A smattering of stories from around the country...

Kind of scary when a Wall Street Journal editorial hits the nail on the head:

The Clinton Divorce

No, we don't mean Bill and Hillary. We mean the separation now under way between the Clintons and the Democratic Party. Like all divorces after lengthy unions, this one is painful and has had its moments of reconciliation, but after Tuesday a split looks inevitable. The long co-dependency is over....

If the Clintons play to their historic form, they will ignore all this for as long as they can. They will fight on, hoping that something else turns up about Mr. Obama before the convention. Or they'll try to play the Michigan and Florida cards. Or they'll unleash Harold Ickes on the superdelegates and suggest that if Mr. Obama loses in November she'll be back in 2012 and her revenge will be, well, Clintonian.

The difference between now and the 1990s, however, is that this time the Clinton foes aren't the "vast right-wing conspiracy." This time the conspirators are fellow Democrats. It took 10 years, but you might say Democrats have finally voted to impeach.

Boston Globe opinion piece:

To keep her opportunities open, Clinton has to understand something zealous members of her sharp-elbowed team may not yet: Her real quest now is not for this year's nomination but rather for an option on the future. In the closing days, she needs to conduct her campaign with that in mind.

Chicago Sun-Times:

If Clinton gracefully walks away now, she will be viewed as magnanimous. If she drags this out, she risks destroying her party's chances come November and sealing her reputation as a party spoiler....

"We've got a long road ahead," Clinton told her supporters on Tuesday, "but we're going to keep fighting on that path because America is worth fighting for."

Yes, Hillary, America is worth fighting for. But the best way to fight for America now is to give up the fight.

Read the rest of this post...

Hillary supporter jokes about shooting Bush

High-level Hillary supporter jokes about killing President Bush, with her standing there. Ah yes, very electable that one (and classy too).

Speaking before Clinton, Gov. Steve Beshear had some fighting words of his own. He tied the plight of the national Democrats to local ones, having reclaimed the office from a Republican incumbent last year. He said Democrats were "problem solvers."

"I can think of only one Republican that could be a problem solver," he added. "And that is Vice President Cheney, if he would just take George on a hunting trip."

Read the rest of this post...

Democratic nominee Obama takes lead in SuperDelegates

UPDATE: Democratic Convention Watch confirms the Obama lead.



It's over. Now it's going to be a contest to see which SuperDelegates get on the train, and which ones wait until the last minute and are forever remembered by the new president as the folks who didn't support him until it was "safe."

Read the rest of this post...

Man who got blowjob in Oval Office says WE mock voters

Bill Clinton is being an asshole again.

Yes, a man who got a blowjob from a 21 year old intern in the Oval Office while talking on the phone to world leaders, and whose subsequent lies turned it into a two-year scandal that destroyed our party's ability to get anything done, tells us that "we" mock the voters. He took our votes as license to turn the White House into his own personal Animal House, and he feels mocked? Now that's chutzpah. Bill Clinton is dead set on destroying Democratic nominee Barack Obama. It's high time the DNC and the Superdelegates told the Clintons to take their sorry, scandal-ridden asses and get the hell out. We are going to have another month of these vindictive racist losers destroying Obama's credibility with the very voters he is going to need in the fall to beat McCain. What possible benefit to the party is there in having Bill and Hillary keeping us all talking about what idiots they are, rather than focusing on John McCain?

I thought Harry Reid and Nancy Peolosi told us that the Clintons were going to stop going negative on Obama? I guess not. More from ABC:

Per ABC News' Sarah Amos, this is what the 42nd president of the United States said Friday in Ripley, W.Va.:

"Hillary is in this race because of people like you and places like this and no matter what they say," Clinton said. "And no matter how much fun they make of your support of her and the fact that working people all over America have stuck with her, she thinks you're as smart as they are. She thinks you've got as much right to have your say as anybody else. And, you know, they make a lot of fun of me because I like to campaign in places like this, they say I have been exiled to rural America, as if that was a problem. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be here than listening to that stuff I have to hear on television, I'd rather be with you. There is a simple reason: You need a president a lot more than those people telling you not to vote for her."

