Turning Obama Into The Black Candidate

By Big Tent Democrat

This will undoubtedly be a very controversial post. But I always speak my mind. And I am speaking for me only here.

Jeralyn highlighted in a previous post that the great John Lewis is switching his endorsement from Clinton to Obama. Not surprising in that Obama has had great momentum. Easily justifiable for Lewis in that his district voted overwhelmingly for Obama and he is indeed a fine candidate. But the reasons given for switching are not helpful. Indeed, in my view, they are divisive:


“In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. “Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.” . . . “I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”

His comments came as fresh signs emerged that Mrs. Clinton’s support was beginning to erode from some other African-American lawmakers who also serve as superdelegates. . . .

If Lewis and others limited the comments to respecting the wishes of their constituents, that would have been fine. But now we hear of Obama's historic candidacy as the reason for the switch. Translation -- it is because Obama is an African-American. This is an invitation for divisiveness. And the behavior of Obama campaign co-chairman Jesse Jackson, Jr. is a big part of the problem:

In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded. Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.

(Emphasis supplied.) Race baiting and express threats to their office from the co-chair of the Obama campaign is not only incredibly unseemly and divisive, it HURTS Obama. Yes, it hurts Obama by making him the "black candidate." I condemned Bill Clinton for trying to do this after South Carolina with his comparisons of Obama to Jesse Jackson. But now it seems Obama's campaign is fully embracing this approach.

This is ugly stuff, as ugly as I have seen in this campaign. Obama needs to disavow Jackson's actions. Indeed, it seems time for Jackson, Jr. to step down after this. This is truly ugly.

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

< Hillary Website Targeted by Spammer | Overnight Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This will not be written about (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:59:45 PM EST
    as I have written about it. But it is being noted in every major media outlet. The clear, if unspoken, message that this delivers is that Obama is the black candidate.

    This is a terrible mistake. Divisive and demeaning.

    This hurts Obama AND the Democratic Party.

    Jackson, Jr.'s actions in particular are appalling.

    BTD, I just read an AP article and it said that (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:06:27 PM EST
    Lewis withdrew his endorsement but has not endorsed Obama.

    Lewis, whose Atlanta-area district voted 3-to-1 for Obama, said he is not ready to abandon his backing for the former first lady. But several associates said the nationally known civil rights figure has become increasingly torn about his early endorsement of Clinton. They spoke on condition of anonymity, citing private conversations.

    In an interview, Lewis likened Obama to Robert F. Kennedy in his ability to generate campaign excitement, and left open the possibility he might swing behind the Illinois senator. "It could (happen). There's no question about it. It could happen with a lot of people ... we can count and we see the clock," he said.

    I'm not sure this actually changes what you wrote but the AP article was not as definite as the Times.


    If he is not sure (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:09:17 PM EST
    then why announce it?  Why make a statement about waffling, and withdrawing your support, when your state has already gone through a primary and your endorsement and groundwork have already been exploited?

    Why not just stay home and shut the he*l up?

    "Withdrawing" your endorsement is not the same as backing Obama?

    Sounds like the same "withdrawal" argument I heard on my prom night--and I believed it then about as much as I believe it now.

    Absolutely ridiculous.


    So, to follow the metaphor, (none / 0) (#114)
    by sancho on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:03:19 PM EST
    are you saying Lewis is not really pulling out?

    He said he is voting for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:10:47 PM EST
    You can call that NOT an endorsement if you like. I do not.

    OK. The AP article didn't say that. Yes, that's (none / 0) (#17)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16:20 PM EST
    as definite an endorsement as you can get.

    Those wondering if this and JJ Jr's statement will be picked up by the media, it's on the front page of Yahoo at least.


    Yes but it's a tepid vote. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:47:51 PM EST
    the first paragraph of the Times article says (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16:31 PM EST
    Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

    I know you wrote about this already (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:22:34 PM EST
    but frsankly, I am really distressed by this. And it is all so unnecessary and self defeating.

    This hurts Obama in the General Election. Badly I think.


    it pretty much ensures (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:24:28 PM EST
    that the country will be ripped apart.

    There will be reverberations from coast to coast.  Mark my word.


    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:29:51 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson Jr. blows my mind.  In my fantasy world there's a tiny boat going to a tiny island, far, far away...and in it are Jesse Jackson Jr., Mark Penn, and John Zogby.  Bon voyage.  

    Honestly, what is going on with this superdelegate stuff????


    Kathy: Bringing it back to the point (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:52:12 PM EST
    The Obama  comment about affordable housing failing because of "neighborhood demographics and crime".  (re Rezko projects) Wonder how many of those guys know about his true feelings when it comes to poor black neighborhoods vs. the interests of his backers.  

    Primaries (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:28:21 PM EST
    You don't think this will hurt Obama in the primaries, too?  Why would it hurt him in only the general?  

    I'm appalled by this.


    Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:31:22 PM EST
    I think it does hurt him in the primaries too.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:37:01 PM EST
    It will hurt him immediately if the media pick up the story and run with the Jesse Jackson Jr.'s quote.

    On the other hand, they might simply decide to make it a "Don't stand in the way of history" story, which is perhaps far more likely, given their propensity to do just that.


    It hurts more in the GE. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by liminal on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:37:26 PM EST
    I think it hurts him more in the GE than in the primaries.  The Clinton campaign won't exploit the issue in the same way the Republicans will.  There's little they can do officially or via surrogates without inflaming the situation and leading to further charges that they (and not their opponents) are race-baiting.  

    The Republicans, though, won't have any qualms.  They don't need African-American votes; they never rely on them, and they will have months and months to play up an ugly narrative undercurrent among their base.  Imagine this lede buried among the ugly accusations in that baseless "OBAMA R MUSLIM PROBABLE EVUL" email that gets passed around, a sprinkling of truth to season the lies, and the lies are even more likely to stick.  


    Yeah the poor Clintons can't do anything (none / 0) (#63)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:40:21 PM EST
    about it ......what a telling statement you just made....Obama campaign is allowed to do this but Hillary dare not retaliate.....GEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZ

    Yes (none / 0) (#73)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:43:37 PM EST
    It's  the  REVERSE  Bradley  effect.

    How incredibly    deceitful  this  "Hope" man  is.



    And the voters? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:44:18 PM EST
    But you're removing voters from the equation.  Those who are on the sidelines, for example: you don't think any of them could read about this and be turned off?

    I think that's very possible, and there is a lot of voting left to do.


    Yes -- because how can it get him (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:37:57 PM EST
    more AA votes; he's already got record numbers.

    But if it loses him votes of others. . . .


    Aren't the Clintons close (none / 0) (#111)
    by sancho on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:01:14 PM EST
    to Lewis? Maybe he is doing what Bill was accused of doing(raising race)--before the primaries are decided? Of course Jesse Jackson, Jr. helped, or was played. Maybe the Clinton campaign has finally replayed the race card that Obama played so well in SC.  Keener sounds, ghostlier demarcations.

    John Lewis would never do that (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:05:42 PM EST
    I'm sure he has felt various (none / 0) (#213)
    by sancho on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:44:48 PM EST
    intense pressures. I just dont understand why he did not wait until Obama's position was a little more secure. Bill was quoting him in South Carolina. Perhaps that made him uncomfortable. But I agree this could hurt Obama either now or later.

    Not Sure How Much Play Jackson, Jr.'s (none / 0) (#209)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:42:27 PM EST
    comments will get during the primaries. I think that they will be resurrected big time during the general.

    I lost any respect I had for Jackson Jr. (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:07:17 PM EST
    when he said Hillary cried in New Hampshire but never cried for the Katrina victims. That was atrocious.

    I agree with you that the tacit threat to primary any African-American in Congress who supports Hillary is not helpful for the Democratic Party.

    As for standing in the way of the first black president, plenty of Obama supporters (and some Clinton supporters) used a similar argument against Edwards--how can you support a white man when we have a historic opportunity to end the white male monopoly on the presidency?

