Barack Obama Elected President!

[DevotedToAMC]

I am hoping he picks Condoleezza Rice because then it will be a landslide win for the Democrats. Let's see possible VP selections:

John Cornyn

Duncan Hunter

Mitt Romney

Mike Huckabee

Rudy Giuliani

Ron Paul

Sam Brownback

Chuck Hagel

Jeb Bush

*He might pickJohn Cornyn just because he can probably attract a good amount of people, I don't see him picking Hunter, Romney is a possibility, Huckabee is also strong, Giuliani probably would not bring in as many votes as the others, Ron Paul I don't see him accepting a nomination, Brownback will probably continue in the Senate, Hagel as well, and Jeb appears to be taking some time off from politics*

I say it will be between Condoleezza Rice, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee

[Dr. Jay S.W.]

Mccain is picking Liberman, I think, which will be no problem with me. They'll get beat out by Barack and whoever easy.

[Roman]

Well, you know, let's try this column on and see what the response is from the people who see her BS for what it is:

From Eugene Robinson, Washington Post:

The Card Clinton Is Playing

By Eugene Robinson

Friday, May 9, 2008; Page A27

From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- and that's why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.

If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article "that found how Senator Obama's support . . . among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."

As a statement of fact, that's debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry.

How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America.

In private conversations last year, several of Clinton's high-profile African American supporters made that same argument to me -- that America wasn't "ready" for a black president, that this simple fact doomed Obama to failure, that a Clinton Restoration was the best result that African Americans could realistically hope for. Polls at the time showed Clinton leading Obama among black voters, a finding that reflected not only Clinton's greater name recognition but also considerable skepticism about a black candidate's ability to draw white support.

Obama did prove he could win support from whites, of course, beginning in Iowa. He and Clinton effectively divided the party into demographic constituencies. Among the groups that have tended to vote for Clinton are white voters making less than $50,000 a year; among those who have turned out to vote for Obama are African Americans, whose doubts about his prospects clearly have been allayed.

Assuming that Obama is the eventual nominee, he will have some work to do in reuniting the party. But there's no reason to think he won't succeed -- unless Clinton drives a wedge between important elements of the party's historical coalition.

Lower-income white Democrats may well defect to John McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee, Clinton is arguing, whereas African Americans -- who have been choosing Obama by 9 to 1 -- are going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Thus, she claims, she can better knit the party back together.

Let's examine those premises. These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist.

The other notion -- that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall -- is just nuts. Obama has already won a majority of the Democratic primary contests; within a couple of weeks, he almost certainly will have won a majority of the pledged convention delegates and will be assured of finishing with more of the popular vote. Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, "Nice job, kid, but we can't give you the nomination because, well, you're black. White people might not like that."

Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.

"It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.

[email protected]

[Roman]

And this.........I now don't put anhthing past that woman. I,and many others, think the biggest reason why he should NOT choose her is because there is a growing chorus of voters who feel she will do or say something to destroy his run for the presidency just so she can try again in 4 years. That is how the people I have talked to and the MBs I have read feel. No matter what silly argument now comes up about how he should beg her and that he needs her much more than she needs him, or he should offer himself as the VP like some good field worker who master sees them as a second class citizen even though he has now came from behind and cleaned her clock on every single major list of votes and delegates........that is laughable, and honestly, quite insulting.

[Wales2004]

Eugene Robinson hit the nail on the head about her arrogance. Bill and Hilary Clinton have been at this strategically for a long time. They're underlying message besides the White House belongs to me is that a black man cannot be president and I think Bill Clinton started it off with the SC remarks. He oh so coyly said that he didn't think Obama would want to be known as the black candidate and in effect that was how good old Bill was branding him. Is slick Willy slick or what?

They're transparent. She could have said blue collar white workers if she wanted to go racial but she made sure to imply that white people were hard working (as if that's a mystery) which makes it sound like you don't want these lazy shiftless non white people deciding your destiny. You don't have to see it as racist to be able to see the manipulation there and it's not all fair in the game of politics.

