Anglo-Saxon?! Sheesh, that's interesting. And bizarre! thanks for pointing it out. I do think white supremacy is still alive, and that it's helping Clinton, but it's not usually so overt.

Back in the 1800s, America openly declared itself a "White, Anglo-Saxon" nation. Indeed, the assumed superiority of that race justified the westward conquest known as Manifest Destiny.

Too bad so few white Americans realize how manifest that racist destiny still is today.

Thanks again for point this out.

(Things happen fast here, so you may not have noticed my more extensive post on this topic this morning, "Is Hillary Clinton a White Supremacist?". Maybe we're on the same wavelength here.)

Louisville, who said it wasn't true? The problem isn't that it's untrue; it's that the Clintonistas keep trying to shore up white support for their candidate. They're playing the race card.

What really isn't true in what they're saying though, is their implication that Clinton has "white" support, and thus a "broader base" (as Clinton herself phrased it in remarks on the topic) than Obama has. Clinton has more support among a LIMITED set of white voters. Overall though, Obama has more support than she does among other white voting sectors, and thus, among whites in general.