Last night on CNN ,superdelegate ,closet Obama backer Donna Brazile was saying that Obama's colition of youg idealists and African Americans represnts a new Democratic Party.

Clinton supporter and longtime Democratic Party activist Paul Begala rigthfully said that Obama has made no real effort to try and get the votes of Latinos and white working class people ,both of whom largely outnumber young idealists and African Americans [especailly in the swing states]

Begala added "we[the Democratic Party] cannot win with eggheads[young idealists] and African Amercians" ,that Michael Dukakis tried to do that and won only ten states as a result.

Begala is right.

As of now Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat who appeals to the white working class and to Latinos each of whom vote independently ,Obama does not.

Obama's primary victories are due to mostly young idealists [eggheads as Begala put it] and African Americans ,there is enough of them to win Democratic primaries but not enough of them to win a general election.




Video at http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=988

Transcript at http://thepage.time.com/transcript-from-cnns-election-center/

Of course Begala is right on the money, though 'young idealists' is a laughable stretch in describing an especially ignorant and venal group of airheads and racists. I also like Donna Brazille but she is obviously going to vote the racist orthodoxy line this time around. If the Democrats had run her instead of the Chicago Machine's puppet there would be a real justification for such a close beauty pageant. I might even have voted for a Democrat for the first time since McGovern this year.

They're both wrong. The "coalition of eggheads and African Americans" does not signify a new Democratic party. Youth voters have traditionally been liberal-minded. College students are overwhelmingly Democratic--and many of them switch parties as they get older. And African Americans are also a support base that the Democratic party has grown accustomed to--hell, Clinton was referred to as "the first Black President."

It doesn't signify anything except the foundation split between the two Democratic candidates. If one candidate's support base jumps ship for McCain after the candidate is decided, then it'll signify a change in the Democratic party. But unless/until that happens it's posturing and grandstanding for TV.

I'm...so happy right now... *sniff*

Have you played with the delegate calculator on cnn.com? It's virtually impossible for Clinton to win, barring the Nuclear Option.

If one candidate's support base jumps ship for McCain after the candidate is decided, then it'll signify a change in the Democratic party.


When you hear that a certain percentage of Hillary supporters will support Mc Cain if Obama gets nominated,I'll bet a dollar to a donut they are refering to working class whites and Latinos.

The facts are facts,Hillary appeals to working class whites and Latinos, Obama [as of yet]does not.

Dukakis tried to get in the White House using the same coalition that Obama is using and he only got ten states and [I think] 72 electorial votes.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

When I hear that it has happened, I'll believe it. You're putting all your faith on the speculation of talking heads.

When I hear that it has happened, I'll believe it. You're putting all your faith on the speculation of talking heads.

No,I'm looking at post election data from every primary this year ,personal experience and historical fact.

Personally,I think Hillary is going to be Obama's Vice President ,she can get him key votes he otherwise wouldn't get in the swing states.

Personally,I think Hillary is going to be Obama's Vice President ,she can get him key votes he otherwise wouldn't get in the swing states.

Why would she? If he gets the White house by some miracle, his presidency would be a total disaster; he's way out of his league in that office, and just about every interest group he's beholden to will run circles around him. She'll wait; being a Senator from NY state is not a bad gig.

Why would she?


1,She would go down in history as the first female vice persident.

2.Since Al Gore was Veep ,Vice President has become much more of a demanding job than going to state funerals and being a heartbeat away.

3.Lydon Johnson became John Kennedy's Veep,George H.W. Bush became Ronald Regan's Veep and they were more far apart than Obama and Hillary are.

4.She could still become president [Obama has a chronic illness,that doesn't mean he will die in office ,it also doen't mean that he won't].

5.If he loses,nobody in the party can be pissed at her and it would put her first in line four years from now[especailly if Mc Cain would not run for re-eelction which his advancing age woukld make probable].


being a Senator from NY state is not a bad gig.



No,it's not and she could be put in a position of real leadership in Senate.

Either way,she's going to have a good future in midlife.

she can get him key votes he otherwise wouldn't get in the swing states.

Oh, yes, and she's the only one who can possibly do that. Riiiiiiiiight.

Last night on CNN ,superdelegate ,closet Obama backer Donna Brazile was saying that Obama's colition of youg idealists and African Americans represnts a new Democratic Party.
Actually, it's more like Johnson and McGovern's Democratic party minus the Dixiecrats, who have in the interim since the Civil Rights era been able to bridge the gap and make common cause with the Religious Right in the GOP. Now that Buckley and presumably his Modern Republicans are dead, it will make it even easier.

When you hear that a certain percentage of Hillary supporters will support Mc Cain if Obama gets nominated,I'll bet a dollar to a donut they are refering to working class whites and Latinos.

The facts are facts,Hillary appeals to working class whites and Latinos, Obama [as of yet]does not.

Dukakis tried to get in the White House using the same coalition that Obama is using and he only got ten states and [I think] 72 electorial votes.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

If they vote for McCain, then they aren't Democrats or liberals, basing your vote on who conservatives vote for is pretty stupid.

The facts are facts,Hillary appeals to working class whites and Latinos, Obama [as of yet]does not.

Hillary appeals to white racists, losers and other ignorant slobs. Thankfully, there aren't enough such brainless clodhoppers to get her nominated, so now she can take her Presidential ambitions and shove 'em up her fat ass once and for all.

The way I see it, we have had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the past 25 years at least. This country wasn't designed to be an aristocracy.
So I would be thrilled if we have a Presidential race without Clinton in it.

Oh, yes, and she's the only one who can possibly do that. Riiiiiiiiight.

Name me someone else who can?



You're putting all your faith on the speculation of talking heads.


These people you derogatorily call "talking heads" are people who work in political system and have done so [both successfully and unsucessfully ] for decades.

They have more credibility than a partisan backer of one canidate.

If they vote for McCain, then they aren't Democrats or liberals, basing your vote on who conservatives vote for is pretty stupid.

This idealism backed with no pragmatism whatsoever is what Begala means by the term "eggheads" and he's right.

Latinos like Mc Cain because he's one of the very few Republicans who has a humane immigration plan.

The white working class respects Mc Cain's record as a serviceman,while they might well be leary about Obama's friendship with a bomb thrower who has a picture of him stomping on the flag.

I 'm not saying that I agree with them 100%,but I grew up amongst these people and they are human beings [as opposed to the cartoonish stereotypes you and other Obama fanatics attach to them] and they will decide the next president of the United States in the Elelctorial College and very likely in the popular vote as well.




Hillary appeals to white racists, losers and other ignorant slobs. Thankfully, there aren't enough such brainless clodhoppers to get her nominated, so now she can take her Presidential ambitions and shove 'em up her fat ass once and for all.


:crazy:
The way I see it, we have had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the past 25 years at least. This country wasn't designed to be an aristocracy.
So I would be thrilled if we have a Presidential race without Clinton in it.

I think it's very narrow-minded to judge someone because of their spouse.:scratch:

I think it's very narrow-minded to judge someone because of their spouse.Or vote against them because of their name. That would be reason enough for some to vote against Obama, wouldn't it?

No,I'm looking at post election data from every primary this year ,personal experience and historical fact.

Personally,I think Hillary is going to be Obama's Vice President ,she can get him key votes he otherwise wouldn't get in the swing states.

OK, now you are smoking crack. Hillary brings NOTHING but baggage to the Obama ticket. She has the ire of the hard-core righties, she is a lightning rod for talk-show pundits when they aren't trying to get her nominated, and she's seen as untrustworthy and a typical Washington insider. What state does Hillary win for Obama that he wouldn't already carry?
A better choice would be a Wesley Clark, or someone else from the defense side of the house. McCain is going to play the war-hero warhawk card and it would be handy for Obama to have a VP that appeals to the pro-military vote. Hillary doesn't fit that role. She's toxic to the DNC and to an Obama ticket.

I think it's very narrow-minded to judge someone because of their
spouse.
What little good will she gets from me is because of her spouse.
I believe in democracy though. And to me, democracy means having choices that don't appear as "Bush-R" or "Clinton-D".

