With the possible exception of Warren Harding, George W. Bush is the most incompetent, discredited man ever to hold the Office of the Presidency.  He has shattered America's image abroad, strirring anti-U.S. sentiment from Europe to the Developing World.  He has incurred staggering amounts of debt, endangering the nation's economic well-being.  He has waged a disastrous war, claiming untold numbers of innocent lives.  Yes, this dypsomaniac has been a abysmal failure.   But Bush has never openly pandered to bigots.  Bush has never flagrantly promoted race hatred and minority prejudice in an attempt to achieve his aims.  Bush has never encouraged surrogates to marginalize vulnerable minority populations.  

Ah - but Hillary Clinton has.  Hillary Clinton has become the chief spokesperson for hidebound bigots nationwide.  She has employed tactics that have delighted bigots across the land - questioning the intelligence of minority voters, the credentials of minority candidates, and the commitment of minorities to this republic.  Bigots - for the first time in decades - genuinely have cause for celebration.  And we have Hillary Clinton - not Bush - to thank for for it.    

The temerity of Hillary Clinton.  This venal politician has knowingly stirred up race hatred and minority prejudice in a futile attempt to attain her narrow ends.  She has openly questioned  the wisdom and the judgement of ethnic minorities, suggesting that they have no understanding of present-day issues.  How dare she?  She has made overt appeals to narrow-minded bigots across the land.  Now, this would-be public figure has the audacity to address an African-American audience, insisiting that she has been misunderstood?  Poppycock.  Hillary Clinton has no qualms about what she has done.  If pandering to bigots advances her aims, so be it.  Those who voice support for Clinton take heed: you are condoning tactics that would make segregationists proud.    

Hillary Clinton, once a reputable public figure, has debased herself - and eroded whatever popular support she enjoyed among progressives.  Her present vision of the Democratic Party - as an entity that "divides and conquers" differing segments of the American population - is unpalatable to any well-meaning, upright citizen.  Is she so megalomaniacal, so self-absorbed, that she would stir up animosity toward an oppressed ethnic minority group simply to achieve a longstanding aim?  Countless ethnic minorities are the victims of discrimination and brutal hate crimes in this republic.  Ever visited the Southern Poverty Law Center's site?  If so, you would undoubtedly understand my concern.  Will Hillary's inflammatory and incendiary remarks/tactics give rise to prejudice and violent attacks against hapless innocents?  Will her words/actions prompt some members of the majority population (already disaffected by an increasingly depressed economy) to target vulnerable minorities?  Don't dismiss the possibility because it is too horrible to contemplate, or because in your estimation, it is unlikely.  Confront it.  Ponder it.  Will this occur?  Will Hillary Clinton's words drive some jaundiced individuals to commit unspeakable acts?  Moreover, does she even care?  This unprincipled, unscrupulous demagogue is knowingly endangering a long-suffering, socioeconomically disadvantaged minority group - a group that represents a mere 12% of the population - to further her own narrow aims.  How does this would-be presidential aspirant differ from Strom Thurmond and other (hypocritical) segregationists, who employed such "divide and conquer" tactics to maintain their stranglehold on power?  How many lynchings and race riots did such tactics produce?  Hillary Clinton claims to be tolerant and broad-minded - but in truth, she is a throwback to an earlier era - an era when self-serving charlatans jeopardized the lives of the powerless to enhance their own power.         Far too many prominent citizens have excercised caution with respect to Mrs. Clinton's flagrant attempts to "divide and conquer" the electorate.  Their silence is being interpreted by many as either tacit approval and/or indifference.  Does someone have to PERISH before they  recognize the dangers inherent in Clinton's strategy?  How will they react when, in the near future, an African-American professional is assaulted by some ill-educated brute ranting about "Affirmative Action," etc., etc.?  Hillary Clinton has apparently concluded that oppressed minorities are expendable.  If one or two hate crimes occur, so be it.  Do others share this sentiment?  If not, they must disavow these tactics in no uncertain terms - before Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates claim their first victim.