This is rich. Bamboozle, okie dokie and hoodwink ring a bell?
You're running for president of u.s., not king of kenya. Heard of free speech, dude? Or don't they have that in the Rezko mansion?

Anyone who looked closely at Obama's campaign workers would see that they are a mix of people and most are white, both young and old. If the media were really interested in doing something other than helping to fan the fires of racism they would speak more highly about the integrated Obama campaign. The majority of Obama supporters both Black and White have been moved by the strength of his message, which happens to be far superior to any of the other candidates who have been in this campaign.

I think the idea that Obama has run a superior campaign, has the best message, and has gotten more votes than any of the other 18 candidates must be a cause of resentment for a lot of people, including Hillary and her surrogates. Remember, he was not supposed to get this far.

This speech shows exactly why I am supporting Obama. Whatever his strengths and weaknesses, he is absolutely consistent in his refusal to cynically play the race or gender card. I challenge anyone to go over his speeches of the last year (no doubt millions of words) and find more than 2 or 3 references to racism. I am equally sure that they were never used in reference to the acts or words of his political opponents. Bottom line: many people don't trust Hillary because there seems to be no moral center acting as a firewall, to prevent her from the almost irresistible dark urges of politcal expediency. Irresistible, that is, when you have a massive sense of entitlement.

I can't say the obamessiah doesn't have a point. This is getting stupid. While Obama certainly had some moments where he politicized race earlier in the campaign this last incident was entirely Ferarro's fault.

Hillary will not disavow the comments of Ferraro, because it is all part of her scheme to subtlely remind white people that Barack is black, "so you need to think twice about voting for him." The sad part of her and Ferraro is that their so called "35 years" and "40 years" respectively, of fighting for the downtrodden and African-Americans, has essentially be obliterated because they have committed the ULTIMATE BETRAYAL. For those many decades as they claim, they essentially used black people to achieve their stature in American politics, and then when it appeared that blacks were not as grateful as they should be ("sorry, massa, for not playing like a good negro. . ."), blacks been thrown under the bus.

Geraldine Ferraro, like many of her ilk, including Gloria Steinem, Faye Waddleton, are not fools. They fully understand the undercurrent some of their comments raise and I believe it is all INTENTIONAL. And I believe Hillary is playing the race card so deftly because it's "death by a thousand cuts" for Obama. If she can subliminally get white voters to realize that they are, in fact, openly supporting a black candidate, they will "come to their senses" and vote for her.

Only a fool would think this stuff is unintentional. Hillary and Bill have been riding the wave of support from African-Americans for over 2 decades and when Hillary suddenly and unexpectedly found herself losing to Barack, she decided that all of that good will, all of that "holding of hands" w/ Black America hasn't gained her much, so she's throwing that so-called good will-- and the African-American constituency-- under the bus.

Being thrown under the bus is generally expected from Republicans and conservatives; in fact, they typically just run the African-Americans OVER with the bus, but coming from the Clintons, it's astonishing! Hillary and Bill created a public persona for three decades in the Black community that they "felt the pain" of the community; that they cared deeply for the African-American plight. But it was all a LIE. They have been hatching their plans for "his and hers Presidencies" since 1979. Bill admits this. But African-Americans were hood-winked into thinking that for all those years, the Clintons were on their side. Now they see they were actually be played; played like a Stradivarius by the Clintons. African-Americans were simple pawns in their chess match toward his and her Presidencies.

So the Vernon Jordans, Bob Johnsons, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangels and other village idiots are now in a conundrum because they don't want to admit they were played, and are still afraid to come out against the Clintons. This culture or under-current of racism running through the Clinton campaign, starting w/ the MLK statements, then the Jesse Jackson statements, then the "he's not a Muslim, as far as I know" statements, now Ferraro's statements, and several others, have gone without being "checked" by the Clintons, which only confirms what we already know.. .

Hillary's motto is "I will say and do anything to get elected", but more importantly, "what
I've been saying all these years to the black community, forget it! It was all a ruse to get to the White House -- the moment you chose HIM over ME!"
___

We must understand that many blacks are democrats. And for good reason, Intelligence, hard work, informed, and skeptical of the government.