She loves to point out how Obama is outspending her 2 to 1 because it couldn't be that he has to overcome her name recognition. No that's code for is it fair hard working white people that a black man has more money to spend than white me? That's how a man who says his mother was at one point on welfare and who managed despite that to go to college and reach for his dream becomes an elitist compared to those who didn't have those kind of financial struggles. It's the uppity arrogant black man who stole our college education and because of it we have to work hard. This is the kind of politics one ought to play to get her White House back. No wonder I'm no fan of hers.

[Roman]

I agree wholeheartedly, Wales. Very well said.

[Wales2004]

You may be interested in this article about some feminists bickering:

http://www.verizon.net/newsroom/portals/ne...25&_count=1

[Roman]

The page doesn't come up.

[Wales2004]

'Sorry about that. The page is unavailable now but I'll check back later to see if it's up again. I thought the article was too long to paste.

[Wales2004]

It's back up but just in case here it is and I do apologize for take up so much space:

Feminists sharply divided between Clinton, Obama

By DAVID CRARY

NEW YORK - No constituency is more eager to see a woman win the presidency than America's feminists, yet - despite Hillary Rodham Clinton's historic candidacy - the women's movement finds itself wrenchingly divided over the Democratic race as it heads toward the finish.

At breakfast forums, in op-ed columns, across the blogosphere, the debate has been heartfelt and sometimes bitter. Are the activist women supporting front-runner Barack Obama betraying their gender? Are Clinton's feminist backers mired in an outdated, women's-liberation mind-set?

Ellen Bravo is a Milwaukee author and activist who advocates on behalf of working women - and is an Obama supporter. She faults Clinton for her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war and believes the Illinois senator would be more supportive of grass-roots political action.

At times, Bravo, 64, has been dismayed by the harsh criticism directed at women like herself from pro-Clinton feminists.

"I felt it was an ultimatum - vote for Hillary Clinton or you're betraying the women's movement," Bravo said. "It's very self-defeating and alienating, particularly to younger women who, regardless of who they support, don't like to be told, 'Do this. Do that.'"

Clinton supporter Gloria Feldt, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, accepts that the women's movement is not single-minded, yet worries that the Obama-Clinton rift is eroding whatever clout it might have.

"We're squandering an opportunity to be seen as a voting bloc that turns elections," Feldt said. "Unless we are working together, in a strategically thought-out effort to vote in our own best interests, we are in danger of never having another election where people will say women can determine the outcome."

Overall, Clinton's now-endangered campaign has survived largely because of her 60 percent to 36 percent edge over Obama among white women voters in the primaries to date. But among college-educated white women - the demographic of many feminists and of Clinton herself - her edge is much smaller, 54 percent to 43 percent, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks.

One factor in play is generational. There is a widespread perception in the women's movement that younger feminists tilt more toward Obama while most of their elders favor Clinton.

Indeed, 74-year-old Gloria Steinem, a Clinton supporter and icon of the women's movement, riled some younger, pro-Obama feminists with a New York Times op-ed suggesting that they were in denial about America's persisting "sexual caste system."

Ariel Garfinkel, a sophomore at Mount Holyoke College, wrote one of the many counter-arguments in an online column. She and many other young feminists supported Obama because they perceived the Clinton campaign as trying to capitalize on racial divisions and to impugn Obama's patriotism.

"This pattern of old-style politics and adherence to un-feminist values is part and parcel of the campaign Hillary Clinton has run," Garfinkel wrote. "In this race, Barack Obama is the true feminist."

New York-based author Courtney Martin, also an Obama supporter, wrote on Glamour magazine's blog Glamocracy last month that she was not backing Clinton "in part because she reminds me of being scolded by my mother."

But the 28-year-old Martin has joined in appeals for activist women in the two camps to tone down their hostilities and prepare to work together on behalf of the eventual Democratic nominee.

"I deeply respect what Clinton has endured as a woman painstakingly unknotting gender and power," Martin wrote for The American Prospect.

