Hillary wins in Pennsyvania and Obama and his supporters whine in return. She won because middle class whites are racist, or so they would have you believe. They see no racism in the fact that Obama garnered upwards of 90% of the black vote. Nope, that's just the result of good campaigning.
Is there a problem with Obama getting such high percentages of AA voters? Not at all because every ethnic group votes for their own when the first candidate comes along who has a chance to win the election, any election.The Irish voted overwhelmingly for their first viable candidate for any office as did the Poles, Jews, Italians, etc.. But there is a problem with the Obama camp explaining their loss as a result of racism.
Obama lost because he comes across as a man who talks out of both sides of his mouth. He came across as weak in the debate. Mostly, though, he and his followers come across as rude, crude and totally lacking in class, as his repeated stealth one finger salute when mentioning Hillary on the stump. One expects such foolishness from a child but a grown man?Should Hillary win in Indiana, regardless of the margin, West Virginia and Kentucky it will send a message that Obama has a problem "closing the deal" regardless of the outcome in North Carolina. Everyone needs to remember why the democrats invented super delegates in the first place. Hint: It wasn't to act as rubber stamps at the convention.
I and others have made a comparison between Obama in 2008 and McGovern in 1972. Such a comparison does not equate Obama with McGovern for George McGovern was a bona fide war hero and seasoned politician without any hint of scandal. Obama cannot claim the same. The comparison is made based on what I believe will happen should Obama be the nominee of the Democratic Party, as in 1972, 2008 will be a blowout of historic proportions with democrats once again finding themselves on the short end, the very short end, of the electoral count.
