Tuesday, May 20, 2008


Only one thing matters; winning the Presidency in November. Hillary Clinton has proven she is by far the strongest candidate an most likely to achieve that victory.

How can she convince the Democratic Party delegates?

Clinton ran away with the contest partly by capitalizing on the state's nearly all-white population.

Whites without college degrees were nine in 10 voters, according to early results from exit polls Tuesday, more than any other state that has voted. Among them, about three-fourths were supporting the New York senator, one of her best performances of the year.

Half said they believed the Illinois senator shared Wright's view a lot or somewhat. Eight in 10 of them backed Clinton.

Racial attitudes also came into play, and favorably for Clinton. About one in five whites said race influenced their choice of a candidate, one of the highest proportions who have said so in states that have voted thus far.

Of them, about nine in 10 were backing Clinton, roughly matching the high set by several other Southern states.

Overall, Hillary was running strong across virtually all types of voters. She even led among many groups that Obama typically wins, including men, whites under age 30, college graduates, independents and the very liberal.

She was also dominating, as usual, among whites and women.

We think Democrats do have questions about whether or not Obama is going to be able to reach out and successfully win over the kind of blue collar voters that Democrats need to win in November if he is the nominee.

Obama stated on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Clinton is " somebody who can appeal to working people, people who have real concerns about this economy.

That's a definite "red flag" for the Obama's campaign!

Freedom Of Speech would like to say:

It is quite obvious that Sen. Obama has a problem connecting with blue collar white workers and older white Americans. In other words, a large percentage of the Democratic Party base.

Obama has not been able to gain a foothold in the base except for African Americans.

When you ask someone who is favoring Sen. Obama why [and we have], you only get the answer "change."

They want change but these people have no understanding of the issues and what he stands for.

Change to what, for what and where are questions that Obama supporters can't even seem to answer.

He doesn't have to answer hard hitting questions; he only has to smile and switch the subject to "change," just change. We wonder "where's the beef?"

To state that race or gender has not been a factor in these Primaries, and will play a key factor in the upcoming General Election in November is delusional!

It has been an issue for 15 month's now.

So for Obama or any other African American to say this election is not about race or gender is ridiculous!

Can you believe that for approximately 50 years we have passed laws supporting desegregation, affirmative action, equal opportunities, and racial tolerance, while the African American churches have been preaching racial paranoia and anti-American sermons?

Americans pride themselves on their church attendance and worship of God, but what kind of a God are they worshiping when their pastors preach inflammatory racist sermons against the whites within their society.

We really do not think Senator Obama gets it. For someone who claims they will be a uniter, he's having a very serious time connecting.

No matter how hard you try to forget Wright, Ayers, Renzko and "bitter", there's little else to his history!

Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days?

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate.

That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.

In contrast, John McCain 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seems more impressive than ever.

It should be clear to everyone by now Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief campaign strategist showed us that Senator Barack Obama " can't win the general election."

Do the math!

Swing State Electoral College vote allocation:

Obama - 43
Clinton - 99

The numbers never lie Democrats!

By a majority of more than 2 to 1 in Electoral College strength, the Democratic voters of the Swing States prefer Hillary Clinton.

Elections are based on numbers and Obama won't be able to produce the numbers in critical swing states.

Many arguments have been advanced about how to settle the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama argues that winning the majority of pledged delegates should decide the race - but he is wrong. Clinton argues that perhaps the total popular vote should decide the issues - but that is wrong. Earnest people are calling for immediate reinstatement of the primary delegations from Florida and Michigan, saying that is the key - but they are wrong.

Hillary knows all that really matters is electability!

This nomination will be settled by a few super delegates, most of whom are allied with Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Sometime between now and the end of June, those three and their allies will make the decision that all of the primary elections and caucuses could not resolve.

They will base their conclusions on one factor and one only we are told; which of the two candidates is best equipped to beat John McCain. How should they reach that decision?

Not even the primary delegate totals are an accurate indicator of a candidate's strength in the general election. Caucuses are an inaccurate reflection of voter turnout for ballot election.

The states where Democrats will have to go to win the White House are those so called Swing States - PA, OH, FL, MI, MN, WI, CO, IA, NM, NV, and NH - have 142 Electors; Democrats must make a strong showing to seize the 87/55 advantage they will need.

Fortunately, the Democratic Party has already asked that question of the people mostly to know the answer - the Democratic voters of those self-same Swing States. There have already been elections or caucuses in PA, OH, MN, WI, CO, IA, NM, OR, NV, and NH. The primary elections held in Fl and MI were clearly in Clinton's favor, and the scheduling conflict with Rules & Bylaws over seating delegates has no bearing on evaluating the opinion of the voters; she won both contests handily.

Clearly, the voters of solidly Blue States agree with voters in the Swing States, overwhelmingly preferring Clinton as the Democratic nominee. While these states should stay in the Democratic column, it only makes sense to run the candidate who has shown the ability to win them - especially when they are the same candidate who so handily wins the Swing State group.

It cannot be that anyone rational would expect the Democratic Party to nominate a candidate whose support is based on primary results from states that are unlikely to deliver Electoral College votes in November!