    Lawrence O'Donnell even wrote that Edwards would be forever scorned if he turned out to be just another white guy standing in the way of a black man.


    That's despicable! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:33:13 PM EST
    You know, as a woman feminist, tokenism hurts the cause more than anything, and it annoys the hell out of me.  As a woman I notice that the big guys are afraid of recognizing true talent in a woman, but keen to have token women at hand.  It's really the worst thing to happen for the next generation.

    Can you imagine, if Obama turn out to be inexperienced and either lost badly or as a President, delivered badly, what harm it does? I mean he can't be worse than Bush, but is that the standard now?

    For a job such as this, the most important job in the face of the fr**gn planet, let's go with the most qualified person.  All right??


    The risk of Obama performing badly (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:59:44 PM EST
    as President is a big concern of mine.  Choosing one or the other based on race or gender is very risky.  It is not only risky for the group identified with the person but the party too.    

    I don't see the economy getting any better than it is now before the next president is sworn into office.  If anything, I am expecting it to be worse, possibly as bad a situation as any president elect has faced since FDR.  


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:10:03 PM EST
    Today, I was thinking about what you had said for your support of Obama.  He has very favorable coverage from the media, and IIRC, that was one of your reasons.

    I really don't think there is any chance that Fox News, Wall Street Journal, and all the great right wing media suddenly will find religion and back Obama. In the face of their relentless attack, the most you can hope for is a draw.  

    Looking from an independent's point of view, I don't see how comparison of McCain and Obama could be favorable to Obama.  

    Someone pointed out this in another blog: Democrats are losing  the huge amount of NEW voters that Hillary Clinton brings. Can you imagine what happens to democratic chances if the woman turnout is 56-58 percent? She has already brought lots of new voters. But media (despite the fact that she gets lots, and often a majority, of new voters) give the credit for the turnout to Obama.  It suits their narratives.

    If this infatuation lasts, then you have Obama as President.  If it doesn't, then IMHO the democratic chances are slim.

    Funny, we are bonding with the media for this.  The same crowd and behavior that brought you the War.

    The United States of Amnesia.  


    This IMMENSELY hurts my theory (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:20:34 PM EST
    Limbaugh and Fox could have a field day with this.

    Like you I don't see how any comparison of (none / 0) (#76)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:44:21 PM EST
    the life stories of McCain and Obama doesn't hugely benefit McCain.  

    The MSM will push those comparisons to the hilt in the general election as well.  Not to mention the GOP, and 527s, slapping Obama over the head with who knows what kind of BS.  


    How could anyone compete in this media? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:28:10 PM EST
    You know when he endorsed her, the media didn't make a big deal of it.  Even now, I argue they wouldn't make a big deal of his endorsement, if it was for Hillary.  

    If it was once or twice, I understand.  But every story, without fail, is reported in a fashion to give maximum damage and minimum benefit to her.

    What's wrong with them? Is it really that much sexist hate there in the media room?


    how is it being noted? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:03:10 PM EST
    Will it be on the news tomorrow and in the papers, or will it be limited to the blogs?

    If a tree falls in the forest...


    race card (none / 0) (#6)
    by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:06:43 PM EST
    that's the (double) standard. it's OK when AAs make Obama a black candidate. But if Bill Clinton does it, then it's race baiting. It's almost like the n-word, only AAs are allowed to use it. I know you called Bubba on it in SC, but it's doubtful the media or Obama folks will see it your way. Either way, Jesse Jackson did win SC in 1984 and 1988, which is more meaningful than Edwards winning SC in 2004. And Obama is black.

    It is race baiting TWICE (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:10:15 PM EST
    I condemned Bill Clinotn for his remarks.

    I condemn Jesse Jackson, Jr. for his behavior.

    Both have behaved atrociously on this.


    SC and Obama (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Prabhata on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:37:50 PM EST
    The truth is that Obama played the race card first in SC when the black supporters twisted BC comment about Obama's position on Iraq being a fairy tale.  Obama, after losing NH felt his back was against the wall and used all his weapons, including the race card.  I may be naive, but I took BC's J.Jackson comment to mean that one should not be surprised that the black voters would support Obama in great numbers and that HRC did not have a prayer of a chance in SC as was demonstrated when J.Jackson ran for president.  I would guess that there will be more polarization of the races in the coming primaries.

    Twice, but realistic (none / 0) (#16)
    by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:15:33 PM EST
    I guess I'm not so bothered by the race card by either side. It's hardball for the biggest political job in the world.

    Even Chris Rock has said, "You'd be really embarrassed if he won and you wasn't with him. "`I had that white lady. What was I thinking? What was I thinking?'"


    That was a terrible comment from (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    Chris Rock.

    Chris Rock (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:31:21 PM EST
    But not supporting a black candidate is a serious dilemma (I'd imagined since I'm not black) for black people. We're not colored blind yet, and considering history or just recent history, you can't expect people to not considered race (or identity politics) today for this election. Or would you rather they do it behind the scenes and not in public, because race and gender are certainly factors.  



    I understand that (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:33:20 PM EST
    If John Lewis had endorsed Obama from the beginning, no one would have batted an eye.

    That is not what happened here.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#97)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:55:15 PM EST
    I don't think anyone is saying not to consider the historic nature of each of their respective candidacies.  But this is something different.  This is about the peer pressure in the black community to conform to this group think.  It's not healthy.  People should be encouraging each other to vote for the superior candidate first.

    in a perfect world, but we live in this world (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:58:02 PM EST
    where peer pressure from your friends, your family, your neighbors, your race matters.

    There certainly has been a backlash (none / 0) (#161)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:20:32 PM EST
    against anyone who suggests that voting for  Hillary because she is a woman is WRONG.  Look at what happened to NY NOW who called Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama a "slap in the face".

    There certainly has been a backlash (none / 0) (#163)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:21:13 PM EST
    against anyone who suggests that voting for  Hillary because she is a woman is WRONG.  Look at what happened to NY NOW who called Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama a "slap in the face".

    That is why I brought up Chris Rock (none / 0) (#100)
    by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:56:01 PM EST
    why is it important whether Lewis endorsed Obama at the start? it is only important as to why he decided to support Obama. by your way of thinking, it should have been just as bad for Lewis to support Obama last fall for the reason he is black. i suspect that Lewis didn't believe Obama can win last fall, and he does now, which is why I brought up Chris Rock.

    but then as a Superdelegate, Lewis is allowed to switch to the winning horse for any reason. i'm not saying it's right, but it is the way it is.


    Chris Rock (none / 0) (#78)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:44:59 PM EST
    also  said,  "There  is  no one  more  racist  than  an old  Black man."

    everything Chris Rock says (none / 0) (#191)
    by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:34:32 PM EST
    has a lot of truth it it, that's why it's funny. the best one is that MLK Boulevard, named after a peaceful man, is often the most violent street of any city.

    If you haven't read it yet... (none / 0) (#21)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:18:19 PM EST
    It's a time for everyone too...


    Wonder how they pulled off the Blacks vs African divide? Or is it hidden under the same smoke screen of "HOPE"?

    They're tricky. I wonder how much damage have they already done to race relations, what we don't know now or in the future?


    Well, (none / 0) (#227)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:04:20 AM EST
    so far at least no one else seems to be positioning this as a particularly racial issue, simply a matter of the momentum shifting to Obama and longtime allies starting to desert Hillary. Of course Hillary supporters will want to spin the emphasis away from that and onto the most negative aspects for Obama. The stupid and inflammatory remarks of JJ jr. are not being treated as a major part of the story by the MSM, and rightly so. Especially considering this from Lewis himself:

    Mr. Lewis said he and other prominent African-American party leaders had been moved by Mr. Obama's recent victories and his ability to transcend racial and geographic lines.

    It's really too bad everyone else can't keep to that goal.


    Obama has been using divisive politics (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:04:00 PM EST
    like this since at least last October. It's why I haven't been able to support him.