Obama brings us a clear choice for change. He is insisting that his campaign people walk a tight line when talking about other candidates. Personal attacks are not acceptable. statements about issues, past performance and disclosure are.

I can't remember the last time I actually respected a politician - what a new and refreshing sensation! We need some integrity in the White House and Obama has it. Clinton has lost my respect completely, sad to say.

Oh please, I've had many friends who have said they are voting for obama because he's black. he's used the race card whenever he's said that people who look like him have someone they can vote for. if we can say we're voting for him because he's black, how come someone who isn't black can't say it? of course, race is playing a part. if he were white, he wouldn't have made the speech at the convention because he would have been a junior senator from illinois and nothing else. in that speech he couldn't have talked about being a 'skinny black kid' making a speech in the convention. if he were white, it is more likely clinton would have the black vote more than edwards or any other democratic candidate.
it must be really nice to be able to use race to your advantage and then scream racism when someone dares point it out. since we all have heard people on the news say they are voting for him because he's the first black man who has a real shot, why isn't that a source of pride as opposed to something being tagged as racism. why not come out and say 'you know what? i'm proud to be someone my people can look up to? i'm proud that we have come so far that a black person can garner so much support in politics in a world that previously respected us in sports or entertainment. yes, i'm black, yes people are voting for me because of it, and what's even better about the hope of our world, is there are people who are voting for me for other reasons.'
you don't sound credible trying to have it both ways and you don't sound credible trying to defend it. he simply would not be as successful if he were not black.

and as far as clinton saying anything to get elected, if she were the only polician guilty of that, a 'flip-flop' would be just a shoe

GW: Black voters are breaking for Obama by a margin of 9-to-1 in the primaries. And you are seriously going to tell me with a straight face that "a majority of his supporters" among black voters are doing so because of some reason other than the color of Obama's skin? Please. Would a white candidate, even one with Obama's obvious campaigning abilities, have been able to rack up margins like that? Ferraro's comments were clearly racist. But that does not change facts: Black voters have overwhelmingly supported Obama, who is also black, largely because he is black. That support is the reason he won South Carolina and all of the other southern state primaries and caucuses. I know that's not entirely what she meant, as evidenced by her past comments re: Jesse Jackson. But please stop this charade.

Mr. McClum,

What is so intelligent about being a democrat? Seriously. I saw a poodle on David Letterman's show place a rectangular prism in the rectangular prism slot, a cube in the cube slot, and a spheroid in the spheroid slot. Can democrats do that? Seriously.

Many, many people are missing the point. What Ferraro said was NOT racist. Period. She was discussing the role of race in the world, in the context of this contest. Gender came up as well. And what's she's saying is that race does matter, whether it should or not. Whether Obama likes it or not, whether he recognizes it or not, many people will vote for him because he's black. I understand this -- part of Hillary's appeal for me is that she's a woman, and I have the chance to see and help put a woman in the White House. I acknowledge that. Why is it so hard for others to acknowledge that blacks feel this same visceral connection with Obama? It's fact.

It doesn't mean he's not qualified, it doesn't mean he's not a lawyer, it doesn't mean anything negative, per se. But it is fact. He probably would not have made it this far were it not for the entire package, and that includes his race.

You better agree with everything Saint Barack the Uniter says.

Or else he'll call you a Racist!

So now that Hillary has fired one sexist and racist from her camp, when will Wolfson and the others be let go? Of course, that still leaves Hillary.

Now, just how did these two esteemed Washington reporters miss the fact that Ferraro was a MEMBER OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN finance team, a post that she quit under pressure this afternoon? That position was significantly more relative than her having been the Veep candidate years ago.

Geraldine Ferraro said exactly the same thing about another black candidate 20 years ago. That kind of divisiveness has gotten us exactly where we are today, fighting other Americans instead of solving the problems we face. If you like the way it's going now, you have two choices, Hillary or McCain. If you think we can do better, you can choose Barack Obama.

