In claiming victory in West Virginia last night, Hillary Clinton reiterated her last best argument as to why she should be the Democratic nominee: because only she can win in November.
Don't confuse that with what Clinton said in a debate just a few weeks ago about how she was confident that either she or her opponent could win in November.
How's that for chutzpah? She's arguing that the same person who couldn't win enough states in the spring against Barack Obama can win enough states in the fall against John McCain.
Oh grow up. Every battle for the presidential nomination there has ever been in the history of this county is at some level an argument about who is more electable in the general election. To believe otherwise displays a shocking level of ignorance and stupidity.
At least in West Virginia, Clinton chose her words more carefully than she did last week when she blurted out to USA Today that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again" and how whites who had not completed college were supporting her.
Clinton sounded less like George Washington and more like George Wallace. Imagine a presidential primary where, after more than 16 months, almost two dozen debates, hundreds of speeches, millions of dollars, and countless chicken dinners, the rationale for electing someone boils down to this: Vote for me. I'm white. I can win because other whites will vote for me.
It's funny, but for those who constantly decry "code words" at the drop of a hat, they don't mind dishing that sort of crap out themselves. That's right, Clinton's assertion that Obama is having trouble attracting support from working class voters (which is true) and white voters (which is also true), is the equivalent of George Wallace's campaign for a segregated America.
Mr. Navarette have you no shame? And, yes, I mean that with all of it's McCarthyite implications, because the idea that everyone who chooses not to support Obama is a racist, closeted or otherwise, is immoral and deeply antithetical to the premise of a democratic society.
And, let us not be coy here, that is exactly what Navarette means:
Meanwhile, some white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they're not supporting Obama.
Yes, by all means let us have an inquisition to sort out this "problem."
Some want to know why it isn't racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.
The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?
Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many -- to borrow a phrase -- "hardworking white Americans -- in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.
See, if you are white and live in Wisconsin you are deemed acceptable by the Inquisition, but if you are white and live elsewhere, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, or Rhode Island you must be a racist cracker.
God knows no one could have come to the conclusion that they don't feel like voting for one of the most liberal Senators in Congress, who offers only a thin resume and lots of empty rhetoric, for any other reason than they are racists.
There is a racist here and his name is Ruben Navarette, and don't feed me any post-modern, neo-Marxist, "post-structuralist," bullshit about how that isn't possible. Common human decency is fundamentally a question of, surprise, how we treat our fellow human beings. By that standard Mr. Navarette is decency deficient.
What is truly scary is that this type of garbage will only get worse.
Lookee here! More garbage:
Because of proximity here in Maryland we get occasional exposure to Appalachian stuff. I know it’s not nice to say but as a black man in the 21st century it isn’t exactly a region I think should be having much say about the future of America. And it isn’t.
Remember, he's talking about Democratic voters.
Who is it exactly who would like four years of this?