    History will judge whether the gospel concerts had their intended effect.

    YEP (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    He's not been "uniting;"  he's  been willfully  dividing.    He plays  the  good  cop  while his  campaign staff  and  surrogates play  bad  cop  and do  all the  dirty work.    

    But  he knows   exactly what  they're  doing.  


    Me too. (none / 0) (#107)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:58:12 PM EST
    I saw through the Obama charade pretty quickly.  I hope at least the latte liberals wake up and rally for Hillary.  This is so damaging to the party and country.

    I am very troubled by this (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:06:53 PM EST
    Isn't it possible that she's just more qualified for the job?  Just look at their resumes, do they mean nothing?  This would be a different race if she was a man with her background.

    This is not good for anyone.  It's sickening how this race has become about ethnic groups and that's it, and as if all AA's, Asians and Latinos are all the same (culturally) anyway.  

    As Gloria Stinem said. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:17:36 PM EST
    There wouldn't be a question, even.  Heck, George Bush's dad being the President was considered a huge advanatage, and all W did during that time was make fun of the Queen.  

    Make no mistake, this would anger women greatly.  Women know the sting when they have been told to work hard, to do certain thing, to build up their resume, their volunteer work, and they have followed all the rules, and suddenly the rules change to give some newcomer the advantage.

    Women have had many encounters with dismissive arguments when it came to their work, their education, their suitability, their work ethic.  That suddently everything they accomplished was small and of no consequence.

    Make no mistake.  Women know that.  

    And the traditional women? Stay at home Moms? Those who are just worried about their bills and don't give a da*n about feminism?  Well, who do you think has their vote?  

    First, disenfrachisment of Florida and Michigan and now this.  Count on Howard Dean and Donna Brazille to screw a one car parade.


    Hate to say it so plainly (I'm just a plain gal) (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:26:15 PM EST
    but the powers that be will prefer a Black man before a woman.

    This nation in over 200 years has never had a woman as CiC. UK has had their "Iron Maiden" and their staunch Queen, but the US can't get over a women being "strong" enough.

    If Hillary fights back, she's a capital B. If she cries, she's a hysterical female. It's the same o' same o', helped by the same media in love with Obama.

    But I wonder what is the real momentum behind all this? Because a very junior senator from nowhere, getting capital attention overnight, sure doesn't come around in 200 years.

    Something else is afoot, than just politicking.


    No, they want a beatable candidate (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:46:37 PM EST
    and he is that, I fear.  They want a weak candidate instead of a strong candidate for the Dems -- because the real powers that be in this country are not Kerry, Kennedy, et al.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:58:10 PM EST
    And  it explains  why    so many   Bill Kristol-types   gush over  him.  

    Agree Totally SandraK !!!!!! (none / 0) (#43)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    I agree, but - (none / 0) (#71)
    by liminal on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:43:00 PM EST
    I agree with you about the obstacles that women face, but I thought I'd comment on why I think so many establishment types are backing Obama so early:  they don't want him tainted by experience.  The more time you spend in government, especially at the national level, especially in the legislature, the more votes your opposition has to paw through when they get around to the business of defining you.  So, the early run forestalls all that.  If you don't have much of a national record, there's not much dirt (and certainly few contradictions) for the media and the opposition to exploit.  

    So... that's why, I think.


    Race or gender will be an issue in Nov If (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Prabhata on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    Obama is the candidate.  Republicans are shameless about using every divisive tool, and race is the ultimate divisive tool.

    BS (none / 0) (#118)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:04:34 PM EST
    I'm sorry but that's carp if Hillary was a man (and thus hadn't been married and tied to Bill) I'm not sure she'd be a Senator much less the nominee, I'm sorry but if we're going by resume Biden, or more likely Richardson would be the nominee (seriously, what in Hillary's resume would make her the instant nominee over the two I just mentioned?, heck what would push her over Kucinich). What pushed Obama to the top is the same thing that pushed Clinton's Husband over far more qualified canidates in 1992-- Charisma, and the ability to make wonk ideas seem like high ideals.

    False (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Shawn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:39:41 PM EST
    There weren't "far more qualified" candidates on the Democratic side in '92. BC was, as I recall, the longest-serving governor in the country (twelve years in total) and had been state attorney general for a couple of years before that. He probably had about as much experience as Jerry Brown or Paul Tsongas and more than Bob Kerrey. Obama, on the other hand, had never even held statewide office until his four years ago.

    You need to do more research (none / 0) (#187)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:33:43 PM EST
    If Hillary had not married Bill she'd have been a governor or senator and presidential candidate LONG before this. Even Bill said so when he was trying to get her to move to Arkansas and marry him.

    She was a superstar in college and law school. She had real political possibilities. She didn't need to  marry him and wait while he realized his potential.

    Without Bill, she'd be FAR more viable. The question is whether Bill would ever have gotten as far without HER.


    If she was a man (none / 0) (#188)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:33:56 PM EST
    her whole life story would have been different.  Somebody with her brains and gifts would not have followed a wife to Arkansas, because he would have been busy building a career in DC, as she had begun to do.

    It's not a fair question.  I'm 10 years younger than her, and I know what it was like when she was starting out.  Different world.


    Tweety (none / 0) (#199)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:39:40 PM EST
    is that you?

    Jesse Jackson (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:10:44 PM EST
    is enough a public figure that this "may" get picked up.  Especially as the MSN will want to talk about this as a big loss to HRC.    

    Did Obama (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    ever disavow Jackson's remarks about Hillary's tearing up in New Hampshire but not crying for victims of Katrina?  I don't recall hearing any statement from Obama or other campaign officials to distance them from Jackson's remarks then.  

    why should they? (none / 0) (#24)
    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:19:31 PM EST
    All Obama did for Katrina was to go with Bill Clinton and hang around him to get his picture in the news.

    He should have on principle (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:18:48 PM EST
    because it has the potential to divide instead of unite the party.  I think he should have spoken up about the obvious sexism on MSNBC but he didn't do that either.  When I see this and think of how he handled the McClurkin controversy, I have to question his commitment to be a civil rights leader for everyone.  

    all Obama ever does (none / 0) (#30)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:23:27 PM EST
    is step over people on his way to the top.

    It started with Alice Palmer.  I am going to fight tooth and nail to make sure it ends with Hillary Clinton.

    I gotta take a break before I start slapping people.


    I suggest you gals and guys get busy spreading the word about what is really going on this election and working to get Hillary elected.

    desperation (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:15:00 PM EST

    Why would the Obama campaign be desperate? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:18:53 PM EST
    They are running quite well.

    I think it was directed at you (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:20:34 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:28:27 PM EST
    How could it be directed at me? I did not do anything. It was Jackson Jr who did it.

    I won't make jg's accusations for him (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:30:30 PM EST
    IF you are right (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:37:03 PM EST
    I find it bizarre.

    But consistently bizarre. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:45:53 PM EST
    well speaking as a person that has (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:23:38 PM EST
    tried so very very hard to remain neutral about race this is quite a shock and makes one think....I take it as an insult....but what is more insulting is how the media will not mention it and not highlight it to try to let them get away with it....if Hillary ever said something so foolish she would be tarred and feathered....

    What about his attempt to buy (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MarkL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:36:35 PM EST
    votes of superdelegates? I realize this is just politics as usual, but doesn't it hurt Obama if this gets media attention?

    Time to fish or cut bait (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by bob5540 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:39:01 PM EST
    BTD, I think it's time for you to be straight and honest with us. Are you supporting Hillary or not? The way you've made it your mission to pick at everything Obama does, says, or doesn't do or say, for weeks, would lead me to conclude you are in the tank for Clinton. But since you don't admit it, you come across as the worst kind of concern troll - a CT with his own blog.

    Nonsense, bob (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:40:47 PM EST
    BTD    is pointing  out   deceit  in the Obama  campaign,  as he  should.  

