Hilary Clinton

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

you can tell by them there facial expressions, it is enough to them that obama is muslim, that correct spelling is a non-issue!



These people cannot even spell Obama's middle name properly??? If they really mean some jab by the mispelling, it is over my head.

you can tell by them there facial expressions, it is enough to them that obama is muslim, that correct spelling is a non-issue!Obama is Muslim? You're joking right? You do know that he was born in America and has never been a Muslim.

cranky,
my post here was indeed meant as a bit of rum and coke,
as it is a not-uncommon belief, albeit false, among a certain segment of american voters that he is muslim!

Obama is Muslim? You're joking right? You do know that he was born in America and has never been a Muslim.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/the_democrats_race_gender_camp.html

Adventures In Identity Politics

By Charles Krauthammer (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/charles_krauthammer/)
WASHINGTON -- Elections can be about policy, personality or identity. The race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is surely not about policy. The differences between the two are microscopic.

It did not start out that way. Last year, when Hillary was headed toward a coronation, she deliberately ran to the center. She took more moderate views on Iraq, for example, and voted to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

When she began taking heat for these positions from the other candidates and the Democratic Party's activist core, and as her early lead began to erode, she quickly tacked left and found herself inhabiting precisely the same ideological space as Obama.


With no substantive differences left, the Obama-Clinton campaign was reduced to personality and identity. Not advantageous ground for Hillary. In a personality contest with the charismatic young phenom, she loses in a landslide.

What to do? First, adjust your own persona. Hence that New Hampshire tear and an occasional strategic show of vulnerability to soften her image. It worked for a while, but personality remakes are simply too difficult to pull off for someone as ingrained in the national consciousness as Clinton.

If you cannot successfully pretty yourself, dirty the other guy. Hence the relentless attacks designed to redefine Obama and take him down to the level of ordinary mortals, i.e. Hillary's. Thus the contrived shock on the part of the Clinton campaign that an Obama economic adviser would tell the Canadians not to pay too much attention to Obama's anti-NAFTA populism or that Samantha Power would tell the BBC not to pay too much attention to Obama's current withdrawal plans for Iraq.

The attack line writes itself: Says one thing and means another. So much for the man of new politics. Just an ordinary politician -- like Hillary.

That same maladroit foreign policy adviser is caught calling Hillary a monster. A resignation demand nicely calls attention to the fact that the Obama campaign -- surprise! -- hurls invective. And a strategic mention of Tony Rezko, the Chicago fixer who was once Obama's patron, nicely attaches to Obama a whiff of corruption by association.

These attacks have a cumulative effect. Obama mania is beginning to wear off. Charisma is intrinsically transient. But Hillary's attacks have succeeded in hastening its dissipation.

So if there are no policy issues between them and the personality differences have been whittled down, what's left? Identity. Race, age and gender. Is this campaign about anything else?

Nationally, the older white woman -- Clinton -- carries the senior vote, the white vote and the women's vote. The younger black man -- Obama -- carries the youth vote, the black vote and the male vote. This was perhaps inevitable in the first campaign in which a woman and an African-American have a serious chance at the presidency. But it received a significant gravity assist from Bill Clinton's South Carolina forays into racial politics.

Did Bill Clinton deliberately encourage racial polarization by saying before South Carolina that one expects women to vote for Hillary and blacks for Obama? Or, after the primary, by dismissing Obama's victory with: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice"?

With Bill Clinton you never know. And there is no proving cause and effect, but the chronology is striking. Two weeks before the South Carolina primary, Obama was leading Hillary among blacks by only 53 percent to 30 percent. Ten days later, Obama was ahead 59 to 25. On Election Day, he got 78 percent of the black vote. By the time the campaign trail reached Mississippi on Tuesday, Obama was getting 92 percent of the black vote. And only 26 percent of the white vote.

The pillars of American liberalism -- the Democratic Party, the universities and the mass media -- are obsessed with biological markers, most particularly race and gender. They have insisted, moreover, that pedagogy and culture and politics be just as seized with the primacy of these distinctions and with the resulting "privileging" that allegedly haunts every aspect of our social relations.

