Strange Days Have Found Us

{1} Strange Days: The Doors
Strange days have found us
Strange days have tracked us down
They're going to destroy
Our casual joys
We shall go on playing
Or find a new town
Yeah!
Strange eyes fill strange rooms
Voices will signal their tired end
The hostess is grinning
Her guests sleep from sinning
Hear me talk of sin
And you know this is it
Yeah!
Strange days have found us
And through their strange hours
We linger alone
Bodies confused
Memories misused
As we run from the day
To a strange night of stone



{2} "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
--Kevin Phillips; from: James Boyd (May 17, 1970) "Nixon's Southern strategy: 'It's All in the Charts'". New York Times. p. 215

{3} " ‘I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,’ she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article ‘that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.’

" ‘There's a pattern emerging here,’ she said."
--Clinton Makes Case for Wide Appeal; USA Today; May 8, 2008

{4} "Mrs. Clinton crossed a line …Even Richard Nixon didn’t say ‘white’ in his ‘southern strategy’."
--Peggy Noonan; MSNBC’s Morning Joe; May 9, 2008

{5} "Desperate times call for desperate measures. Apparently this has become the theme of the Clinton campaign in the last few days. Hillary and her surrogates have been playing to the lowest common denominator of racial division in effort to prove her more electable than Barack Obama by virtue of her appeal to white voters, and in the process implying African-Americans are neither hard-working nor intelligent. ….

"Don’t think for a minute that her inclusion of the word "white" twice in the same sentence is just a coincidence. Hillary knows that the next 2 primary states of West Virginia and Kentucky have a relatively small black population and so she is playing to the baser instincts of white voters in those states. …

"I’m not saying that the Clintons are racist. I think their history of supporting issues important to African-Americans proves just the opposite. But the words of Hillary and her followers certainly seem to be designed to cause division between white and black voters at a time when unity, not divisiveness is needed most."
--Houston Chronicle; May 9, 2008


Note: The May 6 primary results from Indiana and North Carolina suggest that Senator Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for the presidency. Despite calls from some of her most important supporters, Senator Hillary Clinton has decided to continue with her campaign. Although it is highly unlikely that she can win, I respect that she has the right to continue.

However, her statement to USA Today is offensive. This morning, on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe," Patrick Buchanan was the only person who defended her remarks. John Edwards suggested that if she continues her campaign, she should focus on what she believes are her strengths, rather than attacking what she believes are Obama’s weaknesses. In the final hour of the show, even Buchanan admitted that her "hard working, white" voters comment was a poor choice of words.

The division between the Obama and the Clinton supporters continues to be the most outstanding feature on DU’s GD-P forum. There are some Clinton supporters who acknowledge that Obama is the likely nominee. Some say they will vote for Obama, while others are saying they will absolutely refuse to vote for him.

Attempts by Obama supporters to find some common ground – specifically, the need to win the White House and make gains in Congress, to insure good choices to the federal courts – are being met with resistance. I do not anticipate that old friendships are going to be reestablished any time soon, if at all. But I wish that some of the Clinton supporters would at least say that Senator Clinton’s comments in USA Today were unfortunate, no matter what message she actually intended to convey.

It seems strange to me that this has not happened. It might go a long way in building a bridge of trust between the two camps.

We can hope for healing.

It's the first step towards any healing.

As a famous musical artist once said, "Strange days indeed, mighty peculiar momma."

Just sayin'.

I believe after hearing every pundit and newscaster on the planet say those same words over and over and over, she repeated it without thinking. This happens alot with politicians. They all say unfortunate things. Those things get blown out of proportion. It's happened to Obama also.

The race is about over, unless something big hits the fan.

Once the Obama folks stop calling for Hillary's Senate seat and once they decide they have stomped on her enough, I'll hop on the train and join the party. It is impossible to cheer for Obama or celebrate his victory in anyway for me right now. When the Obama supporters get it out of their system it will be different.