    He  has  done  the  same  with Clinton's  campaign.

    You  owe  BTD  an  apology.    NOW


    You do not control me (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:41:44 PM EST
    I will write what I think.

    IT is the behavior of people like you that lead to people thinking of Obama supporters as a cult.

    Please leave this blog immediately for the rest of the day.

    You are suspended and your further comments will be deleted.


    House of Cards (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:39:53 PM EST
    A full deck of them.  A strange house that I don't think will withstand the test of the GE.  You see, what the pundits fail to say about the Bradley effect, it wan not in the democratic primary, it was the General Election for governor.  So, I have no clue how clever they are, but this house is very fragile.  

    Stunning (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:42:27 PM EST
    This stuns me.  I'm mortified by this; surely there is a better way to pitch the history argument?  Must it be so clearly about The Black Candidate as opposed to The Best Candidate?  I'm a Clinton supporter, but even I can see that there is a far better argument to be made on Obama's behalf that doesn't boil down to "You're black, he's black: vote for him." How offensive, but how reductive, too.

    This is appalling.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:15:05 PM EST
    I have be saying for some time.  It's how it is done.  Obama's campaign has appealed to people in the worse way.  Not just this but also the cult like nature of his campaign.  He could have used the historic nature of his campaign in a much better and unifying way.  He should have also been much more outspoken about how civil rights is about more then the black community.  And he should have developed better relationships with other groups of color.  This would have lifted all of this up.  

    Aw JEEZ (none / 0) (#129)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:09:00 PM EST
    The Democrats  will be  RIDICULED   if  this  makes  the  general  public  info.    

    Limbaugh,  Hannity,   etc.    

    Good  GAWD


    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:16:15 PM EST
    but wasn't HRC asked to sit on a Watergate committee well before BC ever held any office?  How do you know where she would be without him.  Maybe he would have never become president without her.

    Isn't it becoming clear that the only thing to do is  run a Clinton/Obama ticket and hope for 16 yrs in the White House?  Come on, even Stevie Wonder saw it.  

    I really think this is the most practical option for the Party.

    She staffed a Watergate committee (none / 0) (#218)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:23 PM EST
    (only Congress members sat on it).  And even that was years after she, at the age of 22, was featured in Life magazine for scrapping her commencement speech at Wellesley and courageously taking on a Congressman for his support of the Vietnam War.

    And it was then that people said she would be president someday.  So that she became a Senator is not surprising -- and it would have happened far sooner (with much else that she did in between; you could look it up) but for supporting her husband in heading to the South . . . not a good place for women in politics then, and certainly not a Northerner.


    Is Lewis hoping to run again? (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Redstar on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:16:15 PM EST
    To me it seems like Lewis, like every politician, is merely trying to further his own agenda, and, as another commenter pointed out, hold onto his elected office.  If he sticks with Clinton and Obama pulls this off, Yes, this would be egg on his face among African-American voters, particularly if his constituents turned out for Obama.  

    I don't know if you all read the New Yorker, but it has an excellent article on Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, and on the politics internal to African-Americans, esp. the generational divide b/w "Civil Rights" leaders like Lewis and "post-CR" leaders like Obama and Booker.  To me (and I study this stuff as a PhD student), it seems to me this has very little to do with Clinton (unfortunately, as she's one of the many victims in this whole disastrous affair) and A LOT to do with Lewis's political future, and the fact that he now believes Obama is the one to whom he should hitch his wagon.

    Truthfully, I see this stuff as hugely problematic for black politics, as Obama is winning with the African-American vote, but not wholly because of it.  (Remember, he had to send his wife to SC to win over the voters, who initially could not relate to him.)  And his intimations of color-blind, post-racial futures doesn't exactly translate into a progressive agenda for black Americans, who are disproportionately disadvantaged in our economic, political and social systems.  It's hard to champion equity for all without referencing inequity across racial/ethnic/gender/nationality lines.  Really, wooing the voters of 12% of the population doesn't exactly beholden any of these politicians to the black community, particularly one who casts himself as "post" U.S. race politics.  

    Finally, there is also the ugly reality that Obama may not benefit from this endorsement.  I wonder how he feels about it, given the fine line he's walking re: race in this campaign.  He's gone to lengths not to cast himself as the black candidate.  This is undoubtedly an interesting development.

    The Obama campaign (none / 0) (#168)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:22:43 PM EST
    isn't walking a fine line they are walking all over the fine line.

    oops, unintentional emphases (none / 0) (#171)
    by Redstar on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:23:54 PM EST
    I didn't realize that this symbol * on both sides of a word made it bold.  I was going for some sort of emphasis, but that looks weird.

    Maybe Obama Should Clue His Campaign Chair (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:26:33 PM EST
    into that fact. Obama says I'm not the black candidate and Jesse Jackson, Jr. says he is the black candidate and all black politicians need to support him if they want to keep their seats.

    Lewis doesn't have a thing to worry about (none / 0) (#205)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:41:41 PM EST
    I really have to wonder what JJJ is thinking. I mean, Obama might be Jesus, but he'd still have a heckuva time unseating John Lewis.

    Cleaver was the one threatened (none / 0) (#208)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:42:26 PM EST
    Right (none / 0) (#210)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:43:49 PM EST
    I know less about his political situation.

    What is interesting (none / 0) (#212)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:44:35 PM EST
    the article has a direct Jackson quote, not from Cleaver on the actual threat. Now can we say that was "boneheaded". In the old days politicians did these things, behind closed doors and never admitted to them. Now this is truly idiotic. Unity shtick at work.

    Oh and for the record. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:44:20 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson Sr. said that he did not think what Bill Clinton said in South Carolina was racist.  And he reminded people that Clinton fought for civil rights back at a time when doing such was risking your life.  Civil rights is not just about the black community.

    It's late (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:13 PM EST
    So I will risk being suspended for the night and say there is very little there here.  

    Many A-A elected officials represent, to use Hillary's phrase, "very strong and very proud African-American" constituencies. Those constituencies have been supporting Obama in large numbers -- in large part because he is black.  So A-A politicians do in fact face political risk if they were to go down in history as opposing Obama -- the same political risk any politician faces thwarting the strongly expressed will of her constituents.  So J-J's comments are quite accurate as a matter of political analysis.

    The criticism then seems to boil down to the fact that he was too overt about expressing something that everyone knows.  That is true.  It was a bit unfortunate.  But it's not that big a deal.  A-A pride in Obama is sufficiently obvious that it doesn't need to be expressed in code.  Again, the Clintons have hardly shied away from making exactly the same point.

    The African American community's support for Obama was inevitable, and it inevitably is going to be seen for what it is.  This is what it looks like for an A-A to run for president.

    Let's Give BTD A Hand (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by michaelsize on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:58:12 PM EST
    The topic isn't easy to discuss, and cutting through all the BS to get to the actual point is even harder, so thanks for initiating a very very important topic.  We are in very very dangerous waters here with the current dynamics of this primary.  And if Obama is truly the transcendent figure he says he is, then he will come out and say something about this now.   He's got the momentum, the media firmly behind him, legions of adoring fans, so why is his national cochair is out threatening respected senior members of the black caucus with a primary if they don't fall in line?   For a guy pontificating about his desire to change politics and the way Washington works, he seems perfectly content to let his lieutenants employ classic threat and intimidation style arm twisting.

    Incidentally, the most outrageous part of this whole thing is the fact that the threat to black caucus members from JJ jr wasn't heard  2nd hand, HE SAYS IT ON THE RECORD!  What a pair this guy has.

    comments now closed here (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:05:05 AM EST
    I think we've worn Big Tent out for the night. It was a difficult post for him to write. Thanks, Big Tent.

    More than 200 comments here, time to close the thread. Thanks for your thoughts.

