home

Clyburn On Olbermann Tonight

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:30:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If the Obama campaign is behind Rep. Jim Clyburn's boneheaded attacks on the Clinton camp, they are making a big mistake. Sending Clyburn on to Olbermann tonight (when Rev. Wright will be on Bill Moyers, Wright will be making speeches the next two days as well) to make racially inflammatory and ridiculous charges is just plain dumb. Craig Crawford writes:

Once again, a racial dispute over Bill Clinton’s words erupts in advance of a Deep South primary where African-American voters are crucial. And once again, Rep. James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., is at the forefront of attacks against his party’s former president. . . . Clyburn is leveraging his status as the highest-ranking black leader in Congress to stir the pot in advance of North Carolina’s May 6 primary. . . . The danger for Obama is that another racial meltdown in the Democratic Party could add to his already complicated efforts in appealing to some white voters.

Complicated indeed, especially after Clyburn throws the dynamite. This is a terrible mistake. On Olbermann, Clyburn tried to walk it back. Too late. Damage done. If the Clintons were REALLY willing to do anything, they would go after Clyburn for this.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

(Comments now closed.)

< Fair Or Not | Olbermann Regrets Offensive Remarks >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clyburn On Olbermann Tonight | 226 comments (226 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    There's no need to watch the show: (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:59:26 PM EST
    Clyburn will call Bill Clinton a racist, and Olbermann will agree.


    Oh I agree (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:00:04 PM EST
    But this is exactly what Obama does not need right now.

    [ Parent ]
    Good! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    Then I'm glad he's doing it.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not glad for Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:02:20 PM EST
    but if Obama wants to stick his foot in a pile, that's a pile of his own making.

    [ Parent ]
    Talk about projection! The Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    is actually doing what it pretends to decry in Bill Clinton (currently) and both Clintons and some supporters in the NH/SC timeframe.

    They are playing with dynamite--and the Party most likely to be damaged in the Democratic Party.

    Karl Rove is salivating, licking his chops.  He could never accomplish what the Obama campaign has done--strike the blows which lead blacks to step back from the Democratic Party.

    What a terrible, terrible thing to do.  And it's not a misstep on their part--it's planned.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama Will Turn Around & Blame Someone Else! (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:47:39 PM EST
    That is his M.O..

    [ Parent ]
    Unnamed staffer. (none / 0) (#173)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:50:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Agree. Clyburn and Obama deserve it. (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by NOBAMA08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:20:51 PM EST
    I too will never forget the race baiting. He is also to blame for making AA Clinton supporters look like Uncle Toms. After SC I had so many arguments with my AA friends. I told them that as a half black person I could not see the racism that they were fooled into imagine in their heads by Clyburn and the Obama campaign. I have been offended before and I saw nothing wrong with what Bill Clinton had to say. Only a few days before I had condoned Robert L. Johnson for comments he made in SC about Obama's drug use. That was wrong. But to blame the Clintons of racsim went too far. Absolutely disgusting.

    I'm glad Clyburn is opening his big mouth again. This time I hope he gets caught on his race baiting and white folks have the sense to voice their disapproval in the voting booth. I'm glad he is going on Olbermann too. These two asses will make it even more obvious to folks who haven't drunk the kool-aid that this is a ploy to make the Clintons look racist again.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't Obama Want (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    a national conversation on race?  OK, we're having it.  Clyburn and Wright are up next.

    [ Parent ]
    It would be such delicious irony (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:48:10 PM EST
    if Clyburn's appearance on Countdown is instrumental in Obama's downfall.  

    [ Parent ]
    What narrative will prevail? (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:01:31 PM EST
    I read about how Obama started this race-baiting campaign, but was surprised that this sort of reporting and argument never made it to the rest of the MSM. Perhaps Clyburn is doing this to stir up the AA vote --  in the wake of the loss in PA. Given that I have not read many pieces in the MSM like Sean Wilenz's above, I seriously doubt the media will pick up this meme. The referees are totally in the tank for the Senator from Illinois.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know (none / 0) (#25)
    by boredmpa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:15:29 PM EST
    I can understand trying to tame the problem(s) with the PBS crowd (though I doubt wright can do it, it's a good program to be on) but I could also, sadly, understand a strategic attempt to boost the AA turnout through fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

    Depending on the plan, they may not even care who watches the show since the FUD is amplified by the clueless pundits who tend to piss off AAs and women whenever a race or sex issue comes up.  All they have to do is mention race and racial tension, insensitivity, and ignorance will be on replay for days.  It boosts the AA turnout and changes the topic from clinton's win.

