The video makes the same claims you've repeatedly made here. Interesting.

Russell,

That video went much further than "casting aspersions about 3 names". In fact it dwelled heavily on the Wright situation. Now, you have written eleven articles about Wright on Newsvine, and countless comments, and yet you claim there is no relevance between the video and your articles. That you won't even watch it through the first two minutes shows a great disrespect for Oluseye, and pretty much proves that you aren't willing to hear the other side of any argument.

I am past the point of humoring fools. Take a hike.

That you won't even watch it through the first two minutes shows a great disrespect for Oluseye, and pretty much proves that you aren't willing to hear the other side of any argument.

Buh Buht... John says...

It is not possible for 90+% of a group to oBJECTIVELY conclude one candidate is superior to the other when they have such similar public positions on the issues.

To rational people, this topic is not even open for discussion.

Yep. rational people don't have to discuss. They have truth they can feel from the gut

Jivatman -

It is not possible for 90+% of a group to objectively conclude one candidate is superior to the other when they have such similar public positions on the issues.

There is no (i.e. less than .01%) statistical probability that this is valid that any random sample would come up like this, you would have to have a very, very, very select sample. What has a much higher probability is that there is another unifying feature.

In North Carolina 92% of blacks who said race was a factor chose Obama - 90% of blacks who said race was not a factor also chose Obama - which demonstrates that the answer to the question about race being a factor was invalid; either they lied or they are in denial, but clearly race was a factor.

Interestingly, 36% of white voters who said race was a factor chose Obama because he is black. For those who understand statistics that is a valid number.

then you didn't get the point of the article

John, you must feel like you've been batting your head against a brick wall with some of these folks who need a crash course in American Electoral Politics 101. The simple fact of the matter is that unless Barack Obama over the course of the next four to five months can convince most of the Democratic (and I'm not counting Limbaughesque crossovers) voters who supported HRC to support him in the general election he will not defeat John McCain who among the possible GOP nominees is the only one with a ghost of a chance in what should be a banner year for Democrats down-ticket. In 1968's bitter Democratic Party primary campaign, enough followers of RFK and Gene McCarthy didn't support Humphrey and didn't bother to show up at the polls that fall to give Nixon a narrow victory even with George Wallace siphoning off some of Nixon's support.

While I believe that Sen. Clinton will eventually make nice with Obama, I would not necessarily guarantee that her voters will do likewise given the tenor of this campaign

John, I do read some of the Democratic blogs and witnessed what happend on Kos. I still believe, however, that much of the result this fall will turn on two things -- McCain's ability to put a bit of daylight between himself and Bush without alienating the base of the GOP and Obama's ability to reconcile with Sen. Clinton's voters. If McCain is successful with his strategem he will win albeit narrowly. And if I were running the McCain campaign I would steer clear of direct assaults on Obama over the Wright issue and instead emphasize Obama's clearly doctrinaire record on such issues as affirmative action in education. I would also, in that arena, ask Obama to engage in a debate on education and try and pull his affiliation with Bill Ayers into that debate. If one peruses Ayers's website, that's a surefire loser for Obama for Ayers's views on "liberation" theories of education are as lunatic as are Rev. Wright's on racial matters.

Heh. Don't you be talkin' 'bout my avatar now whitey!! Michelle Obama seems to walk around with a perpetual pissed off look on her face. I guess things are tough out there these days for millionaires.

I guess things are tough out there these days for millionaires.

Bill 17.9--those Harvard Law types always make me feel SO sorry for their plights.....she has a definite chip on her shoulder and the evidence of it is all over her face......botox anyone?