Clyburn's Boneheaded Attempt To Help Obama

Rep. Jim Clyburn's (D-SC) behavior during the South Carolina campaign helped Obama a great deal in that primary. He really helped Obama become the candidate of African American voters in South Carolina and beyond. Of course, now Barack Obama has some trouble with white working class voters.

Now Clyburn is up to his old tricks, but I do not see the political logic to it. Barack Obama already will get at least 90% of the African American vote against Hillary Clinton. It is hard to imagine he can get much more. But Obama DOES need to improve his performance with white voters. Thus when Clyburn says:

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win.

He sounds like a crazy conspiracy theorist. He does Obama no good. He does him harm. Rep. Clyburn, you need to step away from the microphone please.

< Pelosi: Unity Ticket "Not A Good Idea" | Snipes Gets the Max >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    CDS (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by pantsuit chic on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:02:46 PM EST
    Clinton Derangement Syndrome at its finest.

    Nah he cribbed it from Wright. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35:59 PM EST
    That's the line that Wright wanted to deliver on Moyers but could not deliver. He is transfering blame for the obvious biographical poison that Obama is swimmming in.

    MSNBC, Party elders and Barack's rivals, Thanks for concealing a few pertinent facts about Obama's not so unradical associations before Iowa voting.


    Who in their right mind (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by IKE on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:01:51 PM EST
    will believe that James Clyburn is neutral in this whole thing. He is a Barack supporter and an ally of Pelosi. They are all supporting Barack and they know it. What really pisses me off is the fact that these people are claiming to be so neutral. People aren't dumb and are seeing right through this stuff, I saw pelosi on Larry King tonight and she made those same idiotic statements, the queen bee syndrome is really working.

    This is going to get tons of play (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:03:04 PM EST
    I haven't checked, but I'm sure there will be a shrill dkos diary proclaiming the absolute truth of what Clyburn says. Expect to hear about it tomorrow from Olbermann.

    Come on (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:39:49 PM EST
    The "2012" theory has been gospel for AGES already!  The only reason they would write a diary about it is to note that a respected Congressman has finally proclaimed the undisputed truth about Hillary and her evil, evil scheme.

    heh (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:43:19 PM EST

    Cyburn is repeating a CT on DKos!! (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06:46 PM EST
    >>>>he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

    Grrrrrrrrrr. (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:11:02 AM EST
    She wants to win in 2008.  Anyone who listens to her can see that.  She thinks she's the best person for the job in 2008. She has no guarantee of winning in 2012.  (Sorry, buy my crystal ball is cloudy today.)  We couldn't unseat Bush in 2004.  But McCain will be a one-termer?  He might be, because of his health.  Then we have his Vice-President to deal with.

    Obama and his crew can't control what's going on in this election, so they're resorting to the race card and speculation about Hillary's motives.  I can tell you this: he's not running on his qualifications for the job.

    Cyburn is a fool.


    Reminds me of 2004 (none / 0) (#221)
    by Dave B on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:29:50 AM EST
    When the story was that Wes Clark was a stalking horse for Hillary, only in the race to stop Dean and clear the way for Hillary in 2008.

    I remember that now. (none / 0) (#224)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:40:47 AM EST
    Digby has a post up about ambition.  Hillary wants the presidency now, but so does John McCain.

    Look no further than the stupid headline (none / 0) (#8)
    by ghost2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:16:13 PM EST
    BTD, it may be that they simply don't have any other strategy.  

    Before EVERY state primary with a large AA population, the Obama campaign has played the race card.  They may not get more than 90%, but they are sure going to try to increase the turnout of AA voters.  What else do they have in NC?

    This is shameful.  Rather than trying to appeal to all groups of American voters, Obama campaign is the ONE which is determined to WIN AT ANY COST.

    I assure you that AS SOON AS May 6th primaries are over, Obama will become the Harvard candidate again just in time to appeal to Oregonians.  The more things change....

    Winning ISN'T everything.  


    they are going to get huge turnout anyway (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    I ma sorry, I do not follow what you folks are arguing at all.

    Maybe Not NC Primary Related (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:33:16 PM EST
    There is a possibility that this is meant to sway the SDs into ending this now. Let's face it. The  Dems don't want to anything to anger the AA community.  

    Its all of the above the Racist Card (none / 0) (#80)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:58:45 PM EST
    read the article, its editorial comment for Kos and Ko to fill the drum beat of the next two weeks with hate and ugliness so people will want the ugliness to stop ya know and its a try and change the story get them off of discussing why Obama cant win in Nov. calling people racists is more editorial and news worthy and no don't by the guy doesn't know what he is doing he dose.

    Bottom line it if the Racist card being plunked down yet again by Obama, pity thats all they have.

    This stuff is that helps McCain just prepare and stay focused its a red herring like gay marriage a wedge.


    I think it does both (none / 0) (#210)
    by kimsaw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:44:01 AM EST
    solidifies the AA vote in NC and tries to smear Clinton in the eyes of the SD's. Clyburn is playing with race to draw sympathy out for the novice. It's clear what's going on after Pelosi conversation on Larry King. If Dems like Pelosi and Clyburn could get to what's best for the party instead of  surrendering to their egos, they'd find their answer in a unity ticket. A unity ticket is the only viable alternative available to this party. Cuomo was the only sane voice in a sea of stupidity.

    Is he (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:24:07 PM EST
    talking about Clinton in the nominating primaries and Obama in the GE?

    I don't know what he expects to gain except further demonization of Hillary Clinton.

    Forcing Obama to compete in 9 more primaries exposes more Obama and the more he's exposed the weaker he gets. That, I believe is rankling him, in fact it's bothering the whole Obama crowd.

    Still, it's difficult to determine what he's trying to accomplish with that statement.

    It's interesting that the Obama campaign has demonized Hillary Clinton including Obama as a direct participant which one would assume possible damage to her if she is able to get the nomination.

    Yet the Clinton campaign hasn't demonized Obama.  Apparently their sin is forcing Obama to compete.

    The Clinton campaign has simply run ads that say, in effect, my policies are this and I'm better qualified for the office.  Hardly negative.  Hardly demonization.

    The tactics Axelrod uses(blame them for what we're doing) are so Rovian.


    I agree that it doesn't make much sense (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:12 PM EST
    because it could bleed over into Indiana and hurt Obama there. I showed the ward map of Philly: Obama did not get a bi-racial vote there, he got blacks and a FEW (but not all) latte liberals.

    No Ind and Pa have totally different AA (none / 0) (#84)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:01:27 PM EST
    communites culture and leaders it will help not hurt in the AA community.

    You didn't understand my comment (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:02:17 PM EST
    I'm saying that it will not help with many whites, which is frankly what Obama needs.

    Oh sorry, its likely to suppress the white vote (none / 0) (#94)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:09:34 PM EST
    for Clinton, think of the types and number of talk show interviews over the two weeks the State has some serious tenisons IMO.

    No (none / 0) (#229)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:24:05 AM EST
    It wouldn't suppress the white vote. He sounds like such a twit that if anything, it might increase the white vote. African-Americans have turned out in high percentages in all the Democratic primaries.

    His statement is just nonsense that won't help his precious.

    He sounds like he's added a tinfoil hat to his wardrobe.


    Conspiracy theories are abundant at DK! (none / 0) (#113)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:34:03 PM EST
    And Clyburn repeats them as if they're credible!
    Oh - he sunk real low for this one.

    well... (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:44:46 PM EST
    it's not like Clyburn was googling around one day and read this on the internet.

    Let's face it, this is how these guys really feel.  Obama is something more than a politician to them--he is the Great Hope.  I don't mean it in a messiah-complex way, but in a straight guy crush sort of way.  These guys look at Obama and put everything onto him: young, smart, full of vim and vigor.  He is no longer a human being-his basic appeal is that he is anything by everyman.

    Of course anyone who challenges that has to be a horrible, vindictive and evil person.

    It's basic storytelling, folks: in order for there to be a good guy, there has to be a bad guy.  This is just another way of calling Clinton a monster.  I, for one, feel for both Bill and Hillary.  How they can go out there every day with so many knife wounds in their backs is a testament to their characters.


    It's pretty darn simplistic thinking (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:18:44 PM EST
    Good guy- bad guy simplicity is what I expect from the GOP. Generally speaking I always thought liberals/progressives were usually smart enough to realize that things aren't that simple.

    Personally, I knew alot of these guys admired the RWNM but I figured they were smart enough to not pull something that WILL ultimately divide the party.


    Vim and Vigor?? (none / 0) (#214)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:00:53 AM EST
    Come on, he bowled a 37!!  That is serious limp-wrist territory.

    Even the NYT editorial sings this song. (none / 0) (#222)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:31:58 AM EST
    Please do not dare to besmirch the messenger of hope.

    Add his remarks to... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by kc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:56:01 AM EST
    those of Doug Wilder that I heard on CNN late this afternoon-he said that Hillary was running a dirty campaign and having 'hissy fits.' I thought it was odd at the time and sexist, but it makes sense now--a concerted effort before NC.

    This must come from the campaign, too much coincidence.


    Are we 100% sure that (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:04:38 PM EST
    the only adjective that goes with 'racist' is white?  Actually, I think this is a case of 'dumb and dumber.'

