Les larmes d'Hillary apportent de beaux sourires!

Rappel du premier message :

Sans minimiser la victoire d'Hillary je suis encore persuadé qu'elle doit prouver beaucoup de chose avant d'enraigner Obama sur la carte.

Certes, cette victoire va lancer sa campagne et l'inevitabilité va ressugir.
Mais si Obama, continue de profiter sur les negatifs elle a encore un très grand defi a pulveriser.

Pourquoi?
1- Je savais que les sondages etaient piégés
2- Sa victoire est quand meme tres courte.
3- Je pense que c'est John McCain qui a battu Obama pour Clinton.
Car la victoire de Obama residait dans le partage du vote des
independants, et John McCain a qui devrait partagé ce gateau
a gagné le gros lot sur Obama.

Je pense que la course est encore ouverte bien qu'après cette victoire Hillary aura le dessus.

What's up doc?I wrote :When I said France has more black people than Holland I was taking into account the people of the colonies outside the metropolis.

You wrote :'Holland does not have more black citizens than france.

" why? it is because where the numeric threat is absent, the stereotype of black man's mascunility is highly valued. that is the reason that in a white majority town, a black man is more likely to be elected for a leadership position than in a more diverse town. in that white majority town, the numeric threat of competittion is absent, and as a result, the stereotypical mascunility of black men is highly valued. that is the reason that Switzerland is more likely to elect black legislators than france eventhough france has way more blacks than switzerland."

Do I have to say more doc?How come they didn't value these young men in the High School in Louisiana where they put a rope on the three to remind them what their sentence will be if they contunue to seat under that tree?Do you remember the Jeena young men?

louisiana is very diverse, in the absence of education and a very bad economy, race relations worsen. when economy is bad, ethnic differences are pronounced.
when people are not very educated, race relations worsen.
your sarcasm is unwarranted!!!!
let's forget about it!!!!!

i have said mainland holland, not the dutch empire!!!
netherlands is to britain as holland is to england.

the fairy tale is very simple: it is the unconditional idolization of the clintons among black people. in the clinton admistration, there was not even one black person with a respectable position.
to them obama has no substance!!! a man left ivy league, and went outside his comfortzone and dwelt in urban chicago, and developped leadership centers, but to the blind and bamboozled, he has no substance; but one woman joined a prestigious law firm to defend wealthy clients has plenty of substance. she did not do anything outside her comfortzone, no peacecorps, no military, no grassroots, no community service, but she has a lot substance. the fairy tale here is with the clintons if somebody bothers to look at the facts.

First of all I don't want you to think that I am against Obma.I said before if I had the authority I would elect Obama President of the United States, not because he is black ,but because he is more likely to change the foreign and domestic policies of the United States .

Our divergences are rooted in your denial of the race factor in a presidential election in the United Satates at a moment when a sport commentator in South Carolina jockingly said: " young golfers should lynch Tiger Wood in a black alley."

Moreover, you wrote: in a state or in a country where the numeric threat is absent a black man has a better chance to be elected which didn't materialize in a homogeneous state like New Hampshire.

I just heard Senator Kerry pleads the case of Senator Obama as the candidate of changes.I agree with him.My only fear is his electability.As many blacks in this country I am afraid by chossing Obama the democratic party will loose the election,and you can not convince me that my fear is unreasonable.

sans malice, according to the electoral rules of new hampshire, a two-point gap is a contestable election. Obama could have contested the results if he wanted to. imagine, the polls showing hillary leading by about 9 points in a state and ending up losing by two points. what do you think would have happened?
the fairy tale here as i have said is with the clintons for god's sake.
a man went on tv and played saxophone on a show hosted by arsenio hall, next thing you know he is dubbed the first black president.
but the so-called first black president spent no time to send american soldiers to save white albanians, but sent no soldiers to save black rawdans. at least, bush senior sent american marines in operations restore hope with the united nations in somalia. bush senior must have thought that american lives can be sacrificed for poor black folks. but our so-called first black president apparently did not think so.

i do not downplay racism, i am simply showing that sexism is also a problem particularly at the very top.
obama is the only democratic candidate that has been consistently shown to beat mccain in hypothetical match-ups.

the republicans are playing reverse psychology!!!!
what they really want is hillary because they know with her they have a good chance of retaining the white house.

'Obama is the only democratic candidate who has been consistenly shown to beat Mc Cain in HYPOTHETICAL match-ups.'

