<p>“Oh wait, she pledged not to campaign in Florida. Or did she?”</p>
<p>she is not campaigning in FL…It is your guy who pledged not to campaign but is running cable ads there.</p>
<p>poetsheart, you’re coming up with all these reasons why Novak…</p>
<p>It’s simple poetsheart,</p>
<p>Does Novak know Clinton’s views on race in 1963? Yes or no?</p>
<p>The answer is no.</p>
<p>That’s it.</p>
<p>Novak hammered somebody and he couldn’t answer the above question in the affirmative.</p>
<p>That’s why he is a *****.</p>
<p>Clinton will be in Florida to glory in her victory. Why will she win? Because of her smear campaign:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a3572/News/National.html[/url]”>http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a3572/News/National.html</a></p>
<p>Ted Kennedy will endorse Obama tomorrow.</p>
<p>That’s a disappointment. Ted Kennedy is so entrenched in the political quagmire in Washington that his endorsement somewhat defies Obama’s message of change! :(</p>
<p>Did Kennedy support Bill Clinton ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure he must have, but that’s a good question. I do think getting Caroline’s endorsement, and now Ted’s, has got to be big for Obama.</p>
<p>Still, both Clinton and Obama are going to be in a tight race to the finish, I’m guessing, so I suspect Edwards’ delegates may ultimately become the deciding factor for one of them. Of course, I’m still hoping they self-destruct along the campaign trail, and Edwards emerges as the ultimate victor. :)</p>
<p>Edwards is smarter than anyone gave him credit for…he will be the King/Queen maker.</p>
<p>Currently there is @80 electoral votes difference, after Super Tuesday (2000 delegates) Edwards can have his pick of jobs. If Obama and Hillary split the electorals, Edwards is the tie breaker</p>
<p>The way the D primaries go it is broken down by percentage ( Edwards can direct his delegates to vote for a certain candidate). He has enough money to ride the storm out, and has the amt of electorals to push 1 candidate over the other for the nom…now that will be fun to watch</p>
<p>“Hillary lost both the white vote and the women vote in South Carolina.”</p>
<p>There was a heavy republican turnout in democratic primary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, that’s what I’m thinking. ^</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source? And was that your excuse in Iowa? You CLinton make me sick with all your excusues. You should be Republicans.</p>
<p>"“Hillary lost both the white vote and the women vote in South Carolina.”</p>
<p>There was a heavy republican turnout in democratic primary.</p>
<p>Also, I think, factually incorrect. I don’t think South Carolina allowed crossover votes. </p>
<p>In no state has Hillary won a majority of the white vote, and she actually lost the white vote in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina.</p>
<p>She also lost the elderly vote in South Carolina. And the youth vote. And the vote in-between.</p>
<p>Simba, the news media has stated that Hillary won the white vote and the women’s vote in percentages. She actually doubled Obama in the white category</p>
<p>Personally, that stat drives me insane, breakins down sex and race only propogates the division</p>
<p>It was also stated 100K republicans voted in the primary. Geraldine Ferraro even state that they are now going into states that do not allow cross over which can make a huge difference</p>
<p>I read that Edwards met with Clinton after the last debate. However, Clinton’s campaign ran negative robocalls against Edwards right before the election - so one would have to be extremely cynical to think the two candidates have a pact and Edwards will ultimately send his delegates her way…</p>
<p>“Simba, the news media has stated that Hillary won the white vote and the women’s vote in percentages. She actually doubled Obama in the white category.”</p>
<p>First of all, Edwards won the white vote, not Hillary. 64% of the white vote was AGAINST Hillary. She didn’t get even close to doubling Obama in that category. Hillary has yet to win a majority of white votes ANYWHERE, and lost the white vote in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina, (and won it by a hair in New Hampshire.)</p>
<p>Secondly, Clinton didn’t get close to winning among women. Obama won them in a landslide.</p>
<p>Mini, why are you thinking of supporting McCain? I started a thread just for you.:)</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/454213-mini-why-you-thinking-supporting-mccain.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/454213-mini-why-you-thinking-supporting-mccain.html</a></p>
<p>TheDad:</p>
<p>Do you have a problem with the fact that a majority of Blacks like me voted for white candidates for decades? Why now do you have a problem with a majority of Blacks voting for Obama in SC?</p>
<p>Obama is just as qualified for President as your candidate, and his proposals are similar or even better. Obama fills me with PRIDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And 75% of the white vote was against Obama. So, I think THIS matter should be laid to rest.</p>
<p>“Obama did not play “the ‘race victim’ card in response to Clinton’s remark about LBJ…” He had no obligation, moral or otherwise, to correct the mistakes of Hillary Clinton. According to my googling the incident, when asked about the statements he did exactly what he should have done, said they were “ill-advised” and that she had apparently offended some people - which is exactly the case. He did not claim HE was offended, but that it seems she had done so. He then criticized her for blaming him for her error, and telling alleged falsehoods about his general record. That is normal American politics, and no race card was played here at all, except by those who are blaming the man for what he did not do.”</p>
<p>I think that bears repeating. </p>
<p>Obama gets slimed for words that never came out of his mouth, and vilified because he didn’t rush to his political OPPONENT’S defense and help her repair her own blunder, as if any politician should be expected to do something like that. But Bill shamelessly uses race as a way to marginalize his opponent (and yes, I do mean HIS opponent, because it’s danged hard nowadays to tell who’s really running for President, him or his wife), discounts an entire racial demographic as irrelevant, and gets a pass…:rolleyes: But it will backfire on the Clinton campaign and result in them squandering much of the good will they have historically enjoyed among black voters. Black voters are not stupid and know an insult when they hear one.</p>
<p>Firstly, Clinton’s comment was not a blunder, it was an entirely fair and totally true statement, if you stop short on the rush to accusations of racism and actually consider what she said.</p>
<p>However, it is willfully naive to think that Obama’s campaign was not involved with the accusations of racism against her for that comment. Maybe not Obama, personally, but his various affiliates? Certainly.</p>
<p>"It’s simple poetsheart,</p>
<p>Does Novak know Clinton’s views on race in 1963? Yes or no?</p>
<p>The answer is no.</p>
<p>That’s it."</p>
<p>That’s right, Dstark. Pretend there was no logic whatsoever used in my response to you concerning Hillary’s support of Goldwater. Pretend it takes a degree in rocket science to deduce that people DO NOT enthusiastically support a political candidate who strongly stands against that which they hold to be of fundamental importance. Pretend it’s all about Robert Novak. </p>
<p>But the fact remains, the 15 year old Hillary Clinton strongly supported the candidacy of a man who, as a major tenet of his campaign, vowed to continue working to keep black people “in their place” in this country, which means she cannot have believed in the importance of Civil Rights at that time. That’s what’s “simple” in this argument.</p>
<p>It is true that we cannot know in exact words what Hillary’s views on Civil Rights were in 1963. But we can LOGICALLY DEDUCE that, at the very least, she did not count them as fundamentally important AT THAT TIME. I do not hold a 15 yr old girl’s ideology against her from 40 years into the future. She was a child then. I hold it against a very grown up Hillary Clinton NOW, that she dares to “reinvent” her 15 yr. old self in front of black audiences for political gain.</p>