    Here! here! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:31:35 PM EST
    For or against, because of color or ethnicity IS racism.

    Hear! Hear! (none / 0) (#208)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:20:25 AM EST
    There's no here nor there about it.



    We're 100% sure it's not the only adjective. (none / 0) (#30)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:29:58 PM EST
    Another Obama surrogate (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by Coldblue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:09:15 PM EST
    plays the race card.

    And yet Bill still gets crucified.


    Another uncommitted delegate like Donna Brazille (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:18:11 PM EST
    Sugar deal that Clyburn's got (none / 0) (#240)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    He got the NC primary preponed under the condition that he would stay neutral till the convention... unfortunately staying neutral were "JUST WORDS"!!

    Paranoia strikes deep (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:14:51 PM EST
    into the South. This is an amazing, although not surprising, piece of logic. When an advocate is reduced to hate what's left? You can only play the hate card for so long before it gets old, and scary.

    Fox will have a field day.

    It Irks Me No End...Bcuz How Many Blacks Had (1.00 / 2) (#189)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:48:07 AM EST
    their hands out and took advantage of the programs Bill Clinton put into effect that actually helped make their lives better.  And then a snake oil salesman comes on the scene, feeds them a messianic line and they ran off to follow him.  And, they always find time to villify the Clintons.  Sorry, but it p'o's me big time.

    This is garbage from you again (none / 0) (#236)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    Had their hands out? WTF?

    President Clinton tried to enact policy to benefit all Americans. But you're villifying only African-Americans for wanting to participate in economic and other opportunities of the time.

    Total garbage.


    O/T (none / 0) (#17)
    by Coldblue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    Are your email addresses still the same? I've sent to both.

    Right on time (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:17:36 PM EST
    Another old Confederacy primary coming up, another opportunity to play the race card, hard, so as to jack up the vote total.

    They are running scared of HRC beating him in the popular vote. The boy bloggers are really hysterical over this right now, they see the writing on the wall. MyDD is currently overrun with Obamabots freaking out about Jerome's call for MI and FL to be seated.

    They are scared, make no mistake.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:19:46 PM EST
    Obama gets 90% of the A-A vote already. In SC, you could see the short term political logic. Now?

    No way. If the Obama campaign is happy with this, then they are fools.


    You disagree with what? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21:23 PM EST
    That it's the race card, or that the fanboyz are scared of the popular vote? You haven't been saying the latter for quite awhile now?

    That it is an opportunity (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    It is stupid.

    you may have read this (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:13:06 PM EST
    see the section on NC.


    He needs to drive up the black vote to the max.


    he wants 100% (none / 0) (#55)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:48 PM EST
    The triple Stalin.

    Of course Obama is happy with it!! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:13:03 PM EST
    he and his supporters have played the Race Card throughout the primary!
    Maybe Clyburn's timing is to offset some of the Wright-fest reviving now - although I fully believe Obama's PR team orchestrated Wright's interview with Moyers and his appearance at the National Press Club on Mon.

    Part of Obama Camp's Decision Not to Go Negative? (none / 0) (#71)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:52:50 PM EST
    Perhaps, as the news media dutifully report that Obama has insisted that his campaign not go negative, the surrogates are being sent out to do more dirty work.....

    Obama sends out (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    his campaign has been the most negative and divisive, yet, he gets off with the big lie that he is not negative.  Maybe BTD is right.  But how many times can he do that?  That is why I think it will  not work in the GE.  

    There is no way that Clyburn would do this without (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:17:27 PM EST
    Obama's ok he is a surrgate but its coming from Obama.

    I think it's coming from Axelrod (none / 0) (#148)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:20:23 PM EST
    Obama is an opportunistic puppet, imo.

    Dude can't even think on his feet.


    He's not a "surrgate" (none / 0) (#231)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:29:37 AM EST
    Clyburn is undeclared...

    Thank you for pointing this out (none / 0) (#234)
    by debrazza on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:14:20 AM EST
    Earlier in this thread, someone thought Clyburn was John Lewis.  And now people are saying that he is an Obama surrogate.  Look, you can say a lot of things about Clyburn if you want, but he is always someone that has always had extremely high marks when it comes to integrity.  While it is true that his comments make it seem that he is leaning Obama, he has not declared and every SD that has not declared is doing Hillary a favor, because we need to run this thing as long as possible.

    I wish people would stop attacking him.  It makes me a litte sick actually.  Does anyone consider the fact that his constituents went 90% for Obama and he has to justify to them why he is stilll on the fence so many months after South Carolina?  People might want to consider that and consider that he is still undeclared and actually thank him instead for standing up against enormous constituent pressure.


    And a sister State in the north (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:10:54 PM EST
    But BTD, there is no difference between (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:18:14 PM EST
    what Clyburn says now, and what he said to great effect 2 months ago. What the Obama camp did in January and February should have been roundly condemned. Maybe this time voters will be more savvy.

    I am not saying there is (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    I am saying that it might have been short term politically shrewd then, it is just plain dumb now.

    My guess is that ... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:41:57 PM EST
    ...they'll have a clip of Bill saying something in response to Clyburn. Maybe a cub reporter's dumb question, about blacks and NC, and then it'll be played out in Oregon that bill's a racist warmonger.

    That'll fool the westcoast liberals for long enough.  it's largely how he fooled the rocky mountain Dems.


    Doubt this has anything to do with AA (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    vote.  Probably just a fresh injection of race to gin up more white liberal guilt among the intelligentsia.  Just in case some people wete beginning to wonder why they should feel guilty and vote for Obama.

    Intelligentsia (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:11:50 PM EST
    Man, what can one say about them.  Not one independent thinker, wait, Krugman.  That is it.  They have fallen in line with the prescribed PC line and forgot any kind of critical thinking.  They have all been manipulated by the Obama Campaign.  Note I don't say Obama.  It's a campaign, and they all fell for it.  

    I hear this same riff all the time! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21:11 PM EST
    What do you expect -- the media is constantly reporting that it is "mathematically impossible" for Hillary to win and Slate's "Death watch" section devoted to Hillary is emblematic of the absurd coverage that Hillary has gotten for the last two months. I've heard almost verbatum come out of the mouth of almost every major "news" personality. Frankly, with all this, it's amazing that she is on cusp of taking the popular vote lead from Obama.

    Any other politician (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:25:51 PM EST
    would be out of the race by now.  Those silly people just keep on voting for Hillary.  Guess most of us don't know we're supposed to hate her  :-)

    Hate her? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:30:42 PM EST
    She's got a setof brass ones on her. Quite frankly, I LOVE the Hillary I see on the campaign trail right now.

    Me to! (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:37:29 PM EST
    I'm not really sure how she became the working class warrior in this race, but I'm darn glad of it.  Her brass ones are bigger and shinier than any other as well.

    Bad. (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:23:21 PM EST
    First of all Clyburn could back up his accusation.  Is the brief mention of Ayers in the debate all he has?

    Of course, that won't happen because this is politics.  So really, why DID he say that?  Bloggers and the media have been way up front with the "destroy Obama so she can run in 2012" theory.  Why not mention them?

    This type of statement is what is dividing the party.  It's the new Obama spin - "The party is in shambles because of Clinton.  Still I respect her right to run."  Oh yes, it's obvious you do.  

    What I think is hurting the party more is conflating the working class with racism/racists.  This complete simplification and misunderstanding is the true gift to the Republican party.  There's a lot of have-nots out there.  Remember?  That's what the Dem Party is about?

    But this is what Obama Nation believes (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:29:07 PM EST
    they really don't want blue-collar, working class votes, or PC users, or people over 50. They really, really don't. Sometimes people mean what they say.

    The new (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35:01 PM EST
    catch phrase is "small tent democrats". Or maybe we should start shortening it to "STD"s. Ooh, that also has another meaning doesn't it?

    have-nots? (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:17 PM EST
    Yes, that's what the democratic party is supposed to be all about or used to be about.  Seems the revamped party is more about elite snobbery and new young members.  Jeez, that's such a losing proposition.  

    It infurirates me. (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:01 PM EST
    Maybe other people won't notice.  Maybe they don't notice.  I guess that is what I should hope for.  But the comments from Obama, Axelrod, and various pundits felicitous to Obama confound me.  It's hard to run on having the right economic ideas when you confess not caring about the people those ideas would most help.  It's hard to run as a Democrat without seeming connected to the common man.  Guys in suits don't get to parade around telling people who aren't in suits what they are and what they "actually" feel.  There will be consequences for that.  They are negatively branding the working class.  

    Negatively branding the working class (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM EST
    and damaging the Democratic party brand in the process.  Bill Clinton had the Dem brand in pretty good shape and who ran on his record, GW Bush.  His 2000 campaign message was a good one.  Keep the economic prosperity going and a humbler foreign policy.  Didn't that work out great?

    Whoever convinced Al Gore to run away from Clinton in 2000 really hurt his chances.  Running on a platform of "the people vs the powerful" was a bad idea in a great economy when people felt good about how the country was running.  

    I'll bet the same wise men who advised Gore to run away from Clinton are now behind Obama's candidacy.


    The same unwise men who advised Gore? (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:28:41 PM EST
    Could it be Donna Brazile?