I want the only divisions going forth being between the republicans and the democrats.

I supported Hillary Clinton in 2000 and 2006. I will support her if she continues in the Senate, or if Brack Obama includes her in a position in his administration (there are many options there). I tend to skip over any threads that call for support in unseating her, though in the few I have read, I have responded by saying she has been good for my state. (I did/do not like her vote allowing Bush to invade Iraq, of course.)

Almost as much as I love my Senators Kerry and Kennedy. My 7 year old daughter is going to be in tears when Hillary finally concedes the race. She wanted so badly to be able to vote for her.

I think there is something good that has come out of this. The race against the RW is going to be nasty, far nastier then this fight was. At least we can be pretty sure that Obama is a fighter. It would have sucked to have an easy primary win and find out to late that we had someone who couldn't cut and got filleted by the Rovian Machine.

because in the audio she hestiates and then uses the word 'white' again. The audio is actually what convinced me it was inserted in purpose, as opposed to the transcript, where I gave her the benefit of the doubt.

to me to have people debate what her intentions were, than recognizing that it came out in an insulting way. It isn't just something that offends black people, either. The democratic party needs to be where black, brown, red, yellow and white people find the common ground of shared values.

Certainly, Senator Clinton is aware of the controversy that has resulted from her comment. It would go a long way if she would make a statement, similar to Obama's after his "bitter" comment, that explained she did not intend it to come out the way it did.

this does not only offend "non-whites"--it offends EVERY American who dreams of the day when we can move far beyond such limited thinking. It offends Democrats. It offends activists for any form of equality or justice. It offends all social minorities that have suffered from prejudice. What she said offends a LOT of people. People I know who care about these things are experiencing it as a shock.

And whether they admit it or not...this OFFENDS HILLARY SUPPORTERS, most of whom I suspect, do NOT support appeals to racism to win elections!

It's up to Hillary to apologize and explain herself to her supporters as well as to the rest of us. "It's just about demographics" is NOT going to cut it. This is not a "little mistake."

we can agree to disagree - I do wish she would comment on this herself, though.

Wishes Hillary no ill in her senate seat. That is between her and NY to figure out, nothing to do with me.

I read it 3 times even. Packed with information and sources.

And it is strange to me that this has not happened, too. Had any republican said those things they would have been jumped on immediately by every dem here.

I think that most of us recognize that Senator Clinton has the ability to strengthen the democratic party as we approach the November elections. That includes working hard to make sure as many of those voters she spoke of will be voting for our party's nominee. It is important for her to make a sincere effort to unite the party, rather than attempt to exploit divisions.

even imagine her trying to bring about unity. Once you've jumped the shark, can you jump back again? I just don't know.

I feel just like Peggy Noonan's article that you referenced. Thanks for that. :)

Is the meme about her using divisive tactics such as race baiting. And let's be clear, that is exactly what she has been doing. If it walks like a duck etc.. Those who have commented on her have not wanted to condemn her with her own words. I do not know if she truly is or isn't, though her tactics and willingness to hurt others so that she might gain speaks to a callousness in her character that has long haunted both the Clintons. Those who are no longer of any use are tossed aside. So maybe it's not racism but business as usual and now the AA community is no longer of any use so they too have been tossed aside. But in doing so she had to appeal to and align herself with the lowest common denominator in our society. How far will she go?

I think, giving her the benefit of great doubt, there will come a morning or evening, later in her life when she will look back at what she has done in the name of lust for power and be appalled.

Senator Robert Kennedy's saying that the Johnson administration was appealing to the darker impulses of American life during the Vietnam war.

... and this just shows that she & Bill will throw WHOEVER THEY NEED TO under the bus in order to scare up (literally) a few more votes in their quest for POWER.

And that's the saddest part of it all, actually.

The issue is the contradiction here. We expect Republicans and Neanderthals to tolerate racism even if they don't actively practice it.....goes with the territory

But I NEVER in my life imagined I would see a DEMOCRAT attempting to capitalize on America's racism for ANY reason, even if it's to get elected so she can do GOOD things for progressive causes.