This idealism backed with no pragmatism whatsoever is what Begala means by the term "eggheads" and he's right.


Nothing but vague election year mumbo jumbo, I know plenty about the Clintons, I know why I hated them in the 90's, and I know the only other two choices are Bush jr. part 2 and Obama. Of the three I see Obama as being the least damaging to the nation, and the least likely to wage further needless wars, and the most likely to heal the rift between the US and the world, and the most likely to help the lower classes instead of just the filthy rich elite which both Hillary and McCain are a part of. That's what it comes down to, why you, a liberal would support a right wing pro business Democrat is beyond me..


Latinos like Mc Cain because he's one of the very few Republicans who has a humane immigration plan.


Those illegals shouldn't even be here, much less allowed to vote, the "Latinos" who immigrated here legally hate all the freeloading illegals.


The white working class respects Mc Cain's record as a serviceman,while they might well be leary about Obama's friendship with a bomb thrower who has a picture of him stomping on the flag.


Evidence for your claim? And do you have anything of substance? Like stuff that's actually going to affect our lives? How about healthcare for all Americans? education? Pulling us out of Iraq? Not starting more illegal wars? Ending corporate free trade? ending the drug war? The class war? etc?

I care about the real issue's that effect all of our lives, not this election season media driven sensationalistic nonsense. The right ws successful in doing the same thing in '00 and '04 and look where it got us, people were more concerned with whether Al Gore invented the internet and whether Kerry looked French. And we got 3000 slaughtered Americans, Vietnam version 2.0, the loss of most of our liberties, a nuclear war on the lower 90% by the wall st. fascists, quadrupled gas prices, the most secretive administration in history filled with crooks, oil cronies, and psychotic imperialistic fascists.

Yea, so keep worrying about the fluff, don't mind those Blackwater stormtroopers waiting to take you away, what matters is some guy who used to live in Obamas neighborhood who was never convicted of anything!!

You're falling right into the Rovian trap.


I 'm not saying that I agree with them 100%,but I grew up amongst these people and they are human beings [as opposed to the cartoonish stereotypes you and other Obama fanatics attach to them]


What are you talking about? And when did I become an Obama fanatic? :eek7:


and they will decide the next president of the United States in the Elelctorial College and very likely in the popular vote as well.


Are you talking about racist imbeciles who buy into the smears against Obama? So I guess it's just time to give em what they want then huh? either give em McCain or they'll swiftboat Obama and TAKE the election. Sorry, but I believe in standing up fighting these shitheads...


I think it's very narrow-minded to judge someone because of their spouse.:scratch:


Not when their spouse would be back in the white house, remember, it was Clinton who kicked thuosands off of welfare, sighned NAFTA, got us into the WTO, and bombed several other nations when he was president. He was openly hostile to the working man, don't think he won't have any sway over his wife..

Or vote against them because of their name. That would be reason enough for some to vote against Obama, wouldn't it?

Indeed,his wife has pissed off many people.



OK, now you are smoking crack.


Maybe you'd lose your hostility if you got laid.:shrug:




She has the ire of the hard-core righties,


And Obama doesnt?:rofl:


she is a lightning rod for talk-show pundits when they aren't trying to get her nominated,


Actually,Rush Limbuagh just enodorsed Obama because he's easier for the Republicans to beat.



What state does Hillary win for Obama that he wouldn't already carry?


Ohio ,Florida and Pennsylvania ,maybe Michigan.


A better choice would be a Wesley Clark

He supports Hillary.




Nothing but vague election year mumbo jumbo, I know plenty about the Clintons, I know why I hated them in the 90's, and I know the only other two choices are Bush jr. part 2 and Obama. Of the three I see Obama as being the least damaging to the nation, and the least likely to wage further needless wars, and the most likely to heal the rift between the US and the world, and the most likely to help the lower classes instead of just the filthy rich elite which both Hillary and McCain are a part of. That's what it comes down to, why you, a liberal would support a right wing pro business Democrat is beyond me..


You are an extremist,I [like most Amercians]am a non-extremist.




Those illegals shouldn't even be here, much less allowed to vote, the "Latinos" who immigrated here legally hate all the freeloading illegals.

Racism and xenophobia.:nonono:


Evidence for your claim?

Here's a link to the picutre of William Ayers stomping on the flag http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/.


And do you have anything of substance? Like stuff that's actually going to affect our lives? How about healthcare for all Americans? education? Pulling us out of Iraq? Not starting more illegal wars? Ending corporate free trade? ending the drug war? The class war? etc?

I want a Democrat to win the election and Hillary has the best chance of winning the mainstream which wins the eelction.

Youa re an extremist who feels it doesn't matter if Hillary or Mc Cains wins,I was like that, until I grew up.



Yea, so keep worrying about the fluff, don't mind those Blackwater stormtroopers waiting to take you away, what matters is some guy who used to live in Obamas neighborhood who was never convicted of anything!!

You have one vote in a state whose Electorial vote will go Democrat anyway.:shrug:


Are you talking about racist imbeciles who buy into the smears against Obama? So I guess it's just time to give em what they want then huh? either give em McCain or they'll swiftboat Obama and TAKE the election. Sorry, but I believe in standing up fighting these shitheads...




Not when their spouse would be back in the white house, remember, it was Clinton who kicked thuosands off of welfare, sighned NAFTA, got us into the WTO, and bombed several other nations when he was president. He was openly hostile to the working man, don't think he won't have any sway over his wife..


:crazy:

One more time: We [Democrats]cannot win with [only] eggheads and African Americans" :

LzOTfbpGj1s

He is right.

The GOP side of the DNC, those people who think that having an IQ over 40 makes you an "egghead" (and since none of them call themselves "eggheads" I think we can draw our own conclusion as to how bright these folks are), may Love Hillary, but the people don't so much. Obama does not have nearly the amount if ire of the right as Hillary does. At Rush has changed his tune because he wants people to think the right would rather face Obama. Insult the blacks and smart people in the party all you want, that still isn't going to get the right-wing nutjobs to vote for a Democrat. The lesson of the 2004 campaign was that it isn't as important to win over the moderates or members of the opposing party as it is to give your party's base a reason to turn out. Black votes were considered somewhat pivotal in the narrow-margin victory the GOP had, and the anti-gay vote they brought to the polls was decisive for them. Obama will bring a larger turnout than Hillary and THAT is what will bring victory in November.

I can say I am one of the people will likely vote McCain. I would have voted Obama but now I have more doubt than confidence in him. I would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, but at this point unless Obama pulls some kind of miracle out his butt that makes me "see the light" then like I am going with the devil I know. Granted that means I gotta look at his ugly ass face for the next 4 years but that's nothing new. I live in AZ after all and he is our senator.:p

Insult the blacks and smart people in the party

Ah, well, I see you think they are two entirely separate groups ...

So, you're voting for Obama because you think somebody who isn't intelligent should be Prez. Fascinating ...

OK, now you are smoking crack. Hillary brings NOTHING but baggage to the Obama ticket. She has the ire of the hard-core righties, she is a lightning rod for talk-show pundits when they aren't trying to get her nominated, and she's seen as untrustworthy and a typical Washington insider. What state does Hillary win for Obama that he wouldn't already carry?
A better choice would be a Wesley Clark, or someone else from the defense side of the house. McCain is going to play the war-hero warhawk card and it would be handy for Obama to have a VP that appeals to the pro-military vote. Hillary doesn't fit that role. She's toxic to the DNC and to an Obama ticket.
This is a very good post, as you raised a few points I hadn't given much consideration to in a while. As soon as Clinton becomes inevitable again the right wing of the media will restart their ol past time of Clinton bashing. I think you're on to something with Wesley Clark...

You are an extremist,I [like most Amercians]am a non-extremist.

WTF dude? Now you're debating like a far right winger too, what's going on? How am I an extremist because I am against more corporate extremism? Please explain that for me.


Racism and xenophobia.:nonono:


The truth is not racism, what is racism is Hillary Clinton basically saying Obama can't win because he's a negro.


Here's a link to the picutre of William Ayers stomping on the flag http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/.