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#144)
    by arky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12:11 PM EST
    liburro, you are so right! (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by otherlisa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:02:18 AM EST
    I'm a Hillary supporter so I suppose I should celebrate the Obama campaign's incredibly destructive strategy of branding working class voters as racists, because they won't vote for him.

    But this is about working class voters across all kinds of demographic/ethnic lines. With the exception of African Americans, working class voters are not going for this guy.

    And ultimately what Obama and his supporters are doing is nothing I can celebrate because it's so incredibly destructive to the Democratic party and to the interests of working class people.


    You obviously (none / 0) (#225)
    by wasabi on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:13:50 AM EST
    know nothing about Texas.

    Wrong. (none / 0) (#235)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:24:14 AM EST
    These Blue collar white guys haven't voted Democrat for 30 years. These are these are the people that put Reagan in office who stuck Bush back in who gave us Bush again.

    Bill Clinton didn't win with them either time they still broke 50+ for the GOP.

    Read this.


    In other words (none / 0) (#244)
    by echinopsia on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    "Don't bother me with facts and statistics and hard research. I like my opinions better!"

    Isn't this holding the black vote hostage?? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:31:23 PM EST
    In doing so, isnt this a way of "poisoning the well" so to speak for Hillary's candidacy??

    Is it because they are convinced (none / 0) (#50)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    that Hillary will be the eventual nominee?  But if they are not able to keep Hillary down with everything that has been thrown at her by the Obama supporters and even Obama, the MSM, what makes them think that she does not already have the antidote for the poison in the well?  These things are the ones that allow her to shine.  

    yes and they would then plan for her to lose (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:48:54 PM EST
    thereby giving him the opportunity to run again in 4 yrs...So maybe they are really the ones with this plan and they are ascribing it to Hillary...

    Hmm (none / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:42:15 PM EST
    Actually, it's unclear what exactly would become of the "Hillary knows she has no chance to win" argument if she actually did win.  I'm sure they would fit it into a narrative somehow.

    maybe the 10 mil Hillary raised really (none / 0) (#70)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:51:39 PM EST
    spooked them and her 10% win and the 3:1 spending just discouraged them. Heck I'd be after spending 11 million in 6 weeks, dayum. Now thats some change right there.

    I'm thinking they're still recovering from the shock, they have to be. They thought that it could be done, and take her down. I hope they learned a lesson, that experience and brand name is priceless.


    I dunno (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:57:49 PM EST
    It strikes me as a sign of great confidence when people go apesh*t making sure you know that it was only a 9.2 point margin of victory, not 10.  That's how winners behave in my experience.

    When Markos started that game (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:59:13 PM EST
    I knew Hillary had REALLY won. He knew that his "she has to win by 19!" gambit wasn't going to fly.

    Or just (none / 0) (#109)
    by magisterludi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:26:25 PM EST
    sore losers.

    it was an inane statement, totally made no sense (none / 0) (#73)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:53:40 PM EST

    The point of this (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:37 PM EST
    as I see it is:
    AA's aren't stupid. They listen to the news and saw that Hillary won almost all the demographic groups in PA hence many are probably starting to waver in their support for Obama believing that he can't win in Nov. Using the race card is one way to shore up wavering AA support. OF course, it is also stupid because it could cause him to lose even more white support in NC. I think people in general are getting really tired of the whining from Obama, his campaign and his surrogates.

    I Surely Hope So Because I've Been Tired Of It (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:29 PM EST
    since January or February.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:00:04 PM EST
    And I think the Obama camp may be scared that the AA vote in PA did not turn out in the percentages they expected.

    or the vaunted YOUTH vote still give him his (none / 0) (#97)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:11:18 PM EST
    due, he did break a million votes.

    Don't Forget The A.D.D. Factor For the Youth Vote (none / 0) (#192)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:56:08 AM EST
    This generation is easily distracted and if they perceive that Obama is in trouble, they just may move on and vote for someone else or not vote at all.  This seems to be the age of no accountability and I wouldn't be surprised if it played out this way.

    That's a good observation (none / 0) (#102)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:16:07 PM EST
    That may very well be it. They may think that fanning the fires is what they need to get that higher AA turnout. The whole premise on why Obama will do well in NC is because of the AA vote. Furthermore after the rout in PA, they really NEED NC to be the double digit rout to staunch electability concerns(and wasn't there a poll recently that showed her under double digits?). Expectations are pretty high there if I'm not mistaken.

    Aren't they concerned (none / 0) (#134)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:49:53 PM EST
    that fanning the black community to vote as one for Barack has the possibility to fanning the white vote to vote for Clinton only?

    It does (none / 0) (#151)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM EST
    and the rhethoric desn't exist in a vacumn. Comments like these could affect Indiana which has a large quantity of white working class.

    I'm with BTD, I think this was a dumb move. Then again I live with a white male who tired of hearing racist early on in the campaign. The cries of racism have become a tired, played out song.


    Isn't this strategy (none / 0) (#177)
    by Serene1 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:14:56 AM EST
    of theirs similar (kind of) to their strategy of 'Democrats for a day' registration drive they employed in PA, Ohio and Texas. They thought they would capitalize on the republican hatred for Clintons and thus boost their numbers.

    Since that didn't work very effectively, this must be their Plan B strategy to
    a. reinforce the white guilt among the DNC establishment and SD so that there is no overwhelming visible support of Hillary from them.
    b. To shore up their AA, youth, and elite white liberals vote base (i think they have kind of given up on blue collar white votes and are building a coalition of the rest).

    This is a more tactical strategy to ensure that they don't bleed further. Whatever they may say publicly, privately they realize that they have still not won the nomination and hence need to fight for it with every trick (sometimes dirty) available.


    Well maybe, but Ohio and Pa have very strong (none / 0) (#168)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:50:36 PM EST
    empowered black leaders, they would not play along with a Race card IMO.  Back in the run up to SC when Brazile played her stunt on CNN then in her Clyburn Brazile interview of Bill Clinton racist code, Rep Tubbs Jones handled her very well and she is Hillary's co chair in Ohio and a damn good one.

    Also.... (none / 0) (#202)
    by kc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:13:53 AM EST
    maybe the GOP ad being run in NC is starting to hurt.

    And, the Doug Wilder rant today, to further reinforce the racist tactic.


    I don't know what Obama could ever do (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by nycvoter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:33:31 PM EST
    to convince me to forgive him and vote for him in November and I have voted in every election, primary and off year and have never asked a Democratic nominee to explain to me why he deserved my vote.  I am sick and tired of their campaign, there isn't anything uplifting, hopeful or unifying other than rhetoric that is not backed up with the facts on the ground or any great soaring record of achievement that can make me vote for Obama

    I'm in the same boat... (none / 0) (#48)
    by mg7505 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:36:11 PM EST
    but I'm going to hold my nose and do it so we don't drown in another Republican administration. Pretty please...?

    I don't have vote for BO because (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:32:42 PM EST
    I live in CA and it will go Democrat with either.  I can abstain from marking the POTUS choice.  Heck, I can even vote Green.  It just won't matter.

    Right there with ya (none / 0) (#120)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:38:22 PM EST
    I'm in Texas so we know this state is in the can for  Bush-lite.

    I can write in a nominee or vote for the Green nominee... the options are really quite liberating. I will vote down-ticket Dem (in Austin it does matter). And I'll wait another 4 years to get this (putting a strong Dem President in office) right.


    no (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:37:59 PM EST
    i'm sitting out

    i'm not holding my nose

    they can go to hell


    I understand your POV (none / 0) (#124)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:42:15 PM EST
    This is going to sound so weird to my own ears, but I have the "luxury" of living in Texas so my vote isn't going to matter anyway. But what I won't do is give Obama even 1 more vote to add to his popular vote totals.

    I will vote Democratic candidates (primarily female) and grow a couple of gray hairs while I wait for 2012.


    I'm in California and the worst one (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:54:08 PM EST
    because we will be five for McCain if Clinton is not the nominee.

    I used to live in CA (none / 0) (#140)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:04:42 PM EST
    ...and was thinking today that I wish I lived there again so I could vote against Pelosi when she comes up for reelection.

    It will be interesting/sad/justified ??? to see the results of some of these "blue" states in November.


    I used to live there also (none / 0) (#154)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:24:49 PM EST
    but now I'm in that supposed other big 'blue' state. I'll be writing in Hillary. No votes for Obama from me.

    I wonder what color we'll be in Nov . . .


    Ever notice the script Obama supporters follow (none / 0) (#230)
    by tannersmom on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:27:21 AM EST
    I agree. I tried to have a discussion with a friend at work about BO and their seems to be a script they follow 1. He's wonderful and will bring hope peace and cookies to DC; 2. Well HC is so bad nothing he does can be worse and 3. If that doesn't convince you, then you are racist.

    I have voted in every election since I turned 18, went through the drought of Reagan and Bush one and now when I feel a democrat has a real chance to try and get this country back on track,there is no way I can vote for BO, I see in him the same vacant no record appeal to a certain segment of the base that the Repugs had in Bush baby. There is no way I can contribute to giving this country over to another be all to all people amateur after the destruction we suffered in the last 8 years. As hard as it is for me to believe, I would rather have an old sage of the other party then another incompetent.


