Clinton isn't losing because she's a woman, and she isn't losing because Obama's black. She's losing because she made a crucial mistake by keeping on her top advisor--who everyone else had told her to dump long before--long past the time it was clear she was running a bad campaign. If not for her keeping Patty Solis on, she probably would have taken Feb 5 in a slam dunk. Now she has to play catch up in any way she can, which means going ugly.

This, more than anything, makes her judgement questionable, and it's the same thing she did with health care. She just kept pushing with the same agenda, even though it was clear it wasn't working.

I think they should discuss why Clinton injected race into the race.

KateTex:

And how exactly did he do that? Specifics?

Um, yeah, exactly what are "Malcolm X 'okey dokes', 'bamboozles', and 'hoodwinks'?"

Did they hand out a code book that told me what to think of these?

And how am I to interpret Ferraro's comment as anything but racist?

If anything, Hillary has benefited by her association with Bill, and would not be running for president had she not married him.

And she would not be losing at this point, had she listened to other advisors and dumped Solis before she ran the campaign into the ground on Feb 5th. Clinton is losing due to her own poor judgement, and for no other reason.

What are you, a Clinton operative? Talking in "Malcolm X" code? That in itself is racist.

Clinton lost this for herself. It isn't about race, and it isn't about sex. Advisors told her for 2 years to get rid of Solis, and she didn't, until she had no other choice. Had she gotten someone on board sooner that knew what they were doing, she would have it sewn up on Feb.5.

Oh. My. God. That's about the most racist thing I've ever seen. you are a Clinton operative, aren't you?

You did notice that in the Texas debate, Clinton virtually plagiarized her husband's speech from '92, and that when she won Ohio, she almost word for word captured part of Huckabee's concession speech?

I'm pretty sure Katetex is a clinton operative, so you won't get much of a logical answer.

I'd go with seating 1/2 the delegates if they can't do a revote. In polls, Clinton shows up with about the same percentages that she had in the primary. Obama will lose a few delegates, but if they can work out a solution it's probably better than completely shutting Florida out. They should revote Michigan too, though.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/000317/

yeah, but his vices are, so far, pretty minimal compared to Clinton and McCain. Take a look at Clinton donors and associates who have been/are in jail. Sabharwal,Celis, Hsu. Hey, type in "Clinton" "donor" "jail" into a search engine and see what comes up. Do we really want to revisit that? And what about McCain and his "misjudgement" that led to his involvement with the Keating 5 in the S&L scandal?

Obama's errors, by comparison, seem pretty minor. He has never lied or covered up his association with Rezko, though admitted it was a mistake to get involved with him, and there is nothing to indicate an exchange of favors. His pastor, while kind of out there, comes out of a school of 60's black radicalism. His rhetoric was needed at the time, and as Obama has said, paved the way for a more moderate, inclusive type of interaction.

McClelland seems to have disliked Obama for a long time, though who knows why, perhaps because Obama has ambition? Perhaps McClelland was friendly with Bobby Rush when Obama ran against him?

Thanks for the perspective. Since I am not Christian, I don't have specifics, but my first thought was that all these preachers say crazy things. Rabbis do too.

She'd be history by now. The only reason she's getting a pass at this point is because the Clinton's have connections to so many people in the Democratic party.

And I'm sick of people saying that only Clinton can beat McCain in the general election. I voted for Obama, but I like (liked) Clinton too. I can see preferring one to the other, but come on, they're both strong candidates, and both have a decent shot in the general election. Plus, when Clinton finally sees the writing on the wall and throws her support to Obama, she's going to be a big help for him in picking up votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania,etc.

This is the only place I've seen this posted. I guess no one else thought it was worth bothering.

So I take it you were watching Fox news all morning. And I hear his grammar wasn't too good either. Did it ever occur to you that the blogosphere is at this point full of competing trolls and surrogates who are doing everything they can to make it seem they have a legitimate argument?

Try taking a look at the larger point he was trying to make--we need to acknowledge and talk about race differences in this country--rather than focusing on one small part of it which might not have been delivered in a perfect way. This is so small and petty, and an actual inclusive and expansive message gets lost when focusing on this.