Sunday, March 9, 2008

Black bloggers are focusing on Hillary...

... and I urge you to read what they’re saying.

UCLA political scientist Mark Q. Sawyer blogged at

“This is a dirty campaign and since Senator Barack Obama won’t say it, I will. The media has not been unfair to Senator Clinton, they have been extremely soft. There are elephants in the room that need to be addressed. Can anyone say Whitewater? How about impeachment? Let’s not forget Osama bin Laden. ... Clinton’s central arguments in the campaign are basically a mirage, and they are dangerous ones both for the party and the country.”

Then check out Michael Fisher’s “Nullifying the Black Vote... Once Again”:

“Faced with an intractable pro-Obama majority of Democratic rank-and-file voters, a substantive portion of which are African-American, Clinton’s campaign is planning to override the expressed will of millions of African-Americans without whom the Clintons would have never even gotten a peek at the Oval Office.”

One Drop posted at Too Sense “On Withholding Support for the Democrats if Hillary is the Nominee”:

“If the Democrats nominate Hillary after recent events, it could only be because the party stands for, or is willing to tolerate and enable, the kind of vile political tactics that Karl Rove and Lee Atwater made famous for the GOP. I for one just can’t give my support to that.”

Also see the Field Negro and HickTown Press.

UPDATE (03/10/08): Also check out Homeland Colors:

“Being willing to get your hands dirty is different than wallowing in the muck. Hillary’s obsession with countering and mimicking Republican tactics has led to her alienating Obama and many within the Democratic Party. Obama will not be her vice president.”


odocoileus said...

So what does Hillary have on Nutter that would make him get behind her when all of black Philly is behind the O'man?

Ditto the CBC?

Anyway, Pat Buchanan knows racism when he sees it, takes one to know one, I guess...

"Liberals Play Race Card On Each Other"

SJ said...

Why should Clinton back down just because blacks aren't voting for her? They would be voting for her if Obama wasn't running.

Also, nobody cares about Whitewater, impeachment and Osama Bin Laden (in the sense about what happened back then). If Obama brings up impeachment it will be a low point for him.

Malcolm said...

The problem, of course, is threefold:

1. They believe that their ideas must always be right. As a result, anyone who disagrees with them must either be stupid, or anti-woman. They rule out the possibility that people might understand but reject them and their positions.

2. The Clintons believe that they are entitled to the White House. Such an overwhelming sense of entitlement has left them questioning both the reality of the situation (that they are losing), as well as the nerve of anyone who dares to imply that the nomination shouldn’t be handed over to them as a gift.

3. The Clinton campaign has proven itself willing to do ANYTHING to win this. They are willing to destroy their party, the other candidates, even themselves in order to win. As a general rule, I am weary of anyone whose mantra is “anything it takes”.

I am, I confess, an Obamacan. I have voted Republican for he last six presidential elections, but I look forward to voting for Obama come November.

I am also happy that I was well ahead of the curve on these Clinton ploys…

odocoileus said...

**Why should Clinton back down just because blacks aren't voting for her? **

It isn't just blacks that aren't voting for her. Why this needs to be explained to you I don't know. She's consistently lost the best educated white voters. Also young white voters. You know, smart people. And the future of the party.

She should bow out because she can't win, and her dirty politics only hurts the party. The bosses should step in now and shut her down.

Malcolm said...


While I would partially agree that the impeachment shouldn’t be an issue, let’s not forget:

When issues were raised about her questionable business practices, the press was beaten back with the argument that since she wasn’t the candidate/president, the press was limited as to how far they could take the questions.

Now that she is running herself, there are several questions that need to be answered.

For example… her nearly miraculous ability to make profit in business ventures where she was the only one making money.

Or a more recent story, that suggests that while an attorney she defended her client by attacking a 12 year old rape victim:,0,2934440,print.story

elle said...

