Is Hillary a Democrat or a Dixiecrat? WOW, just WOW!

How the FUCK can Hillary's supporters tell me with a straight face that Obama is the one playing the race card?

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

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions. The Obama campaign, looking toward locking up the nomination, stepped up pressure on superdelegates who have the decisive votes in their race.

In both states, Clinton won six of 10 white voters, according to surveys of people as they left polling places.
-snip-

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm

...should the salesperson assume that I believe that only red cars are fast?

I guess two can play at that game:

"Hillary's 20-year association with Jeremiah Wright will seriously damage her electability. If she didn't agree with what he was saying, why didn't she just walk out of his church?"

Isn't this fun?

doesn't matter to her, because she sure seems like she's damaging it more daily with muck like this.

she does something that makes me hate her more.

I'm from NY and I'm going to work hard to get her out of the Senate.

The only reason she ran for the Senate in the first place was to pave the way for her presidential run.

Now that everybody except her realizes that isn't going anywhere, when she finally wakes up and realizes she has to go back to being a senator, I doubt she'll even run for a third term.

It wouldn't even surprise me if she steps down before the end of her current term.

She knew she was gonna be elected president. She'll have difficulty dealing with reality.

Hillary Clinton is now playing the Homer Stokes card. Beautiful. "Is you is, or is you ain't my constichency?"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TIKz1phnuCc

:hi:

Y'see, I happen to be a member of a certain secret society, I don' believe I have t' mention its name...

Isn't that right, little man?

"He's got it!"

movie!

This party has endured enough bullshit from both of them!

I am mad at us for not recognizing it by 2000 - we could have been more help to Gore and Kerry, if more of us had put the pieces together sooner.

“What we have not been able to count on in the last elections are the voters I’m getting,” she said. “Women, particularly lower-income women, didn’t vote for John Kerry. “Hispanics didn’t come out for Sen. Kerry in the numbers that people had hoped for. Working people are really a part of the base that we lost that we’re trying to win back. So, I’m sure that whoever the nominee is will make a very strong case to put together the numbers you need to get to the electoral vote magic 270, but I think the base I’ve put together in these primaries is a stronger place to start from.”

-snip

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/07/993007.aspx

First off Kerry won. Secondly, Sen Obama has brought many young people and Af Ams into the process who didn't feel compelled in the past. He has also brought former Republicans (I will attest to this as I am working shoulder to shoulder with them on his campaign) into the fold. Does this mean ignore Hillary base that voted for bu$h? Not necessarily but don't hurt the ideals of your strong supporters to pander to another group. He kicks off a 50 state voter registration campaign May 10th which will also add to our Democratic base. He is running a smart campaign and has been growing his base among those who support Hillary by letting them get to know him and his issues.

Now she talks about voter segments that she believes did not support him.

Truth is, she wanted Kerry to "lose", so she could run in 2008 with no incumbent running for re-election. And she wants Obama to lose this year so she can run against McCain in 2012.

The Clintons: always there when they need you.

thought it was going to be a cakewalk:

I am convinced that the failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004 (thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

AND FINALLY, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

It serves her interests to have "Buchanan arguing with sharpton" on this issue, because that IN AND OF ITSELF IS TALK AWAY FROM THE VIRTUALLY HOPELESS CHANCES of her winning the nomination. It's time to worry less about HER and more about US, this community on DU and brining it back together using many of the same tones that Obama himself has used to help unify america(whether or not others believe that he EVERY single time uses it, I still see relative differences). For instance you don't complain about tom delay on a daily basis do you? You know why because he's not relevant to our motion for change. Don't complain about her, call your superdelegates and END this thing, THAT is the best way to end this , not proving long argued points here. Thanks for your your consideration (not directed just at you wndy but in general)

Clinton's Race-Baiting Continues

Apparently not satisfied with her plummeting approval ratings among black voters, Hillary Clinton decided to remind us again that our votes don't actually count:

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

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.


Hard-working Americans = white Americans. Right. The rest of us sit on our porches eating watermelon and plucking banjos.

For some reason, despite this "broader base" Clinton still seems to be having trouble raising money, and you know, getting more votes than her opponent. But at this point any abstract metric besides votes or delegates that Clinton can use as a rationale for her candidacy becomes the only appropriate one to use.

This kind of comment is less a description than an agitator, it's meant to give white voters the impression that they would be "disenfranchised" by an Obama win. It's a not so subtle effort to evoke racial resentment over Obama's success.

more...

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/clintons-race-baiting-continues.html

Why does no one ask her why she is failing to connect with the AA community. To me, the story is, "Holy Moly, Obama got 40% of the white vote!" In Indiana, outside the urban areas, there are NO BLACK PEOPLE. I see counties that I, as a hoosier, know have not one black person living in them, and yet 3000 people voted for him despite the incessant Wright coverage. Now, that's a story! But what people focus on is the fact that in that same county, 4000 voted for Hillary. (Nevermind that they will NEVER vote FOR her in the GE.)

If she is then she's messed up.

She might think she's appealing to down home folk, but being labeled a Dixiecrat should be seen as a negative thing.

Here's the wikipedia entry on Dixicrats.

=============================
Dixicrats

The States' Rights Democratic Party (a.k.a. Dixiecrat Party) was a segregationist, populist, socially conservative splinter party of the Democratic Party in the mid-20th century determined to protect what they saw as the Southern way of life against an oppressive federal government.<1>

In the period following the Civil War the Radical Republicans used the Union Army to occupy and forcibly reengineer Southern society. When conservative white Southerners ended military occupation and restored the Southern politico-economic position, the region gave its political allegiance almost entirely to the Democratic Party, creating the solidly Democratic South.

In the 1930s, when the Democratic Party began its drift toward more centralized socialized engineering, the Southern Democrats remained an anchor toward traditional Democratic policies of localized populism and progressivism. After the crisis of the Great Depression, World War Two, and the beginning of the Cold War, the National Democratic Leadership fully embraced a more centralized, socialized, secularized, and multicultural program. This was seen as a return to Reconstruction and many Southern Democrats began to drift from the National Party. As a result they became termed Dixiecrats.

The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. Initially, it referred to a splinter (or offshoot) from the party in the 1948 U.S. presidential election. For more than a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but in 1948 many bolted from the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States.

Over the next several decades, as the white South slowly realigned from the Democrats to the Republicans, the term came to have a broader usage. For example, it was used to refer to those members of the Electoral College who voted for Harry F. Byrd rather than John F. Kennedy in the election of 1960, and to the white Southern voters and electors who supported George C. Wallace in 1968.

==============================

There are some pretty harsh images that come up when it comes to Dixicrats like ...

This racist:


This information: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/dixiecrats.html

And eventually this imagery:

VERY BAD

yeeech.

moment. :crazy: Both Bill And Hillary Clinton are vile bigots - there's no room in the Democratic party for their shameless a**es. :grr:

They believe that we are stuck on stupid.
:think: