(I'm assuming the K is for knife?) Let's have a little campaign donation match-up here. You post your receipts from Obama, then I'll post mine from Clinton. That should end your little troll game once and for all. Deal?

You say: "The history of 20th century American politics is littered with people who covertly inflamed racial tensions (mostly Republican, I'll add) to get what they want. And in the past 3 months, Hillary Clinton has joined that group."

This is where you and Clinton supporters part company, and for very good reason. There have been a number of political observers who have absolved the Clintons of all responsibility for inflaming racial tensions in this primary season. If anything, the fault, dear Brutus, lies in the media 'stars' - and with the Obama campaign, which has demonstrated clear complicity in this grossly unjust characterization. (And please, don't ask for 'examples' of complicity - they're out there and they've been cited over and over, but Obama fans simply choose to ignore them).

One small consolation is that the history books will likely come down on the Clintons' side. One of the points made will almost certainly be: just how would it have been to the Clintons' advantage to inflame one of the most solid, loyal factions in the Democratic party: American blacks. Covertly inflaming racial tensions would also have constituted a complete departure from all that is known about the Clintons vis a vis racial matters. So how to rationalize such a sudden, dramatic departure?

And now, a word from tom payne about white supremacists who shudder at the thought of nappy heads invading the White House living quarters. It can't be long in coming.

NOT the Clintons, who have been smeared in a horribly underhanded way. Hope Obama and those who do his dirty work are really proud of themselves for wreaking so much damage on the Democratic party and kneecapping Hillary Clinton with their ugly treachery. Anyone with half a brain cell could see what was going on. It's a story which could hide in plain sight only so long.

So, salon.com, where have YOU been on this one?

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the

_race_card.html

Just how Obama became 'black enough' in South Carolina - by sacrificing Hillary and Bill Clinton on the altar of Win At Any Cost. I don't give a fig what any of you call me, what poison darts comes shooting out next, how many times I'm called a racist. I'm beyond caring, way beyond. The truth is out there, it's been out there all along. And someday, hopefully sooner than later, it will gain currency.

Ah, so the Clintons are now officially classified as Aryans? Thanks for the tip-off. Much appreciated.

You say: "We do not dislike Hillary." Oh?

A brief sampling of your posts along the way:



"So, screw the Clintons before they screw us. Again. without lubricant."

"Hillary is America's Margaret Thatcher... The only area in which she has a clear lead is lying, cackling, and phony weeping."

"Pimping for NAFTA, helping Bill lose the house and senate in '94, helping him with his zipper in 97 and 98. Hillary, the comeback cackler, is behind by more delegates than she was before her big erection victory of a couple weeks back."

"A shriveled bitter douche bag, resting on laurels that never existed: that's our Hillary 20 years hence."

"If Obama has two faces (one for each race, or what?), Hillary has too many to count."

"Of course, her blind adherents say she "won" Texas even though she received fewer delegates than Obama did. That's Clinton logic. Now, we'll get six weeks of whining about the sexist media, more fear mongering ad campaigns, and more thinly veiled race cards. Not racism - no sane person thinks the Clintons are actually racist. But they'll use anything - any thing- to win. It's what they do."

"My guess is that you...subscribe to the Klinton hints that Obama is getting a free media ride 'cause he's a darkie."

"Poor, poor Hillary...Everyone's against her, and the lucky mulatto is gettin' all de good press. Anybody for a chorus of "Camptown Races".

"She's not a monster. She's a douche bag. Or, she's warm and teary and all fuzzy about the American people. Or, she's mama wonk, spouter of irrelevant cliches."

"Obama is going to kick the Hillster's ample ass today, and again Tuesday in Mississippi. Of course, you all will write that off to all the darkies stickin' together."

"She has no right to the nomination because she happened to pick the color of the drapes in the White House and the Arkansas Governor's Trailer."

Yes indeed, it's easy to see that "We do not dislike Hillary." But "we" apparently enjoy painting her as a completely unscrupulous, race mongering, lying douche bag with no class. Would that about sum things up?

You say: "I truly believe that Obama wants to be pushed leftward, but wants to begin from a position of consensus, adopting the most "progressive" he can without courting controversy."

I'm reading a biography of Nixon by Anthony Summers ("The Arrogance of Power") in which a high ranking Democrat (can't find the quote at the moment) is quoted as saying (basically) that any candidate who defines him/herself vaguely enough so as to encourage voters to complete the sentence, is doing the electorate a tremendous disservice. This is, after all, how we got the "New Nixon" in 1969 - and we all know how that turned out. This is an aspect of Obama that is making many voters very nervous.

From Asia Times Online. An intriguing take on The Man Nobody Knows:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html