    To: cpinva - a little history (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by Prabhata on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:21:01 AM EST

    ok, let's rewind this film, back to 1960. how many NE super delegates do you suppose were approached by the kennedy
     cpinva on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:56:58 AM EST

    There were no superdelagates, as we currently have them, in 1960 - delegates were free to vote as they wished.  Primaries were beauty contests without binding delegates.

    wow, sen. obama is black? (1.00 / 1) (#226)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:56:58 AM EST
    it would have been nice if someone here had told me before now. instead, i have to find out from the newspapers! thanks a bunch.

    ok, let's rewind this film, back to 1960. how many NE super delegates do you suppose were approached by the kennedy campaign, and strongly urged to switch their vote, so they wouldn't be known to their irish-catholic constituents as the guy that kept the first irish-catholic out of the white house? just a guess mind you, but i'd bet money there were a few.

    the only difference is that it wasn't plastered on the internet and the news. it's called hard ball politics BTD, get a grip. arm twisting is part of the game.

    In Fact, the Potomac Primary Victories (1.00 / 1) (#231)
    by bob h on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:37:23 AM EST
    just reflected the decision of large black populations to vote on the basis of skin color.
    I probably would do the same if I were black.

    It might provoke a backlash (none / 0) (#2)
    by Coldblue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:02:11 PM EST
    but I'm sure it has been calculated by the Obama campaign to work in their favor.

    Then the Obama camp is wrong (4.50 / 2) (#85)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:48:03 PM EST
    because he already has as much of the AA vote as can be.  But this will hurt him with other groups, other voters who believed that he wanted to "transcend race."

    Is there any southern state primary coming up? (none / 0) (#22)
    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:18:50 PM EST
    Every time they have played the race card, a southern primary has been around the corner.  Then, in time for California debates and such, he becomes mainstream.

    No (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:19:46 PM EST
    There is no reason to be doing this now, if ever.

    I'd be angrier (none / 0) (#127)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:07:52 PM EST
    I'd be a lot more offended if the Clinton camp wasn't playing the gender card constantly, seriously if this is divisive (and I would agree it is) how do you think the Clinton stuff is going to play, we're already seeing a massive disparity in Male-Female support, by the general do you think Clinton (if she is the nominee) is going to be able to get even 35% of the male vote?

    Do you have any evidence you want to bring (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:20:10 PM EST
    that compares to Jackson's behavior?

    How is Clinton (none / 0) (#162)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:20:33 PM EST
    gender card?  

    Several Area's (none / 0) (#172)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:25:13 PM EST
    While I could argue that she is basically marketing almost purely to women (see: Her Townhall Demographics, etc.), I would rather focus on the most blatant example, her reply in the California debate where, when trying to answer how she could credibly representy change she basically defelected by explaining that her being a woman was in and of itself a change.

    She said that anyone could look at (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:34:24 PM EST
    either one of them and tell they represented change.  Which is correct and a perfectly fair thing to say.  So what is your point?  No one is saying it's wrong to talk about the historic nature of your candidacy.

    You're not angry (none / 0) (#174)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:25:55 PM EST
    that   Obama's  campaign  co-chairman  is   threatening  Black  superdelegates  with running  younger  candidates  against  them if  they don't  vote  for  Obama?

    You  don't  see  that  as  unethical?


    No threat (none / 0) (#203)
    by Rojas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:41:19 PM EST
    He stated the obvious. If you represent a district that goes overwelmingly for a candidate, you might want to thing twice about voting against those you represent.

    What about the big black group in Philadelphia? (none / 0) (#126)
    by felizarte on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:07:26 PM EST
    if Obama garners maybe 90% of the black votes in Philadelphia, it might be big enough to offset Hillary's lead in the rest of the state.

    No it won't n/t (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:11:23 PM EST
    that's true (none / 0) (#18)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16:27 PM EST
    but this race surprises me all the time...

    x (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:23:35 PM EST
    I was waiting for Obama to make some kind of gaffe that would really, really hurt him. Looks like his campaign chair beat him to it.

    We'll see how this plays out, but I think if Obama becomes the black candidate, he loses. If he loses because he's the black candidate, we all lose.

    Yes, he loses (none / 0) (#112)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:01:35 PM EST
    But  if  he  had  already  been chosen as  our  nominee.....it  would have  meant  the    PARTY  loses,  and  McCain   wins.  

    Verrrrrrry  Rovian.  

    Recall   1972  when  Muskie  was  the  favored  Dem candidate, but  the  Rove  Repubs  didn't  want  to run  against  him,  so  they  slipped   lotta  crap to the  media,  he  withdrew,   we  ended  up  with  McGovern,   which  is  who the  Repubs  DID  want  to run  against,   and  we  lost,   in  a  Nixon  LANDSLIDE.    

    They've  done this  before, folks.


    Timing (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:07:18 PM EST
    It's too early for Republican rat, uh, screwing. He's not the nominee yet. Or are you saying the Rs want to run against Hillary? I'm confused.

    I think (none / 0) (#182)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:30:24 PM EST
    the Repubs  want  to run  against  Obama. Thus,  the  rat-screwing  of  HIllary through the media.

    But  Jesse  Jackson Jr   got so cocky  with  the  media   rapture  that  he  thought he  could  strong-arm   the  Black  superdelegates   on  Obama's  behalf.  

    Wanna  take  bets  that  the   TV  media won't  even report  this?  Not  even   Keith  Olberman.  

    And  you won't  see it on  Kos.


    You need to (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:36:59 PM EST
    Excellent find!! (none / 0) (#216)
    by jen on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:11 PM EST
    Wow. We (over at CCN - Clark Community Network) have been shouting about this for so long, I can't even tell you!!

    The most baffling thing is how so many can't see it??? This is the same media that has been shooting down anything progressive, liberal or Democratic for years, and suddenly they're to be trusted?

    OMG. Thank you so much for the link to this!


    It's a top diary on Dkos -- (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:38:49 PM EST
    to resounding cheers throughout the thread.

    They know not what they are doing on DKos. . . .


    Good Point (none / 0) (#131)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:09:32 PM EST
    They could be doing this right now because it looks like the GOP's hopeful nominee (Hillary) is on the ropes.

    Well, not to be too obtuse but (none / 0) (#32)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:23:37 PM EST
    he IS the black candidate, isn't he?

    So whites should vote for the (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:26:50 PM EST
    white candidate then?

    That would be the obvious flipside (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by felizarte on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:19:23 PM EST
    of this.  Ironic that Hillary is being judged by them because of the color of her skin and her gender.  How so very un-Martin Luther King Jr- esque.

    But this was obvious since So. Carolina and with the Michelle Obama statements early in the campaign.  

    If these were a case of a battle of ideas and competence, for an effective govt. then it would be Hillary, hands down. But as it has been pointed out in several posts, it is not a level playing field for Hillary.  Yet, she is still afloat!


    No, I'm just puzzled why (none / 0) (#37)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:27:48 PM EST
    anyone would be debating whether Obama ought to be seen as the "black candidate." How can he be seen any other way?

    Then he has no chance in a GE (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:35:53 PM EST
    I was very comfortable in NOT thinking he was the black candidate.

    So you've switched to Hillary now? (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:47:03 PM EST
    Who, it should not be debated, is seen as the "woman candidate." Or are you very comfortable in NOT thinking she's the woman candidate?

    You seriously thought most people - heck, any people, anywhere - would look at him and not think "Hey, that dude's black."?

    I'd say naive, but that would be like saying Super Bowl 42 was just a game. And I think you're way too canny to be anything close to naive...


    I do not believe what the commenter said (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:54:22 PM EST
    The rest of your comment is not surprisingly, a nonsequitor.

    SUO, do us botuh a favor, do not respond to me please. We do not like each other. You certainly have made plain you wished I was not at this blog. Let's just ignore each other please.


    Well my point was, if it wasn't clear, (none / 0) (#117)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    that if you think BO is dead in a GE then shouldn't you support HC.

    As to the rest, true and fair enough.

    However, since you brought the subject up, I do ask for the courtesy of one last interaction between us:

    Do you plan on continuing to hang your shingle here at TL after the GE?