You said this had something to do with Obama, I don't see Obama standing there with him. It's sad seeing you adopt right wing smear tactics.


I want a Democrat to win the election and Hillary has the best chance of winning the mainstream which wins the eelction.


LOL, people HATE Hillary Clinton with a passion you can't even imagine, do you not remember all the threads about here just not too long ago? Hillary Clinton will have right wingers climbing out of the grave to vote against her.


Youa re an extremist who feels it doesn't matter if Hillary or Mc Cains wins,I was like that, until I grew up.

WTF?? Are you confusing me with yourself? I see a McCain presidency as the complete end to this nation, he will bring in fascism like we haven't seen it before, wage war with maybe 4 more nations, and finish off the economy, Hillary won't be much better. Please post the link to where I ever said I don't care who wins, and good luck since it doesn't exist.

People that are conscious know that only Obama stands a chance against McCain, and even then the Republicans control the electronic voting machines.

In fact, the only people saying they'd rather see McCain win if not Hillary is you and the other Clinton supporters, proving that for you guys you really don't care. How you can apply your beliefs to me I don't know..:nonono: You really would rather see McCain than Obama, and that's sad..



You have one vote in a state whose Electorial vote will go Democrat anyway.:shrug:

What? How do you even know? The Republicans have been fighting to steal California for a long time now, but I know, our rigt to vote isn't even important, this Ayers nobody is important though..:rolleyes:

I sometimes wonder if this country deserves people like Clinton and Bush, I just might go and live with the blondes in Sweden in a few years before it's illegal to dissent in this cowardly nation of violent morons.


:crazy:


Oh yea, you don't talk about facts and issue's because Clinton and her husband don't look too good when you do. Liberals my ass, they are both right wing elitists, fluck them.

Btw, this whole assault on the youth here by old geezers who are responsible for giving us this ****ed up country really are pathetic.

First of all, it isn't just blacks and college students supporting Obama, what a retarded lie that is, people of all ages, and all walks of life support him.

Now tell me, who gave us Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and dubya??? Nobody under 42-43 could have even voted for Reagan, nobody under 38 could have voted for Bush Sr., nobody under 34 could have voted for Clinton in 92, or under 30 in 96. Nobody under 26 could have voted for Bush in 2000, or under 22 in 2004.

So who has been voting for all these corporate criminals that have contributed to the destruction of this country? Shame on all you old farts who blame your children, as it's you morons who continually vote for people who have flucked this country over. The youth didn't give us the drug war, for profit healthcare, a huge divide between rich and poor, millions of poor third world immigrants, a totally corrupt government, offshoring, etc. It's you old people who keep voting for scumbags like Clintons and Bush and McCain who have brought us all that. You dumb****s thought John Kerry looked French so you voted to re-elect a fascist, how do you people even live with yourselves??

The truth is not racism, what is racism is Hillary Clinton basically saying Obama can't win because he's a negro.




Absolute baloney. Acknowledging the existence of racism in this country is not racist. It's awareness of conditions we're in.

You can't change anything for the better by denying problems exist.

Absolute baloney. Acknowledging the existence of racism in this country is not racist. It's awareness of conditions we're in.

You can't change anything for the better by denying problems exist.


Are not aware of all the racist comments Hillary and her campaign have made?

I don't think calling half the country racist, and then implying they might as well elect Hillary, because none of those racists will vote for Obama is a smart strategy..

http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=4470&CFID=6535639&CFTOKEN=58001095

Btw, this whole assault on the youth here by old geezers who are responsible for giving us this ****ed up country really are pathetic.

First of all, it isn't just blacks and college students supporting Obama, what a retarded lie that is, people of all ages, and all walks of life support him.

Now tell me, who gave us Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and dubya??? Nobody under 42-43 could have even voted for Reagan, nobody under 38 could have voted for Bush Sr., nobody under 34 could have voted for Clinton in 92, or under 30 in 96. Nobody under 26 could have voted for Bush in 2000, or under 22 in 2004.

So who has been voting for all these corporate criminals that have contributed to the destruction of this country? Shame on all you old farts who blame your children, as it's you morons who continually vote for people who have flucked this country over. The youth didn't give us the drug war, for profit healthcare, a huge divide between rich and poor, millions of poor third world immigrants, a totally corrupt government, offshoring, etc. It's you old people who keep voting for scumbags like Clintons and Bush and McCain who have brought us all that. You dumb****s thought John Kerry looked French so you voted to re-elect a fascist, how do you people even live with yourselves??

LOL. I like this post.

Ah, well, I see you think they are two entirely separate groups ...

So, you're voting for Obama because you think somebody who isn't intelligent should be Prez. Fascinating ...

Actually, the OP listed them as two entirely separate groups and I was staying on topic with the OP. And your second sentence is even less reflective of anything I've said than your usual ad hominem and parsing attacks. If I thought someone who wasn't intelligent should be President, I'd recommend we vote for McCain and continue the idiot legacy of Bush.

Are not aware of all the racist comments Hillary and her campaign have made?
Saying that Obama is unelectable because it's unlikely he'll take the South is hardly racist in itself: it's an indictment of Southern racism and an admission of the impact of lingering American racial divisiveness.

Hillary in her bunker:

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/

"The voters stole my nomination!"

"My supporters are the dumbest f*cks in the country!"

Saying that Obama is unelectable because it's unlikely he'll take the South is hardly racist in itself: it's an indictment of Southern racism and an admission of the impact of lingering American racial divisiveness.

Not only that, but it is also probably false. One of the key reasons the south did not want to allow slaves to become free men and vote was because of the sheer number of slaves they had. Blacks have been very strong leaning towards Obama. With that in mind:

Blacks as a percentage of the population -
Georgia - 29.9
Alabama - 26.3
North Carolina - 21.7
South Carolina - 29
Mississippi - 37.1
Louisiana - 31.7

All of these states and their combined 62 electoral votes went to the GOP in 2004. A flipping of almost any 2 of those would have changed the outcome. Although the black vote is not likely to flip Utah (1%).

Apparently there are at least 700,000 more eggheads and African-Americans that vote then there are downscale, uneducated white working class voters.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

You assertion would fall on its face if it ever had legs to stand on to begin with. Obama has never trailed Clinton in this race. Don't vote for the negro if you can't. Vote for McCain. Hillary is gone. From here on out, all she's doing is destroying her political career and tarnishing the Clinton legacy. It's too bad. I was a real fan of the Clintons before this thing got weird.

but the people don't so much.

Once again,look at the polls and he results of the primaries in the swing states,they prove you are wrong and that the proletariat supports Hillary and not Obama.


Obama does not have nearly the amount if ire of the right as Hillary does.

Oh,yes he does.



The lesson of the 2004 campaign was that it isn't as important to win over the moderates or members of the opposing party as it is to give your party's base a reason to turn out. Black votes were considered somewhat pivotal in the narrow-margin victory the GOP had, and the anti-gay vote they brought to the polls was decisive for them. Obama will bring a larger turnout than Hillary and THAT is what will bring victory in November.

Wrong,the lesson of 2004 is that you need the votes of the white working class and Latinos in order to win.


I can say I am one of the people will likely vote McCain. I would have voted Obama but now I have more doubt than confidence in him. I would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, but at this point unless Obama pulls some kind of miracle out his butt that makes me "see the light" then like I am going with the devil I know. Granted that means I gotta look at his ugly ass face for the next 4 years but that's nothing new. I live in AZ after all and he is our senator.:p

I think you represnt the mainstream of America and it's the manisteam who will decide the election.


WTF dude? Now you're debating like a far right winger too, what's going on? How am I an extremist because I am against more corporate extremism? Please explain that for me.

You are talking in slogans and stereotypes.

No thought or intellect is coming from you.



The truth is not racism,


What you said was anti-Latino racism.


what is racism is Hillary Clinton basically saying Obama can't win because he's a negro.

She never said that and neither did I.



You said this had something to do with Obama, I don't see Obama standing there with him. It's sad seeing you adopt right wing smear tactics.


