Super Tuesday primaries in the USA, first result in

McCain and Romney in elections in the USA, cartoon

This is a cartoon from Internet Weekly in the USA, about Republican presidential candidates McCain and Romney.

By the way, the first Republican victor of Super Tuesday was neither of these two, but Mike Huckabee in West Virginia who won all delegates there.

The Super Tuesday primary election results for Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are coming in now.

Mitt Romney Lies About Vietnam: here.

Evangelical voters: here.

Clinton, Obama, and Cluster Bombs: here.

‘If Barack Obama is prevented from becoming the Democrat’s candidate for president it will be because the US is a deeply racist society’: here.

Clinton’s Latino Advantage Decreases, Obama Surges as Latinos Vote Beyond Black and White: here.

Race, Gender, Hip-hop, and the Politics of Hope: here.

Anti-War Candidates Are Top Recipients Of ‘08 Donations From U.S. Troops: here.

6 thoughts on “Super Tuesday primaries in the USA, first result in

  1. ‘If Barack Obama is prevented from becoming the Democrat’s candidate for president it will be because the US is a deeply racist society

    You are right–Barack Obama is a man for his times–all production and no substance. I am going to vote for him just because he is black, to make sure I am not a racist. I mean genetically he is only 50% Black, but the important thing is the color of his skin, not his genetic make up. So, everyone, vote for him, he has Black skin, and if you do not vote for him it just proves you won’t vote for a man because you don’t like his skin color. I mean, since 85% of Blacks voted for him in South Carolina, they are smart, because they know the important thing is he is Black also, and a white person, I mean a person with white skin, since genetically Barack is as white as black, but the important thing here is skin color, Dr. King never understood this, well, the blacks in South Carolina know the important thing is to vote for him because of his skin color to prove you are not a racist. All white people should vote for him to to prove they are not racists. And if something happens to Obama, we should put any Black man in, I mean a man with black skin even if he is 75% white European genetically, because the important thing is skin color. Then we can have a truly politically correct bankrupt nation.


  2. You’re an administrator? I know, logic doesn’t count here. Do you know the difference between angry and sarcastic? I’m so impressed you know who Alighieri was, that proves you are an intellectual. You think he was a better writer, really? What my sarcasm is meant to show is just how silly her logic is. Can you find a fallacy with mine? Oh, wait, this is liberalism, where making unfounded statements and rolling your eyes is the coup de grace.


  3. Re: comment#3:

    Jane Wilding: “In last month�s primaries in South Carolina and Florida, Obama secured up to 76 percent of the black vote, but as little as 10 percent of the white vote.” In comment #1, that “up to 76 percent” suddenly becomes “85% of Blacks” voting for Obama. Even an “up to 76 percent” majority for Obama, in a way, was surprising, as most well known African American leaders in those states supported the Hillary Clinton campaign (her husband being popularly known as the “first Black president” etc.) Obama also is not specifically campaigning as an African American candidate. Nevertheless, people in the media and in the Clinton campaign, played anti African American and anti Muslim cards; including the nonsensical Obama=Osama [bin Laden] smear; while Obama is a Christian; etc. *That*, no fault of Obama, had a polarizing influence on both black and white Southern voters. By the way, I am not an Obama voter myself; I just don’t like bigotry.

    By the way, “Dante”, if, as you say, you hate “liberals” so much, then why are you not in Iraq as a soldier; like pro Bush liberal-hating Republican gay bashing gay prostitutes Matt Sanchez (his real name) and “Jeff Gannon” (not his real name)? Err… they are not in Iraq either …


