Race over Merit?
 

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- In claiming victory in West Virginia last night, Hillary Clinton reiterated her last best argument as to why she should be the Democratic nominee: because only she can win in November.

Don't confuse that with what Clinton said in a debate just a few weeks ago about how she was confident that either she or her opponent could win in November.

How's that for chutzpah? She's arguing that the same person who couldn't win enough states in the spring against Barack Obama can win enough states in the fall against John McCain.

At least in West Virginia, Clinton chose her words more carefully than she did last week when she blurted out to USA Today that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again" and how whites who had not completed college were supporting her.

Clinton sounded less like George Washington and more like George Wallace. Imagine a presidential primary where, after more than 16 months, almost two dozen debates, hundreds of speeches, millions of dollars, and countless chicken dinners, the rationale for electing someone boils down to this: Vote for me. I'm white. I can win because other whites will vote for me.

Why, this could be the new affirmative action. Whatever happened to merit?

Clinton's message in West Virginia was smoother. "I'm winning Catholic voters and Hispanic voters," she told supporters, "and blue-collar workers and seniors, the kind of people that Sen. McCain will be fighting for in the general election."

Meanwhile, some white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they're not supporting Obama. It seems like just yesterday that these folks were arguing there is no racism in the immigration debate, and now they're insisting there is no racism in the presidential election.

Some want to know why it isn't racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.

The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?

Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many -- to borrow a phrase -- "hardworking white Americans -- in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ef=mpstoryview

obama is winning way more than 70 percent of the black vote. people should vote for who they want, and not worry about being scrutinzed as to why they voted for a particular candidate. and 70 percent of whites aren't voting for hillary.

Still gag and choke on the candidates, all of them!:rolleyes:

I got rid of my red phone along time ago.

John Edwards is going to endorse Barack, apparently.

Depends on the day, the weather and the pollster. He hasn't had much in the way of competition as of yet.

Edwards is indeed endorsing Obama...and depending on who you talking to, in essense he may pick up 13 delegates as 12 had already endorsed Edwards...so will they stay on to endorse Obama?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ama/index.html

This is true, I saw on Fox News monday where they McCain basically raping Obama.

I was just about to post this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24628847/

ABC News this morning on Good Morning America has the exact opposite with Obama leading McCain by like 20 points!

All in the eye of the news beholder, I guess!

A campaign worker told me today the Obama's own polls show about a 10 point lead.

Huckabee Wants to Be McCain's No. 2
 

Huckabee Wants to Be McCain's No. 2
WASHINGTON (May 18) - Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Sunday he'd like to be John McCain's running mate.

"There's no one I would rather be on a ticket with than John McCain," said Huckabee, who was a stronger than expected challenger against McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. "All during the campaign when I was his rival, not a running mate, there was no one who was more complimentary of him publicly and privately. ... I still wanted to win, but if I couldn't, John McCain was always the guy I would have supported and have now supported.
http://news.aol.com/elections/story/...944x1200305813

The NEA (National Education Association) has made a comparision chart of the 3 canidates (Obama, Clinton and McCain).

The chart compares the canidates stances on educational issues, minimum wage and health care.

Here is a link to the chart...

http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0805/can...omparison.html

If any of these issues are important to you, this chart is an easy break down of the canidates positions.

I'm a staunch Republican, but if it's a McCain/Huckabee ticket, I would be hard pressed to vote Republican. I don't much like McCain, and I can't really stand Huckabee.

I may end up voting for a 3rd party candidate at this point.

While it may be useful, that chart, if made by the DNC, would be exactly the same. The NEA is a rabidly liberal special interest organization.

WASHINGTON - Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and a one-time opponent of civil rights legislation, endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday.

Obama is vying to be the nation's first black president. (No DUH!!!...reaaaaalllly?)

Byrd's support comes almost a week after the Illinois senator's 41-point loss to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the longtime lawmaker's home state of West Virginia.

Byrd said he had no intention of getting involved while his state was in the midst of a primary. "But the stakes this November could not be higher," he said in a written statement.

Byrd said Obama has the qualities to end the Iraq war, which he has strongly opposed.

"I believe that Barack Obama is a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history," Byrd said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/...7auRFbkKGyFz4D


Further proof that politics makes stange bedfellows

This country has gone 232 years without losing a war. I don't think we should let Hillary or Obama ruin that, which if we pull out early is what is going to happen.

Did you count Vietnam in those 232?

Korea-Never mind that was a "police action".

Glad someone else said it...heh

We could include the Civil War in which we kicked our own @sses

But for one, that would be sadomasochistic.

Let's see. I don't believe the South was at the time, a part of the United States, so you can't really say we lost that one now can we?

Seriously LMAO!!!! :D

Poor Nate. : pats his little naive puppy head : :p

Hmmm...uhhh...nate...so...errrrmm...BEFORE the South tried to secede...what was it...?

I got 5 dollars that sez he comes back with a cardboard answer....

northern mexico.

Huckabee pissed me off when he kept slamming Romney even AFTER Mitt dropped out.

Mitt will do 10x more for conservatives in this country than Huckabee. It isn't even close.

I really think he'll choose the young Gov. from Minnesota, Pawlenty. #1, he needs a governor, #2, he needs the youth appeal, and #3, Pawlenty's never waivered in his staunch support for McCain, great sign of loyalty needed in a VP.

The war didn't start until after secession of South Carolina, then after the shot at Fort Sumter, the other states then followed suit.

