Obama won the Latino vote in Illinois where they know him. Hillary lost the black vote in New York. And so on.

I like Richard Rodriguez, I just happen to find the thought that Hillary represents anything outside of her own ambition amusing. His support, like many, says more to me about people's needs to interpret political theater through the narrow lens of the forces they would have as animating this place, than it does anything else.

As I see it, Hillary is winning the Latino vote because they listen to a few trusted voices who have almost exclusively endorsed her as a way to maximize their influence. If she pulls this off, she will owe them big time. Perhaps then it is the Latino community that can be best described as the shrewd ones.

Anyone who would care about a totally unsubstantiated and false rumor about Obama's dead mother (not about the candidate himself as your analogy describes) is not likely to vote for a Democrat anyway. But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain- Hillary is getting killed in head to head polls with McCain while Obama is winning. See here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1711123,00.html?xid=rss-nation

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/opinion/07kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx

http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

And the list goes on and on. Take the Mason-Dixon survey cited by MSNBC:

According to a new Mason-Dixon survey, given exclusively to NBC/MSNBC and McClatchy newspapers, Clinton is the only major presidential candidate -- either Democrat and Republican -- for whom a majority of likely general election voters say they would not consider voting. In addition, she's the only candidate who registers with a net-unfavorable rating.

All she has is her story that she's 'vetted' while she won't release any documents pertaining to her from the Clinton administration, and she won't even release her tax returns while she's self-funding her campaign (and amidst stories of Bill collecting big checks from a variety of dubious sources). Democrats need to face up to the fact that a vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain, before it's too late.

This word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Cythera, despite your name resembling a lovely island in the Ionian sea, I find you to be one of the most disagreeable Hillary supporters on this blog (I know, I know, you're an Edwards supporters and other stories). That your trolling teeters in the gray area where advocacy meets taking the piss is probably a sign that I should encourage you to keep it up. You do more to advocate for my candidate than I ever could.

NJ Sue, I didn't say you were going to vote for McCain. Read it again. My post was that Hillary will lose in the general election, or at least has a far greater likelihood to do so (you'll note that George Bush's 2004 net favorables- uniquely negative for Hillary- were never close to as dire as Hillary's are now. This is a big deal). Here's another link you can chase up after the others I've already posted:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjU2ZjQ3MGNiZjNmZjYxOGQ3M2Y4NmY2NDVhMDk0Mjg=

I will say that I respect your dislike of party politics. I vote Democrat, am registered Democrat, but I still can't get excited about the label. If the time comes that my party or views change, I'll drop it like a bad habit. Toodles.