Mr. McClum,

Me again, perplexed Republican man down in Tx. If democrats are "skeptical of government" why is it that they always seem to want MORE of it. This is so troubling to me. I'm not attacking, I'm just not relating. So many questions, so little time.

HRC and Ferraro's indignation that HRC isn't getting more of the African American vote is reminiscent of the indignation expressed by some slave holders when emancipation came and even the house staff chose to leave. "How can you leave after all I've done for you??!!"

Why can't we all consider that the African Americans of Mississippi see the same in Barack Obama as the whites of Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, and Vermont?

Maybe it's not the blacks whose votes need to be questioned. Maybe we should ask of the whites of Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina, "What is it about Barack Obama that stops you from supporting him as much as your fellow whites in other states?"

I bet you people all own ocean front property in New Mexico. You sure seem willing to buy anything that a slick huckster has for sale. Obama is sort of like a slick-talking, old-time, snake oil salesman---he's got some secret ingredients that will cure ANYTHING---he can't tell you want they are because you don't need to know. It's stuff like mummy dust, fire flys, and hog wash. All you have to do is fall for the pitch, step right up, and buy the magic elixir. Well, you know, people rush the wagon to buy the elixir, because people like to believe in magic. What that get, though, no matter has smooth talking the flim flam man is, is a bottle of something that tastes bad and---dosen't do any of the things that were promised. That just got FLIM-FLAMMED.

Liz: ("Many, many people are missing the point. What Ferraro said was NOT racist. Period.") I also suspect you would be unwilling to acknowledge that your girl Hillary would not be where she is but for the fact that she is a woman. Certainly her credentials, coupled with a history of deception and downright dishonesty, --and the fact that her experience is as a female "accessory" to most transactions of consequence, would have been shot down long ago if she were a white man, eh?

Realist:
If you think Clinton has run the more honest campaign, you should be disconcerted by the disturbing level of inconsistency she has displayed during this campaign. For example, She begins by saying that any democratic candidate would be better than the republicans, and now she is threatened by Obama she says John McCain would be a better "commander and chief". She tries to take credit for everything good that happened during her husband's years in office, but distances herself from the less popular such as NAFTA. It is possible that she was secretly opposing everything that her husband did that went wrong, and supported everything which went well, but it is pretty convenient.
Also, does he ever suggest limiting what other people can say. He's entitled to reject a comment without being accused of being against free speech.

"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," Geraldine Ferraro, 1984. Does anyone see a pattern here or are you too blissfully ignorant.

Being neither white nor black, I'm surprised that more whites aren't upset about Geraldine Ferraro's comments.

Not for stating what she did, but for nelecting to mention that Sen. Obama is also white. By stating that he's only gotten as far as he has because of his 'black-ness', does his 'white-ness' hurt him?

Are we to imply that had he been 'completely' black, that he'd pretty much have the primary nomination wrapped up (i.e. his white-ness is holding him back)?

If BHO was completely white, G. Ferraro states that he wouldn't have made it even as far as Edwards. Can't white Americans (any American for that mattter) be inspired by potential leadership of BHO caliber white man?

If I were a white male, I'd be truly upset by the implication.

DOES ANYONE THINK THAT MAYBE EVERYTIME INSENSITIVE AND OFFENSIVE COMMENTS LIKE THIS ARE MADE ABOUT BLACKS....THAT ARE NOT REJECTED AND DENOUNCED....PUSHES AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY?????

Realist wrote:

Heard of free speech, dude? Or don't they have that in the Rezko mansion?

So where was free speech when Farakkkan offered his unsolicited endorsement of Obama? Denouncing wasn't enough for hillary. Now she simply calls it "unfortunate", no mention of rejecting or denouncing.

And sure, she has a right to speak racist remarks and others have a right to call her on it. Or is your version of free speech one sided?

A few months ago, the question was is Obama black enough? that time Clinton was leading and there was no racism in the race, until Obama started winning, convincing the skeptic blacks he is worthy of a president. Suddenly, the only reason he is doing well among blacks is because of his skin?
Wao....

