Okay, I promise this will today’s last post about Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for the 2008 presidential election. But before I go, where are Hillary’s endorsements? Where are the superdelegates who are pledging their support to her? Hello?!?!?!?!?!?
Blogger’s note: Yeah … I’m feelin’ it today. This entry follows an earlier entry in which I chided West Virginians and others who support Hillary Clinton. Being mad isn’t going to help. And the following certainly won’t help. 
Yes, I’m gloating.
Have you ever been playing a game against someone and beating him so badly that the outcome held no interest to you outside of, perhaps, the sadistic pleasure derived from knowing that your opponent was being crushed? That’s about where I am with Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton and her supporters. But not quite.
Even after Clinton’s romp in West Virginia, all of the metrics that matter point to her decisive loss in the race to win the nomination to run for president. That’s aside from John Edwards’ forthcoming endorsement of Barack Obama.
Serious question to her supporters, some of whom read the entries here and vent about them elsewhere: Do you really believe Clinton has a chance to beat Obama now? If you do, is it because of the substance of her platform or your disdain for Obama and his supporters?
Those of you who say you won’t vote for Obama this fall had better not be the same ones who are complaining about conditions as they are currently. If the opposite is true, be still your tongues and your fingers as you take your medicine now and in the future.
The clip below has made the rounds already:
But the one below??? I am literally in tears!
… BUT it is true that they tend to be less educated than Barack Obama supporters. This came to bear last night in West Virginia, a state with a 95 percent white and largely uneducated electorate who handed Hillary Clinton a symbolic if not lopsided victory.
Drowned out by Clinton’s incredible crowing and the pundits who are calling the exit poll results a warning sign for Obama is this question: What does it say that Clinton plays so well among people who don’t have degrees and don’t earn much money?
According to an article on MSNBC.com:
Interviews with West Virginians leaving their polling places suggested Clinton’s victory could be as overwhelming as any she has gained to date, delivered by an electorate that was 95 percent white and was composed of the kinds of voters who favored her in past primaries. Nearly a quarter were 60 or older, and a similar number had no education beyond high school. More than half were in families with incomes of $50,000 or less.
Also:
Three-fourths of whites without college degrees were backing Clinton. They’ve favored the former first lady all year and were crucial Tuesday because they were nearly two-thirds of the state’s voters.
These are the people who going to elect the next president of the United States? According to Clinton, yes. If the current president is any indication, she’s right.
That’s a problem, and not just for Obama. It’s a problem for everyone who doesn’t want a third term for President Bush in the form of John McCain. Clinton, to her discredit, has exploited the politics of bigotry to her advantage.
Though he would never say as much explicitly, Obama understands why he wasn’t supposed to win West Virginia. He has an unnervingly keen appreciation of the sensibilities of uneducated, disaffected whites who, with their deeply ingrained prejudices, can’t bring themselves to accept the idea of a black man as president of the United States–even if there’s little substantive difference between his and Clinton’s platform, and even if the alternative to Obama is a man who has pledged to continue treating America like an infant treats a diaper.
In most contexts outside of coal mining and perhaps college athletics, West Virginia would be an afterthought. Unfortunately, Obama needs states like West Virginia, which was at one time a safe bet for Democrats, if he is to have any chance of beating John McCain.
I find interesting the absence of an in-depth analysis of education levels among blacks who support Clinton or Obama. Being left to guess, I’d reckon that most blacks who support Clinton have at least some college education, but that a greater number of black Obama supporters are at least college graduates. This isn’t to say that book sense, which can’t be measured accurately by a college degree, delineates the two sides.
But I don’t believe that discerning blacks who have an understanding of the machinations of politics were swept off of their feet by the Bill Clinton (and by extension Hillary) loves black people hysteria that blew through the African American community during and after his presidency.
They understand that for whatever similarities President Clinton shares with blacks who were raised by poor, single mothers, he was not and is not a ‘brotha.’ They understand that it isn’t the president’s job to help black people or any single group of people, but to be a good steward of the union. They also harbour the often wordless knowledge that it isn’t just important to have a qualified black man as president of the United States and leader of the free world. It’s time.
There are discerning blacks who support Hillary Clinton, but for the life of me I can’t understand why. And they’ve yet to articulate their reasons outside of whingeing and invective. How fitting.
My life is punctuated by WTF? moments, one of which I experienced earlier today after reading the following headline on MSNBC.com: 28 million women face unwanted pregnancy.
28 million women ‘face’ unwanted(?) pregnancy. How? According to the article, a study by the Guttmacher Institute in New York found that one in four women is very likely to become pregnant because of inconsistent contraceptive use.