    After (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:36:03 PM EST
    Obama's humiliating loss in PA, it has become clear to me that he cannot win a large share of the white vote.

    Is this racism at work?  Maybe, but no more so than his ability to win around 85-90 % of the black vote is racism at work.  

    Huckabee and Thomson are saying the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:34:31 PM EST
    it's racism at work.

    Not necessarily racism (none / 0) (#158)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    intelligencism might be a bigger problem for Obama in getting the white vote . . .

    Here's my theory (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:11:36 AM EST
    You know how people say "I'd vote for a woman for president, just not this woman"?

    It's the same for Obama. Lots of people would vote for a black man for president, just not this black man.

    He could have been seen as "postracial," but he had to go and smear the Clintons as racists, not distance himself from Wright, say "typical white person," and imply that small town Pennsylvanians won't vote for him because they're bigots.

    You call people racists and bigots for no reason long enough, eventually they're going to stop worrying about you calling them racists. White guilt is not bottomless.


    I really don't agree with this in either case. (none / 0) (#204)
    by MojaveWolf on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:58:51 AM EST
    Obama has won an overwhelming share of the white vote in some states, and a majority of white males in a lot of states.  Hillary is starting to turn these things around through her superior debating skills, policy positions and  the positive aspects of her campaign, more than anything (I don't think highlighting Obama's negatives has helped her much; her campaign is somewhat clumsy at this and when she's speaking her heart isn't in it; plus it helps the media and the Obama campaign pretend she's been doing it all along like they claim)(which isn't to say that the msm thinking Obama has it won and starting to attack him to set up the GE hasn't helped her, just as their relentless assaults on her for months helped him during that time).

    Likewise, re: th black vote, the media hasn't really highlighted the policy differences in the candidates, and if you think their policies are fairly similar, and you think both of them would have positive historical symbolism, it makes sense you'd decide based on the one who you think has the most in common with you.  That's not racist, that's people voting their own interests.

    Plus, a lot of people in the African American community have bought into the Obama campaign meme that the Clinton campaign (or at least Bill, but frequently the whole campaign) are racist, or were  deliberately race-baiting (again, Bill in particular) even if they weren't racist.  While I think people are very wrong to believe this, being wrong doesn't make them racist.

    There might be some people voting for bigoted reasons, but that's a nasty charge that I really don't want to throw around without evidence.  


    He's not as dumb as Samantha Power. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:19 PM EST
    He's been in the game.  He knows what he says has political consequence.  He perhaps said it with all the even-handedness in the world, but he should know by now that print has a certain effect.

    Clyburn just heard this for the first time (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:30 PM EST
    yesterday???  Where the heck has he been for the last three months - in an undisclosed location? Incommunicado?

    Jeez, all Clyburn has to do to hear people talking about how Hillary can't win, and how she's only in this to make Obama lose, and how she hates the party and wants to rip it apart, is turn on the TV or the radio or pick up a newspaper - people of all colors and gender are saying this - what's the point of him saying he's hearing it from African Americans?

    Guess we're supposed to say, "Oooooh, now we're really, really scared!"

    Honestly, someone needs to call the Centers for Disease Control, because this derangement thing has reached the epidemic stage.

    You would be surprised (none / 0) (#207)
    by debrazza on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:27:04 AM EST
    how many people of his generation don't even use email.  There is this really old partner in my firm that doesn't even have a workstation at his desk.  He has his secretary print out all of his emails and then he reads them and then dictates or provides notes to her for a response.  It's crazy.  It's just a different generation.  I mean, can you imagine Clyburn spending his days surfing dKos or HuffPo?

    He is an honorable guy, judging by the fact that he has not committed yet helps Hillary at least.  Just like Bayh holding the line with freshmen Congressmen in IN who Obama campaigned for in '06.  I personally think that he is just saying what is on his mind and I think because of his status, we should be a little more careful in how we consider his comments or respond.

    Is he a likely Obama SD?  Yeah, probably, but he also probably just wants to be with the winner.  He has not committed yet remember.  So if his constituents are telling him things in his district and being upset and probably lobbying hard for him to endorse and he still has not, then well I think he is actually favorable to Clinton if she can get the popular vote.


    He came out for Obama (none / 0) (#228)
    by wasabi on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM EST
    He originally supported Clinton, but changed his SD support to Obama when his district went heavily for Obama.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#233)
    by debrazza on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:07:00 AM EST
    No he did not.   If you read the story, it states clearly that he is uncommitted.  Maybe you are thinking of John Lewis, who did switch sides.  Considering Lewis is from Georgia, I don't know why you would have that confusion.  As a person of color myself, I do have an idea though.

    No no its the white man beating the blackman down (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:44:51 PM EST
    Group grievance card being pulled, it's about racial grievance and the tactic is that Dems will rally if Obama is attacked.  They don't get that they have cried wolf way tooo  many times and Dems will not rally to Obama.................but it dose give cable KO types their talking points, Kos his hate to throw and a license for them to call Hillary and Bill wicked mean racist etc. beating up on poor Obama victim to the powerful rich white people again, watch KO spit and sputter et al tomorrow....its their attack call to arms its victimhood 101 and co dependency 102 text book

    lets also remember who they are trying to inflame NC for turn out the vote inflame and be angry in the exit polling interviews in run up, and Indiana racially sensitive to beign with and that goes way back will have similar tensions  Ind is unlike PA and Ohio  Its still the Race Card, I don't admire the tactic its not a victimless act but I get why they use it...

    ...watch for a Robison Brazile something on CNN or Wapo interview again as a companion piece would not surprise me, JJJR was on Bill O'Reily last night in case you missed it anyone see Prof Dyson yet

    , ....No one would ever connivance me Clyburn doesn't know what code he is using don't buy it...

    Oh and supposedly this is Rev Wright line too the Divisive one did it and we all know who that is supposed to be

    This is the stuff that makes the Party look bad

    How is what Clyburn said in anyway racial? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:45:15 AM EST
    Please be specific and cite defensible evidence.

    Clinton (none / 0) (#237)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    will have a ready answer.

    This won't work.


    Does anyone find it odd (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:12:56 PM EST
    that HRC is winning substantially in big states despite the racial baiting, the misogyny, the call to quit?  She has so much support at the ballot and money.  People keep her going.  It's incredible.

    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:40:56 PM EST
    she is winning the self identified Dems

    she is the dem

    he is dem/repub/indie

    that means he stand for anything and nothing simultaneously


    Sigh (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by chrisvee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    I'm starting to think the party elders are actually trying to lead us right over the cliff.  Humpty Dumpty is going to need massive amounts of superglue after this primary is over.

    Clyburn was instrumental (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:34:08 PM EST
    Clyburn lobbied the DNC hard to get one of the first primary slots for S.Carolina. Wanted it not only to try to influence the vote, but also because being an early primary state means big bucks to the state economy. All those politicians and their staff and all the media spending big-time. In  exchange, Clyburn promised not to endorse in the primary.

    It doesn't seem to be much of a stretch to think that Clyburn's distress over the possibility that Fla. and Mich. might count end up counting is twofold: strict enforcement of the ROOLZ is needed to ensure that S. Carolina preserves its new economic engine, and, let's face it, Clyburn is as neutral as Brazile.

    Clyburn was one of the first to jump on Bill Clinton for his alleged racist remarks in New Hampshire (the fairy tale comment), and to claim that the MLK/LBJ comment dissed King. He was on Charlie Rose at the time explaining his concern at the tone the Clinton's were taking.

    BTD-- (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:38:35 PM EST
    you've said how bad and stupid this is (an assessment with which I agree), but you haven't theorized why he would say such a thing in the first place.  What was it meant to accomplish?  How was it intended to help the campaign?

    There seems to be a toxic "us vs. them" attitude coming from the top of this campaign that will eventually rot out the bottom.

    There is an article to be printed in NYT tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by ajain on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:47:29 PM EST
    Its clear this is an attempt to rally black voters out in huge numbers in North Carolina. That is clearly what it is.

    I mean with the Rev. Wright controversy and this Clyburn stuff, the African Americans have plenty of reason to come out in huge numbers.

    Also I think he is doing his best to blunt Clinton's electability argument. He is trying to create an outrage in the AA community. He is really annoying me.

    Article on what in the Times? (none / 0) (#137)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:57:31 PM EST
    They are losing credibility by having a bash Hillary article every day. What is it this time?

    How Odd Since NYT's Endorsed Hillary...WTF (none / 0) (#203)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:17:33 AM EST
    god, i love the smell of fear (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:07:24 PM EST
    in the morning! it smells like.............victory!

    i expect they'll be calling for sen. clinton to drop out, because it's "mathematically impossible for her to win", even after she's sewn up the nomination in august.

    truly, some people just should not be allowed out of the house by themselves.

    hahahahaha. You made a funny. (1.00 / 1) (#163)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:40:26 PM EST
    She's gonna sew up the nomination in August.


    good one.


    I Think The Political Point Is To Be Divisive (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:09:06 PM EST
    It's to try to do exactly what it sounds like he's doing which is to stir up black anger and resentment towards the Clintons.  For two reasons, the first is that they want to surge African American turnout in North Carolina to pad their popular vote count (they can dismiss it all they want, but they're worried on this front) and second to raise the specter of a party split along racial lines if Obama is not the nominee.