I'm just astounded by this. Yes, Hillary and her legions of supporters need to address these tactics directly....how can they promote racism or minimize it? That behavior is the basic definition of Republican black vs white thinking--and is a slap in the face to all who struggled to dig us out of our ignorant racist past.

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:
Yes H20 Man, this IS a return to the 60's (and before) and it is way too much deja vu! Very Strange Days. The Clinton campaign has lost any sense of where the line is that you DO NOT CROSS. I agree with you Me, they will live to rue the day they did this. The Clinton Legacy = a sad story of losing one's mind in politics. The only compassion I can muster is that having to jockey with the Neocon criminals posing as leaders in Washington & being systematically abused and tortured by them might have helped trigger their current state of dementia.

It's done great harm and no good over the last 8 years. The irony, to me, is, if the senate and the house had done the job they were elected to do, change might not have been such an issue and we would've never traveled down this road. Let this be a warning to all pols who from hereon out think they needn't take heed of what the people want them to do.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

H20man and myself both took a long break from DU after that thread. There are alot of really bad feelings associated with that thread on both sides.

If he and I can talk politely and civilly in this thread, realizing that we are allies and not enemies, even when we disagree, then I would ask that you let try to let bygones be bygones as well. We need to find a way to get past some of the past anger and division so we can move on to the GE.

If H20man were standing in front of me I would shake his hand and say "let's start over and go kick some RW ass".

I could care less what people on here post for the most part, but I have been called racist by Obama supporters I know that were trying to get me to vote for him in the NC primary. I didn't appreciate that, and I think it's funny because after the primary most of them have apologized to me and said it's just politics. I told the ones that apologized to me that I would think about it, but I am not ready to accept their apologies yet. I have not moved to the I won't vote for Obama in the GE, or the I will vote for McSame camp, but I am moving closer to that on a daily basis.

wonderful. I have no idea what thread that poster was talking about, but it doesn't even matter. What DOES matter is that you just showed the true spirit of a democrat. Thank you.

I, for one, really need to see posts like this. It lifts me up, gives me hope. :)

thank you.

:thumbs:

for the k&r, and for reminding me of the song yesterday!

but, yesterday, I heard the entire clip on radio, and I have to say that the manner in which she spoke, the pauses, and the "you knows," really made her appear racist, IMHO. It seemed she was trying to find a 'nicer' way to say Obama can't win because he's black. I think there is no other way for me to interpret her words -- it was the manner in which she hemmed and hawed.

and in my emotion, I posted my thoughts here. But now, I'm moving on beyond the strategies of this campaign to the fall fight. It gives me better direction and peace of mind.

H2O's B. Holiday post seems prophetic now; I don't want to reopen wounds but some people have a gift for knowing when there's smoke there's fire.

Not a supporter of either of these two, one of whom I will vote for this week. Senator Clinton's remarks were disturbing to me, and just the sort of thing that keeps making this cycle so difficult for me.
I do find the OP's request rather odd in context. When Obama had the Bush backing ex-gays baiting hooks for bigots live on stage in the South, I saw no Obama supporter criticize those events in anyway. For months. A few weeks ago a single DU backer of Obama's said she thought those events were wrong and he should promise no more of them. It was so refreshing! It did wonders for me, I can hear Senator Obama a bit now, instead of just being worried about his intentions and those of his backers. Tonight I will hear him speak live and see what's what.
I heard a great speech by Rep Abercrombie of HI, on behalf of Senator Obama. He said something about a movement meaning having trust in strangers. I think it was a quote from Dr King but I can not find it anywhere. At any rate, that is what it takes here. The one DUer who said McClurkin was a bad thing gave me some trust that Obama supporters will still stand for what is right, not just for what Obama does. It took one. To revive my faith a bit. Just one.
So I see what you are asking for, but I say it is a two way street, one that both sides have not traveled very well. The love you take is equal to the love you make, to quote from the 60's lyrical lexicon. If you want reconcilliation, make it where you can. If you think there is nothing on your side to make nice about, take another look. You can not make others build a bridge, but you can start building one yourself at anytime. No one is stopping you. In fact, the Obama supporters are the winners at this point. And how one wins is a very telling moment indeed. The burden of building the bridge really lies with the winner. Not just in this Primary, but always in life.
There is pleny of outreach both candidates and both sets of backers could be doing. If you see it as one sided, you are missing half of the story.
That's what I think. I just want a Democrat in the White House. If that means I say I'm sorry when I was the one wronged, who cares? If it means I extend myself when others should be making that effort, again, what is that to me? Anyone who is voting Democratic is on my side. The end.

