Nah. Go read Shelby Steele's latest book. It will save me a lot of words.

If Hillary loses, I will vote for Obama. If Obama loses, will you vote for Hillary?

A message of objective truth to all Hillary Clinton supporters: she, by her own campaign staff's admission, has about a 10% chance of winning the nomination (link at signature).

As the inimitable Chuck Todd has exhaustively shown, she would have to win every single remaining primary by substantial margins to pull ahead in the delegate count and popular vote. This is simply not going to happen. Accordingly, she would have to convince the majority of the remaining superdelegates that she should be the nominee, in spite of Obama's having (1) the higher delegate count, (2) the higher overall popular vote, (3) the much more intense grassroots and campaign energy, (4) the proven ability to take a substantial political liability (i.e., Reverend Wright) and use it to reach higher ground and greater understanding, (5) the overwhelming support of the youth vote, the contingent that can form the basis of a Democratic majority for years to come, (6) the almost complete support of the black vote, which is the most reliable voting block of the Democratic Party, (7) better cross-partisan appeal and lower negative ratings among the population as a whole, (8) the greater ability to emotionally appeal to America in a positive way, (9) principled opposition to the War in Iraq at a time when opposition was not politically convenient, (10) the more innovative and well-funded campaign infrastructure, and so many other factors.

Barring some unseen catastrophe, the remaining superdelegates will not, I repeat will not, move to Hillary Clinton in sufficient numbers. Already, Obama has won the lion's share of newly committed superdelegates, even in light of polls that show Clinton ahead by double digits in Pennsylvania, and all of the other arguments that she has made to them. Bill Richardson, a longtime Clinton ally, former member of their administration, and subject of intense lobbying by the Clintons, has endorsed Obama unequivocally and with the message that the Democratic infighting must stop for a unified opposition to Senator McCain. The word behind the scenes is that superdelegates and other party elites, even high-ranking members of Clinton's campaign, overwhelmingly believe that Obama will, even should, receive the nomination.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters need to recognize the indelible writing on the wall and, if they won't back out and shift support for Obama, at least hold fire on the personal attacks upon him. For any Clinton supporter apparently such as yourself to continue to propagate this fraudulent, unfair, and despicable narrative against Obama regarding his former pastor is not only shameful but self-defeating.

Obama will be the nominee. The only question is how many of his wounds by the time of the general election will have been inflicted by "fellow" Democrats.

I'm guessing "not being called niggers" is up there.

Pretending that racism stopped with slavery is another I'd imagine. Giving black men syphilis is Nazi shit and that wasn't 150 years ago.

...his peers would lie in wait for him on the way to school, eager to beat him down because he was "acting white" by studying and trying to do well for himself. What is the white analog of that? Who gets beaten by white folks for acting black?

That is one reason why I think our educational priorities need serious adjustment. More emphasis and resources should be spent on the educational needs of black kids than white kids... since we already know that white kids will emulate black kids, but the reverse is far less likely.

Of course, I just made a utilitarian argument, and I really don't approve of them. The real reason we should alter our priorities is because it would be the right thing to do.

[I know, to most people that argument would sound like heresy, but in Reality, I think it would be a welcome form of reparations.]

Will I vote for Hillary if Obama doesn't win the nomination? Yes, I've always said so. These two candidates agree, primarily, on the issues, and that is what matters most for a president. Anyone who doesn't think so is a rather shallow voter.

Of course this assumes that all is fair in the process--and however the superdelegates vote, I will accept this as fair.

Message board love to you too.

I'm sorry, no hope of what exactly?

Being treated as equals and as human beings, perhaps? That they be afforded the same educational and financial opportunities most Caucasians take for granted?

That strategy doesn't seem to working out so well.

Its not a 'strategy', its an emotion. One reinforced constantly by the intellectual laziness and lack of empathy - which is truly incredible to behold sometimes - you demonstrate every time you post here.

For decades, the right has been counting on us being too polite to do so. It's time we proved them wrong. -- LarryE

Before you folks get too carried away, the race issue wasn't broached by the right, it was initiated by the Clintons. In fact the right has been hoping the subject of race was going to lie low, but the Clintons will do anything.

Sit down for this one. I've just returned from white conservative central and Easter Brunch. You'd be amazed at how many people there were talking up Obama and his speech. Now if you think a bunch of angry black people start yelling about something, that no one can do anything about (prevent slavery from happening), is productive think again.

What's more important? Being angry and apart, or conciliatory and smart? Your choice.

so the only real question is how many of the so called supporters of the candidate who happens to be black are going to help the supporters of the candidate who happens to be white do probably the only thing that can turn the race into one that the candidate who happens to be white is GUARANTEED to win.

-Interesting point.. To those of us who never stop asking "why" the rest of the population does seem to be a different subspecies.-

'Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work. In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.'

LA Times: Liberal Brain versus Conservative Brain

http://www.acreativerevolution.ca/node/241