In Madison, W.Va.:

"It is very interesting, from the very beginning of this race there has been a sharp divide in the vote -- the people who need a president, who need to turn the economy around, who need to restore the middle class, who need to give poor people a chance to work their way into the middle class, who need to give our children a better future, who need to restore our standing in the world and the war in Iraq, but do it in a way that rebuilds our military and stands up for America's security and standing around the world -- they have been for her from the get-go."

And on and on... Ginning up the resentments and the class divide (and maybe other divisions). ... His message to these voters: Obama and the media are laughing at you and think you're stupid!!!

And per Joe's earlier post, that's $2 million Bill, keep it up. Read the rest of this post...

Bob Herbert: "Class is not a Clinton forte."

Bob Herbert writes in today's New York Times about how making a classy exit isn't exactly the Clinton's forte. This is an example of what to expect over the next month as Hillary refuses to drop out. The language is going to get increasingly bitter and personal. The Clinton's are going to get savaged. Racial wounds are going to open even further. Democrats are going to attack and bloody fellow Democrats. And the SuperDelegates, spineless in their bliss, don't give a damn:

The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.

Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd.

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Mrs. Clinton.

There is, indeed....

I don’t know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people — or most working-class white people — are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites.

The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president — and they made a complete and utter hash of that historic moment. Having survived the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, you might have thought the Clintons would be on their best behavior.

Instead, a huge scandal erupted when it became known that Mrs. Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, had lobbied the president on behalf of criminals who then received presidential pardons or a sentence commutation from Mr. Clinton....

It wasn’t just the pardons that sullied the Clintons’ exit from the White House. They took furniture and rugs from the White House collection that had to be returned. And they received $86,000 in gifts during the president’s last year in office, including clothing (a pantsuit, a leather jacket), flatware, carpeting, and so on. In response to the outcry over that, they decided to repay the value of the gifts.

So class is not a Clinton forte.

But it’s one thing to lack class and a sense of grace, quite another to deliberately try and wreck the presidential prospects of your party’s likely nominee — and to do it in a way that has the potential to undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.

Read the rest of this post...

There needs to be a cost for the continued negative attacks and wasteful spending from the Clinton campaign

Since Hillary Clinton is going to need help paying off her massive debt, couple things need to be done. First, any credit counselor would tell Clinton to cut spending or more simply put "The first step towards decreasing debt is to stop creating debt."

Take the first step. Stop wracking up another million a day. Cut the credit cards. Take down the t.v. ads. Get a smaller plane (or fly commercial.)

But, I have another proposal. It's this campaign's equivalent of the "swear jar." You know, where people pay a dollar every time they swear. We need to set up a "negative jar." Every time Hillary says something negative about Obama, it costs her a million dollars in debt assistance. If one of the campaign lackeys says something negative, it costs $500,000. And, for Bill, it's $2 million. He should know better -- and he can always go give a speech to some foreign government to make it up.

Simple point here: Hillary's going to need help. She shouldn't be biting the hand that's going to have to feed her.

To be clear, the Obama campaign isn't sure they'd even help Clinton -- and the money WOULD NOT come from his campaign account. It would be done separately (through specific fundraising requests basically), if at all, and that appears unlikely right now:

If Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would happen to broker a deal to help pay off her campaign debts – this remains a big if, aides said, because nothing has been formally discussed – the money would not be taken from Mr. Obama’s campaign account. Instead, he would have to make a fund-raising appeal on her behalf, asking people to contribute.

The remarks by Mr. Obama earlier today stirred alarm among several contributors. They said they did not give money to him simply so he could turn it over to Mrs. Clinton.

Advisers to Mr. Obama sought to tamp down concern over the discussion. On one hand, they are trying to extend an olive branch to Mrs. Clinton and her supporters, whom they will need if Mr. Obama becomes the nominee. On the other hand, they do not want to alienate loyal contributors who were responsible for Mr. Obama’s fund-raising prowess.

For now at least, the latter hand – not helping pay off the debt – seems to be the most likely course of action.

