I wasn't aware that a hidden caveman gene caused adultery.  Why is that even a part of a discussion.

Her biggest apology came in response to a question about comments by her husband, Bill Clinton, after the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily. Bill Clinton said Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina when he ran for president in 1984 and 1988, a comment many viewed as belittling Obama's success.
"I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive," Hillary Clinton said. "We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama."

"Anyone who has followed my husband's public life or my public life know very well where we have stood and what we have stood for and who we have stood with," she said, acknowledging that whoever wins the nomination will have to heal the wounds of a bruising, historic contest.
"Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee," she said.

(The banner is copylefted.)

This is just nonsense.  In the weeks leading up to the South Carolina primary - where the population is 50% black - charges of race-baiting mysteriously emerged.  At the time Clinton polled quite well among African-Americans and those racist white folks weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

So...who stands to gain when the Clintons are suggested to be disparaging African-Americans?  Certainly not Clinton.  She loses blacks and gains... the whites who would've already voted for her?

TPM looks back at an article with the views of Jesse Jackson and Geraldine Ferraro on the 2006 race between an African-American and a woman--and comes up with the snarky conclusion that "[Ferraro Was] For Reason Before She Was Against It?"

When I look back at that article from 2006--in which both Jackson and Ferraro express the idea that a woman will have it easier than an African-American in the election--I realize just how much I did not expect the openness of the progressive media and voters to sexist and misogynistic discourses, regardless of whether that discourse is overt or cloaked in Clinton Derangement Syndrome.  

Obama may be willing to alienate Clinton's voters right now because the statistical evidence suggests that Democratic women seem to stick with the party. From the featured article at Corrente that I linked to in the previous thread:

"The expansion of the gender gap is due almost entirely to changes in how men vote. Only a few more women (1.6%, comprising 0.9% of all voters) prefer Clinton when matched with McCain than when Obama is matched with McCain--women pretty much stick with the Democrat regardless of whether its Clinton or Obama."

Obviously there has been more vocal opposition from the Obama side but I feel it necessary to list both of them here at least until Florida puts forth their revote plan tomorrow and both candidates voice their opinion.

As this drama continues, polls in both Michigan and Florida show McCain beating either Clinton or Obama. The result of disenfranchising a state (or in this case two states) looks to serve up 44 electoral votes solidly into the GOP column.

One, Rasmussen points out that they both lose voters to McCain, which is why both are currently tied in GE polls.

In MS, where the turnout was about 50-50 black/white, 58% said they'd be happy if Clinton topped the ticket, compared with 69% for Obama. That actually speaks better for her. She only won 40%, so 30% (18/60) of his supporters said yes to her (assuming 100% of her own voters said yes). For him, he won 60%, so 25% (9/40) of her supporters said yes to him. Pretty divisive on both sides, really. I actually think that pretty much is what the other poll found.

As for why he said what he said about his voters (not that he should have--he shouldn't): the Dallas Morning News had a story after their primary showing that more of Obama's supporters tended to skip the rest of the ballot.  Both Senators saw their voters do this, and there really is no way to prove it was all his voters, but places where he won big had more ballots with only one race voted on.

Obama's point was that he has brought in so many people who only follow him; Clinton does have more support among those who are always Democrat. That is not a reason to deny him the nomination, at least in my mind. If he brings people out who otherwise won't vote, that is good for the party, not bad.

And of course Candice Tolliver - Obama's South Carolina press secretary - wrote up a "race memo" about Clinton but never meant for it to be leaked to the press and Obama not only didn't know about it but thought it was totally inappropriate.

You don't just get to tell, you've got to show and tell here.  You are stating arguments and leaping to conclusions with no evidence in between.  Provide quotations to support, for example, your statement that Senator Clinton "disses voters now."

As for your statements that her advisors are "stupid," "insensitive," and "arrogant," again provide evidence.  And as for your statements that you know what Senator Clinton thinks, you simply cannot support those -- so don't state them.

It's a pdf file.

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2008/03/12/15/3-12-08_Memo_to_Congressionals.source.prod_affilia te.56.pdf