On May 25, 10:51 pm, Cyrus Afzali wrote:

I hear so much about people purportedly not voting for Obama because
he's black. Much is made of the Clinton wins in Kentucky and WV being
about race. Tell me, what were the Obama wins in GA and Mississippi
about? Was it about race when 98%% of blacks in NC voted for Obama?
If whites were block voting for the white candidate the way that
blacks are block voting for Obama the results would have been very
different. I am really tired of innuendo that because one is a white
Southerner and doesn't vote for Obama that that somehow implies that s/
he is a racist. Meanwhile, how many people haven't voted for Hillary
because she's a woman? In my view sexism has clearly trumped racism
in this contest, but I've heard nothing about that (except from a
number of very angry Democrat women).

On May 26, 1:22 am, Faye att.net> wrote:

No. As usual, Faye, you repeat the reeeeeally impossible and tired
memetic of the hysterical Hillaryite. Clinton started this race with a
humongous advantage with AA folks. She lost that advantage when...

On May 26, 1:22 am, Faye att.net> wrote:

I'm surprised you didn't see/don't remember the near hysteria over the
comment. It was inescapable. Google shows 12,600 hits on the search
string

On May 26, 7:23 am, BlackieBos...@gmail.com wrote:

You're surprised?? I'm just rolling my eyes at seeing the same talking
points that have been flooding the comment sections of the intertubes
since Clinton's demise became certain. No different IMHO than the
robotic crap that the W gang spew.

On May 26, 6:23 am, BlackieBos...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm surprised you didn't see/don't remember the near hysteria over
the

12,600? Whoopie. Seems a scant number to me. And what do Google
searches matter? Are we to assume that all those searches were by
persons upset by the statement? Purportedly liberal leading party...

In article <66a91186-d675-4a21-a4de-82c350e5a9d6
@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, theridgeview@att.net says...

On 2008-05-26 10:25:25 -0500, Faye att.net> said:

None of the above, my friend. That number only represents the number
of hits for that specific search string. A simple editing of the
string which loses the punctuation returns 317,000 hits. A google
search (to paraphrase Tom Lehrer) is like a sewer: What you get out of
it depends on what you put into it. The more precisely you write your
search string, the fewer returns you'll get. Look at the difference in
my results by simply ungrouping the term "typical white woman."

"Faye" att.net> wrote in message
news:66a91186-d675-4a21-a4de-82c350e5a9d6@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 26, 6:23 am, BlackieBos...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm surprised you didn't see/don't remember the near
hysteria over
the

12,600? Whoopie. Seems a scant number to me. And what do
Google
searches matter? Are we to assume that all those searches
were by
persons upset by the statement? Purportedly liberal leading
party...

"fiddler crabby" ya-nospam-hoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22a49c7a3ec7c652989914@news.newsguy.com...
| In article <66a91186-d675-4a21-a4de-82c350e5a9d6
| @a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, theridgeview@att.net says...
| > On May 26, 6:23=A0am, BlackieBos...@gmail.com wrote:
| > > On May 26, 1:22=A0am, Faye att.net> wrote:
| > >
| > I'm surprised you didn't see/don't remember the near hysteria over
| > the
| > > comment. =A0It was inescapable. =A0Google shows 12,600 hits on the
search
| > > string
| >
| > 12,600? Whoopie. Seems a scant number to me. And what do Google
| > searches matter? Are we to assume that all those searches were by
| > persons upset by the statement? Purportedly liberal leading party
| > brethren did not call him on it, hold his feet to the fire on it AT
| > ALL. Not only that, but they seem to think they can draw women back
| > into the fold by hurling even more insults at them, calling them
| > names. It shows me quite clearly where women stand in the democratic ...

In article earthlink.com>,
dmoffitt@weaselstomping.org says...