Yes it is a good argument, I make it everytime O'Reilly tries to demonize some black pop-culture icon because he's so worried about the damage they are doing to the black youth. My response (made to no one in particular since my pulpit is my sofa, and probably best that it is so) is to say, "Bill, surely you don't think the BILLION dollar hip-hop industry is fueled by poor black ghetto kids do you?"

Brazile is right, if only because she practically offered Stephen Colbert some ass, on the air.

The longer this election goes on, the more she behaves like Bush.

Who Joan supports is not an issue. Both candidates have their positives and negatives and are light years ahead of McCain when it comes to suitability for the office.

What is an issue is if Joan lets her support color her coverage. Of course that is very debatable depending on who you the reader supports.

Question is, are we getting good data?

Since Obama can't 'close the deal', its obvious that the candidate he is beating is the better candidate. The logic is flawless.

IF HRC won based on Fla and MI, both states penalized fairly, though the result was unfair, couldn't people argue that Hillary's bluff can always be called?

I mean, what happens if she threatens someone with consequences? They'll be liable to not believe her.

Come on! Obama/Johannsen 08!

The Democratic primaries prove Clinton can appeal to a broader base. I mean she is winning isnt she?

The pattern is that the longer the campaign goes on, the more like bush she acts and the scarier the idea of president becomes. I used to dislike HRC but was happy to have her as prez as long as she beats the republican, but now she worries me.

Did anyone catch her explanation as to why she wouldn't rely on economists for making economic decisions? She basically said that the last 7 years in the whitehouse, the decisions have been made by the 'elite' and that those decisions have not worked out well for the middle class. Hello!?! The complaint by every dem is that the bush admin as ignored every elite thinker and to disasterous results. *shudder* Hillary should quickly stop before she also loses her senate seat next go around.

"And how is it exactly that saying Jesse Jackson won SC a racist comment? It is simply a statement of fact."

I can explain this. First of all just because something is a statement of fact, doesn't mean it is also not racist or offensive. Secondly, you're right, it isn't racist. But just because it isn't racist doesn't mean it wasn't offensive. See, with that comment, Bill was being dismissive of black people just as Hillary and her campaign were dismissive of all kinds of people who voted for Obama in small states or caucuses by saying they don't count. Telling people they don't count is offensive and generally not smart campaign strategy, and that is exactly what Bill did when he made that comment. Maybe some people don't like being told they don't count.

"I fail to see how mentioning that Jesse Jackson--whom I supported in 1988--is either offensive or dismissive"

The context of the quote was that Obama's win in SC didn't count since Jesse Jackson also won the primary there due to large black voter turnout on his behalf, yet did not win the nomination. That is dismissive. Specifically in this case it was dismissive to the black people of SC saying their vote didn't count. People who are dismissed tend to be offended.

I can't make it clearer than that. If you still fail to see it, perhaps you have sort of mental block and we'd better just drop it.

As a contrast I am perfectly able to say that yes it is offensive for the Obama campaign to call Bill and Hillary racists. I just don't agree with you that the Obama campaign ever said that.

"Why is it more important to not "dismiss" black people than it is to not "dismiss" the millions of voter's who support Clinton?

Who said it was more important? Did you read my post? I was referring specifically to Bill Clinton's comment, explaining why IT WAS dismissive. No where did I say that not dismissing black people was more important than not dismissing white people.

Also, what are you talking about? Who is being dismissive to Hillary's millions of white voters? Who says these people don't count?

They said that Hillary Clinton was manipulating racist sentiment in order to defeat Obama. Numerous Obama "surrogates" said this, and Obama never contradicted them.

I see, so we're to judge the candidate by everything their supporters say? You really want to go there? Besides, what are you arguing, that Obama is to be blamed because his supporters are bothered by what the Clintons do? That's just silly. Perhaps if the Clintons ran a less offensive and dismissive campaign, Obama's supporters wouldn't be so upset.

Actually he was explaining why they vote republican not why they don't vote for him. His oh so correct reasoning, though poorly worded was that if the govt was not serving these people economically then it made sense they would stick with the party that championed other values that were important to them, namely religion or gun-control.

Not that bad of a statement when its explained properly, hm?

I agree, no one really will know what the voters do. Thats why we have the primaries. If we knew, the DNC could just pick a candidate.

That being said, I think it is just plain ridiculous for the losing candidate in a race point out how weak her opponent is. Logically following that leads us to the conclusion that she is even weaker.