They have gotten their wish. This primary campaign represents the full flowering of identity politics. It's not a pretty picture. Geraldine Ferraro says Obama is only where he is because he's black. Professor Orlando Patterson says the 3 a.m. phone call ad is not about a foreign policy crisis but a subliminal Klan-like appeal to the fear of "black men lurking in the bushes around white society."

Good grief. The optimist will say that when this is over, we will look back on the Clinton-Obama contest, and its looming ugly endgame, as the low point of identity politics, and the beginning of a turning away. The pessimist will just vote Republican.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/the_democrats_race_gender_camp.html

Adventures In Identity Politics

By Charles Krauthammer (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/charles_krauthammer/)
WASHINGTON -- Elections can be about policy, personality or identity. The race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is surely not about policy. The differences between the two are microscopic.

It did not start out that way. Last year, when Hillary was headed toward a coronation, she deliberately ran to the center. She took more moderate views on Iraq, for example, and voted to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

When she began taking heat for these positions from the other candidates and the Democratic Party's activist core, and as her early lead began to erode, she quickly tacked left and found herself inhabiting precisely the same ideological space as Obama.


With no substantive differences left, the Obama-Clinton campaign was reduced to personality and identity. Not advantageous ground for Hillary. In a personality contest with the charismatic young phenom, she loses in a landslide.

What to do? First, adjust your own persona. Hence that New Hampshire tear and an occasional strategic show of vulnerability to soften her image. It worked for a while, but personality remakes are simply too difficult to pull off for someone as ingrained in the national consciousness as Clinton.

If you cannot successfully pretty yourself, dirty the other guy. Hence the relentless attacks designed to redefine Obama and take him down to the level of ordinary mortals, i.e. Hillary's. Thus the contrived shock on the part of the Clinton campaign that an Obama economic adviser would tell the Canadians not to pay too much attention to Obama's anti-NAFTA populism or that Samantha Power would tell the BBC not to pay too much attention to Obama's current withdrawal plans for Iraq.

The attack line writes itself: Says one thing and means another. So much for the man of new politics. Just an ordinary politician -- like Hillary.

That same maladroit foreign policy adviser is caught calling Hillary a monster. A resignation demand nicely calls attention to the fact that the Obama campaign -- surprise! -- hurls invective. And a strategic mention of Tony Rezko, the Chicago fixer who was once Obama's patron, nicely attaches to Obama a whiff of corruption by association.

These attacks have a cumulative effect. Obama mania is beginning to wear off. Charisma is intrinsically transient. But Hillary's attacks have succeeded in hastening its dissipation.

So if there are no policy issues between them and the personality differences have been whittled down, what's left? Identity. Race, age and gender. Is this campaign about anything else?

Nationally, the older white woman -- Clinton -- carries the senior vote, the white vote and the women's vote. The younger black man -- Obama -- carries the youth vote, the black vote and the male vote. This was perhaps inevitable in the first campaign in which a woman and an African-American have a serious chance at the presidency. But it received a significant gravity assist from Bill Clinton's South Carolina forays into racial politics.

Did Bill Clinton deliberately encourage racial polarization by saying before South Carolina that one expects women to vote for Hillary and blacks for Obama? Or, after the primary, by dismissing Obama's victory with: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice"?

With Bill Clinton you never know. And there is no proving cause and effect, but the chronology is striking. Two weeks before the South Carolina primary, Obama was leading Hillary among blacks by only 53 percent to 30 percent. Ten days later, Obama was ahead 59 to 25. On Election Day, he got 78 percent of the black vote. By the time the campaign trail reached Mississippi on Tuesday, Obama was getting 92 percent of the black vote. And only 26 percent of the white vote.

The pillars of American liberalism -- the Democratic Party, the universities and the mass media -- are obsessed with biological markers, most particularly race and gender. They have insisted, moreover, that pedagogy and culture and politics be just as seized with the primacy of these distinctions and with the resulting "privileging" that allegedly haunts every aspect of our social relations.