And, to also be clear, as I wrote Thursday, I'm not a fan of helping Clinton pay off the debts. She's certainly not doing anything now to show she gets her dire financial straits:

This debt discussion needs to be shut down. The Clintons decided to use a lot of their own money to keep this campaign going. Not only would it be very hard to convince Democratic donors to give money to pay them -- and Mark Penn, it's just wrong. Let Terry McAuliffe worry about the Clinton's debt. They're all millionaires. It's hard to feel sorry for them.

Seems like the folks who are writing op-eds and blog posts about Hillary staying in the race should actually be using their time and resources to find money for the failed campaign. Read the rest of this post...

Women are pissed at EMILY's List

I wrote late last night about an op ed in today's Washington Post, written by Ellen Malcolm, the head of EMILY's List (an organization that supports pro-choice Democratic women for elected office). The thrust of Malcolm's piece was that Hillary hasn't lost yet and is only being asked to leave the race because she's a woman, and, you know, we all hate women. Well, our female readers had something to say about this, I excerpted some of their comments below.

As an aside, as an organization that claims it cares about the right to choose (I mean, pro-choice Democratic women is EMILY's List's reason for existing), EMILY's List doesn't seem that interested in the fact that John McCain plans to overturn Roe v. Wade. No, EMILY's List is more interested in helping Hillary destroy our nominee, Barack Obama, so that McCain can win the election and ban all abortions, without exceptions. If you donate to EMILY's List, think twice. And rather than just take my word for it, Chris Bowers did a fascinating, and disturbing, analysis of EMILY's List's success rate (or should I say "failure rate") in the last election. It isn't pretty. Though maybe now we're understanding better why EMILY's List isn't winning more races. But I'm sure Ellen Malcolm will blame that on men too.

Here's a sampling of our women readers' comments:

shell writes:

This infuriates me. I am a female. I am 55 years old. I have worked my whole life. Yes. Outside the home, even when I had children. I am in Hillary's core group. But, you see, I have a brain. I didn't put up with 30+ years of discrimination (and yes, it was there) to finally have a female presidential candidate ruin it all.

Because, let me tell you what is happening now. All the CEOs/heads of businesses are now saying (although not publicly), "THIS is why we don't want females running things." And they are half right. I say HALF because I have seen just as many dumb things done by males, too. But to have Hillary and her supporters act like this -- it sets back the womens' movement 50 years.

I am livid. At Hillary. At her mouthpieces, especially the females. They have undercut the womens' movement. Damn them.

jessica54 writes:

As a feminist, this pisses me off.

If you're a feminist, you believe that men and women are equal and should be treated as such. Therefore, Ellen needs to take a minute, regroup and look at this OBJECTIVELY. Hillary can't win, period.

No one's holding Hillary back because she's a woman. In fact, as a white, wealthy person w/ the last name Clinton, she's the privileged one here, IMO.

I came into this presidential race excited as hell about a future female president. But Hillary has disappointed me. As much as I want a female president -- and, God, do I want one -- I'm not willing to lose an election over it.

lauren1959 writes:

As an older white feminist I simply don't get this. Are we supposed to blindly support any woman, regardless of her seeming lack of ethics? Integrity is an important quality to me. Additionally, Obama is as strong civil rights issues as Clinton is. Does he lose points simply because he's a man? Clinton needs to go away before she alienates us all...

Morgaine Swann writes:

I'm a radical feminist and I'm supporting Obama after weeks of arguing with other women about this. Hillary is a problem on many levels, but when an entitled white woman calls a guy from South Chicago elitist because he essentially stated a fact that is still being misquoted, then starts race-baiting like nobody since George Wallace, she has crossed any and every line there is. Having a vagina does not excuse her being a bigoted asshole.

I just wrote a post about this - there is no difference in racism, sexism, or any other kind of oppression - it's the same hate pouring down from the top of a single hierarchy. We need to focus on tearing down the hierarchy, not who got hit with more hate. I want the candidate with the least sense of entitlement and some vision of something different in the way we are governed, and that is not Mrs. Clinton.

carollt writes:

I am a 52-year old white woman living in Maine I voted for Obama. I don't like Hillary. She will say or do anything to get the nomination.

It make take a village, but it only takes one very rich, self-obsessed white woman to burn it all down.