SJ, it isn't just about who's voting for who, its about the amorality of the Clinton Campaign. Clinton has used closet racist attacks and is basically tearing the democrat party apart, meanwhile McCain has it easy,just having to wait,plan, and attack at the general election.

SJ said...


She has won almost as many votes as Obama has (if we include both Michigan and Florida). She has also won Florida and Ohio by significant margins against Obama, two states the Democrats MUST win (at least one) if they want to get the nomination.

I support Obama over Hillary, but I don't think she's that much of a witch as so many people do. I regularly engage in forums where young Obama and Hillary supporters (though Hillary supporters are far fewer of course) engage, and the hate on both sides is quite astonishing. Obama supporters seem to think that just because they are more educated their vote means more. And just because they are more educated they are smarter. I find that attitude very demeaning. And Hillary supporters always call Obama supporters "cultists". Though to be honest the adoration Obama supporters show for Obama is a bit disturbing.

odocoileus said...

Obama's lead is insurmountable. Michigan and Florida are not in play, by prior agreement. If they do it over, Obama will probably win MI and stay within ten percent in FL. She will remain well behind in the delegate count, and popular vote.

She's spent the last few weeks making John McCain's case for him. If the party wants to avoid imploding, they will have to shut her down.

Do the party bosses have the balls to do it, or will they just let her run wild? Their future depends on it.

dez said...

The one thing the Democrats do very well is eat themselves alive. It's disheartening, to say the least.

I'm a well-educated voter supporting Clinton. I don't think that makes my vote "better" than anyone else's. I also don't hate Obama and will vote for him in the presidential election if he gets the nomination, but I would definitely prefer to see Hillary get it instead. I don't think she should give up when the difference in delegate count is this friggin' close.

odocoileus said...

The count's not close. She's losing by a substantial margin and there's no way for her to catch up.

She's cementing a McCain victory by savaging Obama.

Fisher's call that she wants Obama to lose now so she can run in 2012 is probably correct.

She's tanking the party. If the Dems want to survive, they have to ease her out the door.

Undercover Black Man said...

Fisher's call that she wants Obama to lose now so she can run in 2012 is probably correct.

But that would be delusional on Hillary's part. The Democratic Party won't soon forget how she's conducted this campaign... especially if it leads to a McCain victory.

dez said...

The count's close enough that they're discussing the possibility of a brokered convention (or whatever it's called). Ugh.

There's obviously enough people on both sides that they should join forces and run together (with Obama for prez since he's ahead right now) :-)

Undercover Black Man said...

^ But then Obama would have to hire a food-taster. :^o

Malcolm said...

As far as the issue of winning big states goes….

There seems to be an assumption that since Hillary won these, that if Obama got the nomination Hillary’s voters would vote republican.

Nearly all of Hillary’s voters will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Not all of Obama’s voters would vote for Hillary, however.

If she’s the nominee, she will lose all of the crossover voters such as myself.

Submariner said...


Undercover Black Man said...

^ Well done, Submariner.

Invisible Woman said...

Food taster...heh heh

elle said...

sj, the reason that Hillary won Florida, and Michigan is that Obama didn't campaign in Florida or Michigan. If he did Hillary might have not won both of those states,only one and Obama the other.

Malcolm said...

@ elle….


More than that. Obama and others (except Hillary and Dodd), removed their names from the Michigan ballot based on a suggestion from the DNC.

So, Hillary was running against “Undecided”, and barely won (something like 55-45)

So, as a Michigan citizen, every time I hear her talk about “winning” Michigan, I want to spit: because I recognize it as the blatant manipulative fraud that it is.

Reminds me of something I heard about many years ago: a couple is going through a divorce. The man is told by the woman that he has to be in court on Thursday. He shows up on Thursday and is told that the hearing was the day before, and that he lost because he never bothered showing up.

It’s one thing if she wants to pass this “I won Michigan” BS on the rest of the country. But I live here, I know better.

elle said...

thanks, Malcolm, for making it clear, I knew there was something wrong when Hillary said she won those states. More lies as usual