They have gotten their wish. This primary campaign represents the full flowering of identity politics. It's not a pretty picture. Geraldine Ferraro says Obama is only where he is because he's black. Professor Orlando Patterson says the 3 a.m. phone call ad is not about a foreign policy crisis but a subliminal Klan-like appeal to the fear of "black men lurking in the bushes around white society."

Good grief. The optimist will say that when this is over, we will look back on the Clinton-Obama contest, and its looming ugly endgame, as the low point of identity politics, and the beginning of a turning away. The pessimist will just vote Republican.
Just this guy's pedantic way of saying "us white folks are trying to make sense of why a black guy is succeeding in a system created by us for us"....

Just this guy's pedantic way of saying "us white folks are trying to make sense of why a black guy is succeeding in a system created by us for us"....Baiting for an argument Tony? You'll find plenty of other cynics if you frequent internet forums... :p

There will be a percentage of the white population who won't vote for Obama, just because he is black, and irrespective of how good he is as a candidate. And there will be a percentage of black voters who vote for him, because he is black, and irrespective of how bad he is as a candidate.

Racism is not a virtue but exists unfortunately like infidelity does (and exists both ways... it's just that one side as more power than the other). I'd like to think that the majority of Americans will see him as a candidate on his own merits, and ignore racial stereotypes. If even 10% of whites voted against Obama for racist reasons... he wouldn't stand a chance...

Obama's candidacy (and polled good prospects in an election) is a punch in the face for those that think this country is filled with racists.

Just this guy's pedantic way of saying "us white folks are trying to make sense of why a black guy is succeeding in a system created by us for us"....
Krauthammer is a neocon and a hardcore zionist. He views everything through its potential effect on Israel. When Obama said he would be willing to talk to Syria and Iran, Krauthammer flipped out.

Here he is criticizing those who were upset with Bush's handling of Katrina:
In less enlightened times there was no catastrophe independent of human agency. When the plague or some other natural disaster struck, witches were burned, Jews were massacred and all felt better (except the witches and Jews).

A few centuries later, our progressive thinkers have progressed not an inch. No fall of a sparrow on this planet is not attributed to sin and human perfidy. The three current favorites are: (1) global warming, (2) the war in Iraq and (3) tax cuts. Katrina hits and the unholy trinity is immediately invoked to damn sinner-in-chief George W. Bush.

Yup, blaming Bush for flubbing the Katrina disaster is the same type of thinking that massacred jews. Krauthammer's views are about as objective as Rush Limbaugh's.

Evidently he is not that smart. He's in a wheelchair because he dove head first into the shallow end of a swimming pool.

Krauthammer is a neocon and a hardcore zionist. He views everything through its potential effect on Israel. When Obama said he would be willing to talk to Syria and Iran, Krauthammer flipped out. Thanks Bro! Good to know; it is hard to judge these writings without knowing this sort of background.

Baiting for an argument Tony? You'll find plenty of other cynics if you frequent internet forums... :p

There will be a percentage of the white population who won't vote for Obama, just because he is black, and irrespective of how good he is as a candidate. And there will be a percentage of black voters who vote for him, because he is black, and irrespective of how bad he is as a candidate.

Racism is not a virtue but exists unfortunately like infidelity does (and exists both ways... it's just that one side as more power than the other). I'd like to think that the majority of Americans will see him as a candidate on his own merits, and ignore racial stereotypes. If even 10% of whites voted against Obama for racist reasons... he wouldn't stand a chance...

Obama's candidacy (and polled good prospects in an election) is a punch in the face for those that think this country is filled with racists.
My friend, just as I'm entitled to have and freely express my own opinion, you have the same and equal right...

Furthermre, the US is in fact a country filled with racists...and the democratic contest is peeling back the layers of the onion...the racist views will become more crystallized as white privilege feels it is becoming threatened by the possibility of a HNIC (head n***** in charge)...

in the running for canuck top office again?
just between us, we may consider your pretense of racism as not stopping at the border then...


My friend, just as I'm entitled to have and freely express my own opinion, you have the same and equal right...

Furthermre, the US is in fact a country filled with racists...and the democratic contest is peeling back the layers of the onion...the racist views will become more crystallized as white privilege feels it is becoming threatened by the possibility of a HNIC (head n***** in charge)...