In truth there have a few of his issues I have not agreed with. Most outstandingly there are 2, McLurkin and his 'grave threats' response regarding * & Cheney. He was not my original choice but when it came down to 2, I feel he is better on balance and he has the greater capacity to be changed. The same old same old, is no longer working and HRC is part of that continuum.

think exactly alike, it means only one of them is thinking." -- Malcolm X

And a true one.

I don't expect to agree 100% at all. I can take issue with a candidate's policy and still be voting for that candidate. In fact, I always do.
Obama voted for the Patriot Act, The Energy Bill, the war funding. He ran the most divisive campaign events I've ever seen a Democrat produce, using well known Bush supporters to attack Democratic voters, for being a minority. All of these things are facts.
Like with every person centerish enough to get the nomiation, we need to hold Obama to our principles, not change ours to follow him. So taking issue with his positions and such is vital to the notion that he can be changed as you say. If we sit and smile at McClurkin and the Energy Bill vote, then why would he change? He is also part of the same old continuum. And he must also be held to the fire.
With a fanclub, his Administration will be a failure. With vital criticism and pressure from voters there may be some great sucess. It is up to us as citizens, as it always is with any politician.

Don't have it exactly but it was something like 'rather than him changing the presidency, it changed him'. My hope is that Obama can be taught, ny we the people to be the kind of president we want and deserve. Of the candidates being offered I think the potential is greatest with him. He has spent less time learning 'how things are done' according to the beltway cw, and the same old same old may not apply here.

Also, I am paying attention to the new voters and young people. I think with their enthusiasm for him they may be paving the way for those of us who have become jaded with the process.

and i think one of his most promising aspects is the desire for "open government". He has plans for transparency that could help give citizens more voice in the process.

he has a greater potential for "workability"...

:)

I have issues with him, of course... to name one, he IS NOT on the side of Medical Marijuana. But i have Hope, and we'll see if that wins the day.

take care.


Thanks for the thoughtful thread Waterman!

K&R

That he wants the the DEA to stay out of the medical marijuana business.

i do not believe he favors De-Criminalisation.

:(

Both candidates suck up way to the more bigoted sort of "faith" people, IMO.

and saying things that candidates and pollsters and journalists, including Obama, routinely say to each other. Only she happened to mention it to a reporter. The fact that she opened herself up to charges of racism by some is unfortunate, but this is nothing new. Her "Lyndon Johnson" comment in NH was deemed racist by some both here and in the media.

So, yes, it was unfortunate in that she spoke inartfully about a subject a lot of people have been using to skewer her with for months.

Now, refresh my memory.

Did you speak out against Obama during the whole McClurkin controversy, or when he was refusing to speak to the local gay press? Or.... ?

(addendum: I don't see the point of this thread if your objective is to create dialogue with some of Hillary's supporters. You know she's not a racist, I know she's not a racist, so all this does is fan the flames.)