You are not very poltically astute,the right will swift-boat him with this and they will be successfull at it.

What does it have to do with Obama?

This makes the second time he's had to publicy disown himself from somebody in his life,that does raise questions on his judgement.



LOL, people HATE Hillary Clinton with a passion you can't even imagine,

How would you know what mainstream America thinks?

You've never been in the heartland of America ,whereas I [unlike you] come from the proletariat.


do you not remember all the threads about here just not too long ago?


DA does not represent the mainstream of America ,not even close.:nonono:


Hillary Clinton will have right wingers climbing out of the grave to vote against her.


So will Obama,besides you're going popular vote,not electorial vote.

Independent polling data shows that Hillary can beat Mc Cain by a near landslide in the Electorial College,the same data shows Obama losing Pennsylvania [a state that both Gore and Kerry won]to Mc Cain and that gives Mc Cain the election.





Please post the link to where I ever said I don't care who wins, and good luck since it doesn't exist.

I said virutally all Obama supporters said it wouldn't matter if Mc Cain or Hillary won and I said it does matter.


People that are conscious know that only Obama stands a chance against McCain,


Polling data and primary results in swing states show you are wrong.


In fact, the only people saying they'd rather see McCain win if not Hillary is you


I never said or insinuated that, you liar.

In fact I said I'd do all I could for Obama and so did Chach.

and the other Clinton supporters,

All the other Clinton supporters did not say that[you should stop stating your opinions as fact],those who are Latino and those who come from the white working class said that,which proves Begala's point is correct that Democrats cannot win with only the votes of eggheads and African Americans.


Do the math,there are more Latinos and white working class people [especially in the swing states] then there are eggheads and African Americans.

Your viewpoint is in the distant minority,even in your state [where Hillary won the Democratic primary by a good number].




You really would rather see McCain than Obama, and that's sad..


When the fuk did I ever say that?


this Ayers nobody is important though..:rolleyes:


You are not the only person in this country,to many he is.



Oh yea, you don't talk about facts and issue's because Clinton and her husband don't look too good when you do. Liberals my ass, they are both right wing elitists, fluck them.

Another mature Obama supporter.:rolleyes:

Absolute baloney. Acknowledging the existence of racism in this country is not racist. It's awareness of conditions we're in.

You can't change anything for the better by denying problems exist.


Agreed.

Btw, this whole assault on the youth here by old geezers who are responsible for giving us this ****ed up country really are pathetic.


Someone your age who does not feel the way you do has no passion.

Someone my age who doesn't feel the way I do has no intellect.

Once again,look at the polls and he results of the primaries in the swing states,they prove you are wrong and that the proletariat supports Hillary and not Obama.

I am looking at the polls. Obama leads in popular vote, delegates, and super-delegates. He's also more popular with moderates than Hillary.


Wrong,the lesson of 2004 is that you need the votes of the white working class and Latinos in order to win.

Bush didn't win by appealing to the working class. He won by appealing to fear of gays. The ballot initiatives increased voter turnout on the GOP side. It wasn't about winning the middle, it was about energizing the base.

Saying that Obama is unelectable because it's unlikely he'll take the South is hardly racist in itself: it's an indictment of Southern racism and an admission of the impact of lingering American racial divisiveness.

Agreed.

The last Democrat to do well in the South was : Bill Clinton.


Not only that, but it is also probably false. One of the key reasons the south did not want to allow slaves to become free men and vote was because of the sheer number of slaves they had. Blacks have been very strong leaning towards Obama. With that in mind:

Blacks as a percentage of the population -
Georgia - 29.9
Alabama - 26.3
North Carolina - 21.7
South Carolina - 29
Mississippi - 37.1
Louisiana - 31.7

All of these states and their combined 62 electoral votes went to the GOP in 2004. A flipping of almost any 2 of those would have changed the outcome. Although the black vote is not likely to flip Utah (1%).

You are assuming that Obama will get either the same white vote in those states that Kerry got or a bigger one.

All polling data so far shows Obama getting no Southern states and Hillary Clinton getting one : Florida.

Apparently there are at least 700,000 more eggheads and African-Americans that vote then there are downscale, uneducated white working class voters.


You are basing that on the popular vote,not the electorial vote.

Indenpendent data shows that Lations and the white working class will most likely win the electorial vote for Hillary,the same data has Obama losing Pennsylvaina and the election.

I am looking at the polls. Obama leads in popular vote, delegates, and super-delegates. He's also more popular with moderates than Hillary.


But you are leaving out the Electorial College and polling results in Ohio,Florida and Pennsylvaina that decide the Electorial College.

Plus,the Latino vote is key in Texas,her popularity with Latinos give Hillary a good chance of being the first Democrat in a long time to take Texas,otherwise Mc Cain will take Texas.


Bush didn't win by appealing to the working class. He won by appealing to fear of gays.


Bush won by getting the votes of the working class and Latinos [most of whom are Catholic] and sadly fear of gays was how he got their votes.

Ohio and Florida decided the LAST election. And that was because Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia were not in play at all. Obama can afford to pick up just the states won last election, which were the bluest of the blue only, and win without Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania by picking up Louisiana and South Carolina. You are looking at old election math for old white people trying to win a traditional election. Obama has an advantage in that he is going to turn up black voter turn out the way anti-gay legislation turned up evangelical turnout.

Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. Period. Hillary is making an ass of herself, and the entire world is laughing at the spectacle. She really thinks that the electorate will forget what she's trying to engineer (Barack Obama's defeat in November) and give her a shot in 2012. The electorate is trying to tell her that it's insanity to try and sink his chances, but she's "lost her bearings" and can't see the reality of her situation.

She's about one week short of burying her political future forever.

Using CNN.com's delegate counter, I figure the race is over on 5/20. If Obama and Hillary split the remaining supers down the middle, Hillary has to win 88% margins of victory in order to keep Obama from reaching 2,025. And if Obama wins 45% of the delegates between now and 5/20, he'll have enough pledged delegates to get to the magic number (if he gets 1/2 of the supers) at that point.

Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. Period. Hillary is making an ass of herself, and the entire world is laughing at the spectacle. She really thinks that the electorate will forget what she's trying to engineer (Barack Obama's defeat in November) and give her a shot in 2012. The electorate is trying to tell her that it's insanity to try and sink his chances, but she's "lost her bearings" and can't see the reality of her situation.

She's about one week short of burying her political future forever.Why complain about Hillary's persistence? She's still in the race unless and until the delegates select Obama. If she hasn't a chance, what are the unpledged delegates waiting for, Obama to get hit by a bus?

If you want to grouse, direct it at the delegates sitting on their hands. They're the ones dragging this thing out, not the contestants. They're doing what we expect them to do, their best to win the nomination.

Even if he wins, and runs in the general election, I don't believe he can win in the end. This may be an elephant in the room, but I seriously doubt that the American electorate will elect a black President at this point in time. It could happen, but I really doubt it. There are many people with prejudices against voting for a black presidential candidate.

I also believe his wife has the potential of becoming a serious liability.

Plus, there just aren't enough black votes to elect him, and many young idealists who may vote in the primaries may not vote in the general election. It looks like McCain to me. That can change, and I could be dead wrong, but as it is, I'll follow my gut.

If Obama were a conservative, I would vote for him in a second, but he's not. I personally don't care what color he is, but I will never vote for a tax raising liberal of any color, shape, size or sex.

It's a shame race has to be an issue, but it is. Pretending otherwise will not change this fact.

As far as Hillary not dropping out, I can only think that she's either completely lost it, or more likely, has a realistic plan to steal the nomination in some way. This could happen by releasing something terrible about Obama to the public, or even buying off super delegates. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened.

She's not stupid, and there has to be a reason she's still in the race. Why else would she be spending her own money if she knew she had no chance of winning?? She's obviously up to something.

Saying that Obama is unelectable because it's unlikely he'll take the South is hardly racist in itself: it's an indictment of Southern racism and an admission of the impact of lingering American racial divisiveness.

I guess saying he's only in it because of affirmative action isn't racist either?