    Splitting the party has been an implicit threat of the Obama campaign since at least January.  That's what all his talk about Clinton not being able to get his supporters and hedging on whether Michelle would vote for her and all that other crap has always been about.  Clinton has always been one of the strongest candidates to say she'll unite the party.  Obama has always hedged until pushed.  They want SDs scared black voters will walk and they particularly want to freak black SDs out.  

    Put simply, IMO, this is a sign they're worried.

    Well that and they couldn't find any statement from a fifth cousin of a HIllary Clinton volunteer that could be taken out of context and called racist.  That's usually what they do after a loss like Pennsylvania.  But perhaps that's because they're worried about a backlash in Indiana, so they want to keep it local.

    O/T and possibly a tinderbox... (none / 0) (#159)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:33:28 PM EST
    where were those black voters in 2000?  2004?  I can understand why the DNC doesn't want to upset the black vote.  But where were these voters when the party needed them most?  

    True that the black vote is reliable but those numbers don't seem to be as huge as they seem to be now.  I had been a precinct chair where I live since 2002.  Never in my years being a chair had I witnessed the tremendous amount of blacks that came out to vote and caucus.  

    Understandably one can see their excitment about a black candidate.  But for Obama and company to wedge them against the rest of the party is suicide.  Clyburn and the rest of the race baiters going to switch parties?  Most of them are from the south.  How many times have we seen anything from Louisiana to Georgia go blue?  Not since the peanut farmer of 1976 has GA gone blue.  

    The race thing is getting old.  And us Latinos and I am sure white women are getting tired of the Dems taking for granted we are going to lock step to Obama.  Some or most won't.  Then where will the party be?


    They Voted Democrat (none / 0) (#162)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:39:38 PM EST
    in 2000 and 2004.  Black voters are some of the most loyal Dems there are.  

    The problem is there aren't enough of them and they tend to largely be located in Deep South states which are controlled by white Republicans (not a coincidence).  

    Which doesn't mean their wishes shouldn't be taken into consideration, they are an important democratic constituency.  But like every other important constituency they don't, on their own, have the ability to elect democrats to the presidency.  They can, however, like every other key constituency make things a lot harder for Dems by sitting home.  


    Ugly, I think so people will tire of the Race (none / 0) (#232)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:00:02 AM EST
    cable interviews where the public gets punditry get to express their view of Clinton as Racist blah blah blah instead of why Obama probably can't win in Nov.  

    But here's the good news too, when grievance is overplayed there's a tipping point where thinking replaces gut reaction and the sting is neutralized, this blog's quick reaction proves we are there.  The codes broken, Clyburn's cudgel used to divide and inflame groups in the Base by sticking his finger into those old deep wounds and yanking the flesh to refocus attention back to a now newly unhealed oozing gaping wound is ugly yes, not victimless and predatory but its now also just bad Politics.  

    And its screaming what Dems  need to hear to avoid a loss in Nov. a Party Platform based on Social Justice the myopic focus on victimlogy helpless hopeless has past its time and is out of touch with most Americans needs it's a loser for Nov.


    Panic at HuffPost (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:14:24 PM EST
    Media Jump Ship From Obama to Clinton...

    so, they agree they were on the Obama ship....

    I just cruised the webpage (none / 0) (#161)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:36:01 PM EST
    wow! thanks for the heads-up.  the house of cards at obama inc are falling down.

    Krugman Rocks.... (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:08 PM EST
    Run, do not walk to read his column
    The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

    Thanks Stellaaa (none / 0) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:30:24 AM EST
    That was a great article. Krugman one of the few honest media voices during this primary cycle. Some more great stuff.

    It wasn't. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?

    Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn't winning over working-class voters because transformation isn't what they're looking for.
    Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign's Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn't the campaign's central theme.

    Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton's health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

    I got so excited (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:35:18 AM EST
    thank you...I wanted to share it with someone who has been through this...It's so exciting.  He is the last honest liberal intellectual.   What a mensch.  

    Why bring race into it? (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:26:30 PM EST
    You can say it's somewhat silly to suggest that Hillary wants to cripple Obama so she can run in 2012. But what does race have to do with it? Did Clyburn say anything about race? Here's a man who held his tongue while Bill Clinton was making a fool of himself in SC. Suddenly he's playing the race card? How? And, by the way, there is a real concern and some consternation over Hillary's tactics. Remember the term "kitchen sink" statement came from her own campaign as a way of explaining what they were going to do to Obama.

    Outside of the bubble here, many people are suspicion of Hillary's motives, given her bleak prospects for the nomination. The math is inexorably against her. She is behind in every metric. Since Super Tuesday Obama has attracted 90% of the superdelegates. And most of the remaining "uncommitted" are mostly for Obama. People like Pelosi, Carter, Gore, Reid, Clyburn, Brazile, etc. are going to cast their votes for Obama. Given all of that, what is the point of the kitchen sink? The thinking is that she must want to damage Obama so severely that he will lose and she can run in 2016. I don't agree. I think this is her first and last crack at the nomination. I think she is employing the kitchen sink because she cannot yet deal with the reality of losing.

    Ask the Obama campaign about race (none / 0) (#165)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:43:52 PM EST
    since the Clinton campaign hasn't said a word yet.  I smell fear in Obamaville.

    Clyburn did not hold his tongue in SC.  He made as ass of himself on the Charlie Rose show with his vast concern for the Clinton's tone.  Among other interviews etc.


    Okay, what how did Obama play the race card? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:17 AM EST
    Please be specific and cite credible and pursuasive evidence.

    Have neither the time nor inclination (none / 0) (#176)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:30 AM EST
    to play dodge ball with you.  Buh-Bye

    Of course you don't. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:23:12 AM EST
    Just as I expected. Do not assume that your statements will go unchallenged.

    Nor your own. (none / 0) (#184)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:35:21 AM EST
    If I gave a damn what you thought I could play but ...

    By the way (none / 0) (#185)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:36:35 AM EST
    since when is "many are suspicious" proof of anything.  Please buy new talking points.

    Instead of just running my mouth (none / 0) (#193)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:57:52 AM EST
    I can cite evidence to substantiate my claims.

    Clinton camp: We want to turn Obama into the black candidate. Google it if you don't believe me.

    Clinton camp: Barack is like your cool black friend. Google it.

    Hillary: I am losing because AA's are voting for Barack. Never mind that she is getting a large percentage of votes based solely on gender, along with a certain percentage of the racist white vote which has more than offset the positive black vote for Obama (as distinguished from the negative racist vote for Hillary).

    Bill: Jesse Jackson won SC too. Everybody outside the Hillary bubble recognized the coding here. John Edwards also won there. But he didn't cite Edwards.

    Hillary's pollster: Hispanics will not vote for blacks. When asked about it in a debate Hillary says it's a historical fact. By the way, it is not a historical fact.

    Etc. Etc. Etc.


    Google (none / 0) (#197)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:07 AM EST
    Hillary stoops, Hillary vicious, Hillary Liar, Hillary will do anything to win, Hillary entitled,,,,use your imagination, they do.  

    How about (none / 0) (#218)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:58:57 AM EST
    "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina"?

    And maybe ... (none / 0) (#200)
    by dwmorris on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:11:50 AM EST
    she's employing the kitchen sink because the >15M people that have cast votes for her expect her to run a competitive race --- not withdraw based on Obama's definition of victory.

    If you read the quote in the original post ... (none / 0) (#209)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:43:47 AM EST
    ... you would not ask anyone here "Why bring race into it?"

    Obama Goes Thermonuclear (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by cdalygo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53:12 AM EST
    It could be that he believes it will help in North Carolina. In other words, he's facing a string of losses so let's win big there. (Huge mistake but what else is new.)

    He could figure it's a sure way to win over super-delegates. Many super-delegates are terrified of being labeled racist (even when it can't hurt them campaign wise. Let's face it most dems don't think like republicans.) Thus they must agree to vote for him to avoid label and to avoid splitting party along race lines. Losing election doesn't matter as much as loss of self-perception. After all they will worry if they act in "racist" manner they will lose anyway. When it's damned if you, damned if you don't then at least hold to self-perception.

    He honestly believes this will weaken Hillary enough with AA community and white liberals that she will lose 2008. However, I don't believe it. If AAs truly felt that way they would not have kept bailing out dems given wedge social issues like gay marriage. (Though many truly hated Bush after Florida disenfranchisement [went for blacks first with false accusations re felonies stripping rolls]. Ah irony thy name is Barack Obama.

    Or - drum roll - he's about to tank money and poll wise and wants to set up someone else to blame. Given his ego, that might be true.

    Fool me once (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Sunshine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:45:43 AM EST
    I don't think these attacks against Bill Clinton will help the blacks in the long run...  The Clinton's went all out to help the blacks in his administration and now his wife is running against a black candidate and they are not susposed to mention that he is black without being called a racist... Then they turned against the Clintons almost overnight, now 92%, over using the phrase "roll the dice" and the word "fairy-tale", these phrases have neve been tied to race before...  Now, I don't see why any white politician would ever want to tie their fate to the black community again....   North Carolina is coming up and Bill Clinton is a racist again....