By my calculus, inconsistent contraceptive use + sexual activity ≠ unwanted pregnancy. It can’t, especially if the woman in question is able to appreciate the consequences of her actions.
But according to the article:
Some of this gap is due to lack of access to health care, with many women saying they cannot afford some of the more effective methods of contraception such as birth control pills that require a doctor’s visit and prescription.
“It is critical to have a better understanding of what is preventing women from using contraception consistently and correctly, or even at all,” Dr. Jennifer Frost, a senior research associate at Guttmacher, said in statement.
Ah … the tired, er um tried and true ‘lack of access’ platform has been expanded to address the effectiveness of contraceptives. I fully expect global warming to be listed as a culprit for unwanted pregnancies within the next few years.
In the here and now I’m interested in knowing what’s preventing women, particularly the ones who Dr. Frost referred to, from choosing abstinence. A truth that liberals are loath to admit and one that conservatives are afraid to state publicly is that if a woman can’t afford birth control pills that require a doctor’s visit and prescription, she can’t afford to have sex. Why? Because she can’t afford to have a child. It’s that simple, blame reapportioning and sociopolitical ideology notwithstanding.
More complicated, for me at least, is coming to grips with this:
The researchers also found that many women who are lax about birth control are simply ambivalent about preventing a pregnancy and confessed that they would be very pleased if they found out they were pregnant.
Aside from the confusion caused by figuring out if a woman who’s ambivalent about preventing a pregnancy can be said to have an unwanted pregnancy, reading ‘lax’ and ‘birth control’ in the same sentence is enough to cause me acute erectile dysfunction. How many women who say they don’t want to be pregnant would be very pleased if they found out they were? Just wow.
Women and men who can’t or don’t want to deal with all that goes along with bringing a child into the world should be mindful of their feelings prior to doing so. Unwanted only counts before the fact.
In March of last year I wrote about Mary Smith, a homeless woman from Chicago’s South Side who was charged with murder and aggravated arson after she started an apartment fire that killed four people.
Today she was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Smith’s family is reported to be distraught and the victims’ families declined comment. Apart from the obvious, this story is unsettling because it exists in the murky space between right and wrong and provides no closure to any of the parties involved.
Having established once and for all that Kobe Bryant is the best offensive player ever, it’s time to move on to a certain overrated Eastern Conference player who’s crown is looking more like a tiara.
LeBron Raymone James, known to many as King James, is a fraud.
It isn’t just that Boston is up 2-0. And yeah, I know LeFraud doesn’t have much help in Cleveland. But his offensive output during this series has been practically nil.
And by the way … Kobe Bryant has NEVER been sonned like the Celtics are sonning James. Not by Bruce Bowen. Not by Raja Bell. Not by anyone. Not by any team. Ever.
We are witnesses.
According to The Swamp, more superdelegates are pledging their support for Barack Obama.
The silver lining for Hillary Clinton is that she can wrap up filming “Saw V: The End Game” in time for a Labor Day ‘08 release.
Memo to Clinton supporters: Your girl is fresh out of options. Or hope.
Hello?
Unilever, the maker of Dove skin care products, and Ogilvy & Mather (Ogilvy), an international advertising, public relations and marketing shop, have some ’splainin’ to do.
You may have heard or seen an ad about Dove’s Campaign For Real Beauty, a marketing initiative-cum-global effort to celebrate the beauty of women who don’t look like supermodels and boost the self-esteem of girls who jeopardise their health to look like them. How’s that for cool? Women and girls get to feel better about their lowly, ordinary selves and Dove gets to be the hero. CHING!!!
As part of Dove’s campaign, which it created in partnership with Ogilvy, women of different ages and races are shown in all of their imperfect glory wearing only their underwear.
Well, not quite. It turns out that the photos of these ‘real’ beauties were airbrushed to make them look a little less, well, real.
Pascal Dangin, a renowned airbrush artist, said in a profile appearing in the May 12 issue of The New Yorker that he retouched the photos to hide the imperfections of the women who appeared in them.
“Do you know how much retouching was on that?” Dangin asked, mockingly I would guess. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.”
Basically, dude was like, ‘Y’all thought that was real? Nah. Them broads wasn’t really no model birds or nothin’ like that but, you know, we hit ‘em with a little Photoshop action and it was love, nahmean?’
Dangin’s honesty is unintentionally humourous and sad, but the actual co-worst persons in the world (big shout to Keith Olbermann) are Dove and Ogilvy.
Women are deluged by images of waifs who don’t need to be airbrushed to look unreal, but a large, multinational company actually wants to celebrate the non-Liya Kebedes and Heidi Klums of the world? Sure, as long as they don’t look too real.