<p>1of42,
I have contributed a lot of articles and news reports that validate my claims. You may not have read or seen them, or automatically denounced them as biased simply because they support my position.</p>
<p>For example, CBS came out with poll results today that contradicts the speculation offered by I’dad. It states, "On one key measure, Obama has seen a big reversal since his denunciation of Wright’s remarks on Tuesday. He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent. That compares to a tied match-up in a CBS News/New York Times poll that was released last Wednesday. "</p>
<p>Current polls may not be accurate. However, they probably present a more accurate prediction than projections based on totally unrelated historical matchups.</p>
<p>One can not speculate on race and gender based on past history. The general Presidential election has never seen a matchup between a female democrat vs. a white male republican; or never a matchup between a black male democrat and a white male republican.</p>
<p>“Obama’s rejection by rank n’ file white voters has devastating implications for the future of the Democratic Party.”</p>
<p>This is where the nonsense part comes in. The mere fact that a bunch of white voters preferred Hillary doesn’t mean that they’ve “rejected” Obama, any more than all those Edwards and Richardson voters “rejected” either of them. Of course, maybe you’re right, and enough people will vote for McCain just because he’s white, even though Obama is much closer to them on the issues. If that happens, well, the country will deserve what it gets, just like it deserved the debacle of the last four years.</p>
<p>White Democratic party voters don’t like being called racist, as the Obama campaign and its surrogates did in an effort to explain humiliating losses in NH, OH, and PENN.</p>
<p>That’s the catch-22 of the Democratic Party. A black candidate can’t lose the nomination as long as he mobilizes the base with charges of racism, even better if he uses Malcolm X language (“bamboozle”, “hoodwinked”, etc.). But it is precisely that appeal to racial division that sends white voters scurrying. </p>
<p>And here’s the kicker. John McCain is closer to centrist Democrats on the issues that the people Obama has surrounded himself with: Farakhan, Wright, Ayers, Kerry, Kennedy, Sharpton, Clyburn, etc.</p>
<p>Typical Democratic Party elitist response: blame the voters for being “too stupid” to buy what you are selling. Here’s an idea for the Dems: figure out what all those “stupid people” you look down your noses at want to buy.</p>
<p>Black Voters (32% of the electorate)
Clinton 12%
Obama 85%</p>
<p>White Voters (64% of the electorate)
Clinton 62%
Obama 32%</p>
<hr>
<p>Conservative Voters (18% of the electorate)
Clinton 49%
Obama 40%</p>
<p>Moderate Voters (40% of the electorate)
Clinton 52%
Obama 44%</p>
<p>Liberal Voters (19% of the electorate)
Clinton 41%
Obama 57%</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s all racial bloc voting. The demographic numbers make it impossible for Clinton (or any white candidate) to win the NC Democratic Primary against a African American opponent. Those same numbers make it impossible for a Democratic African American nominee to win the state in November.</p>
<p>It’s hard to paint a more vivid polling picture of the coalition the Dems will likely take to the November election: African Americans & extreme liberals.</p>
<p>“And here’s the kicker. John McCain is closer to centrist Democrats on the issues that the people Obama has surrounded himself with: Farakhan, Wright, Ayers, Kerry, Kennedy, Sharpton, Clyburn, etc.”</p>
<p>Does the truth mean nothing to you? How can you possibly expect anybody to take your statements seriously? Tell me, do you think it’s good or bad that (according to you) a black candidate can’t win in November?</p>
<p>interesteddad, why all the love for Hillary? Didn’t you already say that in November you were going to vote for McCain or not vote at all? It’s very peculiar.</p>
<p>Some days I feel like King Solomon with that baby in front of him and the two mothers arguing, each saying, “it belongs to me!” The King announces he’ll have the baby cut into two halves and give a half to each mother. One mom says, “Fine,” and the other says, “No, give the baby to the other mom.” King Solomon says he now knows who is the real mom – the one who’d sooner give away the baby than see it killed. </p>
<p>If Hillary got the nomination, I’d imagine Obama speaking eloquently and stumping hard to encourage everybody to pull together to beat McCain in November. If Obama got the nomination, I think Hillary’s support of him would be half-hearted, and she’d be back to business here in NY State as the good senator she always was. </p>
<p>Therefore, I (King Solomon) feel that Obama should have the nomination. He’s the true mother and cares more about his party’s future and less about his own personal stake in it.</p>
<p>I don’t think Hillary should drop out. I have really been inspired by Hillary. She has been an agent of change since high school. She did not become an agent of change this year for the election. I have never given anything to any campaign until this year. She is not perfect, but she has been part of the system to bring real change to a lot of people. </p>
<p>She has campaigned very hard throughout this election, and she has really connected with a lot of people. The biased and sexist media has slammed her a lot during this election, but she still gets up every single day. She is tougher than the so called leaders of the party. </p>
<p>GO HILLARY, I AM WITH YOU ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTION</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton has campaigned hard for Democratic Party candidates and issues since she got her start registering Latino/a voters to vote for George McGovern in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.</p>
<p>She and her husband even did fundraisers for an unknown candidate for Senate in Illinois back in 2004.</p>
<p>To question her Democratic Party bona fides is a low blow. Almost as low as sending a campaign co-chairman on national TV to call her a racist who didn’t care about the victims of Katrina.</p>
<p>Interested Dad, just what is your premise for saying that Obama has “surrounded himself” with the likes of Farrakhan, Sharpton et al? And what’s with your knock of Congressman Clyburn? That fellow didn’t get into the House leadership by being on the extremes or being a whack. Comments like yours always amaze me in that they stereotype relatively conservative Black Democrats like Clyburn as though they were ideological classmates and of Jerry Rubin, Mark Rudd and Huey Newton. Clyburn deserves proper respect. Incidentally, Clyburn has endorsed NO ONE in the current presidential primary season.</p>
<p>Because it’s true. A 20 year association with racist Wright. Marched with racist Farrakhan in the Million Man March. Didn’t object when his pastor gave Farrakhan an award. Obama worked for terrorist bomber Ayers for eight years and announced his first run for office in a press conference held on the steps of Ayers’ house.</p>
<p>Sharpton, Kerry, and Chappaquidick Kid are campaigning for Obama. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I give him the respect a Democrat who has participated in the racial swiftboating of a former President deserves. None.</p>
<p>Clyburn hasn’t been neutral in this race. He’s been lying because claiming neutrality was part of the deal for the DNC to reward the ridiculously Republican South Carolina with an early primary to pander to the African American wing.</p>
<p>Wow, so everyone whom participated in the Million Man March was a drooling racist? Even the Black fathers who came to demonstrate and advocate for strong families and responsible husbands?</p>
<p>And by the way, the concept of an early SC Democrat primary pre-dates the current political season. As I recall, it was the offspring of the orignial southern state ‘Super Tuesday’ in 1988. It certainly wasn’t bestowed as a gift to Black Democrats.</p>