Happy Housewife writes:

What about the dreams of women that will be squashed by a President McCain, and his replacements for Ruth Bader Gindsburg and John Paul Stevens? What about our daughters, and their right to control their bodies, and earn an equal wage? Or is it just the dreams of post-menopausal, well-connected women that matter?

vwcat writes:

As a woman I find these old school feminists to be an embarrassment and stupid. They don't want equality. They want special treatment. If Hillary was allowed to be treated the same as any male candidate without her minions screaming sexism over every little thing, maybe she would have more respect.
I cannot imagine Pelosi stooping to or accepting supporters to act the way Hillary's has. She would be horrified. She'd know it's whining and Pelosi has her pride in being seen as an equal by being treated equal - not getting special treatment like Hillary and her supporters expect.
These women are doing more damage to a woman's credibility as a leader when they expect Hillary to be treated with kid gloves rather than an equal.
I also get ticked when they play the 'traitor to my sex' thing. Equality means I can make my own decisions and chose who I want.

Aquarius2 writes:

From the linked article:

"So here we are in the fourth quarter of the nominating process and the game is too close to call. Once again, the opponents and the media are calling for Hillary to quit. The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right.

Why on earth should one candidate quit before the contest is finished?"

Um, what is it that people do not understand about how this process is done? If Ms. Malcolm arguments are to be believed then why aren't Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Gavel and anyone else that started the process still in the race? Was it perhaps they didn't have the numbers, maybe they ran out of money or couldn't raise the money, or maybe they lost 31 primaries and won only 5 or 6.

My answer to Ms. Malcolm is Hillary can be praised for trying but when reality, and the math is the reality, hits you in the face and you still persist, it is flawed judgment.

slappymagoo writes:

What this dunderhead from EMILY'S list (and oh must they be proud) fails to realize is that, when women are treated as equals, that means that we can still think they're less qualified for a job. We can still not like it when they say stupid things, or have representatives say stupid things on their behalf, especially if they don't then correct that stupidity. We can find them abrasive, unlikable, foolish. And if they stand in the way of progress, we can tell 'em to get the hell out of the way.

And it's not because they're women.

Hillary's campaign has become loathsome, mean, divisive, irrational, and we the people have the right to reject her message, because her message sucks, and it has nothing to do with what she's packing in her pant suit.

This election is far too important to tear the party in twain by the supporters of each candidate bickering. And it's WAY too important for that bickering to be based on perceived biases and not the hard cold facts of how each candidate is faring and will fare. Republicans read tripe like Ellen's and high-five each other because we're at each others' throats and not after McCain. They read Ellen's "feminist" message and say "Heh, good girl."

coming undone writes:

Wow, there are so many things wrong with her article. We are not in the fourth quarter anymore, the game is over and Obama won. This is just complete non-sense; the math cannot be changed because a woman is running for president. Ellen Malcolm also compares Hillary to uneducated women who are single mothers and live paycheck to paycheck, well of course, they do not quit and who is out there telling single low-income mothers to quit.

Hillary has never known hard times; she has never had to pretend that she is not hungry just so her children can eat because there is not enough food to go around. Hillary has never had to cry silently at night so her children will not hear her, because she is endanger of being evicted or her electricity is about to be turned off. Hillary has never had to diagnose her children’s illness based on seriousness because there is no way she can afford to take them to the doctors.

Women like the ones that she’s describing do not quit because they cannot quit. There is a difference between have to and want to, Hillary WANTS to keep going and Hillary does not WANT to quit. Single mothers with little or no education that are at or below the poverty level cannot quit, they have to keep going. This also goes for most middle and lower class families they cannot quit they also have to keep going. This article is disrespectful to every woman out there that is struggling, they struggle and they continue to fight because of their children and families not for themselves.
The women that Ellen Malcolm describes put their needs and wants last.

cay writes:

Feminist for Obama here. I'd love to have a viable female candidate who didn't get to this point without the help of a husband. I want the first female POTUS to have a resume like Barack Obama's (from the ground up, not the top down). I grew up with Geraldine Ferraro as a possible VP, and look at her now... sinking to levels that Thatcher would champion, as well as both Clintons! This method negates what equality means. You do not play by the same rules; you transcend the rules. It says alot that Obama is actually doing what Clinton should be doing. He is genuinely more decent that she is. Compare their statements over the course of the primary. She says that he has a "white" problem, but he definitely doesn't bring up the fact that she has a "black" problem. He has the same percentage of whites supporting him that Gore and Kerry did, but does she have the same percentage of blacks? C'mon! I could go on, but it's Friday night. Obama '08

lynchie writes:

The modern day feminists forget those who went before them. It is as if the Rosa Parks, the Suffragettes did not exist. Feminism takes many forms but I remember my dear Mother who desperately wanted to go to University but with a sick Mother and 3 brothers and two sisters made the decision to work and help raise the family. It is something that ate at her until the day she died but she never expressed her disappointment until she became ill in her 80's.
This election isn't about feminism, it is about change and I did not sense a huge rallying of women for Hillary across party lines. On the other hand I did sense at a rally in Greensburg, Pa the same exhilaration I felt when i heard JFK speak. Emily's List smacks of elitism and one of the things that bothered me about this campaign was Hillary's attempt to be the common man even while exuding the superiority and entitlement most of us resent and distrust. To me she comes across as selfish. She isn't running for us, she is running for herself. Bill is running with her for Bill and his attempt to be back in the limelight. That same elitism worked in getting Chelsea a $900,000 a year job with a friend and advisors hedge fund, that is something the rest of us can't achieve but resent because it is all about being inside. Inside the beltway the politicians of both parties play the game, suck up for votes every few years and in between live like royalty and believe we the electorate hang on every word. We don't we expect more but seldom get it. No Hillary, we want more than what you want, we want change and maybe Senator Obama will in the end disappoint us, but don't confuse feminism with us being tired of the same old, same old because we have heard that tune for the past 16 years.

olderandwiser writes:

Speaking as a working class feminist, I'm very, very offended by this. Since when did blind ambition, whining, self-victiminization, and dumping on another group of very discriminated against people ever, ever help the cause of women?

We've already seen Rethug women turn on their own sex, and for EL's information, a lot of women, who, obviously, elite white women don't care about, are black or other minorities who have suffered far, far longer than their privileged asses.

I saw this attitude among some in the women's movement 40 years ago, esp. in regard to working class women of all colors and I didn't tolerate it then, and won't tolerate it now. Screw these elitists.

mirth writes:

Two minor disagreements with this post:

What Ellen Malcolm writes isn't "kind of" offensive, it is profoundly offensive, and "borderline" does not describe the absolute sexism.

But you have the "seriously f'd up" part just right.

mf_roe writes:

The really sad part is that Hillary Clinton has never suffered any serious discrimination because she is a woman. She in fact has been one of those women who have reaped the benefits of the women's rights movement over the past couple of decades. Honestly, a man with Hillary's abilities would be considered to have done extremely well if he achieved what Hillary has. And some are not so sure that Hillary is all that exceptional. She ain't the smartest woman in America, she ain't the most honest, the one quality that places her off the scale is her stubbornness, and after the reign of chimp the last thing I want is another stubborn arrogant ego in a position of power.

Read the rest of this post...

Are groups really still spending money on Clinton's campaign?

David Kurtz reported that the misnamed American Leadership Council isn't spending any money on Clinton's behalf in West Virginia. And, he raises a good point:

But it will be interesting to see whether the indy groups who have been supporting Hillary continue to plow money into her race. We'll keep an eye out.

Keep an eye out for EMILY's List (a group that raises money for pro-choice Democratic women). As John noted below, Ellen Malcolm, who heads the group, has an op-ed in today's Washington Post urging Clinton to fight on because, you know, the only reason people are asking her to concede is because she's a woman (our female readers were none too happy with that analysis, you can read their comments here). This week, women won the gubernatorial primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. Christine Gregoire has a tough re-election battle in Washington State. The money EMILY's List is now spending on Hillary's already-lost race is money that can't be spent on a viable woman candidate.

What about the AFSCME? Going to be really instructive if that group decides to keep using its resources on the presidential race, especially in Oregon. Their state affiliate in Oregon supports Obama.

The American Leadership Council is just a bunch of rich Clinton sycophants who are spending for their own egos -- while lining the pockets of pro-Clinton consultants.