The key word in your statement is HYPOTHETICAL.I hope these HYPOTHETICAL march-ups are not as frivolous or misleading as the predictions of New Hampshire.I am going to cite a young female journalist :"As Barack Obama left the stage ,the music played Stevie Wonder singing:"Signed,Sealed and delivered"Nothing is signed ,sealed and delivered in this one.This is the music of freedom.It's noisy and unpredictable,but it's also joyous and energizing."Susan Estrich.

Let us not be so divided during the primaries that we forget about the true enemy."Barack Obama is a better candidate ,and he will be a better nominee if that is what he ultimately is for having to beat Hillary in a real race,and not one limited to a few early states .He has to give substance to the change he is promising ,give credence to the claim of experience he has offered."

everything prior to the actual voting itself is hypothetical. so the leads that clinton has over obama is some states are also hypothetical. you can't just pick and choose. the results in new hampshire can be effectively explained without using the race card.
obama was a professor of constitutional law, a community organizer, an influential state legislator in the fifth largest economy in the union that is Illinois. he did not have to go to urban chicago because that was out of his comfortable upbringing. he did just that and that is substance. he was editor of the harvard law review. when combined all of these experiences together, one gets substance, both intellectual and social. one of his well-regarded essays at columbia was about foreign policy. he writes his own tax reform bills, and lectured about them in conferences. he is the only candidate who does not take money from lobbyists but still manages to raise substantial amount of money.

remember the harsh criticism that clinton had for obama when obama asserted that if he had actionable intelligence, and that pakistan would not act against al-quaida, he would act militarily in the tribal areas of pakistan to get rid of al-quaida. by doing that, he would do what is responsible, but he would not necessarily tramp on the sovereignty of pakistan because he conditioned his actions on the hypothetical passivity of pakistan itself. in contrast, clinton demanded that the united states nations take over the investigation into the assassination of bhutto. by doing that, clinton interferes with the internal affairs of an independent country, and also undermines an american ally and in the process boosts islamic fundamentalists that want a destabilized pakistan in order to take over.
now, which of these two statements is a foreign policy blunder? but no one in media talks about these differences, but people are still claiming that the media is favoring obama.
please give me a break!!!
the media spent almost two weeks talking about obama's statement, but makes no analysis of clinton's foreign policy blunder.

also, the tribal areas are quite autonomous. pakistan itself has a hard time exercizing its authority there. so obama's statements when viewed in its wider context is no blunder.

i am not for obama because he is black. genetically speaking and culturally speaking he does not have that much in common with me. i grew up with black parents, and he grew up with white grand-parents.
he is not a descendant of slaves, his partial blackness comes from east africa, not west africa where my ancestors have come from. his black ancestors are nilolitic, and mine were bantu. I could care less about his partial african ancestry.
i support him because he is honest, he does what he says he was going to do. he also has the experiences contrary to what people assume. in the senate, he has been able to branch out to colleagues from other parties. that is a huge asset in politics since compromises are key to success.
he does not try to twist the truths as many people have done in politics. he also has no skeletons in his closet.

To some extent what you said is true.In regard to Senator Clinton's statement for a United nations investigation of the assassination of Mrs Buttho which you find derogatory to the Pakistan government;I object for Musharafat himself asked for the same thing.

I do not question Senator Obama's experience;my hesitation stems from the racism that exists in this country whether you want to admit or not.I think that Hillary,despite the sexism that is also prevalent in american society ,has a better chance particularly if women support her candidacy.

In regard to Bill Clinton's statement of a fairy tale,we must analyze it in the context he said it.He was frustrated with the press questionning his wife and ignoring Mr Obama's statement during his speech to the national democratic convention in regard to the intervention of the troops in Iraq.Although I disagree with Senator Clinton for her approval of the war ,as I said previously ,for anybody with integrity and courage should have objected to the invasion of a sovereign country without an attack on the United States by the Iraquis.The notion that Saddham Hussein was a dictator and he possesses nuclear weapons are not valid enough to invade a country because if this were the case mr bush should have invaded Russia,China, North Corea also which are greater threats to the United States.Did Senator Obama show his disapproval of the invasion of Iraq in the Senate?I do not remember ;only President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Gore have the courage to make public statement about their disapproval.So to say that Senator Obama doesn't try to twist the truth as many other people do is a little infantile for all politicians do.I sincerly wish that I could endorse Senator Obama's candidacy without hesitation ,but to do so solely on the basis of color is ludicrous.