    Clinton (none / 0) (#227)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:17:38 AM EST
    would not be at all vindictive.  Of that, I'm sure.  What's good for minorities is good for all minorities, so there's no real fear.  Plus, everyone understands why they are supporting Obama.

    The only people who buy that nonsense are Obama supporters, and he's already got their vote.  


    I don't know what he (4.80 / 5) (#32)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:30:56 PM EST
    was trying to do but maybe he really believes it, which is really sad.  Hillary has said several times now that a Democrat will be elected, and it will be her or Barack. She has said he can win.  I don't hear anything similar from the Obama camp or Barack himself.  I don't understand why people think Clinton would try to sabotage Barack, why can't it be true that she just wants to win, and will keep trying to win until it is over?  She did not put the S.F. gaffe out there, Obama did, she did not go to Rev Wright's church, Obama did, etc...It would help if Obama could take some responsibility for his own messes and tell Clyburn to keep quiet.

    Before y'all get (1.00 / 6) (#64)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:41 PM EST
    too upset about Clyburn you should know that many people have said this exact same thing.  From the BO supporters' perspective it's difficult to understand why HRC has adopted wingnut talking points.  So folks are trying to think of possible motivations.

    Generally, primary battles have certain attacks that are considered off limits, the reason for this is because at the end of the primary the winner must count on the supporters of the loser.  After the primary, there is no need to hold back in the main election because the winner will never need to count on the votes of the loser.  This is why so many BO supporters have tried to think of motivations for HRC's using wingnut attacks in the primary.  Yes, I know she essentially says that the Rs made her do it because they would eventually do it themselves, but a lot of BO supporters aren't satisfied with that explanation.

    This is no big deal, imo.

    well aren't you the pot (5.00 / 10) (#72)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:53:30 PM EST
    calling the kettle black.  Obama's campaign has been using those wingnut attacks against Clinton since last summer.  D-Punjab, trying to get reporters to look into Bill's sex life.   You got no room to talk or complain about RW talking points.

    If you think HRC has been tough on him, just wait cause you ain't seen nothing yet.


    There are some (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:15 PM EST
    very tough wingnut attacks against HRC that have never been used by the BO team.

    I mentioned one of them on talk left a short while ago, and the response was a lot of troll ratings.  So, I'm not going there.  You can look at my recent comments, hint; it's the one with 7 troll ratings.

    Isn't it disappointing for HRC supporters when McCain and the RNC denounce the anti-BO NC ad, but it's crickets from the HRC campaign.  Yuck!

    And, I still think the HRC team may have planted the madrassa lie more than a year ago, when it first surfaced.  Since then we've only seen more overt ties between wingnut media and the HRC campaign.  At some point the plausible deniability loses some of the plausability (why would wingnuts have been pushing this opo research that early in the process when the most obvious beneficiary was the D front runner; HRC.)  And, does anyone still deny that Drudge has inside connections with the HRC team: how did he get their tax returns and internal polling before anyone else?  And, Scaife with both HRC and WJC.  And, Fox News; the best news according to some on the HRC team.  And, WJC on Rush's show.

    It's interesting to me when I read commenters say that Fox News is the most fair, and commenters say they can't understand why so many previously acceptable media and internet folks have gone so terribly wrong.  I'm not going to spell it out, but hopefully some of you will see the obvious implication of my previous sentence.


    So Hillary has to aplogize for Republicans? (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:44:32 PM EST
    Isn't your candidate the one who is so in love with the Republicans - can't wait to have them in his administration?

    apologize - darn lack of title spell check n/t (none / 0) (#130)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:45:41 PM EST
    Just curious (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:48:02 PM EST
    Can you cite me a single example of Obama condemning a Republican attack on Hillary?  Since you think it's so disappointing that Hillary hasn't rushed to Obama's side, and all that.

    The NC example (none / 0) (#143)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:10:14 PM EST
    was when the HRC campaign wouldn't respond on the record to reporters repeatedly asking for a comment.  There are no similar situations where the BO campaign was AWOL.

    But, in the ABC debate he clearly gave her cover for sniper-gate.  She surely didn't return the favor.  In fact, she repeatedly upped the intensity of the moderators' wingnut questions.  I know a lot of you look up to her.  But, I sure hope folks don't model their own ethical standards on the ethics that define her political style.  In other words, in real life everyone needs to have boundaries, i.e. there are some things we don't do, even if we're cappable of doing them, and even if they would be to our own benefit.  As it turns out this isn't really a burden, because it's been my experience that maintaining ethical boundaries will be rewarded in the long run.


    Then Less Than A Week Later (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:35:13 PM EST
    His campaign held a conference call where military veterans suggested that because of her misstatements she was unfit to lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

    And as the moderators pointed out his campaign had previously been fanning the flames of the controversy.

    It would be great if Obama genuinely didn't want reporters to get distracted by diversions but that appears to only be the case when the diversions are about him.  

    BTW, I knew Obama was toast in Pennsylvania the moment I read about that conference call.  Forget low blows, it was cheap and pathetic.  Feeling the need to try to jump start a weeks old controversy for which the other candidate has already taken responsibility and apologized and which Obama had recently labeled a distraction?  Desperate, IMO.


    If you're suggesting (none / 0) (#178)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:17:45 AM EST
    that he shouldn't have given her cover in the debate; I do agree with you.  He did much more than turn the other cheek in that debate, and she kept hammering away.  At that point, it is necessary to pound back.  

    And, I can see how the military would lose confidence in a CIC who pretended to have battle experience, when many of them actually put their lives on the line.  And, imagine what it looks like for a president who fibs to make political points (as the survivor of a hot combat zone) going to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.  This act is supposed to honor the military, but this circumstance would have the opposite affect.  I'm sure many would be personally insulted and hurt by a president who minimized their true suffering by pretending to have some similar experiences.  Some things should be off limits: fibbing about being under fire in a military situation should be an automatic disqualifier for the position of CIC.  It is despicable and insulting to those who are are the real heros, putting their lives in danger for their country.


    Fibbing about being a Democrat (none / 0) (#179)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:22:16 AM EST
    is way worse...so...go read Krugman and see what it means to be Dem.  

    Does that man (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:37:00 AM EST
    care at all about his reputation as a serious economist?

    I quote:

    Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him -- and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton's initial financial and organizational advantage -- he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

    This is exactly what BO's attackers say about him,  and now Krugman is claiming that this theme came from the BO campaign.  Absurd is as absurd does.

    He has no credibility.  He's just a silly columnist, who is clearly running low on creativity.  If you want an effective attack on BO read someone like Lanny Davis; sure, he twists the truth, but he's effective, Krugman's just pathetic.  That whole piece is lame, Lanny is more effective in one or two sentences.


    My God (none / 0) (#217)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:55:56 AM EST
    It sounds like you genuinely believe we should have gotten to the truth of whether John Kerry earned his medals.  

    It is truly, truly amazing to hear the bizarre arguments people convince themselves of during primary season.


    I'm interested in (none / 0) (#238)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    the use of God, as you and others use it at talkleft and in the real world.

    I'm not saying it's bad for everyone to use terms as you have.  But, my religious background has taught me not to use that phraseology (#7.)  I suppose, non-believers are free to do as they will, but religious sticklers would appreciate a lower case "g."  And, I'm sure that there are many believers who feel it's acceptable to take a loser view of their faith; but to each his/her own.

    Regarding Kerry; we did get to the truth, he deserved the medals, and he should be honored for that.  Hopefully you don't think it is a bizarre argument to deny the idea that HRC and Kerry have similar military experiences, myself I don't see any connection; but to each his/her own.


    uh huh, yeah sure (none / 0) (#195)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:05:28 AM EST
    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:22:02 PM EST
    needs not only the entire DNC establishment, the "progressive" blogs, the media, the RNC, but Hillary to defend him?

    Gimme a break.  What a weak and cowardly !@#$%^&!!!!

    Please take your victim statements to DK.  Victimhood plays so well there.


    xx (none / 0) (#167)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:48:31 PM EST
    Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

    TL has become the ultimate "Why won't people stop picking on Hillary?" blog.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#181)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28:39 AM EST
    I commented how both candidates knew what they were in for when they started to run for office. The media was NOT going to be nice...at all.  If either candidates' supporters couldn't handle it, I suggested watching the Golden Girls reruns.

    Barack's victimhood is far greater than that of Clinton's.


    Obvious implication (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    to me is you are deaf, dumb, and blind to your own candidate's campaign.  Oh and did I mention paranoia?  Happy trolling.

    I'm sure Hillary (none / 0) (#118)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:35:55 PM EST
    ain't thrown everything at Obama that the right will throw at him either and I think that if you are going to accuse the Clinton campaign that you should have proof, not just a "gut feeling". It was plausible that Iraq could have WMDs. Guess what? That "gut feeling" W had turned out to be wrong and plausible didn't pan out.

    JoeScar (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by magisterludi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:00:07 PM EST
    put it in rather chilling tones a few days ago. He basically said the RNC will pull out all the stops... ya ain't seen nutttin' yet!... and that the GOP doesn't care if they're labeled racist by the dems.

    It isn't like Obama (none / 0) (#157)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:27:36 PM EST
    camp isn't making this into a race war and darned if I can understand why? The GOP is probably salivating over the idea that they can use the same tactics they normally use by caging and supressing minority/black turnout and pulling all there old stunts and using these sound bites to appeal to white males(I can even see affirmative action being trotted out).