That came at a time when there was a large democratic field of candidates. I was making small monthly contributions to the majority of those candidates, because I believed it was important that the public had the opportunity to hear each of their positions. At that time, I posted on DU my response per McClurkin, which was to contact the Obama campaign, and tell them that I was suspending any contributions to his campaign, because I felt that it was wrong to include McClurkin in the campaign. The money that would have gone to Obama went to other candidates. Over a period of several months, I had a number of conversations with people in the campaign, and was directed to a section of Obama's second book on the topic. Although I disagree with Obama's position, I believe that I am best able to advocate that he change it from the position of an Obama campaign supporter; hence, I began to donate to him again.

that you disagree with him on a basic human rights issue, but you will support him nevertheless.

I am saying roughly the same thing, except I didn't support him until he was the last man standing and there were no other options.

However, not once did I call him a homophobe. I made the distinction between a stupid act on his part and his overall policy positions.

I don't expect that these issues will be anywhere near the top of his priorities, nor do I expect him to be particularly strong advocate for the GLBT community.

But I will vote for him, because the people he appoints to the SC will be.

i can stand and use my own critical judgement against my candidate.

I do not believe Obama was "Pandering" to McClurkin and i believe his "support" of McClurkin is tacit, at best. I believe Obama had the power to take him off the event list and i think he should have. I am sorry that he did not. BTW, Waterman, which section in which book did the Campaign direct you to?

But Clinton is not immune to her own gaffes and shady supporters, so like all of us here, i weight their actions, policies, statements, etc against my own moral compass and add to that the safety and prosperity of the Land and our People. I come to a judgement i can defend from my own personal views and research. I hope that i have been Fair.

I have problems with Obama as well as Clinton. I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is, but i will also inevitably disagree with the next President on occasion. And on those occasions, i have to hope i'll be voicing in a climate where the People are listened to.


my 2 pennies.

Words can't express how I felt when I heard the audio of that statement. I worked my a$$ off for her husband in '92 and in '96.

So did Barack Obama, by the way. Non-whites (and I say this because the use of the term "white" excludes latinos and native americans as well) have consistently stood by the Clinton family and proved our loyalty with our campaign contributions and volunteer efforts.

Someone ought to ask Charlie Rangel and Stephanie Tubbs and Sheila Jackson-Lee and Maxine Waters what THEY think of these comments.

It also flies in the face of what so many white people have worked so hard to do in the area of civil rights and race relations in the US.

And thanks for all the great information that you provide us with on DU. It is much appreciated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5896190

She was using a standard political substitution of the words "hard working" for "working class," and she does that consistently in her old speeches. As someone else pointed out in my topic, Al Gore uses "hard working" to mean "working class," too.

She's had no problem with that wording before. But in this case, as she stumbled and stammered her way through explaining what the AP story said, she used those words to refer to working class voters, and then added the clarification that the AP story had referred to white voters, and the result was a disastrously jumbled sentence with easily misunderstood wording.

While, as far as she knew, she'd just told the interviewer what the AP had said about "working class voters, white voters."

It wasn't a racist comment, let alone a suggestion that only whites are hard-working. It's been misunderstood and overhyped even more than Obama's "bitter" comment.

not just her apologists and spinners.

do approximately what Obama did with the "bitter" remark, it would go a long way.

I'm not sure it would stop her from continuing to mine the proverbial sludge for votes though.

I get your point, but the two situations --calling a group "bitter" and appealing to racism don't quite equate to me. I mean, a man of that same constituency publicly took up for Obama and said "Yes I AM bitter" (and explained why) whereas nobody if they are racist will shout that from the rooftops. Even its perpetrators these days know that racism doesn't have much redeeming value in our society.

I feel strongly that Hillary should apologize for putting out something that can --even remotely--be interpreted as racist. She's really hurting all Dems with this. It's so stupid and I at least thought she was smart. If I were a Hillary supporter today I would feel betrayed, and would call for her to make a statement about it. It doesn't matter as far as the campaign much, since we know Obama has basically got it...but it IS important for a lot of other reasons that she take responsibility for using these Rethug tactics.