When Barack Obama started his campaign one of the questions that was asked was whether her was black enough and whether he could draw the black vote considering that the clintons had made inroads into the black community and the respect that the black community had for Bill Clinton. Now that he has proved that he can draw the black community to vote for him....the media is turning around and pinning him down of his success on getting the black vote...What is blacks had voted more for hillary clinton...just imagine what the media would be saying about it...REALLY SAD

"I have absolute confidence that if I’m doing my job, if I’m delivering my message, that there are very few voters out there that I can’t win over.’’

- Barack Hussein Obama

And that, boys and girls, is what politics is all about.

I can't believe how many people complained that Obama speaks so eloquently and that his words make people like him.

What the heck do you think elections are about? How else do you expect candidates to express their ideas - smoke signals?

JB
Why wouldn't black Americans support a viable black candidate? The United States has only had white men as Commander and Chief, and under most of those administrations, blacks have either been slaves or vying for equal rights. From the presidential inception, until the end of the Civil War (1776 - 1865/ 1867 in Texas) were enslaved. Blacks only became free with the passage of the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment made them citizens, and the 15th amendment afforded them the right to vote, which wasn't until 1870. And unfortunately, many could not vote due to “grandfather” clauses enacted by a majority of states, which meant that if your grandfather could not vote neither could you. These incidents occurred from 1870 through the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was only 44 years ago. It is unfortunate that many whites are arrogant enough to believe blacks are equal or even feel equal. It is also unfortunate that some whites believe that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakan, speak for the black community. That would be similar to equating Paris Hilton as the spokesperson for all 20-something white Americans or a better correlation would be that John Hagee, Ted Haggard, or even the late Jerry Falwell, speaks for the majority of whites. All six men are or were ministers of some sort and all have in some way vied for media attention. For once, since the inception of the presidency and blacks can support someone who is articulate, intelligent, and provides hope that they might may be equal. I mean, come on, blacks were inferior pre-civil rights, post civil rights, and affirmative action is the only way they can have something, because they still are inferior. They should support him.

Barack Obama has the potential to unite the world into a more peaceful co-existence. This speech is another testiment to his conciliatory nature.
I am an Australian, but wish I was an American, for the next election, so that I could vote for him.

Isn't Arkansas one of the 3 most racially motivated State (with Alabama and Mississipi)? Wonder why after so many years under the Clintons' rule. Latinos, Vietnamese, Arabs, Chinese, Browns, Blacks, Reds, Pakistani, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, BEWARE!

If GF thought she was only commenting on the "historic significance of the campaign", then how about she just say that. The "campaign is a historic" one; "I proud to see these two candidates fighting for the nomination, yada, yada." She's obviously an intelligent woman familiar with media interviews, she could have said any number of things. I mean it was the "Daily Breeze" for goodness sakes, how difficult could the questions be, right?

But she didn't; instead, she let her bitterness show. Hillary, GF, white women over 50, feminists, etc. are simply pissed off that Hillary's been challenged so deftly by this man, this so-called "unknown" Barack Obama. And yes, they blame his popularity on his skin color, his name, whatever, because that is easiest path for denegration -- it's the most obvious aspect about Obama; it's low-hanging fruit, essentially. It takes too much effort to describe their differences on issues; not that she ever wanted to distinguish them vis-a-vis experience because she really wanted to say what she said. And there's a pattern of type of talk -- e.g. the Jesse Jackson comments from 1988.

But to suggest as many of you have, that her comments were not racist, "because she was speaking truth" -- you are clearly misguided about your own racial conscience.

Tell me please how many black men have run for President in the last century? How many black males senators have been elected to Congress since reconstruction? How many black men hold congressional representative seats versus white women or men?

How it is possible that being a black man somehow helps you when you run for president, when black men make up 60% of the prison system; less than 35% of black men who graduate from high school go to college; there is a 50% drop-out rate among African-American teenage males?? Give me a break. What world is GF living in?

