of idiot Obama v Clinton blather here at Salon.blow. All stupidity aside, if either one of those groups loses and frowns and takes their ball home and votes for McCain like they say they will, then you will in fact get the disaster you deserve. So buck up, shut up, sit down and admit that at the end of the day 99% of you will vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee. If you're that driven by the narrow confines of whatever you perceive to be the purest noblest form of your personal orthodox doctrine then maybe this form of government isn't the one for you. Maybe you need to live in Italy or Israel with their anarchic Parliamentary systems where there's dozens of political parties each with their own insufferable inflexible ideology. That way all the extremists get to be extremists, all the fringe single issue groups get to be that and all the governments collapse every 2 or 3 years.

Don't take my word for it. See for yourself: http://www.nclr.org/.

By the way, in your attempt to define La Raza, you said it meant "NO black." Please explain.

but this is from wiki (la raza). "La Raza (literally "The Race") is used to denote the people of Latino and the Chicano world, who share the pride of their Native American heritage. The term originated in the book La Raza Cósmica written by a Mexican writer, José Vasconcelos. He described La Raza Cosmica as the product of racial mixing over time that was already in progress in the Hispanic world. Vasconcelos believed in Supremacismin that eventually all of the people within the Spanish Empire would completely mixed into a new race that had the best attributes of all the cultures; armies of these people would then go forth around the world professing their knowledge and initiating the "universal era of humanity".
"Hispanic" as a term is used on the east coast, it refers largely to a mixture of spanish and african called mulatto in spanish.

The only balls Hillary has are George Walker Bush's, which she earned when she and the rest of the coward traitors in Congress in the Democratic Party collectively tea-bagged our President after 9/11.

How's that for sexist, Joan? Don't worry, I mean Reid and the rest of those wussy scumbags too. Its not about where Hillary's sex organs are, its about where George Bush's are (Chris Matthews can tell you, he keeps tabs).

la Raza, latinos, the mexican-spanish people that Hillary is sucking up to are typified by Dolores Huerta of the National Farm Workers Association, ("latinos will never vote for a black"). they are the northern and southern mexicans that fight the crips and bloods in california prisons and dominate speparate neighborhoods. they are enemies. East coast Hispanics *are* a mixture of black and white they live in the same neighborhoods and are more or less friends and *will* vote for Obama - but since the largest majority are puerto rican, they already *are* american citizens and don't need to emigrate.

Word of advice, arguing about race issues with Mr Sugarman, while temporarily entertaining, can become exhaustingly circular and frustrating in the long term. Caveat emptor.

I have read enough. The underlying problem here is that while many of you are prepared to praise Hillary even if her quest is Quixotic, what you do not take into account is the damage it does that you are disregarding now and hope she can find a way to play by some time later when you will have to deal with it.

The gas tax issue is not fortitude but a shameless bid to turn around her campaign. The hope seems to have been that the voters would not figure out until the next round of primaries is over on Tuesday night that her gas tax holiday gives $30 per vehicle and trades off for it thousands of jobs that will be lost out of it(even though she claims jobs are her first priority, . . .except for gas tax relief.) She asserts that she will pay for it with a windfall oil profits tax, which tax she has committed in her speeches already to use not for this but for renewable energy, and which she didn't bother to ask Congress about - they have already said they WILL NOT put it in legislation this summer any more than they will put in the windfall oil profits tax. She claims she will take OPEC to the WTO without bothering to find out that in WTO's organizational documents energy issues are specifically EXcluded, so no taking it to WTO. And she topped it off with the introduction into the WRONG house of the Menendez-Clinton bill so she could try to put every last Democrat on the line publicly as to where they stand on this. This monstrous mess she has done so she can say she has affirmative action plans to voters in IN and NC on Tuesday, even though it is dead on arrival through the very politics of which she claims she is mistress and O is ignorant. This is not fortitude, this is simply folly, the creation of a desperate issue to save her on Tuesday.

Her other follies have gotten our nation charged in the UN for the obliteration comments, as a violation of the UN charter.

Her no new tax pledge specifically includes Social Security, which leaves her and seniors everywhere with no fix for S. S. that she has identified, as if she is not really thinking about it despite her love of seniors who overwhelmingly support her, until they find out she in fact has no fix for it.

Her refusal to support the Bankruptcy code amendment while claiming she wanted relief from foreclosures, and instead producing a foreclosure moratorium proposal, is another. Amendment of the Code permits individuals to work through their own mortgages, based on the facts of their cases, and does not require vast infusions of Federal money. A moratorium would have to get through . . . gasp . . . Congress, and all those Republicans who didn't like the Bankruptcy Code amendments either and are not about to desecuritize a whole class of already issued mortgage-backed securities and destabilize financial institutions who issued them to do it. Or considered the ex post facto legal qualities of a moratorium. She can make the proposal for the moratorium without regard to its practicality, and it shows so well on the sound bite newscasts.

But the worst problem is the one raised by your dialog on why she went on Fox. The basic answer, I believe, is that she believes this is her best and most efficient and cheapest way of contacting all of those white voters who will not vote for a black President, whether they are doing it using the Wright excuse or doing it flat out as appears to be the case in many places. It is a large constituency and her courting of it is concealed in the genteel descriptions of it as "blue collar whites." Her pragmatic tendency in the past has been to abandon any constituency of her party which does not support her, which included the blue collar voters in the 90's whom she called the S word because they hadn't done anything for the Clintons. In the present instance, she cannot get the AA vote, so why not go to the other extreme? They are Democratic voters, after all. The peculiarity that she will be, is, running as the 'white' candidate in so doing in the Democratic Party matters much less to her then winning by doing it. Winning justifies all things to her, and even Joan Walsh will call it simply pragmatic or gutsy,or showing fortitude, so why not?

Walsh is so taken with the forcefulness of Clinton's presentation that she fails to consider that 'fortitude' contains within its praise the selection of an appropriate goal, usually a moral principle, for which the fortitude is called forth. Personal ambition is not such a goal in conventional morality. But that's all Clinton has. If Walsh were not so taken with the idea of a woman President, she would have thought at least twice about the actual positions for which the supposed fortitude is being put forth.