Note: I'm horrible at titles. I was thinking of two other ones:

a) Hillary Clinton: Learn How to Count; or more to the point -

b) Are You on Crack?

While Senator Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary by 10 points, after desperately needing and eventually receiving a double-digit lead to semi-legitimately stay in the race, she seems to think that despite being over 130 points behind Senator Obama in the delegate count, not including the popular vote and number of contests won, she will win. Not because she predicts that she will eventually beat him in delegate seats, oh no. But because she is the most electable candidate, plus she is taking her 'wins' in the Florida and Michigan primaries, which do not count. After all, who cares about the procedures, rules and regulations and all that nonsense? I wanna be president!

The day after her big win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that she now has more votes than anybody who has ever run for president in a Democratic primary. "I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else, and I am proud of that," Clinton said at a rally in Indianapolis. "It's a very close race, but if you count, as I count, the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida, then we are going to build on that."

However:

Clinton Camp Cites Real Clear Politics To Say They Are Ahead in Popular Vote--Counts FL and MI, Which the Clinton Camp Was Clear Don't Count. The Clinton campaign claims that the popular vote stands at 14,973,720, or 47.4% for Obama, and 15,095,663, or 47.8% percent for Clinton. Real Clear Politics Makes Clear This is Wrong--Obama Leads by 500,000 in the Overall Popular Vote; 600,000 When Caucus State Estimates are Included
• These totals count Florida and Michigan, which the Clinton campaign was clear, until they began to lose, do not count
• The raw popular vote tally is 14,397,506, or 49.2% for Obama, and 13,896,368, or 47.5% for Clinton
• These totals do not include the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine or Washington, which do not report popular vote totals. Real Clear Politics' estimate with those states is 14,731,590, or 49.3% for Obama, and 14,120,230 or 47.2% for Clinton [RCP Popular Vote Tally]

When I watched her speech on NBC the day after her her win in Pennsylvania , I was outraged, but after my father (big up, Poppa!) talked me down from the ledge, I understood her bending of the truth. After all, this wasn't the first time, right? Plus, politics is politics and she wants to win and if it means hoodwinking the American public whom she obviously does not credit for being bright, so be it, I guess. And as my father so aptly said, "if you were in that position, would you want to give up when there was a chance you could succeed?"

Fair enough.

But what bothers me, especially since being that I live in another country and the 2008 election will not personally change my life as long as I remain north of the border, is what will happen to my African-American brothers and sisters. This is a politician who boasted (along with her Harlem loving, fried chicken collard green-eating husband) about all that they had did for long-suffering and inept American Blacks (yes I'm being sarcastic, folks). That guise held up pretty damn well until she had to run against one. Then her true colors came out. If I were...hell I ain't and I'm still pissed....someone that had voted for Bill back in the '90's and then all this campgain shit comes out, I'd would be re-evaluating how I would ever trust a politician, especially one who has  - while yes above I dismissed it as playing politics - basically used the 'race card' to her own advantage to gain the votes of citizens whom she apparently has already decided would rather vote for a white woman than a brother. This nugget does not make her schrewd, brazenly ambitious or competitive. Shis is a wolf in sheep's clothing and someone who is quite willing to burn the bridges she has made with her black followers in order to obtain more power.  Maybe that's okay with you but it ain't with me.

What about the gender card? Well, as much as I, like the wonderful Tami says, hate the fact that the media loves to group blacks into one monolitic group, has to admit that the media is also doing the same with women. In CNN's opinion, Middle aged white women who apparently are scurred, or perhaps see themselves in Clinton, along with disgruntled working-class white folk, are the ones who propelled Clinton to her victory. But according to a recent essay by Camille Paglia, her rise to power  and her loyalty to a feminist ideology and more importantly, practice, is questionable:

Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark. In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform.

So back to the question at hand: Based on Clinton's assertions about the amount of delegates who voted for her - is she electable? Is her penchant for underhanded dirty fighting going to appeal to voters and enable her to rise above the...well what the media is reffering to Obama these days, weaker candidate?

Sorry, but I have fought enought battles with former bosses, co-workers, neigbours, shop keepers and others to know that if you, as a black person start fighting back at the same level as your agressors, you are going to pay a much heavier price, which I why (in my opinion only) Obama has to watch what he says. More importantly, I believe that he wouldn't stoop to that level. Doesn't seem to have that rabid, yard dog personality trait.

I feel a slimy goo on my skin when I think of Hillary's assertion of being more of a 'fighter.' Methinks that what she is really saying is that a black man, despite him being 'socially acceptable' to the masses - i.e does not fall under the usual negative stereotypes people think about Black men - that her privldege, her legacy as former First Wife and most importantly, her whiteness is more suitable to battle John McCain. That Americans are still not ready - or at least not enough - citizens are willing to look beyond race and would feel more comfortable with two privledged whites battling it out. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck.........