    The Republicans Are Using Affirmative Action In (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:07 AM EST
    creative ways this year. There are anti-affirmative action amendments on the ballot in MO and IIRC Colorado. Great insurance to get every wing nut in the state to polls. If Obama and crew keep fueling this race war, they increase the likelihood that these amendments will pass by large percentages.

    Also, they have cried wolf so many times that it has IMO become counterproductive. When the Republicans employ real racist tactics if the Obama campaign complains, most people will turn them out.


    If she mentions it, Team O will (none / 0) (#164)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:40:40 PM EST
    crucify her and spend days saying how negative she is and she just keeps bringing it up (even if she doesn't). rewind a few weeks back to when she finally answered a Wright question after being hounded . . .

    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:54:17 PM EST
    has used just as many, if not more, wing nut talking points against HRC. We HRC supporters tried to figure out why for a long time before finally giving up.

    unnacceptable (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:56:26 PM EST
    you're implying she actually made R wing attacks through bill by saying it's no big deal.  That's a ridiculous argument that supports a FUD campaign.

    It's ridiculous because: there's no proof she did.

    There's no legitimate campaign reason for her to have done so (it LOST her votes).

    And it is a very big deal because suggesting she did so, especially by dishonest leaders like Cyburn, has hurt her significantly with AA votes.

    Personally, I think it is a very big deal when a campaign brands someone racist or exploits race for votes based on fear.  Dem or Repub.  So for the record, once again, here is the race card that was played.  It was not played by bill clinton.


    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:03:56 PM EST
    It's unthinkable that Hillary would attack Obama from the right by, say, questioning his readiness to deal with national security issues.  Surely she must have some super-secret motivation besides winning the primary, to launch such an unprecedented attack.

    I would DEFY anyone to cite me the last time one Democratic candidate attacked another Democrat on his national security experience.  If it ever happened, it surely must have been many, many years ago.  And I'm sure we'd find that the candidate who did such an unthinkable thing was someone with no chance whatsoever to win the nomination, and that whoever designed the advertising for that line of attack was blackballed for life by all good Democrats.

    [PS: Punchline here.  Of course we all agree the 3am ad was a million times worse, but still.]


    Bet I Don't Have To Click On The Link (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:10:05 PM EST
    to guess what 04 primary ad you are referencing. Isn't the designer of that ad part of Obama's campaign staff?

    Why yes (5.00 / 6) (#104)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:18:53 PM EST
    but don't let me stop anyone from pretending that Hillary is running a scorched-earth campaign like no Democrat in history.

    It's positively comical to watch people hyperventilate over a half-second of innocuous bin Laden footage.  My only explanation is a complete lack of a political memory.


    That was a lot of (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:40:50 PM EST
    build up.  And you still didn't go in for the kill.  You forgot to credit that staff member for the Geffin in the L room comment.

    Now, I know the HRC talking points better than y'all!  That's scary.


    God, you are so tedious, 1jpb (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:47:38 PM EST
    You always come here, stir up crap (usually the same), then trounce away.

    Yes, yes--Clinton can't win, she should drop out, she is a monster, she is ruining the democratic party.  We get it.

    Feel free to trounce.


    Please (none / 0) (#127)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:44:28 PM EST
    The argument that Hillary couldn't possibly be making these arguments because she wants to win the nomination is beneath you, or any sentient being really.

    Since you totally missed (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:52:03 PM EST
    my point: I was trying to pile on Gibbs, by noting that he got into trouble last year for his Geffin comment.

    No good deed goes unpunished.  

    Or maybe, it's so out of character for me to be helping the HRC side that y'all missed it.

    I can't believe I'm wasting some of my ten daily comments on this--more proof I'm all heart.


    You sold me JPB (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:02:26 PM EST
    I, my two friends, my sister and my brother in law will not be voting for Obama.  Especially with Pelosi and Reid and Clayburn weighing in; and supporters like you.  But for now, I am encouraged by the fact that without Hillary's participation, things are not turning out so well for Barack.  It must be terribly unnerving to lose Pennsylvania after spending so much and with the help of the MSM. So it seems, Barack and his campaign is fully capable of losing the election without any help from Hillary.

    Spare us (none / 0) (#153)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:24:33 PM EST
    your magnanimity....PLEASE

    More Like Distorting Facts To Achieve A Desired (none / 0) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:44:17 PM EST
    outcome if you ask me but what do I know. I'm an uneducated, low information, typical racist white woman.

    hey (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:34:38 PM EST
    when did one dem try to paint another as racist

    Wingnut talking points (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:07:21 PM EST
    you mean ones like "Social Security is in crisis" or running ads similar to "Harry and Louise" for mandated health care? Obama supporterswhining about Hillary using right wing talking points is the pot calling the kettle black. New rule: You can't wax poetic about Reagan being "transformational"(one could easily argue Jr has been transformational if we were going to use bad examples), denigrate the Dem administration that followed as not transformational and whine that he other side is using right wing talking points.

    Will they be satisfied with the explanation (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:54:21 PM EST
    that maybe she wants to beat him for the nomination this year and uses the right wing talking points when she thinks they are effective?  Obama flat out said a long time ago that he wasn't sure she could get the votes of his supporters, and his supporters have said the same thing, so why should she hold back, counting on their support?

    They tie themselves in knots trying to say both 'she'll do or say anything to win' and 'she knows she can't beat him this year, so she's trying to destroy him and win in 2012' - and use the same examples to support both arguments.


    Just issues to get the Rev. Wright statements off (none / 0) (#5)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:14:31 PM EST
    the headlines.  Quite effective, even in this site. Hillary is probably pleased to know that she won't be offered the VP if she loses; which also frees her from offering the VP to Barack.  Tweety may be right:  come August, she will be the nominee.  

    We know she has no hand in these things developing.  These are really fortuitous events and will only make her position stronger.

    Absolutely the reverse (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:17:53 PM EST
    Indeed the reemergence of Rev. Wright is what makes this PARTICULARLY boneheaded by Clyburn.

    A confluence of dunderheads, definitely (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    Obama is nearing negative critical mass. Once it tips that way the end will be fast, furious and incredibly ugly to behold.

    And I can't wait for the wreckage (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    A real change (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by mg7505 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:34:10 PM EST
    The man picks up baggage faster than an airplane. Amazing that he hasn't even done anything legislatively significant and it still accumulates. What a skilled politician. I can't wait until the Republicans start attacking and it's not just his own campaign's incompetence that holds him back.

    Wright may drive up (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:02 PM EST
    the NC black vote.

    no Bishop no King.


    You got that right. (none / 0) (#22)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    It won't move the Wright story either.  It will just play it up more.  Really silly.

    Will This Be The Perfect Storm That Will Finally (none / 0) (#198)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08:54 AM EST
    remove Obammie from the scene.  

    the clintons (none / 0) (#13)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:19:33 PM EST
    HAVE to reintroduce the obama memo that branded bill a racist for saying he wanted his wife by his side over anyone, including mandela.  It is the only way to successfully counter this BS that keeps getting play.  And I don't say that for the sake of the AA vote changing, but because they have to convince the supers that over time they can fix the "racist" problem.

    the only way to reverse some of this hatred is by appealing to gender roles (stick by my wife) and fairness (they called him a racist for that? what else is going on?).  They really screwed up by not blitzing the moment that memo came out.

    Well they might want to fax one (none / 0) (#27)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    to Gail Collins, who apparently thinks it's "mysterious."  I remember it quite well.  

    And I don't think the Clintons should bring it up at ALL!  Better to point to something positive and non-Obama related.  Bill Clinton was attacked the day of the PA primary for his comments re: the memo, but it faded away under the primary.  Thank goodness..


    Yeah, the Clinton's need to stay out (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:31:22 PM EST
    of this argument. Bill Clinton is furious, but he needs to shut up.
    Let Obama be Obama, and that will be enough to make voters want Clinton.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    If they can keep Bill quiet I suspect folks will sympathize with Hillary. When folks sympathize with Hill, they forget to hate her, when they forget to hate her they vote for her. The best thing to do would be to keep her eye on the ball. Keep talking to the voters and telling them her ideas and how THEY have the ight and responsibility to move our country forward. Keep telling folks that American men and women have given their lives so that folks like themselves could have a say and each and every one of them should get that say. It'll make those calling for Hillary to move out of the way small and petty.

    not clinton (none / 0) (#93)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:08:06 PM EST
    the campaign or a surrogate, but clinton certainly doesn't need to be the one mentioning the memo.

    just as barack doesn't directly respond to his campaign issues (he lets surrogates/affiliates do it), and the pentagon uses retired generals to frame the war, so should a response be framed and tailored by a surrogate/affiliate.

    that's how the race card started in the first place.  I honestly can't see why anyone thinks there's significant downside to this.


    What really is annoying about Clintons (none / 0) (#149)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:21:43 PM EST
    is they know how to win!  The opposition could never guess their reaction.  They don't necessarily react when poked and not necessarily in the manner expected. She's in control.  What a champion!

    i think (none / 0) (#88)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:05:54 PM EST
    i think you're underestimating voters and supers response to doubt, especially if the message is delivered by surrogates.

    right now most of the doubt is in obama's favor.  doubt about AA response, doubt that the party could come together with clinton. it's been so effective that Clinton is winning 5-10% of AA votes.

