Web Watch: Tim Russert says what?

Tim Russert is corporate media that is out of control. This is corporate media interfering in, subverting, and sabotaging the Democratic nomination process.

If Sen. Clinton is forced to quit, there is no doubt Obama will crash and burn in November and the Democratic Party will be a train wreck - just like it was with radical left wing liberal George McGovern who lost every single state except one state in the general election.

The black racism in the North Carolina win cannot triumph over the nomination process. The Indiana win of a mere 9 counties by Obama out of more than 100 counties cannot triumph over the nomination process. Florida and Michigan must be counted; the remaining states must vote; and the superdelegates must use their independent judgment to select the best qualified candidate for the presidency and that is Hillary Clinton. For the good of the Democratic Party, Sen. Clinton’s fight for the future of America must continue full speed ahead. Rational Democrats need to step up to the plate and make frequent contributions to the Hillary Clinton campaign at hillaryclinton.com.

crat3,

What black racism are you speaking about?

The facts are, no matter how hard for some to accept is that people of ALL racial nationalities who are going to vote Democrat in the general election prefer Obama. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than we think Obama is the better person.

Tim Rissert out of control for calling it as it is?

People do hate the truth don’t they. If Obama had cheated, schemed, and acted unethical in any way to gain his lead, then I could understand Hillary and her followers having a hard time swallowing the pill of such defeat. But, this was not the case.

The rules must be followed and it was well known beforehand that these states would not be counted. If the people in those two states had a problem with the decision concerning Florida and Michigan, it should have been voiced by them at the time the decision was being made that their votes would not be counted, NOT WHEN HILLARY AND HER CAMP DECIDE THAT HILLARY NOW NEED THOSE VOTES AND DELEGATES.

Are you guys really that densed? Obama did not even campaign in Florida, but Hillary did. Obama’s name was not even on the ballot in Michigan, but Hillary’s was. You guys must get real here, you are making Democrats look very, very bad and foolish. By, the way I’m an Independant and have been my entire life and I find certain elements of people in both parties, Republican and Democrat alike absolutely repulsive.

I agree that Hillary should be allowed to continue in the process, afterall it is a democratic process. If she feel like using her millions of dollars, I think over 11 million dollars so far of her own money? Very scary, and I think is pretty stupid, but we know Hillary and Bill Clinton are not stupiud, obviously it would be worth every million to them if they were back in the White House, why, what’s the real reason?

crat3’s rant that all counties are equal, and that since Obama only took nine counties somehow he can’t be the nominee shows a few things: (1) this person is clueless about simple geography and (2) the Clinton supporters are hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Romney was able to see the writing on the wall when the money dried up; Hillary is not, which is essentially what Russert said. When Hillary gets over her view that the nomination is somehow her birthright and entitlement, this world will be a better place.

Having watched Russert’s comments and having read similar reports in the BBC web page, there is a lot of hedging of terms. However, unless it is Senator Clinton’s intention to force a floor fight at the Convention with all of the concomitant “blood-letting” this would entails, this race is fairly much over.

However, I for one feel that the last few primaries should be run, but that once they are over, Senators Clinton and Obama need to pull together.

I do not share the rabid “Hillary at all costs” view of others. My goal is to beat McCain, not indulge in fantasy.

Tim Russert yielded to the temptation to make the news instead of reporting it. Yawn.

The undeniable fact is that in many cases, Obama has scored his wins in states where the black population is a majority, or a large plurality, of Democratic primary voters. He has attracted over 90% of black voters, while Clinton has only received around 60% of white votes. Whether this constitutes “black racism” or “a strong preference for Obama’s message of hope and unity” is a matter of personal opinion. In fact, it is probably a combination of both.

Regardless, this does not bode well for Obama in November. There isn’t a single state in which blacks constitute a majority. And in the five blackest states, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland, Obama can’t expect to rack up the comfortable margins he’ll need to overcome losses in other states. Mississippi, George, and South Carolina, with a total of 30 electoral votes, even voted for Bob Dole in 1996. Maryland and Louisiana have a total of just 19 electoral votes. And the next 5 blackest states don’t look any better: In Alabama, North Carolina, Delaware, Virginia, and Tennessee, Dole took 36 electoral votes to Bill Clinton’s 14.

If we look at the 10 blackest states in a more competitive race, the very close race in 2000 between Bush and Kerry, it looks even worse for Obama. In the 10 blackest states, Bush outran Kerry by an electoral score of 84 to 13. And while black turnout may increase with Obama in the race, it won’t be enough to make a difference in these states, which Bush won by very comfortable margins.

So I’ll say what Hillary Clinton can’t say: You can’t get to the White House on the backs of black voters, there just aren’t enough of them. Blacks always vote Democrat, whether the candidate is black or not. With the Democrat nominee likely to be black and extremely liberal, McCain is guaranteed to sweep the south, which will make it almost impossible for Obama to win. In 1992, Clinton won Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, and Kentucky, with a total of 47 electoral votes in the south. In 1996, he lost Georgia, but picked up Florida, for a total of 59 electoral votes in the south. In 2000 and 2004, Democrats lost every state in the south, and lost the election, despite holding New England and the west coast. In 2008, Obama will do the same.

Nick,

Hillary 60% of the White vote? GET YOUR NUMBERS STRAIGHT!!

No man could win the nominee if another had 60% of the White vote.

Why do one’s like yourself find it so difficult to acknowledge or believe that people classified as White in America could dare vote and support a Bi-Racial Obama, who you can only see as Black, by the way. But, you are not along, there are many just like you, but not enought to stop Obama. I give thanks to our Heavenly Father above for so many hearts being turned away from racist non-sense.

To put it in better perspective, the entire Black population in the U.S. is only 13%.

Nick did you take into consideration also that the Hispanic vote, which lead more towards Democrat and Hillary Clinton and the fact that their population out number Blacks in the U.S.

Their registration numbers are great due to the immigration issues.

Seems to me that ones such as yourself are looking for excuses of why and how a man you consider a Black man can do so well in a Presidential campaign in America, just can’t believe it, can you. Well, I would not be able to believe it neither had it not been shown to me when early on when most thought it could never be. Obama will be the next U.S. President.

Now the only thing that will be necessray is for the people (US) to get behind Obama when he is President and put the pressure on our elected officials because he will do what is best for the people and society. As Obama saids, it will and can be done from the bottom up.