Good Riddance, Senator Clinton
The more desperate Clinton becomes, the nastier her campaign gets. The voters have been consistent; they have rejected nastiness and fear-mongering and embraced hope and change. There is no reason why voters in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island wonâ€™t do the same thing.
[Black Star News Editorial]
Tomorrow, voters in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island head to the polls.
Senator Barack Obama enjoys a slight lead in Texas, 47% to 44% and Clinton shows an edge in Ohio, 44% to 40%.
If this pattern holds, Clinton would have no net-gain in the total delegates count by Tuesday night. Obama now leads 1,202 vs. Clinton’s 1,042.
It would be as if there had been no contests in Texas and Ohio at all. There will be more pressure for Clinton to step aside in the interest of party unity.
Obama has established his margin of victory by winning a total of 26 contests so far, to Clinton’s 11.
This race should have ended weeks ago, after Obama scored his 11th victory in a row. The blame lies with the Democratic Party bigwigs, who have been nervous about telling Clinton her time is up. Had she won 11 in a row, the call for Obama to move aside would have been loud and clear.
At the beginning of February, Clinton had 105 more super delegates than Obama; these are the unelected delegates, who vote like Soviet era Politburo members. Since then, delegates have either pledged to Obama or defected from Clinton to Obama; her lead is now a mere 38 in the super delegates score.
Should Clinton refuse to bow out Wednesday, more super delegates will continue to abandon her amidst Party divisions and she would eventually have to give it up in a most undignified manner.
Judging by the way she’s run her campaign, with the ugliest and dirty tactics imaginable, Clinton isn’t modest and may have to be dragged yelling from the podium. She’s the opposite of the unifier that Barack Obama is and clearly is not suitable to be president. The nation now yearns for someone that can build bridges between different religious and ethnic groups.
People thought the Republicans had a monopoly over the politics of fear and smear? Consider some of the ugly Clinton tactics throughout this campaign:
 Early in the campaign when Senator Clinton realized that Senator Obama would be a formidable candidate, her husband Bill Clinton claimed on the Charlie Rose T.V, show that voting for Obama was like rolling a dice. The implication was that it was too risky to hand over the keys to the White House, and control over the nation’s nuclear arsenal to a Black man. In fact, Senator Clinton’s erratic behavior in recent weeks should raise doubt about her ability to remain rational during times of national crisis.
 Continuing the campaign’s strategy of maligning Obama and using smear tactics, a senior Clinton campaign official, Bill Shaheen, said since Obama had admitted to drug use in his youth, if Democrats elected Obama as the standard bearer, the Republicans might ask whether Obama had also been a drug dealer.
 A few days later, a Clinton supporter, the disgraceful former senator Bob Kerrey, now New School University president, falsely claimed Obama had attended a “secular madrassa” in Indonesia and that while he was not ready to be president, as a Black man, Obama would be able to inspire Black youth. Moreover, as a person with the middle name “Hussein,” Obama could help the country reach out to Muslims around the world.
 Heading into South Carolina, loud mouth Bill Clinton himself again played up the race card, suggesting that it wouldn’t be that surprising if Obama won there since Jesse Jackson, when he ran, had also won that state.
 In early February, Clinton enjoyed 20-point leads in both Texas and Ohio. When the polls narrowed to single digits, the Clinton campaign sent a photograph of Obama wearing traditional Somali Islamic attire, which he had briefly tried on during his 2006 visit to Kenya. It was an ugly attempt to again cast Obama as a Muslim and appeal to deep-seated anti-Islamic fears.
 With Obama ahead in Texas and about to tie Clinton in Ohio, the Clinton campaign has been running a fear-mongering ad campaign, showing children asleep, and then a phone ringing and posing the question in the background, “Who do you want to pick up the phone when it rings at 3 AM?” The commercial goes on to say that Clinton, with her vast experience, is the more suitable candidate to be Commander-in-Chief.
The more desperate Clinton becomes, the nastier her campaign gets. The voters have been consistent; they have rejected nastiness and fear-mongering and embraced hope and change.
There is no reason why voters in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island won’t do the same thing.
To comment, to subscribe to or advertise in New York’s leading Pan African weekly investigative newspaper, please call (212) 481-7745 or send a note to
Also visit out sister publications Harlem Business News www.harlembusinessnews.com and The Groove music magazine at
“Speaking Truth To Empower.”
Ann GarrisonNovember 30,2013 @ 12:14 PM
It was sexy to be against the war back then. He was probably in it to get laid.
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 09:29 PM
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 08:34 PM
penskripplJuly 14,2013 @ 07:16 PM
Pay Day Loans Uk don't require novels of paperwork. uk pay day loans are the problem? To avail...
penskripplJuly 14,2013 @ 07:16 PM
Our next question is when you are satisfied to see some modest improvements in their review of...
No Record Exist!!