    Since I do not see him as dead (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:07:01 PM EST
    Indeed, this can be fixed. Jackson Jr'[s action can be expressly disavowed.

    He can be distanced from the campaign.


    ¡Ay, caramba! (none / 0) (#148)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:15:53 PM EST
    I think it's time for Survivor...

    BTD (none / 0) (#184)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:32:11 PM EST
    And  SHOULD  be.  

    Obama  should  publicly  denounce  this.  


    Because (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:38:18 PM EST
    he  himself  said  he  wasn't  running  as  a  "Black  man."   To  now  USE  that  tactic  against  SD's  means   he's  a despicable  liar.

    I guess I just don't get it (none / 0) (#69)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:42:15 PM EST
    How can he not run as a black man? How would that even be possible?

    doyenne (none / 0) (#115)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:03:50 PM EST
    Why  don't  you call the  Obama  campaign  tomorrow  and  ask THEM  how can   do that.  

    It  was  a  large  part of his  campaign  theme.


    doyenne (none / 0) (#116)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    Why  don't  you call the  Obama  campaign  tomorrow  and  ask THEM  how can   do that.  

    It  was  a  large  part of his  campaign  theme.


    It's obvious you don't get it. (none / 0) (#119)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:05:17 PM EST
    But take a little time.  Think a little.  Read some.  Explore your world.  And eventually you might be able to get it.  I hope that you do.

    Why thank you (none / 0) (#165)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:21:24 PM EST
    that was so uncondescending.

    If JJ= Obama , then Penn= HRC, right? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM EST
    Oh, for god's sake, if Obama is responsible for everything JJ Jr supposedly does, then I guess all the stuff that Mark Penn has done in this campaign can be tied to Hillary right?

    Doesn't Hillary take incoming (none / 0) (#179)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:28:26 PM EST
    for everything Penn does?  The press attributes everything Penn says or does to Hillary as far as I can tell.  Can you provide examples of where she isn't held accountable for Penn?

    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#183)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:32:11 PM EST
    Clinton is responsible for what Penn has done IN THE CAMPAIGN.

    Oh for God's sake (none / 0) (#195)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:37:16 PM EST
    Obama  already   admitted  at  the  MSNBC  debate  that   he  had  ALLOWED his  staff  to use  the  race  card    for South  Carolina,  that  he  shouldn't  have , and  that  he  would  stop  it  immediately.  

    Admitting   it  means  he  KNEW  about it.  

    GAWD,  these   trolls  are  thick.


    but a black candidate (none / 0) (#77)
    by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:44:35 PM EST
    must transcend race. i know people will say Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson were serious candidates, but neither have gone as far as Obama.

    BTD, white people don't need to vote for white candidates because whites are and have been the majority, mathematically, socially and economically. nothing new here. and we have had 43 white presidents. so it's historic when we have a black candidate in a country of only 12% AA.


    Nothing historic about HC huh? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:06:39 PM EST
    and we have had 43 white presidents

    43 male presidents.


    i didn't say that there was nothing historic (none / 0) (#156)
    by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:19:31 PM EST
    about Hillary. the discussion here was about race, not the gender. fwiw, i think Hillary should use the gender card, and Barack should use the race card. and Bill should be able to point out that Barack is black without being call race baiter.

    the problem is we can't or not suppose to talk about race or gender as the reason people prefer one candidate over another when race and gender matters.


    aaarrrrgghhh (none / 0) (#214)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:47:39 PM EST
    Ok, let me explain. Let's say Hillary runs as the woman candidate rather than the candidate for everybody. She appeals to women to vote for her because they are women. She tells any woman voter or superdelegate who does not vote for her she is a gender traitor. "Are you going to be the one to prevent the first woman from becoming president? You might find yourself facing real competition for your current political office if you don't vote for me."

    Now, how do you think that would go over with women? With men? With voters?


    Don't be obtuse (none / 0) (#141)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:13:47 PM EST
    i know people will say Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson were serious candidates, but neither have gone as far as Obama.

    Because they ran as black candidates and Obama did not.

    Until now.


    don't be obtuse, Barack (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:22:13 PM EST
    is running as a black candidate when it's in his favor. jesse jackson jr. brought up the race card before the SC primary. Barack speaks differently in front of black audiences.

    What do you mean they ran as black candidates? (none / 0) (#169)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:22:59 PM EST
    Man, speaking as a mixed-race person, some of the comments on this page seem very weird to me.

    Well if it is what this election is about (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:45:40 PM EST
    then Obama loses.

    Yes he can. Lose that is. (none / 0) (#139)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:12:58 PM EST
    "smells like you"? huh? (none / 0) (#176)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:26:26 PM EST
    white people smell alike, and they smell different than black people?

    BTD, please delete this one above (none / 0) (#198)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:39:34 PM EST
    What? (none / 0) (#201)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:41:11 PM EST
    If you delete my post, you should delete the parent post, which states:

    "You vote for the candidate who looks and speaks and smells like you. Works quite well, to a point, as it's very Darwinian. Your genes like genes like them."

    Can you please explain what this is supposed to mean? I was only asking.


    Invisible blackness (none / 0) (#46)
    by bob5540 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:31:45 PM EST
    I don't think Obama's going to start running on his blackness. I don't see anything in your post that even comes near to proving such a thing. In fact, I would say that Obama's been doing almost the exact opposite. If you happen to notice he's black, he won't deny it, but he doesn't go out of his way to remind you of it, nor does he pretend to be white or any other color.

    You are making mountains out of molehills. Why?

    No, bob (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    This  is HUGE.  

    They  are  basically   blackmailing  Black   superdelegates    with  running   candidates  against  them  if  they don't  support  Obama.  


    Obama emphasizes that he is black (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:41:18 PM EST
    when the audience he is reaching out to is receptive to that message.  For example, during the black/brown debate, when he was asked about Tony Morrison's comment that Bill Clinton was the first black president.  Obama could have handled that in a number of ways.  He through in the dance comment because the audience included so many prominent black people.  I don't think he would have responded the same way in California, for example.  

    He also emphasizes his ethnic background when he is in front of a black church congregation.  

    But, according to news articles, his campaign arranged people behind him at a rally to de-emphasize the make up of the audience, which included a great many black people.  Super Tuesday was up next, although he was still in South Carolina but after the voting there.


    It's not up to him, now, is it? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:51:54 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson, Jr., and the Black Caucus just showed that they can't "transcend race," but all other races, ethnicities, etc., are supposed to do so?

    How does that make sense to you?


    Also, don't forget that (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:09:06 PM EST
    leaders are supposed to lead and speak out against that which is wrong.  And it is wrong that there are blacks that are afraid to show their support of Hillary because of all the peer pressure.  I hear this from black people all the time about the pressure they are under to vote for Obama.  That is wrong.  If Obama was a true leader he would speak out against this.

    You must be kidding (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:35:09 PM EST
    Did you NOT read the post?

    Do you have no idea who Jesse Jackson Jr is?


    I read the post. (none / 0) (#64)
    by bob5540 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:40:25 PM EST
    I've even met JJ.

    I see no "there" there.


    You asre suspended for the day (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:43:07 PM EST
    Leave this blog immediately until tomorrow.

    you guys are making way too much out is this (none / 0) (#59)
    by sucka4hope on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:39:33 PM EST
    granted, Obama has been able to get a lion share of the AA vote but don't you think SD's would want to reconsider their support if their constituents voted dramatically different than their pledge as a super delegate. This is simply the correction of super delegates and won't be isolated to AA communities. But I'm sure you guys will disagree

    Are Kennedy And Kerry Going To Change Their (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:51:18 PM EST
    support of Obama since their state voted overwhelming for Clinton?

    When they do that then I will agree that your point is valid.


    More than that happened (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:40:15 PM EST
    That is my point.

    Please reread my post.