I can say I am one of the people will likely vote McCain. I would have voted Obama but now I have more doubt than confidence in him. I would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, but at this point unless Obama pulls some kind of miracle out his butt that makes me "see the light" then like I am going with the devil I know. Granted that means I gotta look at his ugly ass face for the next 4 years but that's nothing new. I live in AZ after all and he is our senator.:p

I thought you were a liberal? McCain has vowed to carry on all of Bush's policies, and wants to stay in Iraq forever, guess I was wrong..

I thought you were a liberal? McCain has vowed to carry on all of Bush's policies, and wants to stay in Iraq forever, guess I was wrong..

I disagree. McCain has openly criticized many of Bush's policies, and only embraced him in the 2000 primary when he knew it was over for him. It was the politically expedient thing to do at the time.

This is also a guy who toyed with switching parties roughly two years ago. He's been in bed with the chap of Quiddick himself, Teddy Kennedy on a number of issues, and is very liberal on many things.

The war is his Achilles heel with libs, but he honestly knows that pulling out too soon could, and probably would create a situation that would force the US to go back and clean up another mess later. At least he's honest about it.

He reminds me of Nixon in many ways; run as a conservative and govern as a centrist to a liberal. It's a tactic that has worked for many politicians in the past.

He's liberal on the "climate change" issue, gay rights, is soft on illegal immigration, and has no plans to go after sanctuary cities, which he has stated over and over. He isn't openly pro choice, but supports federal (taxpayer) funding of embryonic stem cell research. He's cut from a completely different cloth than Bush. The idea that he would be a third term of the Bush presidency is inaccurate. It's just a talking point/mantra of the left, who oppose him.

He's no Bush, and Bush is no conservative when you look at the big picture and his record.

My take is that he's the lesser of three evils.

Even if he wins, and runs in the general election, I don't believe he can win in the end. This may be an elephant in the room, but I seriously doubt that the American electorate will elect a black President at this point in time. It could happen, but I really doubt it. There are many people with prejudices against voting for a black presidential candidate.

Thanks for testing the waters again. We'll see if this observation gets you branded a racist, too.

You are talking in slogans and stereotypes.


No I am not, respond to my posts, not what you thin I'm saying.



No thought or intellect is coming from you.


Why are you resorting to insults?



What you said was anti-Latino racism.


LOL, no it was not, it's the truth, you don't live in a city that's been turned into the third world by Mexican immigrants, who are not a "race", nice try.:rolleyes:


She never said that and neither did I.

Yet it's exactly what she and all the right wing Clinton supporters are claiming.


You are not very poltically astute,the right will swift-boat him with this and they will be successfull at it.

If that's all they have they will fail, they have actual dirt on Hillary.


What does it have to do with Obama?

This makes the second time he's had to publicy disown himself from somebody in his life,that does raise questions on his judgement.

Nonsense, only because he's the biggest threat to the WASP's and their military-prison-pharma industrial complex is it an issue. People like McCain and Bush have been friends with people literally millions of times worse, but that's not an issue because they are right wing white elitists. You don't think they are going to trot out everybody the Clinton's have ever been associated with? You are being naive.. Besides, Hillary has already lost.


How would you know what mainstream America thinks?


For starters I pay ATTENTION, what about you?


You've never been in the heartland of America ,whereas I [unlike you] come from the proletariat.


What sort of nonsense is that???? First off, how would you know where I have or have not been? I've been all over this country, and there's no such thing as "the heartland", unless you really believe there's a giant heart in the center of the country..:rofl:

One thing I've noticed as I've traveled from state to state is that people aren't all that different as you'd like to believe, besides the accents, everybody is pretty much the same. I wonder if you've ever been out of Ohio thinking like that.

The other thing I've noticed is that these states that we're supposed to worship and give more voting power over others is that there's hardly anybody living in them! The plains through the Midwest is like one big corn field, yet you think you guys who have never left the farm know how the world works outside okey dokeyville. We have more people in L.A than there are in several states, don't try to tell me the wheat is more important than the voters..



DA does not represent the mainstream of America ,not even close.:nonono:


What you see from right wingers here is an accurate representation of their violent extremism, I've seen it first hand, these people would rather jump off a cliff than live under Hillary. On the other hand I know many conservatives who are actually voting for Obama after 8 years of Bush tyranny.


So will Obama,besides you're going popular vote,not electorial vote.

Not at all like Hillary, they know the Clinton's, they have all sorts of dirt on them, and all the dirt the smear doctors in Hillary's campaign could dig up has already been shoveled.


Independent polling data shows that Hillary can beat Mc Cain by a near landslide in the Electorial College,the same data shows Obama losing Pennsylvania [a state that both Gore and Kerry won]to Mc Cain and that gives Mc Cain the election.

Right, so if he wins every other state only Pa matters than?


I said virutally all Obama supporters said it wouldn't matter if Mc Cain or Hillary won and I said it does matter.

Where did they say that?



Polling data and primary results in swing states show you are wrong.

Considering she can't even beat Obama how would she beat McCain?


I never said or insinuated that, you liar.

So you'd actually vote for Obama? I saw a poll stating 50% of Hillary's supporters would vote for McCain, nice!


In fact I said I'd do all I could for Obama and so did Chach.


Well I'd hope so...


All the other Clinton supporters did not say that[you should stop stating your opinions as fact],those who are Latino and those who come from the white working class said that,which proves Begala's point is correct that Democrats cannot win with only the votes of eggheads and African Americans.


So she's supported by conservatives? Supports my statement then that most ofher supporters are right wingers like she is.


Do the math,there are more Latinos and white working class people [especially in the swing states] then there are eggheads and African Americans.


Why do you keep saying that? What is an "egghead"?

Why won't Latinos and white people vote for him? Is it because they are racist scumbags? Then I wouldn't want their vote, fluck them. Are these "Latinos" even here legally? Should they be voting?


Your viewpoint is in the distant minority,even in your state [where Hillary won the Democratic primary by a good number].


LOL! She may have won Ca, but there is a huge base of support for Obama here, and I bet if that election was held today he would have won after all her smears and dirty tactics.


When the fuk did I ever say that?

That's the impression you give.


You are not the only person in this country,to many he is.

To whom? Right wing media pundits and morons? Sorry if I don't let others decide who I'm voting for, for me..


Another mature Obama supporter.:rolleyes:

Tell me it's not true, please detail Hillary Clinton's liberalism, because she rules like a right winger.



Agreed.

You can't change anything by giving into these racist slimeballs..

I disagree. McCain has openly criticized many of Bush's policies, and only embraced him in the 2000 primary when he knew it was over for him. It was the politically expedient thing to do at the time.

This is also a guy who toyed with switching parties roughly two years ago. He's been in bed with the chap of Quiddick himself, Teddy Kennedy on a number of issues, and is very liberal on many things.

The war is his Achilles heel with libs, but he honestly knows that pulling out too soon could, and probably would create a situation that would force the US to go back and clean up another mess later. At least he's honest about it.


Then you don't knowe the real McCain...:rolleyes::|

There's nothing honest coming from him about this war, and from his statements on Iraq it looks like he left hi brain somewhere is southeast Asia, maybe he'sthe Manchurian candidate..:eek3:


He reminds me of Nixon in many ways; run as a conservative and govern as a centrist to a liberal. It's a tactic that has worked for many politicians in the past.


You can read online what many of the people who know him have to say about that, and you're wrong, he and his evil eyed wife will rule like the beasts they are.


He's liberal on the "climate change" issue, gay rights, is soft on illegal immigration, and has no plans to go after sanctuary cities, which he has stated over and over. He isn't openly pro choice, but supports federal (taxpayer) funding of embryonic stem cell research. He's cut from a completely different cloth than Bush. The idea that he would be a third term of the Bush presidency is inaccurate. It's just a talking point/mantra of the left, who oppose him.

He's no Bush, and Bush is no conservative when you look at the big picture and his record.

My take is that he's the lesser of three evils.


Election season BS from him, he's another corporate lobbyist, there is nothing liberal about the guy.