My friend, just as I'm entitled to have and freely express my own opinion, you have the same and equal right...

Furthermre, the US is in fact a country filled with racists...and the democratic contest is peeling back the layers of the onion...the racist views will become more crystallized as white privilege feels it is becoming threatened by the possibility of a HNIC (head n***** in charge)...I hope Obama gets to be president. It will make those who blame all their failings on racism, lose their key argument. With the country consisting of 73.9% whites, and only 12.2% African American, a black candidate wouldn't even be nominated, let alone stand a chance, in a racist nation.

Go Obama.

Racism is alive in this country. I have seen it first hand the past 6 months.......... But it comes at you from all races.

My views have changed considerably over the past 6 months.Some of the change is good, some is not. Some of my most basic philosphies in life have been shaken. My opinion of the human race is not what I would call "in high regard" anymore.


I have been to places where because I am white, the blacks would not help me. I have seen the Mexicans, illegal or not, go out of their way to make sure the black guys do not get accomplished that day what they are there to do.
I have seen whites go out of their way to blame Mexicans for the mistakes they made that particular day at their worksite.

Racism knows no color.

I deal with racism everyday. I met a recruiter for the KKK for Northern Alabama. I met and interact with coyotes on a regular basis. I trained a Kenyan to drive a truck. {He was a good driver, but did not understand the concept of north and south.]

I have been to places in the south here I could not get unloaded on time because I was a *Yankee. [Thank god for that. I have met boys from the south [Gergia, Miss. , Bama, Florida] that re-define "retarded" for me. I question if they have schools in that part of the country.]



I have yet to meet a white/Mexican Democrat over 25 that will vote for Obama.We know the reason why, even though they give a reason totally unrelated to race. But we know.

The most racist place I have been is Boston and that part of the NE. And in that group of racists, I include the black too.

America is what it is..............

I have tried to cut through some of the above perceptions of mine when confronted with them. But sometimes it is in my best interest to judge people by their sterotypes............[in my workplace only]. I am not concerned with changing the world anymore.

* Oh yeah... The north won that war. Get over it.

Definitely Obama seems to have the prevailing momentum...........is it strong enough to win the DMc nomination and to beat McCain?
Again the Sunset Times reports that mcCain although polling well, is losing ground especially with public utterances of Bush.
Obama won the nomination two months ago. At that point he had such a lead in the delegate count that Clinton would have had to win all the remaining states by twenty point margins to catch up. Since many of the states had demographics that favored Obama, that was not going to happen.

The press has been playing up the contest for their own purposes. Even now they are reluctant to state the obvious. They still portray the nomination in doubt. They have been creating the story as much as reporting on it. The reality is that the race is over. Clinton lost. She is staying in the race to make her run more historic; the closer she comes to the nomination, the more important she thinks her run is. She continues only for her own ego and does not care if she is damages Obama in the process.

The general election looks to be a toss up. I have no idea what is going to happen there. The primaries and the special elections that have occurred show that the Democrats can expect a huge turn out. Bush has thoroughly trashed the Republican ideals. It is also likely that the economy will get worse, perhaps a lot worse. Combine those two things with McCain's staunch support of an unpopular war and Obama has a chance that he might not have otherwise.

Obama will have to fight in order to win. He has let Clinton beat him up, and he has not done much to counter it. He has been limited by his need to maintain his persona of a uniter and a new kind of politician. He also had the advantage of only having to run out the clock. That won't work and won't be true in the general. He will need to hammer McCain and the Republicans.

I am starting to think that Obama should gamble big in the general election. Clarke and Webb are obvious choices for an older, white running mate to balance the ticked, but Richardson might be a better strategic choice. The danger is too much change too quickly will scare away too many whites, but if Richardson could deliver the latino vote then it might be worth it. That is something that only the Obama campaign knows because the political campaigns use more sophisticated polling and data modelling that the press uses.