GF's self-righteousness is as stunning as HRC, who is in second place, offering Obama a job as her VP?? And this is absolutely part of a pattern for both GF and the HRC campaign. No, they don't want to directly talk about race, but they'll take the hits if their surrogates do. Clinton's so-called "rejection" of GF;s comments was meaningless, given the tenor of GF's so-called resignation letter to her. She did not apologize for bringing HRC's campaign down, she blamed the Obama campaign for complaining about her comments. This is typical of the kind of insidious racism that can no longer be blatant, but subtle and still do the damage it's intended to do. GF should have taken to task for it -- not just by the phony "rejection" of the HRC campaign, but from the Democratic leadership. She sought to simply diminish Obama's campaign and she's mad that he's fighting back.

At the end of the day, she is simply a has-been living vicariously through the life of Hillary, and was holding out hope that her "girl" would save all women! Well, that "girl" did not count on the charismatic and winning message of hope and change from the man -- plain and simple, a man.

In essence, another red-phone moment Hillary fails to seize when she decided to run. . .

Well, buh-bye, and good riddance, GF!

Obama NEVER said her comments were racist (as suggested by Cissy Patterson); he said they were ridiculous. And I am inclined to agree with him. He obviously worked hard, just like everyone else in his position, to be where he is and to suggest that he received some kind of free pass undermines his achievements. And it's also an insult to everyone's intelligence.

JB: "Black voters are breaking for Obama by a margin of 9-to-1 in the primaries. And you are seriously going to tell me with a straight face that "a majority of his supporters" among black voters are doing so because of some reason other than the color of Obama's skin? Please."

They were supporting Clinton by a large margin before South Carolina and the stuff about Martin Luther King. Many would have gone to whatever alternative candidate was available.

Of course a lot of people, not just blacks, want to see a black president. That doesn't mean that's the only reason Obama is ahead.

If John Edwards was the poorest presidential candidate, and had a history of working in the projects and teaching constitutional law, and gave amazing speeches and intelligent comments on every issue, he would have eaten Hillary's lunch. Black voters for Obama are just making up for the votes he's missing by not being white.

If Barack Obama was white, he'd be doing way better, not worse.

It's complete blindness to disregard that, if he were not black, he would have gotten a LOT more of the white vote too.

25% of people in OH said that race was important to them. 80% of them voted for Clinton.

Now tell me that worked in his favor. Tell me it worked in his favor with white voters in MS and other southern states.

I guess if you squeeze your eyes as tight as you can, you might be able to ignore things even if they're in front of you. But you might also walk off a cliff.

OH PLEASE! SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!
The Truth About Obama's Voting Record
Posted by RollinTruth on Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:07:53 PM
The tendency of Barrack Obama to vote "present" on controversial matters during his time in the Illinois State Senate is getting some media attention lately, and his campaign has sought to dismiss the criticism by claiming there were good, sound political strategies involved in Obama's decision to avoid voting.

The most absurd aspect of the whole story is not his votes -- which are already pretty absurd -- but rather his attempted defense of those votes. Obama's defense of not doing the job he was elected to do? He couldn't vote on those bills, because his votes would've been used against him when he ran for reelection.

HUH? Since when is it a legitimate argument to say, "I didn't vote on that bill, because it would hurt my political future." Even worse is that much of the liberal press has actually accepted this ridiculous, indefensible opportunistic point of view. So, pretty absurd and inexcusable, right?

Oh, but wait -- it gets better! Not only does he admit his votes (or lack thereof) were based on purely political calculations, and not only does the mainstream media accept and defend his argument. Deciding to just take the ball and run with it, Obama and his supporters say that not voting out of personal political opportunism is in fact an example of true leadership on these issues he wouldn't vote on!

What is interesting is that during all this examination of Obama's record in the Illinois Senate, nobody is raising the issue of Obama's serial non-voting in Congress. Let's take a look at how he voted during his long one-year career in the U.S. Senate:

He skipped voting on 26 of 59 budget, spending, and tax measures – that means he didn't bother to vote on 44% of these measures during his entire career in the Senate. He skipped NINE out of fifteen votes on health related measures. He skipped voting on FIVE of six transportation measures in 2007. He skipped voting on FOUR of five welfare-related measures. He skipped voting on about half of environmental-related measures. He skipped voting on half of education measures. He constantly skipped out on votes relating to farm subsidies and agriculture expenditures.