    Isn't there an Obama rule that applies? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:41:34 PM EST
    Oh, no, now it's What the Black Caucus (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:56:08 PM EST
    Really Meant, too?

    I cannot take four years of translating what everybody really means.  Just a few months of parsing every pearl of wisdom from The Two Obamas is making me -- as Kathy would say --batpoo crazy.

    Now I gotta seek out the hidden racial meaning of everything by a whole passel of Congresspeople, too?  


    LOL (none / 0) (#204)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:41:22 PM EST
    Right... (none / 0) (#99)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:55:46 PM EST
    If the SDs are supposed to vote differently if their constituants were drmatically different than them...well...then I expect Kerry and Kennedy to be switching to Clinton any minute now, right?

    dude, there is no serious way to have (none / 0) (#84)
    by Compound F on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:47:58 PM EST
    a first successful black candidate without some of this diviseness.  Seriously.  Ain't gonna happen.  I think Obama himself avoids it just fine.  As fair-minded as you may be, that is a fact.

    His campaign did not avoid it here (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:49:54 PM EST
    it is potentially historic. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Compound F on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:53:42 PM EST
    why not?  You want to make this antisceptic?  Good luck.  Won't happen.

    Antiseptic? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:01:13 PM EST
    No indeed. What Jackson Jr has done here is the opposite of antiseptic.

    It festers.


    keep on pretending it doesn't matter. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Compound F on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:33:58 PM EST
    it does.  It does matter.  Just like it matters whether we have a female president.  Either way, we win.  Just don't pretend is does not matter.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#206)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:41:47 PM EST
    you are the one pretending it does not matter.

    I ask one more time, why do you who so detest my thoughts come to THIS BLOG? IS the Big Orange not room enough for you?


    And I think we just heard the framing (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:57:18 PM EST
    of one of the first questions at the next debate.

    Avoids it? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:10:27 PM EST
    You  gotta  be kidding.

    Obama  KNOWS  about it  and  CONDONES  it,  while  playing like he's  somebody  else  at  his     rallies.  

    What    a   deceitful  liar  he is.


    Quite probable Lewis and others (none / 0) (#91)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:54:05 PM EST
    had considered every angle long before Jackson made his comments.

    Not sure I see the "express threats" here. Pressure yes, but threats?

    Read it. See what is said about (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:58:37 PM EST
    longtime members of Congress suddenly facing fresh, young and well-financed challengers -- no doubt full  of "hope" and "audacity," too.

    Do you think (none / 0) (#138)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:11:52 PM EST
    Jackson is saying the Congressmen must vote for Obama or else Obama will finance "fresh, young" challengers to call the Congressmen out for supporting Hillary Clinton?

    THat would be a good tactic (none / 0) (#143)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:15:03 PM EST
    I honestly don't see what would be wrong with that(as opposed to the race thing), that's kind of what a party take over is right, I mean Hill's hoping al of Bill's cronies will back her right?

    Um "someone" (none / 0) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:15:24 PM EST
    will is the threat.

    Who do you think Jackson is talking about?


    And this would (none / 0) (#185)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:32:20 PM EST
    make an accomplished Congressman nervous enough for the statement to then constitute a threat?

    I think Jackson is talking about inevitable challengers to an incontrovertibe and highly consequential position (namely supporting HRC at this moment). Not sure how this statement refers to Obama torpedoes.

    Also, it seems to me this kind of conversation must be going on all the time.  The pressure to modify their positions, with or without Jackson's "exhortations," must be excruciating.


    You believe what you wish (none / 0) (#196)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM EST
    I think it is obvious that you will see this as you wish.

    Why even come here to discuss this?

    Honestly, why not enjoy the friendly confines at the Big Orange where this will be all explained away.

    I have no further patience for this.

    We can be spared of your presence immediately


    You asked me (none / 0) (#220)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:49:56 PM EST
    who I thought Jackson was talking about. I answered sincerely.

    Apparently, I didn't get your sarcasm. But now I do.

    Don't know what the Big Orange is. Is it a place where people answer questions?


    What's up with Cleaver? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:54:19 PM EST
    Why did he feel the need to air that dirty laundry at this time? He must have really felt threatened, no?

    And to undercut Lewis like that? He has absolutely no cover now.


    BTD: How about a different title. (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    The one you picked is quite passive and does not convey the meat of your post.  

    No (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:57:15 PM EST
    I am conveying my feelings on HOW this turns him into the black candidate.

    But if Jesse Jackson, Jr. is co-chair of the (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:06:16 PM EST
    Obama campaign, hasn't Obama decided he IS the black candidate, despite his earlier efforts and the fact he is of mixed race?

    I don't buy it. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Compound F on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:06:47 PM EST
    He has never seemed nor presented himself as the "black candidate," and if anything avoids the label assidulously.  Bleh.  You are wrong.

    and who is hillary's chair? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Compound F on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:16:10 PM EST
    and what does that say?  this is bogus.

    What is bogus? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:18:44 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson Jr's behavior as Obasma co chair? I agree.

    Sort of the point.

    IF Clinton's co chair has behaved like this, then I am ready to condemn. Have some info for me on that?


    It gives you absolutely no pause that (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:15:33 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson, Jr., co-chair of Obama's campaign is strong arming elected black Congresspersons with loss of their elected position?

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#133)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:10:09 PM EST
    But now it's been asserted that his campaign manager is asking superdelegates to switch because Obama is black.

    Have it one way or the other. One way you have a real shot at winning. The other way you go down in flames.


    Remember the debate when Russert (none / 0) (#98)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:55:44 PM EST
    showed Obama the memo and he said he would not just denounce that stuff but be out in front to stop it? It's time for him to fire JJ Jr. Threatening a primary challenger on these delegates is wrong and what JJ said about Hillary and Katrina is wrong. Not a peep from Obama on either of these.

    Some day race won't be an issue (none / 0) (#132)
    by Prabhata on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:10:06 PM EST
    But that day is not here yet.  It took 100 years after the Civil War for Americans to stop the separating the black community.  It will take another 100 year from the signing of the Civil Rights, or another 60 years.

    It IS an issue (none / 0) (#142)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:13:48 PM EST
    inside  the  Democratic  Party.  

    There is  NO WAY  we  can choose  this  man  as our  nominee  if  we  know this  crap is going on.

    NO WAY


    well if Clinton had won 80 or 90 % of (none / 0) (#140)
    by sucka4hope on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:13:18 PM EST
    any constituency in MASS I would hope Kennedy and Kerry would reconsider their support. I may have been a bit presumptuous to to say this is going to happen everywhere, but if Obama wins by 25 points in any area, I'm sure SD changing their mind is a possibility.  I bet there is a SD or 2 in Virginia that might be reconsidering their support for Clinton.  Additionally, I feel my perception of Clinton race-baiting would be enough to make me reconsider my vote.

    suckahope (none / 0) (#145)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:15:23 PM EST
    If  this information gets  to the  general  public  that  Obama's  campaign staff  is literally   bribing  or  threatening   superdelegates,     Obama  will  lose  in a  LANDSLIDE.  

    Double Standard (none / 0) (#178)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:28:10 PM EST
    I love the arguent that SDs shuld back Hillary out of Loyalty but that Obama donating to there Campaigns in 2006 is "Bribery".

    You feel any perception of (none / 0) (#158)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:20:01 PM EST
    Clinton race baiting would make you change your vote?  What does that mean?  Your voting for Hillary now?  Your not making any sense.  I'm sorry your point totally alludes me.

    I said my perception (none / 0) (#175)
    by sucka4hope on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:26:17 PM EST
    It is my perception that the Clinton's used race-baiting for political gain. If I were a SD and I felt this way, I would reconsider voting for Clinton also.  Look I don't want to start the who injected race conversation so let's just say this is my perception.  

    Well you might want to ignore (none / 0) (#207)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:41:54 PM EST
    what has or hasn't been said and done but I and a lot of other people don't.  We think what people say and do matters.  If Obama was a real leader he would encourage people to vote with their minds and hearts.  He doesn't step up to the plate.  You might want to ignore all of this but how someone acts means a lot to me and others when they are asking to be the next leader of the free world.

