The AP headline:

Obama, Clinton face off in SC primary

The Yahoo Headline linking to the AP article:

As of 1:08 p.m. MST • Obama, Clinton face off in racially charged S.C. primary

Is the Democratic primary "racially charged" because the media did an empirical, census like survey of voters and the majority decided that it was a racially charged election?

Or is it merely because Barack Obama is an African American? I think it is the latter.

And because that is the case, I think media outlets are charged over racial issues because they mean controversy, and controversy means money, and money equals all of the varied stimulus response rewards these cerebellar robots have become controlled by.

So, an impulse disordered industry tells the reader what's what. How singularly unimpressive.

This is the United States of America, HillBill. Please, quit treating it like your personal fiefdom.

I realize that when a man can walk into a room and make each person feel as if she were the only person there, it doesn't matter that he presided over a dot.com bust, no progress in getting OBL from 1993's WTC1 on, Blackhawk Down, a bombed Sudanese aspirin factory, a bombed Chinese embassy and attacked Russian ally in former Yugoslavia (driving China-Russia together in the SCO and military cooperation). On top of this, what a gargantuan feat, triggering arch enemies of the other partisan spirit to drag the country into a paroxysm of tawdry divisiveness over his Bimbo explosion.

That said, what have we got with Hillary?

a. First Lady who stood by her man during those turbulent times as a platform for an 8m book deal.

b. First Lady and 8m Book Deal are platforms to Senate.

c. Senate is platform to Presidential run.

This is one Dangerous Kitchen. Who, um, wants to clean it?

To think that a fresh-start candidate with all leadership qualities intact, Obama, could be a lost opportunity because Hill-Bill lusts for another promenade. "Eyuk, what a ride, Hill!"

Well, I guess it would save one extra US Secret Service detail. In that respect, at least Obama would create more Treasury Sec Service jobs with his presidency.

Is it any wonder that the very spirit of party decried by George Washington in his Farewell Address and Barack Obama in his campaign speeches is being used against Barack Obama now?

One of the recent strategems has been to pit ethnicity against ethnicity to achieve a political objective: defeat the presidential bid of Barack Obama.

Where is the evidence for the various inter-ethnic, polemic grenades posing as "facts" that have been thrown around to pit Jewish American against African American against Muslim American against Christian American.

And this, in the great nation that embraced Hank Greenberg and Jackie Robinson.

I'll tell you what: the politics of Beirut in the 1980s is not the politics of the United States, but there certainly are enemies out there who would love to see it.

None of this is necessary, but it shure does benefit some very anti-American forces. Where inciters are successful in igniting ethnic strife, fascists rise to promise order.

What's missing? I'm sure I'm missing many, however, I use these national icons as symbols to make the point.

Thurgood Marshall: Associate Supreme Court Justice, and civil libertarian defender of the Bill of Rights as essential to the US Constitution; a man dedicated to a role it seems few fill at the top today.

Powell: Combat experienced career military officer who went to the Chairman of the JCS, served as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Author of Powell Doctrine, an improvement on the Wienberger Doctrine. A man of honor likely hornswoggled and used when he did not expect it.

Oprah: Talk show entertainment first? Sort of. Except with humane and moral values in the host, and because of that, universal appeal. Folks are tired of being dehumanized by the worship of youth-exploitation, departing jobs and dumbing-down. Oprah stands for dignity.

Denzel / Will: Top bill acting / entertainment careers? Of course, and we've seen that before, except not such that the majority has backed the leading action, drama and humor men not of their race. That's new. It fits: they're versatile talents who speak to everyone.

Tiger: At the pinnacle of golf? Definitely carrying the baton Jack Nicklaus did in terms of golf greatness, with different style, yet measured and sportsmanlike maturity in his attitude handling that much success and notoriety at an early age. He's handling it well, just as he has his game.

What's missing is the normalizing, democratizing, mainstreaming, unifying and energizing elevation to the plate of a long overdue opportunity fulfilled: to take the qualified African American candidate out of the dugout, put him on deck and give him a chance to show us what he can do for the Presidency of the United States.

What's missing? The electorate standing by the right man and escorting him to the plate while politely asking those who are in the establishment that got us into this fine mess to step aside. What else is missing? Those in the establishment stepping aside and listening for a change.

My goodness, the partisans aren't leading, aren't following, and it is high time they get out of the way, reflect a while and rejoin to support a man who is risking his career by offending their pride with the truth that they have become the problem. Ross Perot said it some time ago and we all knew it was true. Obama said it in his New Hampshire speech. The solutions are there. The experts are available. Why have health care, social security and energy reform been so slow in coming? Because the establishment has been ordered to keep it that way by their controlling institutions. They have not listened to the people of the United States. They have manipulated and patronized them.

We've heard it a million times -- the American people can do anything they put their minds to -- they must unite, etc. etc. However, the same politicians who have been saying this have presided over broken health care, neglecting an economy, choosing military engagements not advised by the generals and bold-facedly making those rah-rah speeches into lies. It isn't that the American people haven't been working hard. It is that their leaders have served conflicts of interest and betrayed them.

We see it now. We see that the American people aren't to blame. The politicians who have had their tit-for-a-tat armchair wargames for good green, politically, economically, culturally and militarily, have abused America's sons and daughters as pawns in these power plays to impress their most vaunted unnatural person contituents.

Money didn't make America great. America's people from bottom to top made America great, and the wealth followed a high degree of functionality and brave commitment. I see Barack Obama as capable of showing the way to American renewal and cooperation.

