Comments on: The Clintons’ Unforgivable Crime

By: Shawn Levasseur

Shawn Levasseur — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:31:34 +0000

“hiding Bill up in Maine”…

Not exactly hiding. He was here that Friday and Saturday, for the Maine caucus, at some very public events.

More importantly, what diner was he at? I may not like his politics, but when it comes to eating, his endorsement carries weight with me.

By: bandit

bandit — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:43:21 +0000

While this may be true I don’t think it’s what is killing the Clintons – the Clintons look like they’re stuck in a time warp from about ‘94 – they dress funny, talk funny – it’s like they can’t adjust to how the world has changed.

By: Albie

Albie — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:07:28 +0000

I see the mention of Hillary Clinton’s denouncement of Senator Edward Brooke in 1969 during the Wellesley College commencement. It’s fascinating that the amazing hatchet job done on Brooke – a black Senator – was never fully examined or explained. Now there is a real example of Media and Party coverup cheerfully ignored.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:30:00 +0000

“…the Democrats are going to find out they aren’t going to be able to field a candidate that beats ANY Republican – not even a RINO like McCain.”

That is likely correct. John Mccain could even win by a substantial margin. Heck, we may even be talking about a landslide victory. Too many elitist white professionals wanted to prove that they were not racists. This desire was so overwhelming that common sense was thrown out of the window. The middle of the road voters will not cast their ballot for Barack Obama. His race has nothing to do with anything. Obama is simply is not ready for prime time.

By: TmjUtah

TmjUtah — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:39:31 +0000

So which is it? I’ve been trashed for using both DemoCRAT and DemoCRATIC.

Great article here. It would be fitting that the Clintons’ final work is driving a final, fatal stake through the heart of the party that thought the Clintons were “theirs”.

It was never about the party. It was always about the Clintons. They saw the Democrats of 1998 the same way a car thief would see a Lexxus idling at the curb with the window down. They hopped in and went for a spin. The first price the Democrats paid was the house, then both house and senate. Then the White House for eight years.

And now after running almost exclusively against Bush until just this last few months, the Democrats are going to find out they aren’t going to be able to field a candidate that beats ANY Republican – not even a RINO like McCain… because of the wake left behind the Clintons.

I’ve been waiting for this election since ‘92. It will almost have been
worth the wait.

By: John

John — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:11:06 +0000

The thing is, if Hillary does manage to pull out a win here by using coded racial messages to attack Obama, the only way for her to win in the general election will to be to try and scare blacks turned off by her tactics back to the polls in November by convincing them that a McCain presidency would be a return to the old segregationist ways of the South (or worse).

Scare tactics are nothing new — the NAACP ran that infamous ad in 2000 linking George W. Bush to the James Byrd dragging death in Southeast Texas in an effort to get Al Gore elected (never mind that two of the three participants got the death penalty in Texas courts and the other got life), and as Julian Bond’s recent statement showed, that group is still in the Clinton camp. Tarring the pending GOP nominee is going to be tougher, because Arizona doesn’t have the same stigma of racial animosity that East Texas does, but if Hillary does end up with the nomination, I expect the GOP nominee to be portrayed as John McKlan by the time the election is over, in order to drive black turnout the Clintons need to win the swing states in November.

By: jowfair

jowfair — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:56:53 +0000

It’s a valid point on the broad strokes, but as currently stated, completely inaccurate.

The Democratic voters (aka the Democrats) are simply reacting for Obama & against the idiotic, 30+-years-out-of-date racism of the campaign. It’s not the Democrats as a whole but only the party leaders and media who are consciously considering the importance of retaining the black voting bloc.

By: John in Nashville

John in Nashville — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:03:46 +0000

When I see a writer referring ungrammatically to “the Democrat Party”–thereby self-identifying as an ignoramus, it is difficult for me to take that writer’s comments seriously. Why do critics of the Democratic Party employ this Joe McCarthyite rhetorical trick–or should I say this Joe McCarthy rhetorical trick?

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:45:16 +0000

This issue will only resonate if the convention is divisive.

If Obama is leading at the end by more than 100 delegates (maybe 150 will be needed?), the super-delegates will come together enough to deny Hillary the insider overturn. And the Clinton Machine will go into that night. Not quietly, no sir! It will not be pretty, all the sound and fury of a political nuclear temper tantrum – but the Clinton machine will go.

If he doesn’t have a sufficient lead, it will be war. And then all the discussion about Blacks and the Democrat establishment, all of the discussion above, will become relevant.

By: william

william — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:15:32 +0000

If Hillary wins, a substantial portion of the black electorate will stay home. I don’t see a big black vote for McCain no matter what. But people change as they move through time. When I was young, nearly all the Irish and Italians voted Democrat, but now they vote more along class lines. This isn’t the end of the monolith, but it is the beginning of an awareness that the monolith can end.