In other words, Hillary must use only black approved politically correct language when discussing her strengths and Obama's weaknesses. Since when is honesty and frankness something that we should sweep under the rug? Is censorship the new password for Democrats? After all the lies we have heard these past long 7+ years from the Bush gang, isn't it refreshing that we have a candidate for President that is willing to be up front with us for a change?

Obama can declare that there are "typical white people" and that is ok but Hillary makes mention that she has stronger support from whites and she is painted as being racially divisive? Give me a break!

This is what this current matter is all about. Hillary gave an interview with USA Today and this is what she said:

Clinton makes case for wide appeal

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY.

As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

In other words Hillary stated the obvious. The same points that political pundits have been saying for months now. But since it was Hillary that said it suddenly there are disturbing racial undertones.

I wonder if any of the blacks and elites have any idea how offensive it is to have some black person call someone a typical white person? Do they even have a clue? Should we now start referring to Obama as a typical black person because whenever something isn't going his way he always pulls out the race card to blame things on the "Bradley Effect"?

All Hillary is doing is speaking the truth. According to the 2006 US Census Blacks in this country make up 12.8% of the population. Hispanics make up 14.8%. Asians make up 4.4%. And Whites make up 66% of the population. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to realize that you HAVE to have a strong coalition including whites, and especially working class whites to win the Presidency.

Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

So Hillary is guilty of speaking the truth and nothing more. Apparently among the elite speaking the truth is a capital offense. That certainly explains their attraction to Obama.

The second thing that the New York Times declares Hillary must do is quit talking about Michigan and Florida.

We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan.

What the NYT is basically saying to Hillary is that she should shut up about Florida and Michigan because every time she brings up the fact that the voters have been disenfranchised it makes the Democratic party look bad.

In addition to abandoning the attack ads, Mrs. Clinton must drop her plans to fight to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which defied the Democratic Party and moved up the dates of their primaries. A lot of people voted in Florida anyway, but Mrs. Clinton should not pursue this nuclear option. It would make the Democrats look unable to control their own, just when they want to make a case that they can lead the entire nation.

Excuse me? Standing up for the rights of the voters in Florida and Michigan by a nominee of the Democratic Party makes the Democratic Party look good. It demonstrates that we will not allow rules or lies or any other bullshit stop the citizens of any state from having their legitimate voices and votes registered. What Donna Brazile and Howard Dean did is inexcusable. And they are indeed the root cause of this fiasco.

Sweeping this under the rug isn't going to give the American public confidence that the Democratic party is worthy of the trust required for the Presidency. All it would prove is that the Democratic party is no different than the Republican party used to be. At least the Republicans had the good sense to settle their problems long before they spiraled way out of control.

What this is really about is protecting Obama. And hiding the fact that he cheated the rules, lied and then threw money at the DNC to cover it up. The New York Times believes that it is important to cover up the fact that Obama has been the one standing in the way of having the voters of Michigan and Florida franchised. He has consistently refused to allow revotes in either state while Hillary, the only true Democrat in the race, has insisted on American fairness and enfranchisement.

The New York Times has drank the Cult-Aide and hopped on the Hope Train. I hope they choke on it, have a spectacular crash and rot in hell.