I thought she sounded fatigued and distracted, and just came out with a poor arrangement of her thoughts and words. However, once it was clear that her statement came out in a way that was being interpreted by a large portion of people as being racist and highly offensive, I really expected her to address it the way Obama did with his "bitter" comments. I was really stunned that she chose not to explain herself, and that makes me wonder if if was a mistake after all.

In jumbing the words, what I think she did was leave out the word "and" for one thing. "Hard working Americans, white Americans" is entirely different from "hard working Americans AND White Americans."

Although I do not think Hillary is a racist, I do think it was a poor choice of words. But, in my opinion, she left John McCain out of the equation. Just because some voters, white or otherwise might choose Hillary in the primary process does not mean they will choose McCain over Obama?? I think it is basically a desperate strategy, nothing more or less.

Yeah, I agree with that. If she would say it was a poor choice of words, I would be pleased. I also think it's odd that most of her DU supporters won't even say it was a poor choice of words. That might help ease some of the tensions on this site.

I feel some sympathy for her. She has worked so hard and it is difficult to just give up after such an effort. We should give her more room to make her decision, in my opinion. It just a matter of time until her opponent crosses the finish line first and the race will be over. They will hand out the ribbons and she will not get the blue one. However, she has run a valiant race. Just my opinion.

on DU, I have mentioned that I am a retired amateur boxer. Over the years, I fought many, many different people. Some of them were guys who I became friends with. When I boxed a friend, the fights were always competitive, and I did not hesitate to score knockouts. But there were boundries.

There were also people who I was not on friendly terms with. With them, there were different boundries: while I never started using dirty tactics, if someone else did, I would not hesitate to give it back times ten.

The way candidates approach a primary contest, versus a general election, would seem to require similar recognition of boundries. Having said that, I should also be clear that I recognize that most of the things I consider "fouls" have been done by Clinton's campaign supporters. If the "hard working, white" comment was an unintentional low blow, I wish she would simply step back, say it was an accident, and then get back to business.

Even one or two people I had a bit of bad blood with. Never were we dirty or anything like that, and we respected our competiveness. And if I wasn't on friendly terms with people, we competed hard, but not dirty. About the worst thing I have done to somebody was I cross-faced a few guys hard enough to lost a point once or twice. But even among my fierecest rivals, I have never been bit or bit anybody or punched or was punched when the ref wasn't looking. I had a taped shoulder that guys went after, but that's not dirty, that's fair game, and I did it back to people too. Compete hard, but stay within boundaries. That's fair, just and equitable, in combat sports, politics or whatever.

And Clinton and Obama both have supporters that have done dubious things, I don't think either one of them have done anything all that bad. I maybe don't fully like it, but pretty much everything has been fair.

Clinton has one problem. She's not as bad as Bush by any means, but she has trouble admitting to or backtracking on a mistake. It hurt her with the war, with the Sniper story and so on. The "Hard working, white" comment is low, but I agree unintentional, and she should do exactly what you say, step back, call it an accident and move on.

"white vote" strategy, are inserting it maliciously into every thread they can, and moreso, are being allowed to do this by moderators and admins at this place supposedly AGAINST racism and RW tactics. Perhaps someone can explain to me why this is being allowed. I understand there is not much WE can do about Hillary's "strategy", but this place is starting to look like Free Republic.

if DUers who support each of the two identify the common ground that we can share as democrats. Even if some more of the Clinton supporters would say that they recognize it was an unfortunate choice of words, it would be a big step in the right direction.

:kick:

Telling that only the racist Pat would try to defend it.

However, I don't think this is just a matter of Hillary choosing her words poorly. I think it's an intentional campaign tactic. Weren't her surrogates on TV already spinning her support with this demographic? They seemed to be saying the same thing without setting off any alarms.

"a poor choice of words"...that is, if your intent was to encode what you were implying in a more palatable form.

"a poor choice of words" makes it sound like a verbal boo-boo, when it was clearly to send a message to a certain bloc of voters.

There is no mistaking the attempt to put forth one of the campaign's thinly-veiled "messages" (I can win the white vote, particularly the lower socio-economic white vote).