He voted AGAINST a bill that would deny legal status to undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms. But then he voted FOR a bill reducing the number of guest workers. Now, regardless of one's view on immigration in general, if you had to choose between allowing in MORE criminals or MORE legal workers, which would you choose? That's all I'm saying!

He skipped voting on future military funding for Iraq, as well as multiple other Iraq funding measures, skipped voting on the Iraq Withdrawal Amendment, after first voting AGAINST it a few months earlier; and he also skipped voting on the measure designation Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But he's been running around the country for months saying he opposes the war and that he'll end the war, while being unwilling to go on record about any of it. I'm not saying he should have voted for a withdrawal, I'm just saying he's like a lot of cowardly liberals who say something but are unwilling to actually risk backing it up with action.

Finally, in an apparent attempt to continue his strong record of leading by non-example from his grand days in the Illinois Senate, Obama skipped voting on two of three abortion-related bills in Congress. At least on this issue, his vote -- or rather, non-vote -- has remained consistent, I guess.

Well, that's one way to ensure the Republican candidate won't be able to attack him for his record in the Senate -- just avoid having one!

Obama’s Church website is below, here is some of what they say;
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black.
Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Obama said this 2 months ago….that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.
But it's also an entirely inaccurate condemnation of the efforts of the men and women of the United States military who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."
NOW TODAY TO WIN TEXAS THIS IS WHAT HE HAD TO SAY, SO WHICH IS IT OBAMA , NOT PROUD OR PROUD WITH THE MILITARY?
Addressing 60 veterans and their families at a town hall meeting at American Legion Post 490 in Houston, Obama said, "Veterans are bearing the brunt of bad decision-making by our leaders."The president's job is "to keep people safe. ... It means deploying our military wisely," he continued. "War should not be the first resort. ... lt should not be based on politics." He promised to improve health care and other services for veterans if elected. "We are not serving our troops and our veterans as well as they have been serving us," Obama said.
OK OBAMA OUR YOU UPSET OR PROUD OF OUR TROOPS? WHICH ONE, LOL!

Indeed, he is a liar AT LEAST three times. First, he promised his Illinois constituents that he would serve out his entire first term prior to considering a run for president. He did not. Second, he promised his constituents he would pass legislation which would better regulate Exelon and other energy companies who were bilking customers (and possibly causing an increase in cancer rates). Yet not only did he allow Exelon to re-write the legislation in their favor, but he accepted over $200,000 in campaign contributions from them. Third, he stated - in public, on TV, during a debate - that “the only” connection between him and Tony Rezko was “5 hours” he spent on “a single case” as a “junior attorney.” Yet not only did he also spend at least five months working closely with Rezko on a real estate deal (they bought contiguous lots), but he accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Rezko for his campaigns.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama came under fire Tuesday for saying that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.

Hi Patty,
Where do you get all that information? Are you a member of the Clinton team?
Can we talk about lies, racism, destructive campaign adds, refusal to submit tax returns, Whitewater, Wal-Mart, lobbyists, flip-flopping on Obama's ability (he cannot be a Commander-in-chief and he is all talk and no 'cholutions' but "I might consider him as a Vice-President"...!. Irak, rendition, NAFTA ? Well, tell me, who among informed people can still trust Hillary Clinton?
I am travelling a lot and I will tell you one thing: she is laughing stock in Europe, in India and in Japan.

. I will accept Obama is where he is because he is Black when Whites accept that the reason all our presidents have been White is because they are White. When Whites accept the fact that they are the majority of the senate and congress because they are White. When Whites accept the fact that the reason Whites dominate the media is because they are White. The reason White dominate television i because they are White. The reason White's have not elected a Black president is because they are White. The point is, if you're going to acknowledge Obama's so-called privileges, you then have to acknowledge your own.