Another young New York-based feminist writer, Hannah Seligson, backs Clinton and feels somewhat isolated among her mostly pro-Obama peers.

"I shy away from conversations with them," said Seligson, 25. "They're so passionate and there's so much vitriol toward Hillary."

For all the divisions among individual women, there was little dissension at the best-known feminist group - the National Organization for Women - before its political action committee endorsed Clinton in March 2007.

NOW's president, Kim Gandy, sees Clinton's determination and combativeness as among her strongest attributes.

"The women who've had to struggle the hardest and run into the most difficulty because they're women are clearly gravitating to a candidate they identify with," Gandy said. "They see her fighting."

Gandy knows some feminists dismiss Clinton as a woman whose political ascension depended on her husband's career, but she rejects that thinking.

"She might have been president instead of him if things had gone a little differently," Gandy said. "No one will ever know whether her marriage to Bill Clinton held her back politically as much as it moved her forward."

While still holding out hope that Clinton can win, Gandy suggests that her defeat would be a huge blow to some feminists. "It's hard to imagine that anytime soon there will be another candidate as extraordinary as Hillary Clinton," she said.

Gloria Feldt conveyed similar sentiment.

"I'd feel very sad to miss this enormous opportunity to bring the United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders," she said. "I feel strongly when you have the opportunity to support a women so clearly qualified and capable, do it. Do it for your daughter."

The campaign has brought the women's movement to a crossroads, according to Obama supporter Kate Michelman, the former head of the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"We're at a time and place where we don't have to base everything we think about in terms of gender, and that's a sign of progress," she said. "This rigid view that when any woman runs, we have to all fall into line - that's contradictory to what I consider feminism to be about."

[DevotedToAMC]

Oh please let it be Lieberman! That would be a losing ticket. Good call Dr.

[Roman]

Someone needs to tell this damn idiot to STFU:

From ABC News:

Barack Obama responds to James Carville

ABC's "Nightline," in its wrap-up report Monday night on the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, just Hillary Clinton loyalist James Carville recently made a controversial comment about Barack Obama that drew a response from the Democratic presidential candidate on Nightline couldn't resist.

Barack Obama was asked to respond to a controversial comment James Carville recently uttered about Obama's anatomical makeup and that of Hillary Clinton (who Carville favors in the Democratic presidential race).

If we've learned anything about Obama as the primaries have ground on, it's that he is slow to anger. But Carville can try anyone's patience, and he clearly has tested Obama's.

Said the Illinois senator: "Well, you know, James Carville is well-known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he's talking about. And I intend to stay focused on fighting for the American people because what they don't need is 20 more years of performance art on television. And that's what James Carville and a lot of those folks are expert at ... a lot of talk and not getting things done for the American people."

In the middle of an earlier flap sparked by one of his remarks, Carville made a point of saying he would quickly enlist in Obama's campaign if he ends up being the Democratic nominee. We imagine the Obama staff would be tempted to declare him 4F.

The full interview with Obama can be seen here.

--Don Frederick

[DevotedToAMC]

Agree, Roman. He does need to shut up

[Wales2004]

I actually don't mind him anymore because I know he's part of the good guy bad guy plan. I don't really see how you reconcile like nothing happened after all this nastiness but I guess no one is supposed to care. Only some people will and what happens at that point might be worth a laugh or two.

If I recall correctly, when Jennifer Hudson got voted off American Idol, Elton John said the voting was racist. It wasn't all that long ago that he alluded to America's sexism regarding his friend Hilary Clinton. Now I wonder what Elton John must be thinking about his friend using racial division to make her case for getting back her White House.

[DevotedToAMC]

I just want to say that I stand by my opinion that Hillary's remark about working class voters was not racist...some may think that so I disagree. She merely said who she attracts to the polls and described it so as not to label all working people as being for her since a good majority are also for Obama. Saying they are hardworking is just describing what they are with no intentions of being racial...she did not mean that blacks are lazy while whites work hard...it was just another descriptive word for a group she attracts.