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:17:15 PM EST
    This is a pure crime, telling them if they don't switch they will run people against them.  Are you kidding me?  This has nothing to do with black or white, this has to do with interfering with the elections.  What disgusts me is the Moveon and those people acting like Hillary cannot and should not lobby, when these guys are strong arming.  I am not a lawyer but is this like racketeering?  My knowledge of such things is from the Sopranos, what do I know.  

    No (none / 0) (#164)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:21:21 PM EST
    it's not racketeering. It's politics. Easy to confuse the two, I know. :-)

    Is there a media conspiracy? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:19:38 PM EST
    The headline on the AP article still says:

    "Black lawmakers rethink Clinton support"

    Now, instead of the text about Lewis and JJ Jr., the entire article is about the SEIU endorsement. Not one word on Lewis or JJ Jr.
    AP article

    That headline is pretty bad in and of (none / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:22:14 PM EST

    But the article is totally different now. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:33:37 PM EST
    The original article is where I copied the quote up at the top of this thread and also had the J. Jackson Jr. stuff in it. Now it is nowhere in that article. I saved a print screen of it and it is not the same.

    I wonder who is running AP. (none / 0) (#170)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:23:46 PM EST
    I have seen so many problems with their reporting.

    I had to google Cleaver to come up (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:28:52 PM EST
    with his comments about Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s threats.

    They were in this same AP article that has (none / 0) (#192)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:35:55 PM EST
    now changed.

    If peopel don't figure it out enough (none / 0) (#173)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:25:44 PM EST
    before the primaries (which I hope they do) then they will definetley figure it out after the Republicans hit everyone over the head with it 24/7.

    Something is wrong with this picture (none / 0) (#181)
    by NaNaBear on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:29:34 PM EST
    Comments made on this board lead me to beleive that if a black supports Obama, you see it as a problem for Obama. If Hispanics and older white women support Clinton, its ok, and shouldn't be looked at in the same way.

    The Republicans aren't the problem, its people within the Demoratic Party thats bent out of shape over who people prefer.  Everyone isn't going to support Hilary Clinton and vice versa. I know plenty of blacks that support her. Some are my family members.

    Some of you are making remarks  and afterwards,  claiming thats what the media and Rep. are going to say if Obama is the nominee.  Be for real, its what you want to say.

    Blacks read whats being said on the blogs and share the info. Its offensive and condescending.

    Stop singling us out and thinking you know who we should support.  BLacks have always supported the CLintons. The majority are ready for change. WE aren"t the only ones saying this, so stop dissing us and acting like we don't have a clue.

    Then you are a fool (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:36:27 PM EST
    We are complaining here, at leaqwst sonme of us abitu Jesse Jackson's behqvior and John Lewis' explanation of why he switched to Obama.

    THAT he switched is not the issue.

    LEt me put this plainly. This is a serious concern raised by me. At least serious to me.

    I do not appreciate a bunch of partisan cult members coming here and insulting me.

    Not only do I not appreciate it, I am suspending all such commenters.

    You asre one of them.

    Leave immediately and do not return for 24 gours. TYour comments will be deleted.


    You don't get it (none / 0) (#215)
    by sonya on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:47:41 PM EST
    Obama's campaign is strong arming black super delegates into voting for him or else they'll face a primary challenge.  Understand?  Obama surrogates have gone so far as to suggest that the reason Maxine Waters and other black female super delegates are supporting Hillary is because Obama wouldn't have sex with them.  How crazy and insulting is that?!!

    You have no idea what's going on.

    I'm black, and I can tell you that Obama's
    campaigning in the black community consist of "vote for Obama because he's black."  Period.  He doesn't even pretend to pander or address any issues.  He comes on the radio and shoots the breeze without saying much of anything, and then his surrogates come on the radio and do the hard close by saying that "we" have to support Obama because he's "one of us" and the Clintons are racists who have done nothing but hurt black people.  


    Article on Yahoo news (none / 0) (#202)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:41:16 PM EST
    The quote is buried (none / 0) (#219)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:49:07 PM EST
    No one will read the whole article.

    Update on Lewis (none / 0) (#223)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:05:40 AM EST
    The Post quotes Lewis spokesperson saying Times story is "inaccurate."


    give me a chance to respond.... (none / 0) (#224)
    by Compound F on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:10:15 AM EST
    I will...unless you are afraid.  Sabes?

    Not yet (none / 0) (#230)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:19:47 AM EST
    according to Andrea Mitchell who this morning on Morning Joe said that as of 12 midnight last night when she called the Lewis camp, Lewis is still thinking about it.  She mentioned that Lewis might have gotten a call from Bill late last night.

    JJJr Was the first (none / 0) (#232)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:52:40 AM EST
    to kick this race issue off, I believe it was intentional part of the campaign playbook, I don't believe as Clyburn claims over and over that Obama rise was unforeseen, it is exactly the same campaign ran in Mass in 06 that elected Patrick inclusive of race card, claiming opponent was swift boating if anyone got near the record or lack of a record, caucuses, Kennedy and Kerry, and the Social Liberal Press as the nasty campaign surrogate feed by Axelrod a press insider.

    I do not believe Jackson's separatist advocacy will be disavowed it wasn't when Jackson first laid the grievance card all over MSNBC the day after NH saying Hillary Clinton did not Cry for Katrina followed up by Prof Dyson also a Party insider with Code talk on Tweetys MSNBC show.   I have no doubt it was part of the campaign play book to move black voters in mass and give MSNBC an attack bot bite to beat and ask at the sillball race questions in the debate.

    Axelrod handled Patricks call of to balck identity voters in exactly the same manner.  It should not be missed that Obama lost by 15 percent in Mass with the heavy activism of the same crowd Kennedy's, Kerry's, and Patrick's for him take that as clue of what's coming in the GE now, and the demographic split will be mirrored in many States.

    I also believe its too late to remedy unless Clinton sweeps with large margins going in with the most delegates and Edwards, I was at a rally for Clinton last evening and her supporters are angry and believe themselves to  have been conned many of us were surprised at the tenor it was loud.  Many have never supported a campaign before this also endangers of course my candidate running in my district for an open R previously held seat, she is a white female and wasn't at the rally and it was not unnoticed she cant win in this district without the non liberal non black base or vice versa she is toast either way my guess.  It is what is, ugly but I do belive this fight changes both Parties for years to come and then I kinda tink that cannot be bad so we shall see.

    Any way I can assure the Party there is an anti Obama wing of the Dem party now and my bet many will not support Obama or rally to him if he is the nominee, oh you also do not attack Bill Clinton they love that guy a lot which surprises me, and McCain is not diliked, I heard no one saying that it just needed to be a Dem,

    As Obama Rises so does the right wing hackery (none / 0) (#233)
    by Joike on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    We should accept that if Obama wins, the right wingers will not hesitate to subtly and not so subtly bring race into the election.

    The same will continue for Clinton and gender.

    These people have no shame.  It is about winning to them and they will say anything to achieve vicotry.

    We've already seen the racists break out the "halfrican" smear, Limbaugh's horrible "spade" reference, the use of Obama's middle name.

    It will only intensify from these stooges.  We will endure and have to respond to either racist or sexist attacks for the next several months.

    It will be ugly, but the GOP is pinning its hopes on a rerun of the Bush Administration who promises more of the same in Iraq, maybe a bonus war in Iran, more of the same on torture, more of the same on judges.

    The right can't win on the issues, they can't win on the war, they can't win on inspiration, they can't win on character (Keating 5 anyone?).  They can only lie and smear our nominee and they are very good at that.

    So Clinton is right, our candidate has to be ready, willing and able to withstand and strike back at the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be spent defaming our nominee.  It won't be enough to say "I respect McCain, but disagree with him".