  4. Published: 02.06.2008

    Navarrette: Color Clinton strategy unsavory

    Having polarized blacks and whites, the Democratic primary campaign was already becoming sleazy.
    And now that Latinos have been added to the mix, it’s become surreal.
    We’re being told that Latinos won’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s black. The implication is that Latinos are racist.
    Sergio Bendixen, a Latino who conducts polls for Hillary Clinton, suggested during an interview with Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker that “the Hispanic voter – and I want to say this very carefully – has not shown a lot of willingness to support black candidates.”
    John B. Judis, writing in The New Republic, insisted that Latino voters could be a firewall for Hillary Clinton in part because of “a legacy of an older Latin American prejudice against blacks that has been transplanted to this country.”
    And, in The New York Times, Adam Nagourney and Jennifer Steinhauer cited “a history of often uneasy and competitive relations between blacks and Hispanics, particularly as they have jockeyed for influence in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York.”
    Nagourney and Steinhauer neglected to mention that each of those cities have, in the past, elected black mayors who captured the majority of the Latino vote.
    It’s true that in most polls, Hillary Clinton has a 2-1 advantage with Latino voters over Barack Obama.
    But does the Eastern media really expect us to buy the idea that the 44 million people who make up America’s largest minority have a beef with African-Americans?
    Does that include the Latinos who backed Obama in his campaigns in Illinois, and those who now support his presidential campaign?
    If anything, Latinos – especially those whose families have been in this country for generations – tend to have a keen understanding of racism, which makes them more likely to identify with the plight of African-Americans.
    Next thing you know, pundits are going to tell us that Latinos are too macho to elect a woman president.
    There are plenty of reasons why Latinos might support Hillary Clinton.
    Her husband won two national elections in which he earned more than 60 percent of the Latino vote. She has racked up scores of endorsements from prominent Latino officials, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
    Not that there isn’t racism in this election. That’s the surreal part. There certainly is. But none of it involves Latinos. Rather, it’s the kind that has been the most prevalent in U.S. history – whites versus blacks.
    Things got really nasty in South Carolina, where former President Bill Clinton dealt a whole deck of race cards before – and even after – the vote. And yet Obama cruised to victory with more than 80 percent of black support and nearly a quarter of the white vote.
    This despite the ex-president’s despicable efforts to scare off Obama’s white supporters by trying to define the Illinois senator solely by race.
    Recently a top adviser to the Clinton campaign acknowledged to a reporter from The Associated Press that the campaign’s objective is to define Obama as “the black candidate.”
    And so, Bill Clinton tried to portray Obama as someone who draws his support almost exclusively from African-Americans and speculated that South Carolinians would vote along racial lines.
    After the votes were cast, he took one last shot by comparing Obama’s victory to those enjoyed in South Carolina by Jesse Jackson during his 1984 and 1988 presidential bids.
    Hurricane Bill couldn’t have done more damage to his wife’s campaign if he had tried. Wait. Maybe he did.
    Maybe the plan was to write off South Carolina, knowing that black voters would turn out overwhelmingly for Obama. Then Hillary comes off as a victim of identity politics, and white and Latino voters become more sympathetic to her in future primaries.
    An African-American friend suggested to me recently that the Clinton campaign might be willing to swap black voters for Latinos. The Clintons could be counting on Latino voters to make up the votes they’re losing from African-Americans. It’s possible.
    In 1968, Richard Nixon embraced a Southern strategy that used the race issue to carve up the electorate and scare up support from white voters. Republicans turned to the strategy time and again until the South was largely in their hands.
    Well, with primaries or caucuses in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and California this week, this could be the Clintons’ Southwestern strategy – an elaborate racial bank shot just as divisive and unsavory as its predecessor.
    Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a columnist and editorial board member of The San Diego Union-Tribune. E-mail:


  5. James Baldwin, during the Vietnam war:

    ‘Let us attempt to face the fact that we are a racist society, racist to the very marrow, and we are fighting a racist war. No black man in chains in his own country, and watching the many deaths occurring around him every day, believes for the moment that America cares anything at all about the freedom of Asia. My own condition, as a black man in America, tells me what Americans really feel and really want, and tells me who they really are. And, therefore, every bombed village is my home town.’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.