Yes, she slipped up....but the slippage was in failing to cover herself and exposing the effort to capitalize on America's racist voters.

She should just apologize and take responsibility for the way it has (logically) been INTERPRETED, instead of pretending she did not say that or that it's not a problem. All that does is dig her in deeper.

finally admitted it was a poor choice of words.

Maybe she's waiting till after the 20th.

I haven't heard anything new on it. I do not believe she has said anything.

It seems many dems are all right with it. It's "just politics" and no politician is above it.

*sigh*

It will be good to win the White House and make advances in Congress in November. Then we can concentrate on the real work we need to do in this country.

this may be the most disturbing to me. The fact that a major member of our party could make such blatant racial remarks toward our nominee leaves me speechless.
I think it does illuminate a difference between "the new" and "the old politics" and highlights why Obama is unlikely to pick Hillary for V.P.

yesterday that some of her aides were saying that she regretted making that statement. I wish she would say so publicly, just as she has said she was sorry if Bill's statements offended anyone. That would be helpful.

:D

I think that a growing number of democrats want to move beyond the divisive tone that some in the campaign are taking. The recent articles on Sidney Blumenthal suggest that even some of the more liberal journalists are willing to say "enough" to the underhanded tactics.

in the USA Today article was something about "there's a pattern emerging." I think that most Obama supporters would agree, though we recognize a very different pattern.

that it was a poor choice of words... it calls into question all their (both Clintons) past support of black issues. Were their positions and statements only political expediencies? I hope not - that was one the best things I loved about the Clinton years - that we were finally on a path toward actual social integration and that we finally had a white leader who understood the need for that.

I can't express how disappointed I am in her.

:thumbsup:

and they are playing the "white working class" message in West Va. and KY because they
think it will get votes.
They are "in it to win it" not to develop a vision for America, or to bring us together.
They are only interested in staying in power by any means necessary.

The monomaniacal assertion that she (Hillary)is the best candidate is at this point really saying the "only" candidate.
That kind of "supreme leader" intensity is out of place in the Democratic Party and is the antithesis of the
coalition-building and grass roots thrust of the Obama campaign.
It is counterproductive and has a tragic shape.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

or her personal favorite for them: Sleepy Hollow :spray: You do understand that only Obama supporters are aloud to ref demure little right-wing Sunday bonnet wearing paleoconservative assassins to make their any-as-such points with respect to fairness in government, right?

That to do so trends toward wringing the hands of The Siren' not on behalf of them, but for them?


The Hope For Change...of mere 'hope & change'

In their greatest of hastes for exponential, meteoric personal-political expediencies; Barack Obama & his supporters willingly, nea! They have *gleefully* driven not simply a "wedge issue", but the wedge itself between vast tracts of the democratic base that have been thus & so for years & years: "...and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.’"

Up to this point, the "who had not completed college" sample was color blind from the bottoms of mines in W. VA, to the tops of scrapers in NYC tossing red hot rivets through the air in the course of pounding America together with sledge hammers held in rough, soiled hands.

It isn't like that any more. And it isn't the occurrence of a maturated process either. That is what Obama supporters think of such people, clearly...

For months-on-end now; Obama supporters, on this very website for instance, have been berating & belittling working whites with impunity, or anyone that disagrees with their opinions for that matter as ignorant, racist, uneducated (or my fav: low-informational...isn't that precious?), low income by extension of having to their minds fewer options in life but to hang out on the quad or in a Starbucks texting each other get real!!

For Obama supporters to now be cast into ever higher levels of umbrage is for them to simply not understand (talk about "low-informational" :eyes:) their own contributions to this racially charged, race-baited thuggery i.e. if you have a question, or are not voting for Obama; then you are a racist; denounce racism now troll, how nice you have AA's in your life like I haven't heard that one ad nauseum infinati and all dripping with sarcasm, no! It is a shakedown. All of it. Now, as though 'whites' are the only ones even capable of being racist, that's simple minded bullshit! I don't care if your wearing a 1K suit, $300 tie, or thumping me on the chest with filthy, belligerent fingers in the course of a low grade robbery it's a shakedown.