Saying he's the lesser of three evils is what got us Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the fascist murderous neo-cons, I hope people don't get duped a third time because this nation has not much money left, and not much time with the plutocrats plans for finishing it it off.

Pay attention to McCain's choice of Veep. If the Dems do manage to lose the Presidential election somehow, this person will finish out his first term. I don't think McCain's going to make it all the way, just a gut feeling.

Ohio and Florida decided the LAST election.

The last two actually.


And that was because Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia were not in play at all.


And I see no proof they will go Democratic this time around.


Obama can afford to pick up just the states won last election, which were the bluest of the blue only, and win without Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania by picking up Louisiana and South Carolina. You are looking at old election math for old white people trying to win a traditional election. Obama has an advantage in that he is going to turn up black voter turn out the way anti-gay legislation turned up evangelical turnout.

And who is to say that anti-black turnout [especially in Mississippi]wouldn't do what anti-gay turnout did in 2004?

Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. Period.
[QUOTE]

The fix is in,he will be the nominee.

But his problems won't go away,in fact they will get worse.


[QUOTE]
She really thinks that the electorate will forget what she's trying to engineer (Barack Obama's defeat in November) and give her a shot in 2012.


You are reading more into this then there is.

But that's what paranoid people do.

I mean you Obamammanicas are now becoming sore winners,how pathethic.:nonono:


She's about one week short of burying her political future forever.

She's got as much [if not more]of a future than Barack does.


Using CNN.com's delegate counter, I figure the race is over on 5/20. If Obama and Hillary split the remaining supers down the middle, Hillary has to win 88% margins of victory in order to keep Obama from reaching 2,025. And if Obama wins 45% of the delegates between now and 5/20, he'll have enough pledged delegates to get to the magic number (if he gets 1/2 of the supers) at that point.

He's got the nomination,the fix is in.

But he can't win the election with only eggheads and African Amercians,he has to find a way to appeal to Latinos and to the white working class and he as of yet hasn't shown any ability to do so.

He's got the nomination,but his problems are not going to go away and if he doesn't do anything about them he won't win the election and that will be nobody's fault but his.
Why complain about Hillary's persistence? She's still in the race unless and until the delegates select Obama. If she hasn't a chance, what are the unpledged delegates waiting for, Obama to get hit by a bus?

If you want to grouse, direct it at the delegates sitting on their hands. They're the ones dragging this thing out, not the contestants. They're doing what we expect them to do, their best to win the nomination.

She has the right to be in the race and the people saying she should drop out are Obama partisans who beleve what they say,they just want Obama to get another free ride.
Even if he wins, and runs in the general election, I don't believe he can win in the end. This may be an elephant in the room, but I seriously doubt that the American electorate will elect a black President at this point in time. It could happen, but I really doubt it. There are many people with prejudices against voting for a black presidential candidate.


I think he can win,but I think it will be very difficult while I don't think it would be difficult for Hillary to win.

I also believe his wife has the potential of becoming a serious liability.


She could,plus he's ben hit twice over his freinds and associates,I think he can be hit there again.


Plus, there just aren't enough black votes to elect him, and many young idealists who may vote in the primaries may not vote in the general election. It looks like McCain to me. That can change, and I could be dead wrong, but as it is, I'll follow my gut.


I Think Blacks and young idealists will vote for him,but there are not enough of them to win the election.

As Begala pointed out Dukakis tired to win with that coalition and he only got ten states.



She's not stupid, and there has to be a reason she's still in the race. Why else would she be spending her own money if she knew she had no chance of winning?? She's obviously up to something.

I think she'll be Veep.



I thought you were a liberal?

There are many types of liberals and there aremany types of liberalism.

You do not get complicated ideals at all,you see the world and define the people in the world by simple stereotypes and that has noting to do with reality [especailly politcal reality]


I disagree. McCain has openly criticized many of Bush's policies, and only embraced him in the 2000 primary when he knew it was over for him. It was the politically expedient thing to do at the time.

This is also a guy who toyed with switching parties roughly two years ago. He's been in bed with the chap of Quiddick himself, Teddy Kennedy on a number of issues, and is very liberal on many things.

The war is his Achilles heel with libs, but he honestly knows that pulling out too soon could, and probably would create a situation that would force the US to go back and clean up another mess later. At least he's honest about it.

He reminds me of Nixon in many ways; run as a conservative and govern as a centrist to a liberal. It's a tactic that has worked for many politicians in the past.

He's liberal on the "climate change" issue, gay rights, is soft on illegal immigration, and has no plans to go after sanctuary cities, which he has stated over and over. He isn't openly pro choice, but supports federal (taxpayer) funding of embryonic stem cell research. He's cut from a completely different cloth than Bush. The idea that he would be a third term of the Bush presidency is inaccurate. It's just a talking point/mantra of the left, who oppose him.

He's no Bush, and Bush is no conservative when you look at the big picture and his record.

My take is that he's the lesser of three evils.

Look,it will get a little better no matter who wins ,simply because nobody can be more incompetent than Bush.





LOL, no it was not, it's the truth, you don't live in a city that's been turned into the third world by Mexican immigrants, who are not a "race", nice try.:rolleyes:


I know David Duke has said the same thing you are saying.

And I know people in LA who see this issue in more humanitarian terms then you do.




Yet it's exactly what she and all the right wing Clinton supporters are claiming.

Expressing concern about political reality is not the same thing as racism.



If that's all they have they will fail, they have actual dirt on Hillary.


They have no actual dirt on Hillary and in 16 years of trying to demonize her they have awlays failed.



Hillary has already lost.


The fix is in,he's the nomineee,but his problems are not going to go away,in fact they are only going to get worse



For starters I pay ATTENTION, what about you?


You see the world with blinders on.

I've been around ,I've grown up amongst the proletariat [I stil have them in my family in fact],I 've had family who was a boss in party politics and I know the stytem inside/out. and I think independenetly

You only know your ideology and if somebody doesn't fit your ideology you stereotype them.



One thing I've noticed as I've traveled from state to state is that people aren't all that different as you'd like to believe, besides the accents, everybody is pretty much the same.


You must not have met many people because I've noticed the opposite and I've met people from virtually every walk of life.


I've noticed that people are indiviuals and are not stereotypes,and I've noticed.


you think you guys who have never left the farm

I've never lived in a farm you boob.

My state [and area] is a mixture of urban and rurual,of academia and underdeducated,of liberal and conservative etc,.etc.

Why don't you take yuor sterotypes and keep them yourself.


Right, so if he wins every other state only Pa matters than?


He's not going to win every other state.


Considering she can't even beat Obama how would she beat McCain?

Primaries and elections are two different animals.

Most of Obama's delegate total comes from the Southern states,the people who vote in Southern Democratic primaries are [at least] 80% black,that 80% is a distant minority in the general election.



So she's supported by conservatives?

That's how you win eelctions.

Poltics is about compromise,one who does not compromise will never win political office.


Why do you keep saying that?


Because it's true.


What is an "egghead"?

Young idealist.


Why won't Latinos and white people vote for him?


Becuase he hasn't addressed Latino concerns and he insulted the white working class by calling them "bitter""gun clingers".

Then I wouldn't want their vote, fluck them.


That is not how one wins elections,all you show with remarks like that is political and emotional immaturity.





Are these "Latinos" even here legally?


I'm sure they are,one could even say that very question is a racial stereotype.



Should they be voting?


Another racial stererotype.:nonono:





That's the impression you give.


Only according to your sterotype.





Tell me it's not true, please detail Hillary Clinton's liberalism, because she rules like a right winger.

There is virtually no difference between Obama and Hillary's voting record.


You can't change anything by giving into these racist slimeballs..


That is not political reality.

Pay attention to McCain's choice of Veep. If the Dems do manage to lose the Presidential election somehow, this person will finish out his first term. I don't think McCain's going to make it all the way, just a gut feeling.


I think he will be a one-termer
if he wins.

And I still think his veep will be a woman: Kay Bailey Hutchcison.

LOL, no it was not, it's the truth, you don't live in a city that's been turned into the third world by Mexican immigrants, who are not a "race", nice try.

