vote for hillary. thousands of racists can’t be wrong
by Vincent Rooley
Published: May 14, 2008
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton pummeled Barck Obama in the West Virginian primary. In an interview with the L.A. Times, speaking of the Clintons, West Virginian garbage truck driver Dorsey Claypool explains why he voted for Hillary:”They always helped me every time I needed something. They are good people.” When asked about Obama by the Times reporter, Claypool stated that he didn’t vote for him because he was black.
So which is it, sir? Are you backing Hillary because she’s there with a 20 spot every time you need her, or is it because her opponent is a scary black man?
No need to respond Mr. Claypool, the answer is obvious. The West Virginian electorate that voted for Hillary by an overwhelming 67% had three major components: they were white, aged and not well off. So while her friends concede defeat on her behalf (see statements by Roy Romer) Hillary retreats to the last bastion of political support willing to stand by her in her darkest hour - rednecks.
In a further act of desperation, Clinton pointed out that in the last 100 years no Democrat has won the presidency while failing to win in West Virginia. Though that may be true (see statements regarding sniper fire), an even stronger predictor of victory is the fact that no Democrat has won the presidency while failing to win the Democratic nomination. And you Mrs. Clinton, despite your benevolence to garbage men everywhere, are not going to win the Democratic nomination.
Undaunted, Clinton clings to a quickly deteriorating shot at the White House by drawing illogical parallels with former heroes of the Democratic Party. In her most recent “misstatement,” made after the decisive West Virginian victory, she attempts to connect her victory with the one Kennedy made in the same state 48 years ago. However, Kennedy’s win in West Virginia in 1960 put enough electorates in his corner to ensure that the nomination would NOT be decided by superdelegates; Hillary is attempting to make the opposite argument. Though the attempt at a comparison is understandable, given her tenuous position, it is also a sign of complete desperation.
Hillary has failed to win the delegate count and is now trailing in the superdelegate count. Her claim to legitimacy through a warped connection with the Kennedy legacy in no way proves that she should win the nomination, but it does prove one thing - Hillary Clinton is, in fact, Bill’s soul mate.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(6)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Brilliant. Hillary’s a loser.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:08 am
It’s affirmative action campaigning: do you want to be a racist, and vote for Hillary, or be a sexist and vote for Obama?
Who is that better victim, that’s what matters when choosing a leader!
May 15th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Wow, just because one racist supports Hillary, all of us Hillary supporters must be racist.
Of course, I’m a minority whose been subject to racism before in my life. But since I support Hillary, I guess I’m a racist, too.
It couldn’t be the fact that West Virginia is more conservative, and Obama’s the most far left, liberal senators there is? It must be a state full of racists that Obama didn’t win.
Wow, I’m really considering voting for McCain.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:48 am
While it’s definately a cheep shot yes, I guess when you think about it, that’s not a whole lot worse than Bill Clinton basically saying Obama only dominated South Carolina because of the black vote.
You do have to admit though it seems pretty sad that 22% of Clinton supporters in that state sited race as a determining factor. It obviously doesn’t mean only racists support Clinton, but it does kind of marginalize that victory a little bit.
If you polled Obama supports in any state do you really think 22% would list sex as a determining factor in who they voted for?