Just seems at this point, putting egos aside (which is very difficult to do in politics), seems like every dollar spent on behalf of Hillary Clinton's failed campaign is not only a waste, it's money that can't be spent to defeat McCain. Read the rest of this post...

Blackwater is still in charge of Iraq

Not like Blackwater ever left, but, seriously, there are no repercussions for the firm. None. What does Erik Prince have on Condi or Bush?:

Last fall, Blackwater Worldwide was in deep peril.

Guards for the security company were involved in a shooting in September that left at least 17 Iraqis dead at a Baghdad intersection. Outrage over the killings prompted the Iraqi government to demand Blackwater’s ouster from the country, and led to a criminal investigation by the F.B.I., a series of internal investigations by the State Department and the Pentagon, and high-profile Congressional hearings.

But after an intense public and private lobbying campaign, Blackwater appears to be back to business as usual.

The State Department has just renewed its contract to provide security for American diplomats in Iraq for at least another year. Threats by the Iraqi government to strip Western contractors of their immunity from Iraqi law have gone nowhere. No charges have been brought in the United States against any Blackwater guard in the September shooting, either, and the F.B.I. agents in Baghdad charged with investigating whether Blackwater guards have committed any crimes under United States law are sometimes protected as they travel through Baghdad by Blackwater guards.

The chief reason for the company’s survival? State Department officials said Friday that they did not believe they had any alternative to Blackwater, which supplies about 800 guards to the department to provide security for diplomats in Baghdad. Officials say only three companies in the world meet their requirements for protective services in Iraq, and the other two do not have the capability to take on Blackwater’s role in Baghdad. After the shooting in September, the State Department did not even open talks with the other two companies, DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, to see if they could take over from Blackwater, which is based in North Carolina.

Didn't even try? That kinda sums up the whole Iraq experience. Read the rest of this post...

Lieberman says McCain does have his bearings. Not that Lieberman has any.

Not that you need more reason to loathe Joe Lieberman, who Lanny Davis and so many others worked so hard to re-elect, but here's more reason to loathe Joe Lieberman:

Joe Lieberman has no bearings of his own. Read the rest of this post...

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

This week's poem of the week does really offer a nice respite from the madness. The poem is "The Hand" by Mary Ruefle. and we're told it's a "quiet, beautiful poem." And, you know what? I think it actually is.

Off to a low key start this morning, but you know it will pick up. Waiting to see if Rep. Vito Fossella quits over the weekend. That's quite a little drama, huh?

And, Democratic Convention Watch still shows Clinton leading the superdelegate tally, but not by much: 270.5 - 269 270.

Take it away... Read the rest of this post...

Gee, now they're pulling the woman card

This opinion piece by Ellen Malcolm, the head of EMILY's list is, well, kind of offensive. The gist of it is that Hillary should be permitted to remain in the race because she's a woman. Hmmm. That's an interesting argument. And a borderline sexist argument to boot. So you mean it would be okay to tell Hillary that the math isn't going to work out if she were a man? But because she's a woman, the math is different somehow? Because she's a woman, she's not wasting a million dollars a day that could be spent fighting McCain? Because she's a woman, she's not damaging our nominee needlessly? Because she's a woman, her racist attacks against Obama haven't split the Democratic party in two? Because she's a woman, she shouldn't be expected to do what every presidential candidate in history has been asked and expected to do - put their party before their ego and get the hell out after they lose? And because she's a woman, we're supposed to lie to her, and women who support her, and tell them that she really does have a chance, when she doesn't? That is seriously f'd up.

Give me a break. She lost. She's hurting our candidate. And EMILY's list (and the AFT and others) are now wasting money on Hillary that could be spent on actual female candidates that have a chance at winning. This is the big leagues. We don't have time for Hillary's electoral therapy. She lost, she needs to move on, and folks like EMILY's list need to stop making excuses for Hillary based on her gender. It's insulting.

PS Oh, and by the way, what about the dreams of Obama's black followers, a dream that Hillary is now trying to destroy for no reason? Doesn't that count too, Emily? Or are some dreams more equal than others? Read the rest of this post...