Is Clinton really ‘ready on day one?’

Ready… yet never filled out her delegate paperwork in Pennsylvania for obtaining the delegates that she may win, while all other candidates have completed their delegate paperwork prior to the first vote cast in Iowa’s caucus; however, the democratic rules are setup to allow her to receive her delegates in spite of her neglecting to complete the necessary paperwork; I remind you that this is from a delegate that promotes herself as the ‘ready on day one’ candidate – her supporter, which happens to be the Governor of PA has extended the deadline for her, while the other candidates had already completed their delegate paperwork for PA.

Ready… yet as of this morning around 11:00 AM, she hadn’t submitted her 500 minimum signatures per petition per county, in the state of Indiana to participate in the Indiana Primary – the submission deadline was Tuesday, March 11, 2008. At present, Obama is the first democrat certified for the Indiana May Ballot; at present, Hillary is not yet certified.

Ready… yet before playing the race card in South Carolina, as the former first lady, she should’ve known the politics of race would be a bad move.

Everyone says that 90% of black voters are supporting Obama because of his race, instead of supporting him based upon his skills, experience, and his abilities; however, what these pundits forget is that before the very first ballot was cast in Iowa, Obama was barely getting 30% of the black vote; it was only after Iowa that he started to get about 40% of the AA support – I’ve supported him long before the Iowa caucus, but the Clintons were still getting 60% of AA support. It was only after Bill and Hillary recklessly injected race into their campaign before the South Carolina voters cast their ballots that sunk their ship with the AA community. As the ‘ready on day one’ candidate, she should’ve known better, based upon her so called experience, that attempting to scare AAs away from supporting Obama by stating that whites and Latinos would never vote for an AA would cause her campaign issues, but she went even further by stating that if not for Lyndon Johnson, AAs and minorities would’ve never received a leveling of the playing field within American; by making this comment, she and Bill totally spit in the faces of all that MLK and his supporters were beaten and died for. She should’ve known that without MLK and his supporters, white and black, that President Johnson would’ve set back and done the same thing that past presidents did, which is absolutely nothing. 99.99% of the credit is deservingly belongs to MLK and his supporters. All this took place before the first ballot was cast in South Carolina. How reckless could a ‘ready on day one’ candidate be, with her so called experience to make this mistake?

With all this ‘day one’ experience, why is she not able to connect with more of the American public? If this is a sample of what her presidency will be like, she has proven that she does not process the communication skills required to reach a global audience.

With all of her ‘day one’ experience, why has she been so ineffective in squashing Obama, the ‘inexperienced candidate,’ as she likes to call him? Certainly her experience should’ve provided her with the necessary tools to crush him by now.

With all of her “day one’ experience, shouldn’t she have known to not take anything for granted? Shouldn’t she have known, based upon her experience and as the former first lady who saw first hand how important every state could be in determining the next president, that she shouldn’t have taken the caucus states for granted after her loss in Iowa? Shouldn’t she have known that every state, be it caucus or primary, should’ve been jealously sought after in order to defeat Obama? Surely a ‘day one’ candidate would’ve known this. As a ‘day one’ candidate, shouldn’t she have known better than to inject race and lies into her campaign, which has lead to the most divisive campaign to-date? Shouldn’t she have known that the democrats will not just fall in line and vote for either candidate after these past few months of Clintonia’s hurtful, vicious, and calculating slanderous lies about Obama? Shouldn’t this ‘day one’ candidate have known better than to be so arrogant and dismissive towards the so called ‘small’ and republican (red) states, along with discounting the importance of the youth and independent voters?

I ask you one last time, “Shouldn’t she have known better,” since she has ‘day one’ experience?

In closing, even those in her own ads support Obama - the young female in her 3:00 AM ad has told reporters that she supports Obama and not Clinton.

“What I’m more concerned is for the Democratic Party as a whole, but also the country as a whole, not to get drawn up into this slicing and dicing of the electorate into black, white, male and female.’’

I wonder what hi stance on affirmative action. The program that basically "slices and dices people by black, white, male, and female."