Furthermre, the US is in fact a country filled with racists...and the democratic contest is peeling back the layers of the onion...the racist views will become more crystallized as white privilege feels it is becoming threatened by the possibility of a HNIC (head n***** in charge)...
What the primary has shown is that the Clintons, who spent the early part of their poltical careers pretending to be the best friends of blacks, jumped at the opportunity to fan the flames of racism as soon as it would benefit themselves. Bill Clinton himself is reportedly angry as hell about Obama. People have related stories about Bill ranting at length about how he cannot understand how this "kid" is winning.

This "white privilege" stuff is a load. There is no conspiracy of whites where they get together to plan how to keep the black man down. Money means everything in the U.S. In general people don't care what color the man is who gives them financial advantage. Fears about how a candidate will affect the personal fortunes of each voter form the basis of most people's opposition to a particular candidate. Once opposition is set, things get nasty, and that often means the lower classes will express themselves in racist terms. It is misleading to tar the whole country based on the opinions and actions of what is currently a completely discredited segment of society.

Racism on a macro level in the U.S. is just a bunch of unscrupulous politicians, talking heads, pundits, and activists who manipulate those who harbor rascist tendencies to accomplish their goals. On the other hand there are a similar group of people who appeal to people's better inclinations and cry crocodile tears over people's baser feelings to accomplish their goals. The two sides are in opposition, but the appeal to racism has been steadily losing effectiveness with every generation.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z288/DemRising/obama-inauguration.jpg
o0o

I hope Obama gets to be president. It will make those who blame all their failings on racism, lose their key argument. With the country consisting of 73.9% whites, and only 12.2% African American, a black candidate wouldn't even be nominated, let alone stand a chance, in a racist nation.

Go Obama.
How 'bout a black Supreme Court Justice, or a black woman Secretary of State? Facts are irrelevant, Crankster...

Obama won the nomination two months ago. At that point he had such a lead in the delegate count that Clinton would have had to win all the remaining states by twenty point margins to catch up. Since many of the states had demographics that favored Obama, that was not going to happen.

The press has been playing up the contest for their own purposes. Even now they are reluctant to state the obvious. They still portray the nomination in doubt. They have been creating the story as much as reporting on it. The reality is that the race is over. Clinton lost. She is staying in the race to make her run more historic; the closer she comes to the nomination, the more important she thinks her run is. She continues only for her own ego and does not care if she is damages Obama in the process.

The general election looks to be a toss up. I have no idea what is going to happen there. The primaries and the special elections that have occurred show that the Democrats can expect a huge turn out. Bush has thoroughly trashed the Republican ideals. It is also likely that the economy will get worse, perhaps a lot worse. Combine those two things with McCain's staunch support of an unpopular war and Obama has a chance that he might not have otherwise.

Obama will have to fight in order to win. He has let Clinton beat him up, and he has not done much to counter it. He has been limited by his need to maintain his persona of a uniter and a new kind of politician. He also had the advantage of only having to run out the clock. That won't work and won't be true in the general. He will need to hammer McCain and the Republicans.

I am starting to think that Obama should gamble big in the general election. Clarke and Webb are obvious choices for an older, white running mate to balance the ticked, but Richardson might be a better strategic choice. The danger is too much change too quickly will scare away too many whites, but if Richardson could deliver the latino vote then it might be worth it. That is something that only the Obama campaign knows because the political campaigns use more sophisticated polling and data modelling that the press uses.
Sorry, Bro, but you're dreaming....

Sorry, Bro, but you're dreaming....
About what?

Ok, any commentary is basically the opinion of the author which is likely to be biased in various ways, but this commentary sums up my feelings about Clinton vs the democratic party (and the outcome of the election, although I would use the word "certain"): http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/27/roland.martin/index.html?eref=rss_latest

Selected excerpts:

Her comments to The Associated Press that she may take this to the convention in August shouldn't be dismissed. I don't think Clinton cares about the party. Last week, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux said a Clinton source told her that their focus is Clinton first and the party second.
Only one thing is certain: If this battle goes to Denver, the Democrats might as well dump those inauguration tickets on eBay, because supporters of Sen. John McCain will need them.

About what?


A White Christmas? Jeannie?