And I love that she appears to be dooming herself to complete irrelevance. She is a talking caricature whose ten minutes in the sun will pass.
Meh. I’m not sure what relevance she really has anyway, off the Clinton campaign. She can doom herself until the cows come home as far as I’m concerned, I’m just glad she’s speaking what I consider to be the truth. It’s about time someone stuck to their guns and didn’t get intimidated by these absurd accusations of racism.
You keep using this phrase “novelty act”
Exactly what do you mean by calling Obama a novelty act?
I am pretty sure I have been supporting Obama because of his message and not his race. His message may be more resonant because of his race but without the message, he would be invisible to me.
Some people may be supporting him in some sort of misguided effort to redeem America for 2004 (a lot of people were disappointed int their country that year), perhaps they think that proving that America is ready for a black president makes America better than we ever suspected but I could say pretty much the same thing if we elected a woman.
Pretending like authorizing the war was no big deal does nothing for me.
WTF?!?!?
Can you explain how that was Obama’s fault? I understand the point about how Bill may have been taken out of context (I still think it was a deliberate reference to Jesse Jackson to marginalize Obama’s butt-whipping in South carolina) but since whendoes the Obama campaign control the media.
And THAT is the sense of entitlement that turns people off the Clinton campaign. There were a LOT of people that were VERY unhappy with the idea of a Clinton Presidnetial candidacy.
Do you have a cite for why speaking out against the war in 2002 was good for his political candidacy at the time?
If you can’t understand the difference between fundiong a war that has already been started and voting to authorize the war in teh first place, then you are either grossly underemphasizing the significance of authorizing military action or you are trivializing the distinction between the two.
Isn`t anyone going to answer this? 
I want to know when the Romans enslaved and oppressed the Clintons 
Really?!?!? Don’t you think the fact that Clinton has to slice and dice different ways of looking at the primary results to create an argument for superdelegates to overturn the almost inevitable pledged delegate count means that maybe Clinton is the spoiler?
Are you saying that you would be indifferent between McCain and Obama in the White House or are you just trying to make a point about Obama’s purported lack of experience (which just invites the comparison with Hillary’s similar lack of experience).
Obama has to do the same thing, remember?
And how much longer before we get to hear him “recant and denounce” his campaign co-chairman’s claim of Bill Clinton’s “McCarthyism”? Who’s next in the parade from this non-traditional, above-it-all guy?
Maybe its just me but I think there is a difference between acknowledging that race plays a factor in 90% of blacks voting for Obama and calling Obama’s candidacy a novelty act.
African Americans may be flocking to Barack Obama but they are not doing so merely because he is black. Black America didn’t support Al Sharpton and I hear he’s black.
She is now the postergirl for not knowing when to quit while you’re behind.
Not to look a gidft horse in the mouth but I woulda thought this endorsement would have been more useful before Texas.
So how does Obama have to contort the primary results to make it look like he i winning?
Obama is not as unstoppable as he once was (like a week ago) but he is still very likely to win the pledged delegate count and is still likely to win the popular vote. So how exactly do you see this palying out for Hillary?
I meant he has to get superdelegates’ votes, just like she does. They can go either way, based on their own assessments, and it’s a little foolish to claim they would “certainly” do any specific thing.
Richardson remarked that that sentiment (that he’d have been of more use before Texas), which was expressed by the Clinton campaign, offended him to suggest that he’s “only of use for Latino votes.”
So, I guess he’s now “racially” offended. LOL
He said that the Clintons have gone negative and he didn’t like that.
When asked if Obama’s campaign hadn’t also gone negative, he said “there’s been negativity on both sides.” :rolleyes:
Oh but, great beard Bill! It hides the jowls. Superficiality endorses superficiality, why am I surprised. And this is the man who said experience is key; so why the hell was he running if he suddenly now decides that it’s NOT key? Oh, he also said that he almost endorsed HRC right after the Superbowl. :smack:
Good lord, What a silly man. :dubious:
No, you have a good point there. I don’t say his race is the only reason he’s a novelty act, so I acknowledge that there’s a difference. First, race plays a factor for 90% of blacks voting for him. That’s one thing. I think it plays a pretty large figure in whites voting for him too (the whole liberal white guilt thing).
But then beyond that, I call him a novelty act due to the **combination **(not any one of these) of: his race, combined with his funny name (as he himself called it), combined with his youth, combined with his pop appeal (as in pepsi vs. coke type appeal, not substantive or issue-driven), combined with his freshness (aka inexperience).
You take those factors (which I refer to as his novelty act) and you add to them: articulate, intelligent, witty, charming, handsome, anti-war, and his willingness and capacity to speak hard truths to the side that often least wants to hear them, and you have a very compelling candidate.
Add to THAT Clinton fatigue and Bush hating (Obama being the anti-bush in terms of policy positions, but a mere inverse of Bush IMO in terms of being hollow) and the desire of many Dems even before he came along for “anyone but Hillary due to her negatives”…and you get Obama.
Of course, now he’s got negatives like anyone else if not more but it may be too late except for the superdelegates to change course from what was the streak of sizzle and shine and speeches and soda pop.
None of which makes him a better qualified person for POTUS, in my view. But it goes a long way towards explaining his appeal and it does, IMO, position him well for a future run but I think this was premature.
How “premature” will you consider it to be when he has won election to the Presidency in the fall? 
I’d consider it as premature as Bush being POTUS. In other words, a joke.
I recall George Carlin saying he’d always refer to Bush as “Governor Bush” LOL
I’ll have to think of a good name for B. Hussein. He can become God of the World, he’ll never command my respect. And I doubt, by the way, he makes it to the White House no matter what happens.