I was the other end of the conservative spectrum....I voted for Huckabee, but I might vote for McCain if he chooses even Romney!

I am just praying he doesn't pick Crist.....:rolleyes:

I'd prefer someone other than Pawlenty or Crist.

Romney would be good, but I'm worried about tarnishing him if McCain goes in the tank. I'd love a Romney/Jindal campaign in 2012.

I'd definitely go for Romney/Jindal. There was a rumor McCain was going to pick Jindal, but I don't think it is the best time for Jindal to pursue that.

Next Stop, Supreme Court?
 

Rather interesting thought:
Next Stop, Supreme Court?
As the primary season nears a merciful end, the Clinton-Obama conflict is giving way to Obama-Clinton conjecture. Many in the Democratic Party support a so-called dream ticket of both, with Barack Obama at the top. They believe Hillary Clinton has earned the No. 2 spot through her feisty, never-say-die campaign, and they worry that her supporters will stay home in November if she isn't part of the ticket.
Opponents counter that in terms of the electoral vote, Clinton might not help carry any states that wouldn't already go for Obama. Moreover, the possibility of both Clintons ganging up on a President Obama could make life more difficult for him than anything the Republicans could ever put together.
But there is another way to foster party unity without forcing a political marriage.
It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one. ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052001571.html

good job!! you went from "guy who posts news things" to "guy who could take over washington" with just that one post

i didn't even think about the supreme court thing

I'm a huge Romney supporter, for a number of reasons. His presence on the ticket would be enough for me to vote McCain, but, like you, I'm hoping he just holds off for a possible 2012 run.

As for Hilary on the SCOTUS; I really don't see that happening. If Obama wins, there are a number of other potential nominees (MA Governor Deval Patrick, Dean Kagan from Harvard, Kathleen Sullivan from Stanford, Seth Waxman at WilmerHale, among many others) who would be ahead of Hilary on the list.

Incidentally, the SCOTUSblog has a post listing some potential nominees (note, the list is from July 2007):
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dem...so-short-list/

Looks like Crist, Jindal, and maybe Romney will talk VP stuff at his Arizona home.

http://www.presidentelectionpolls.co...hn-mccain.html
http://www.presidentelectionpolls.co...hn-mccain.html

Ah how the democrats totally screwed up primary process is going to ensure great odds for the Republicans

McCain denounces Hagee
 

(CNN) -- In the face of mounting controversy over headline-grabbing statements from the Rev. John Hagee, CNN has learned that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain decided Thursday to reject his endorsement.

McCain later also repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has called Islam an inherantly violent religion.

McCain told CNN's Brian Todd that he rejected Hagee's endorsement after Todd brought to his attention Hagee's comments that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God's will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy.

"God says in Jeremiah 16: 'Behold, I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave to their fathers. ... Behold, I will send for many fishers, and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them.' That would be the Jews. ... Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone who comes with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter," Hagee said, according to a transcript of his sermon.

In a statement to CNN on Thursday, McCain said "Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well." Watch how the Hagee endorsement unraveled »

Shortly after McCain's announcement Thursday afternoon, Hagee withdrew his endorsement, citing critics who had been "grossly misrepresenting" his positions.

"I am tired of these baseless attacks and fear that they have become a distraction in what should be a national debate about important issues. I have therefore decided to withdraw my endorsement of Sen. McCain for president effective today, and to remove myself from any active role in the 2008 campaign," he said in a statement.

"I hope that the Sen. McCain will accept this withdrawal so that he may focus on the issues that are most important to America and the world."

McCain also said that his relationship with Hagee did not compare with Sen. Barack Obama's lengthy association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose own inflammatory comments remain, for some Republicans, a persistent campaign issue even though Obama has denounced his former minister.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...gee/index.html





Hmmmm....McCain had sought Hagee's endorsement, which he gave at a news conference on Feb. 27.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...ahbriwyyaaym_1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-h...e_b_89227.html

There are differences and similarities....

Obama had a personal relationship with Wright

I don't see what the big deal here is?

Any thoughts of Clinton's Assassination comments... So, yes, I don't think she meant that she is staying the race, hoping Obama gets assassinated, but how could she not realize how distasteful she sounded? I don't really get it...

Oh, I think that supreme court is a bit of a stretch. Oh, and it has to be approved by Congress, and I don't think she will get far. Political Celebrities are kept away from the SCOTUS as to not draw unnecessary attention.

I think it was a terrible choice of words, especially when made during a week when Senator Kennedy's health problems have hit the news. I think that Hilary is frustrated and let something slip.

Back on the SCOTUS point - my biggest issue is that there are a whole lot of others who are more qualified than her for the next open spot. I know she worked with the House Committee on the Judiciary during Watergate, but if I remember, she doesn't have any other legal experience on the federal level, and wasn't an appellate advocate of any distinction. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me on those points.

I know that there have been previous cases (Lewis Powell for one) of people being elevated to the Court with little to no judicial or appellate advocacy experience. However, with the level of scrutiny given to SCOTUS nominees these days, I think it would be nearly impossible for such a nominee to be confirmed today.

Plus, the conservatives still upset about Bork would have a field day with a Hilary nomination process.

All this talk about making Clinton VP or giving her the SCOTUS spot makes it seem like Obama OWES Clinton.

He does not owe her anything at all, and likewise for her if she had clinched the Democratic Nomination. They were just candidates, won wins, one loses. There is no tie or consolation prizes needed.