Alright, well GUESS WHAT, I also live in LA (to be exact, North Hollywood, which is almost all "Mexican"), and don't try to fool nobody...this city is MADE of minorities and immigrants. Those hard-working people is exactly the reason why White people like you can afford to be fat and lazy here in California:p.

I hate to be racially stereotypical, but most of the homeless, useless lowlifes and lazy unemployed morons that I see on the streets of Hollywood and Los Angeles are in fact White, while I don't see ANY "Latinos" like that. They all are working, legally or illegally, and that's what makes the city going.

So, if you think LA is turning into a "third world" (although that's BS, as I love this place and wouldn't want to live anywhere else, and obviously even YOU are still here;))...it's definately NOT because of "minorities" and CERTAINLY not because of people from Latin background, as they were ALWAYS the majority in this city and are the most hard working people around here, along with other immigrants.


What they ARE guilty of is giving lazy white people some competition, but hey, welcome to Capitalism, and don't bring racism in just because some group of people is doing better than yourself:p.

I know David Duke has said the same thing you are saying.

And I know people in LA who see this issue in more humanitarian terms then you do.


I agree 100%, and it's not so much about being "humanitarian", but more about Los Angeles (and west-south of US in general) even SURVIVING without Latino immigrants. I used to be "anti-illegal immigration" completely, until I moved here and saw it with my own eyes.

John McCain and a lot of the people who support the immigrants don't necesserily do it because they are "nice humanitarian people", but rather because they may be realistic about America's economy. I'm sure, personally, they would rather live in a "White America" as well, but knowing that a "White Los Angeles" can truely bring the city into a third world economical disaster, is what motivates their tolerance for Latino immigrants.

The status of a nation as "Third World" has nothing to do with the color of its citizens' skin.

I guess saying he's only in it because of affirmative action isn't racist either?
To be fair, that's another ballpark.

anyone who is complaining about obama's success with college-educated voters and african-americans is an ignorant cracker hillbilly, and the sooner that truth teller and farnsworth admit that they are part of this demographic, the sooner we can get on with the national healing process etc etc.

Lay off the insults. They accomplish nothing.

Alright, well GUESS WHAT, I also live in LA (to be exact, North Hollywood, which is almost all "Mexican"), and don't try to fool nobody...this city is MADE of minorities and immigrants. Those hard-working people is exactly the reason why White people like you can afford to be fat and lazy here in California:p.

I'm neither fat nor lazy, and I have to actually pay my bills, you've already proven you don't know a thing about L.A. You show actual racism in your posts, it's people like you who bring up race, every time too, are you claiming white people are inferior now? You're no different than any other racist then. You don't know squat about L.A. You just moved here as well, and you're young and naive, so stuff it.


I hate to be racially stereotypical, but most of the homeless, useless lowlifes and lazy unemployed morons that I see on the streets of Hollywood and Los Angeles are in fact White, while I don't see ANY "Latinos" like that.

Thank you for proving my point, you're a racial supremacist who hasn't seen the real world outside of glitzy clubs, I wonder if your fans know the real you?

They all are working, legally or illegally, and that's what makes the city going.


You've never been to skid row, I have, there's people there from all races, poverty and homelessness doesn't discriminate.


So, if you think LA is turning into a "third world" (although that's BS, as I love this place and wouldn't want to live anywhere else, and obviously even YOU are still here;))...it's definately NOT because of "minorities" and CERTAINLY not because of people from Latin background, as they were ALWAYS the majority in this city and are the most hard working people around here, along with other immigrants.


Rich boys living it up in West Hollywood don't know what's going on around them, try taking a walk through skid row, the eastside, or any poor neighborhood in L.A. It gets worse every year for a number of reasons, adding millions upon millions of immigrants from third world nations isn't helping the matter. It's not their fault for the most part, but facts are facts, and you can't deny most of so cal is turning into more of a shithole all the time, well of course to those of us that have actually lived here our whole lives and have seen it first hand it is. We've seen our shools go to shit, our hospitals shut down, our cities become over crowded, crime rates go through the roof, including some really barbaric crimes. And now we see ethnic cleansing of blacks by virulently racist Latno gangs that you're so fond of, maybe you've never encountered these nice people..

But hey, if it makes you feel good to spew out your pc nonsense be my guest.


What they ARE guilty of is giving lazy white people some competition, but hey, welcome to Capitalism, and don't bring racism in just because some group of people is doing better than yourself:p.


Don't be an ass, for your own sake, I guess you're ok with "capitalism" exploiting immigrants as well..:rolleyes: Well of course you are, they get to do your dirty work while you party on stage with your friends, you wouldn't want to pay a black man, or a white man a fair price to clean up after you.:nonono:


I agree 100%, and it's not so much about being "humanitarian", but more about Los Angeles (and west-south of US in general) even SURVIVING without Latino immigrants. I used to be "anti-illegal immigration" completely, until I moved here and saw it with my own eyes.


You haven't seen anything apparently, I could take you on a fact finding tour, but you're not interested in facts.


John McCain and a lot of the people who support the immigrants don't necesserily do it because they are "nice humanitarian people", but rather because they may be realistic about America's economy.


LOL @ you.

The only thing corporate elitists like McCain supports is the continuation of massive corporate profits on the backs of cheap immigrant labor. Our economy was much better off when people wre being paid good wages to do the jobs that are now done overseas or by cheap labor. Our standard of living has gone down over the past 3 decades, if you were right that wouldn't be so.


I'm sure, personally, they would rather live in a "White America" as well, but knowing that a "White Los Angeles" can truely bring the city into a third world economical disaster, is what motivates their tolerance for Latino immigrants.

I have relatives that have lived here since before WW2, if you think the city is better off now than it was then, then you're delusional, and it has nothing to do with a "white city", you just don't get it.

To be fair, that's another ballpark.


Which park is that?

Paul Begala : "We cannot win

I agree. Let it go.

So, if you think LA is turning into a "third world" (although that's BS, as I love this place and wouldn't want to live anywhere else, and obviously even YOU are still here;))...it's definately NOT because of "minorities" and CERTAINLY not because of people from Latin background, as they were ALWAYS the majority in this city and are the most hard working people around here, along with other immigrants.


Los Angeles sure isn't a anglo name,is it?

I'm neither fat nor lazy, and I have to actually pay my bills, you've already proven you don't know a thing about L.A. You show actual racism in your posts, it's people like you who bring up race, every time too, are you claiming white people are inferior now? You're no different than any other racist then. You don't know squat about L.A. You just moved here as well, and you're young and naive, so stuff it.

No one is less racist than GF and he's way more mature than most young people I've come accross [especially you].






Let it go.



I say continue Hillary,continue.

There's only three more weeks of primaries to go,so let's give all 50 states and places like Puerto Rico a voice and see what the popular vote is.

I'm neither fat nor lazy, and I have to actually pay my bills, you've already proven you don't know a thing about L.A. You show actual racism in your posts,

1. I also live in LA and I have to pay all of my bills too, and yet I'm not afraid of Mexicans (or anybody else) "stealing my job" because I'm good enough at what I do, and I don't get jealous if a person of a Latino background plays better guitar than me (for instance, Carlos Santana or Jose Feliciano), I just work harder and become better and better. If most Americans had the same attitude, "illegal immigration" would not be that big of a deal.

2. Racism against who?:confused: Which race, exactly, do I hate?:confused:

it's people like you who bring up race, every time too, are you claiming white people are inferior now?

No, I don't claim White people are inferior (definately not genetically).

I do believe that SOME White people in America, like yourself, are really being full of shit, when it comes to taking advantage of the minorities and then bitching about them, just because they work harder and obviously become more successful. I believe that SOME White people (just like people in EVERY group) ARE culturaly inferior, but that has nothing to do with "race" or me disliking the majority of White people (which I don't). Same way as I believe that many Palestinians (who are guilty of violence and bigotery) are culturaly inferior, but I don't believe Arabs are an "inferior race".

You're no different than any other racist then.

You're calling me a racist? That's very ironic:p.

You don't know squat about L.A.

Of course not, I just live there:p.

Thank you for proving my point, you're a racial supremacist

I don't believe in "racial supermacy" AT ALL, dumbass, in fact, I'm being critical of the White people who feel racially supperior to people from Latin countries, such as yourself. I'm ANTI-racism!!:cool:

who hasn't seen the real world

Let's see, I've been around most Europe, some parts of Asia and Africa, most of US...I've lived in 3 different countries, not even including different parts of US, and a month in Paris, France.

I actually have a good travelling experience:).

outside of glitzy clubs

What is that?:confused:

I wonder if your fans know the real you?


My job, as an artist, is to make people have a great time at my shows, rather than to bring them all into my personal life or make sure that they know the "real me". That was a weird question:hmm:.

You've never been to skid row, I have, there's people there from all races, poverty and homelessness doesn't discriminate.


I rarely if EVER see a homeless Mexican. Most of the bums around here are white, and sometimes black, but VERY RARELY of a Latino background. Just some statistics, that's all, but you're right, poverty doesn't discriminate.

And yet, without immigrants from Latin countries, Los Angeles would REALLY turn into a "third world" because its economy is dependent on them.

Rich boys living it up in West Hollywood don't know what's going on around them, try taking a walk through skid row, the eastside, or any poor neighborhood in L.A.

A big amount of my LA fans (as well as friends) happen to be African-Americans from poor neighbourhoods, I'm there quite often, I see it all. Also, a lot of my friends live on the eastside. As a matter of fact, I spend more time in "bad neighbourhoods" probably more than in West Hollywood (where I NEVER lived, but only play at some clubs around there).

It gets worse every year for a number of reasons, adding millions upon millions of immigrants from third world nations isn't helping the matter. It's not their fault for the most part, but facts are facts, and you can't deny most of so cal is turning into more of a shithole all the time, well of course to those of us that have actually lived here our whole lives and have seen it first hand it is. We've seen our shools go to shit, our hospitals shut down, our cities become over crowded, crime rates go through the roof, including some really barbaric crimes.

AND YET...you still chose to live here!!:D Why?:confused:

If you want to move to a Whitetown, you have the entire mid-America!! Move to Kansas!! Move to Kentucky!! You have SO MANY options of places that don't have almost any Mexicans (or too many non-whites anyways).

And yet, you still CHOSE to live in Los Angeles. Why is that? Because, despite all the crap, there is all the good stuff TOO. Despite the fact that some % of immigrants/minorities will ALWAYS be bad/criminals/poor, as in every other group, there's still the majority of them who keep this city running and make it into one of the best places in America (I wouldn't want to live anywhere else right now).

You take advantage of the good things and bitch about the bad things, just admit it!! I'm just being honest about the real big picture, as opposed to blowing the "immigration problem" out of proportion.

And now we see ethnic cleansing of blacks by virulently racist Latno gangs that you're so fond of, maybe you've never encountered these nice people..

But hey, if it makes you feel good to spew out your pc nonsense be my guest.


1. I'm not fond of any gangs or criminals.

2. Latino gangs don't represent the majority of Latino people in America, not even close.

3. Most of those gangs are commiting crimes against their own people.

4. Blacks also have their gangs, and sometimes a Latino person may be victim too, as vice versa.

5. Most Blacks and most Latinos here get along just fine. I only read about those "problems" but never actually see them in real life, nor do I know a lot of Black people who feel the same way as you do.

Don't be an ass, for your own sake, I guess you're ok with "capitalism" exploiting immigrants as well..

I'm being realistic about "capitalism". It's not something that I "hate" or "love". That's just how life is, at least in America, so get used to it.

Well of course you are, they get to do your dirty work while you party on stage with your friends,

1. Making a living as a musician is much harder than you think. I don't just "party on stage with my friends":rolleyes:. I actually work VERY hard to accomplish what I do. Otherwise, anybody could be a musician for living. You don't know SHIT about my job, obviously.

2. The reason I don't do "dirty work" (which I used to do while in College) is because I spent many years studying music and other stuff (including a degree from college), so that I could actually have a chance for a better life than that...so I don't wanna hear shit. I'm not the "rich pop star" who just got lucky. I worked very hard for YEARS, and the little I've already accomplished, I did it all by myself too.

you wouldn't want to pay a black man, or a white man a fair price to clean up after you.

I'd pay a person of ANY race, as long as their work is good and relatively cheap. And if Mexican people agree to do the same work for cheaper, then why the **** not? Capitalism, my friend, capitalism!!:D

You haven't seen anything apparently, I could take you on a fact finding tour, but you're not interested in facts.

I know the REAL facts. The US economy would not survive without those people. The Republicans (like McCain and Bush) who support them, know those facts VERY WELL, or else they would be more than happy to join the majority of republicans in singing "get the **** back to mexico". The only politicians who want to deport those people, just want to get redneck vote, but when it comes down to actually DOING IT...it just won't happen, because it's all about the economy, and that's why BIG Republicans are COMPLETELY against any anti-immigration action.

The only thing corporate elitists like McCain supports is the continuation of massive corporate profits on the backs of cheap immigrant labor. Our economy was much better off when people wre being paid good wages to do the jobs that are now done overseas or by cheap labor. Our standard of living has gone down over the past 3 decades, if you were right that wouldn't be so.

Guess what, there was ALWAYS Mexican immigration, and Los Angeles was ALWAYS mostly Latino. It didn't just happen last year:p.

I have relatives that have lived here since before WW2, if you think the city is better off now than it was then, then you're delusional, and it has nothing to do with a "white city", you just don't get it.

Los Angeles, again, was NEVER a "white city", EVER. You can say that about New York, Boston, whatever, but NOT about LA.

And I don't know about before WW2, but I enjoy my life here RIGHT NOW, and if you don't, well, then there's many places you can go to if you don't like it here:).

Los Angeles sure isn't a anglo name,is it?

HAHA, EXACTLY!!:nice::nice:




No one is less racist than GF and he's way more mature than most young people I've come accross [especially you].

Thank you!!:nice::nice:

You've never been to skid row, I have, there's people there from all races, poverty and homelessness doesn't discriminate.
I've been to Skid Row before and while it's true that homelessness does not discriminate, it's quite an exaggeration to say there's just a veritable Rainbow Coalition outside by, say, the Midnight Mission.

Although you'll occasionally see people of various ethnicities down there, mostly the residents are poor, homeless blacks and Hispanics.

Which park is that?
The 'racist' ballpark.

Los Angeles sure isn't a anglo name,is it?

So what do you think we should do? Execute all of us fat and lazy white people, the blacks, the Asians, and give it back to Mexico?

I didn't know you had this in you..

No one is less racist than GF and he's way more mature than most young people I've come accross [especially you].

Now I understand why even the most mild mannered of posters (Malcolm) got fed up with you, how quick you are to turn on people who have defended you for years and are on the same side as you.:nonono:

[quote]
I say continue Hillary,continue.

Yea, let's just give the election to McCain, at least people like Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich got for the good of their own party, sniper fire only cares about her own voracious lust for power.:nonono:


There's only three more weeks of primaries to go,so let's give all 50 states and places like Puerto Rico a voice and see what the popular vote is.

The republicans thank you for making it so easy for them.

So what do you think we should do? Execute all of us fat and lazy white people, the blacks, the Asians, and give it back to Mexico?

I didn't know you had this in you..

I just asked a rhetorical question.:shrug:





Now I understand why even the most mild mannered of posters (Malcolm) got fed up with you, how quick you are to turn on people who have defended you for years and are on the same side as you.:nonono:

I would aruge that it's you guys who turn on me when we disagree. :(

And I would aruge that's pretty pathetic to turn on me only for thinking independently.



Yea, let's just give the election to McCain, at least people like Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich got for the good of their own party, sniper fire only cares about her own voracious lust for power.:nonono:

There's four months before the convention,over five months before the election.

You do exaggerate.



The republicans thank you for making it so easy for them.


What difference does three weeks makes?

Why are you so afraid of what the popular vote might be?

The 'racist' ballpark.

They have their own ballpark? Is it like Camden Yards, or more like Hi Corbett Field?