He is said to be pro-choice and I am pro-life. However, I have noticed something about this issue. I have noticed that through Reagan's two terms, Bush I's two terms and Bush II's two terms, no realistically intelligent law designed to actually reduce and eradicate abortions has ever been passed. I've only seen dumb-headed bans that are like pitchers throwing games because they kneow they'd be struck down by the US Supreme Court. They didn't want to solve the problem, which is to end abortion. On this and other issues, they wanted to appear to be fighting for this or that, but knew that if they played WWF long enough with the other party, they could pad their resume, move on to the book deal and leave the useful "issue" for someone else to climb up on.

No, the Democrats and Republicans and their instransigence to lead on many issues with ingenuity and cooperation are symbolized in that issue, and I want to see a hole made in the middle through which the factions can cooperate to make abortion totally unnecessary. A divider and a special interest hound is simply going to do more of the same about this and many other related, crisis-level issues: stump and stump about it and ultimately fall to special interests who'd rather keep the fight alive by keeping the problems unsolved. Somehow, this must tenderize a weary nation to be more easily pliable to their ongoing ambitions.

It is past time to see a unity candidate who is credibly a unifier. No one else among the Democrats holds a candle to Barack Obama in this sense, neither personally, skillwise, or otherwise. In Hillary Clinton we hear a woman telling us what she's going to do. She wants to prove how great she is. With Barack Obama, it is different. He is getting Americans to see that pride-wars are the problem, and that coming together and cooperating as a team to make America great is the solution.

Who said this? Was it Barack Obama?

Our challenge is twofold:  first, to restore the American
dream of opportunity and the American value of responsibility; and second, to bring our country together amid all our diversity into a stronger community, so that we can find common ground and move forward as one.
      
More than ever these two endeavors are inseparable.  I am absolutely convinced we cannot restore economic opportunity or solve our social problems unless we find a way to bring the American people together.  To bring our people together we must openly and honestly deal
with the issues that divide us.  Today I want to discuss one of those issues:  affirmative action.
      
It is, in a way, ironic that this issue should be divisive today, because affirmative action began 25 years ago by a Republican president with bipartisan support. It began simply as a means to an end of enduring national purpose -- equal opportunity for all Americans.

Try Bill Clinton, July 19, 1995, 11:40 A.M. EDT.

Oh, unless an African American is running for president against my wife.

Look, it is just a matter of basic fair play as in baseball rules, forget Affirmative Action. Senator Barack Obama is fully qualified for the presidency. He is constitutionally qualified. He is intellectually qualified. He has vision. He has unity among first priorities, yes the very unity "spoken" of as a priority by Mr. Clinton above.

To let everyone step up to the plate and have a swing at the ball is the American way. Everyone should be able to bat. Why keep some on deck forever? Why doesn't Hillary just gracefully step back, relinquish the dynasty and defer to the spirit of the words of Bill Clinton years ago?

Afterall, half of the electorate that rejected woman candidates in the past were women of the majority race. We can't say that a majority of peers to the African American candidate for president has ever rejected the African American candidate for president, can we. It's numerically impossible considering today's demographics.

We can say that the women of the majority race have rejected an African American candidate for president in the past. Whatever their reasons, white women have been closer to the presidency than African American candidates by the simple principle that people tend to buy from / vote for those who look like themselves. And isn't that why the Clintons have joined in support of Affirmative Action during their political careers? To check majority preferences so that qualified minorities can break-in long enough to prove themselves?

And now, here, we aren't anywhere close to an Affirmative Action situation, and by all lights we weren't in times past. Prove to us, Ms. Clinton that we aren't in the era of Affirmative Action, and that those of the majority will honor their many speeches of times past to put a qualified minority candidate in office without regard to race. The country knows that is Barack Obama, the dynamic yet anti-dynastic candidate.

Ms. Clinton's recent statements have suggested that Mr. Obama was not qualified to lead. She cast herself as the get-er-done candidate, which by the way, implies she'll force her way. The Dem majority in Congress isn't so strong that it can afford a power-tripping president, however.

And that approach seems such a retreat from the all-American notion that a glass cieling ought not persist with respect to African Americans. This is not a debt long overdue; it is an opportunity long overdue, to have an American president serve who is not an elitist but who has suffered. Obama connects with a segment of the American population who helped build this country under duress, and yet has endured without insurrection to participate in this great constitutional system for centuries.

If the Dems were savvy, they would get their other candidates out of the way and let this statesman run against the GOP.

America had pretty good results putting Jackie Robinson up to bat, didn't we? He was an amazing all around player who played by the rules despite prejudice at home and abroad. What a unifying figure, especially in ugly times when the Hitlerian holocaust tried to murder all Jewish persons on Earth after first labeling them all as scapegoats.

Now let's have a look at the old hidden interests in our partisan system that fears real change. Don't rock the boat.The Clintonian assumption of superiority stands out. The pride. She implies that she can get things done and Obama can't. And that is what has been wrong with our approach for some time, tapping on the "Power of Pride," the devil's vice, rather than the power of love and confidence that exercises power with wisdom and efficacy.

That's my point of view as an independent for what is not only change in the future, but change finds and renews what is great about us from the past. The present must embrace both.

Who said the above? Was it Barack Obama? No, but he is the one who means it.

Ruling families in the United States are a vestige of imperial cultures that those coming to America fled, and against which the colonies fought.

If Hillary Clinton was nominated and then won the 2008 presidential race, she would follow George W. Bush as the second dynastic family entitlement president in so many years.