This is far, far beyond Good Goose/Good Gander colloquialism'...make no mistakes from this point forward: this is the same old new world elitism spreading it's bloom into the heat of summer.

"Desperate times call for desperate measures"

Wherever it is seen Barack Obama supporters are to be splitting Talmudic Hairs they themselves do not believe in; let their endeavor be to gak this one down sideways, digest this one as well...

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"

If we are to quote Peggy Noonan in defense of our neo-extremism, then it is no vice to admit however humbly, that one really appreciates the way she thinks after all.

"a kinder, gentler nation" with "a thousand points of light" my ass. How's that going these days after all?

At some point, don't voters start to see all of public life as one big polluted river? And if they do, don't they stop saying things like "That's a busted tire floating by" and "That's an old shoe"? - Peggy Noonan

You want someone to jump in there and fish out that busted tire? That old shoe? Then you just dumb for alienating they with the cares to do so. There's way too many people in this country just watching it all float past on youtube.

today's NY Times is reporting that Clinton's aides are saying she regrets making that statement. I'm fully confident that some DUers will blame Obama and his supporters, including myself.

must be our fault, everyone knows she's not racist, everyone knows she didn't mean it, we're just playing the race card against her, blah blah.

And you just keep on reinforcing it with analyses like this.

I voted for Obama here in NC, in the primary - me, a white southern fortysomething woman. mr liberty voted for Obama, mr liberty's mother, a retired teacher, and her husband, a Luthern pastor with a masters in theology voted for Obama. A number of our white friends and coworkers voted for Obama, as well as friends and coworkers of african descent. In fact, I only know 3 people who voted for Sen. Clinton in the primary, but they have said they will vote for the Democratic nominee in the GE. Some of these aforementioned people have degrees, and some don't.

I'm outraged that she has actually said this, I just really can't believe she's gone there. I'm literally unable to articulate exactly how angry and disgusted I am. I'm so appalled that I can't even put together a coherent rant about it! I mean how could she, as a Democrat use that kind of divisive talking point, when it is so important for us to be able to come together and win in November? The need for us to take the WH and increase our majority in the House and Senate is greater than any one person's ambition at this point in our history, and to use such low tactics to gain a few votes is despicable, IMHO.

So, next time I'll tell you what I really think, okay H20Man?

Strange days are upon us.

mccain presidency.

Who has been the attack candidate? I don't know I think there has been irrationality on both sides. What do you think?

I'm pretty sure passive aggressiveness is just anger, as is sarcasm, threats and being dismissive of honest dialog. :shrug:

more giving the middle finger to people offended, insulted, and betrayed by a "Democratic" Presidential candidate. And of course more threats.

There's blood in the streets, it's up to my ankles
She came
Blood in the streets, it's up to my knee
She came
Blood in the streets in the town of Chicago
She came
Blood on the rise, it's following me
Think about the break of day

She came and then she drove away
Sunlight in her hair

She came
Blood in the streets runs a river of sadness
She came
Blood in the streets it's up to my thigh
She came
Yeah the river runs red down the legs of a city
She came
The women are crying red rivers of weepin'

She came into town and then she drove away
Sunlight in her hair

Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind

Blood in the streets in the town of New Haven
Blood stains the roofs and the palm trees of Venice
Blood in my love in the terrible summer
Bloody red sun of Phantastic L.A.

Blood screams her brain as they chop off her fingers
Blood will be born in the birth of a nation
Blood is the rose of mysterious union

There's blood in the streets, it's up to my ankles
Blood in the streets, it's up to my knee
Blood in the streets in the town of Chicago
Blood on the rise, it's following me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDSnfHb5nc&feature=PlayList&p=2DA58911C5AD4921&index=39