I originally intended to write this column on the possible departure of Hillary Clinton from the presidential race. The former first lady has been polling well, but nowhere near the numbers she or her advisers thought she would be.

That possibility appeared to be stronger after a questioner in New Hampshire asked her how she "does it". The answer, though drawn from the regular Hillary reserve, was different as it apparently touched a nerve and the Senator broke down briefly. John Edwards seized on the opportunity to point out that while campaigning is tough, the presidency is tougher.

Perhaps. But most candidates don't have the Clinton era baggage to drag around with them.

Make no mistake, I am not a Clintonista, but I fully expect Hillary to stick this out until the bitter end.

If nothing else, the meltdown at the end will be entertaining.

I do find the abandonment of Hillary to be less amusing than frightening. People are not abandoning Hillary and her camp because they disagree with her position, but because it's becoming more and more obvious that she's not considered "electable".

What a load of crap!

Electability is not what you base your presidential choice on. This is not a bandwagon, a personality contest, or a toothpaste or mouthwash brand. You're not choosing a perfume, you're electing a president! By basing any part of your decision of who to back on their "electability" is to absolutely waste your vote.

What sea-change did Hillary make in her positions to lead to people bailing from her campaign? What startling position change occurred in the Obama or Edwards camp to lead to these defections?

The American people, once again, prove that they're not the independent thinkers that founded this nation, but sheeple, to be herded around by the so-called mainstream media.

For what it's worth, I congratulate her and her camp on a valiant comeback in New Hampshire but warn them of a tough time ahead.

By the way, the underground rumblings of threats against Barack Obama -- that he'll never serve if elected because some nut case will assassinate him first -- strikes me as more fear mongering. The fear of such an event already has official Washington chilled. No terror attack would cause more destruction on our nation if Obama was assassinated than the backlash of Black America against itself.

The celebrity entourages are getting more interesting.

Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris, who should be shot for suing the jerks who made the mythical "Chuck Norris facts" popular and made the aging Bowflex peddler a little more relevant.

Norris can't beat the Ron Paul entourage, though.

WWE stars Glen "Kane" Jacobs and Sean "Val Venus" Morley are stumping for the Libertarian turned Republican.

Speaking of Ron Paul, the hit piece by James Kirchik of The New Republic is not at all surprising. The comments published in various newsletters carrying Paul's name in the masthead cited a number of statements that might be considered racist, but state the fears and beliefs of many in White America who fear much of radical Black America and the potential threats and political agenda.

Particularly offensive, but particularly true, is a statement about how Blacks can be racist, but Whites can't.

“The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of LA for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressman to arrange the transfer.”

“Blacks have “civil rights,” quotas, mandates hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.”

----from the Ron Paul Political Report, June 15, 1992

Apparently, judging by the rants against these statements, it's perfectly appropriate to echo the rants of one extremest, racist agenda, but not the thoughts of others.

For the record: Most publications haven't printed Paul's official reply to these charges. Paul issued the following release:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

Paul does point out something that he believes – as said by Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, and ignored by most of the current Black leadership: People should be judged not by the color of their skin, but of the content of their character.

Most of these African-American phonies today (see Sharpton, Al) have none whatsoever.

Wyatt Cox's opinions are his own. Share yours at rant.wyattcox.net