Here comes Hillary again, downplaying Obama’s weekend sweep in the primaries. Hillary explained Obama’s Louisiana win as the outcome of “a very strong and very proud African-American electorate.” I find it insulting when she suggests that Blacks only vote for Obama because of his color, not because of his policy ideas or his ability to inspire.
As for her other weekend losses, she attributed those to “a caucus system that favors ‘activists,’” saying, “they don’t represent the electorate, we know that.” I want to hear her explain her lead among ‘superdelegates’ in a system which disenfranchises millions. How will she explain Obama’s lead among white voters, which has him damn near splitting white votes with her? How will she explain California, which had 65% of Latino votes going to her?
I understand that politics is a dirty game, in which you score points by knocking your opponents down. But a simple response like “It’s an extensive race with two good candidates. You win some, you lose some” would have been sufficient. If she didn’t think Obama’s sweep was relevant, why then did she quickly replace her campaign manager with an African-American?
With Obama winning in all the places where “activists” dominate and in places where Blacks only vote for Blacks, she’s now counting on Texas. She’s ahead in the polls here, but you don’t hear anyone rationalizing that to her popularity among Latinos, do you?