    So why NOT bring up the silliness of the campaign by having a surrogate mention the "standing by my wife is racist" memo as a humorous highlight/response to cyburn?  If you don't agree, please explain to me how it could possibly hurt her?  What's it going to hurt her from a risk analysis perspective when the AA vote is already very high and her AA support has been destroyed.

    I think she has very little downside and a large upside to swing doubt about campaign tactics back in her favor.  


    Not sure I get what he is trying to do here. When (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21:05 PM EST
    he brings up race then people will be more focused on it.  Seems to me he should have kept his mouth shut if he had wanted to help Obama.  

    is it on the daily kos rec list yet? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Turkana on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:31:33 PM EST
    or the front page? or both?

    damn, those clintons, to keep bringing up race!

    Get your own comment! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:53 PM EST
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Turkana on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:47:23 PM EST
    i just checked- top of the list. and, no, i won't waste brain cells on the comments...

    who wants to read thesame tortured logic responses (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:56:42 PM EST

    I read the headlines at Hotrants, thats enought for me


    all these heavies who want to help Obama,poor him. (none / 0) (#53)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:25 PM EST
    But they only tell half the story. Clyburn again says Obama was following the rules on MI & FL and brings up Carville , but doesn't say why Obama won't allow a re-vote.

    Randi Rhodes after gettin fired on AAmerica, is on again, telling half stories about Hillary. She ran a clip of her saying more people voted for her, and ITS TRUE. Hillary didn't qualify it, not saying excluding x y z, but Randi, who I'm getting annoyed with, made it sound like she was fabricating.                                      

    And said briefly much later, that both Obama and Hillary do NOT have enough to get the nom; yet the emphasis is on Hillary that she's behind. Some people aren't up to speed to what that means. It sends a message that she's losing! ARGH!~

    I'm so sick of these people tearing Hillary down. Is Obama PAYING THAT MUCH MONEY to get that kind of punditry? If Clyburn got a huge contribution to his war chest, I'm going to question the sincerity of his 'help' to the Obama effort.

    Look for yourself.. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:43:33 PM EST
    It is amazing that Mr. "I am not the usual politician" Obama has given three times as much to candidates through his PAC than Hillary Clinton has through hers. This link is from Dec. but shows the numbers..AboutUS
    The three-year (2005-2007) tally for federal candidates looks like this: Obama, $900,000; McCain, $356,000; Clinton, $297,000.

    And his endorsers get contributions too..some of them come cheap.

    Obama's PAC reported giving a $1,000 contribution, for instance, to New Hampshire state Sen. Jacalyn Cilley on July 25, six days before she announced she was endorsing Obama for president."

    There are more numbers and contributions at the link. I googled Obama PAC and got some really interesting stuff. Like this list of contributions by his PAC and Hillary's.


    Also not the only one on the ballot hello Dodd Den (none / 0) (#110)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:27:15 PM EST
    Name them. (none / 0) (#65)
    by daryl herbert on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:46:00 PM EST
    Who are these prominent American blacks who want to hurt Sen. Obama even though they believe, in their hearts, that he has a 100% chance of taking the nomination?

    Are they Republicans?  Secret Republicans?  Limbaugh-listening agents of C.H.A.O.S.?

    Is it so hard for him to believe there are people out there who think Sen. Clinton can take the nomination, and that by the time August rolls around, she will be recognized as having a superior claim to it?

    Scratch That (none / 0) (#67)
    by daryl herbert on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:47:46 PM EST
    I misunderstood his comment.  He means it's the Clintons who are convinced Clinton can't win, not the black Clinton supporters.

    The times picked this up (none / 0) (#69)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:49:50 PM EST
    Link here

    Note that this is a times blog link and thus could balloon to 800+ comments and take forever to load.

    Personally, I think between Gail Collins hitting clinton for a "mysterious memo" which is actually real, coupled with Cyburn's hit job could be bad for the Obama campaign.  But only if the Clinton campaign responds.

    It's highly dishonest for cyburn to say most black leaders were outraged by bill's remarks when jackson wasnt even offended.  And worse that the times doesn't call him on it.

    More race baiting (none / 0) (#91)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:07:23 PM EST
    For those who support Hillary, this Clyburn rant is not all bad.

    And always look on the bright side of life...
    Always look on the right side of life...
    (Come on guys, cheer up!)

    Remember when Obama (none / 0) (#106)
    by OxyCon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:22:58 PM EST
    ...wasn't "black" enough?

    He sure cleared that hurdle. Probably when he started using lines from the movie "Malcolm X" which where anti-white code words.

    Representative Clyburn (none / 0) (#156)
    by facta non verba on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:27:22 PM EST
    is channeling Keith Olbermann because that is all KO can up with. Look at the math it is over.

    Neither candidate can clinch the nomination on their own. The super delegates will decide this and should they choose Obama they will be condemning the Democratic Party to a disspiriting loss in November. He's unelectable and that's the point we have to hit home again and again until party's leaders realize the risk of running Obama is formidable.

    ATTENTION: MUST READ KRUGMAN (none / 0) (#169)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:51:30 PM EST
     It will make your day and week.  

    Link? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:58:26 PM EST
    Link (none / 0) (#172)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00:37 AM EST
    My goddess (none / 0) (#196)
    by Foxx on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:06:00 AM EST
    One calm, clear-seeing, rational voice in a sea of incompetence and venom.

    If i were McCain, I would find (none / 0) (#170)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:54:21 PM EST
     a way to praise Hillary's dedication to her beliefs and goals. Point out how difficult it is and was for a women to rise to her position. Then point out that he, McCain, has a daughter and that she could find no better role model, after her mother of course, than Hillary. Wonder how many women voters he could get with something like that?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    who's side are you on, boy? (none / 0) (#173)
    by bab23 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:03:59 AM EST
    I'm sorry, I forgot. Is DKos the star-belly Sneetches and TalkLeft the plain-belly or vice versa?

    Cognitive dissonance (none / 0) (#194)
    by dwmorris on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:01:13 AM EST
    I'm convinced that pre-blaming Clinton for an Obama defeat in the fall is an integral part of Obamamania.  It allows true believers to discount the electability problem.  If he loses, it was Clinton's fault --- not the fact that the movement irresponsibly disregarded the electability issue and forced Obama on the Party.  Clyburn's injection of racism into the "it's all Hillary's fault" narrative is utterly despicable.

    Also isn't the current strategy related (none / 0) (#201)
    by Serene1 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:13:47 AM EST
    to Obama camp's (in)famous previous race baiting memo.

    This from themoderatevoice:

    The HP notes that the Obama camp is trying to capitalize on these controversies. It writes:

    Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary. [See the full memo here.]

    The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama’s South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.

    The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press.

    "never was sent to the press."? (none / 0) (#206)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:02:23 AM EST
    so did the press get a different memo from someone else? They had one at the debate that they said was sent to them via the O campaign. I want to say it was  4 pg memo, but it may have been that the moderator had multiple pages unrelated in their hand when they brought the question up.

    She must be polling better in NC than we know . . .  or they are afraid she'll get a good bump from her win.


    every time they play the race card (none / 0) (#212)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:41:24 AM EST
    Hillary wins bigger in the rust belt states.  Obama made himself the black candidate with this nonsense and yes, he is responsible for what happens in his campaign.

    I'm hoping (none / 0) (#215)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:16:11 AM EST
    the combination of Clyburn's comments and tonight's Wright interview will help Hillary pull out a victory in Indiana.  

    your comment is over the line IMO (none / 0) (#213)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:45:33 AM EST
    there is nothing wrong with African Americans supporting another for the nomination.  There is nothing wrong with women supporting a woman.
    The problem is when there is this constant accusation of racism against people who are NOT voting for Obama, painting the Clintons as racist to get the black vote etc...

    Sincere Concern? (none / 0) (#223)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:38:07 AM EST
    Sorry, but your post is absurd. First, as a Clinton supporter why should anyone believe the sincerity of your concern about the impact of Clyburn's comments on Obama's campaign? Second, Clyburn's comments are such conventional wisdom at this point that they neither help nor hurt Obama, they only reflect the long-term damage to the Clintons's reputation. Rahm Emanuel summed it up pretty well recently when he said something like: the way the loser loses will determine whether the winner can win. But Clinton's only remaining slender sliver of hope of getting the nomination is convincing SDs that Obama is unelectable, so she has to do everything she can to make him unelectable. It's an ugly thing to behold.

    Clyburn (none / 0) (#226)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:15:21 AM EST
    is just playing the race card because Obama is headed into NC.

    No need to him to say this (none / 0) (#241)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM EST
    but it's true.  This isn't just an Obama supporter making waves (Clyburn is uncommited).  It's what many black people at least in our state are thinking.  I live in Charleston, SC and hear it daily from people where I work.

    Race Card (none / 0) (#243)
    by whyputaname on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:04:03 PM EST
    Obama and his campaign had planned to play the race card after NH going into the SC primarys all along.

    I guess the only defense for all of the skeletons coming out of the closet.

    Anyways here is an interview...yes Bill Moyers with Shelby Steele. It took place after the NH primarys.