    It does seem schizo that there may be two messages at play, but there are also different demographics (PBS is a niche imho).  

    I don't suppose you have a handy link to the demographics of indiana and north carolina democrats?  

    [ Parent ]

    Fear, anxiety, and doubt to boost turnout (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:56:18 PM EST
    for Obama, if he is the nominee, resonates of the constant scolding of women here to remember SCOTUS.

    Yeh, believe me, we've had to watch SCOTUS for a lot of our lives, more than some men can know.  You don't need to try to scare me or even remind me.  I've figured out what to do about it for decades, especially as the Dems keep endorsing candidates who are against my rights.  I'll figure it out again on my own just fine, don't worry about my pretty little head. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    It doesn't matter that PBS is (none / 0) (#35)
    by Iphie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    a niche market. That statement from Wright is all that other media outlets will need to keep the story alive. The show hasn't even aired yet, and I've read about that quote in a number of different places already.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought the issue came up again (none / 0) (#108)
    by Denni on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    Because of BC's comments just before the PA primary and then his denial of it the day after.  I don't see Clyburn as trying to raise the issue in support of Obama.  Clyburn is an honorable man and always has been.

    [ Parent ]
    And KO will make those Russertesque faces (none / 0) (#99)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    While rattling off silly balls.  Clyburn IMO is an Obama campaign surrogate stir the race pot to piss off both black and whites and shut down the race.  Any question that this is a campaign driven tactic see, Wrights statement in his Moyer interview, Axelrods statements white's not needed not welcome and now Plouffe McCain has the racist voting for him anyway cross over racist I guess.

    If I were an SD I would call Obama's bluff and threat and come out for Clinton if they wish to win in the White House in Nov.

    [ Parent ]

    This Is Stupid (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:01:29 PM EST
    IMO this will in no way help Obama win over more white people and it is damaging the party I fear beyond repair.

    It will cause him to LOSE white votes (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:08:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It may help him win SC (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    (which he was going to win anyway) but it'll likely lose him Indiana.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:17:43 PM EST
    Indiana is a fairly white state.  Most voters there aren't particularly sensitized to racial politics.

    It's white voters in places that are racially polarized that get turned off when they see these tactics.  In other places it kinda goes below the radar.

    [ Parent ]

    I could see it doing serious damage (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:19:29 PM EST
    in Indianapolis.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:23:26 PM EST
    Does Indianapolis have some kind of history of racial politics?

    I'm from Detroit, we wrote the book on this stuff.  "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina" would be a love tap by local standards.

    [ Parent ]

    Think so, yup (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:27:09 PM EST
    and anyone who's ever lived in a northern city knows about race politics. I'm from Philly, and we sure have it there.

    [ Parent ]
    Not sensitized to racial politics? (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:23:24 PM EST
    Isn't Indiana the home of the KKK?  A fact which I'm sure the Obama campaign will raise if he loses there.

    [ Parent ]
    Um (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    Unless the KKK is known for running candidates, I stand by my statement.  I didn't say there was no racism in Indiana.

    [ Parent ]
    The KKK Controlled Indiana's State Government (none / 0) (#166)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:41:44 PM EST
    in the 1920s.  Admittedly, it was the high water mark for the Klan in Indiana.  However, at the time, it was believed the Klan was more powerful in Indiana than any other state.

    Which is not to say I think all Hoosiers are racists.  I was born there and still have family there.  I'd say some racism lingers in the older folks, but in my family it's more ignorance than hate.  I think Obama could win their vote, but he would start with a bit of a hurdle.  But Hillary starts with a hurdle from some of my older male relatives.  The younger ones (meaning 50s or younger) are much more comfortable with African Americans and other kinds of Americans for that matter.  But, honestly, if Obama struck all the right notes, I don't see anyone in my family voting against him because he's black.  I think the comfort idea encapsulates it best - some of the older folks would need to get comfortable with him, but I've never seen the kind of bigotry that would make that an impossibility.  And my family, while hardly representative of every Indiana family, is primarily made up of farmers, auto workers, and teachers.  

    [ Parent ]

    Talked to a Hoosier in-law this week (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    in southern Indiana, and for the first time heard the full rant that Obama's middle name is Hussein . . . and much, much more.  The southern Indiana border was, of course, the Mason-Dixon line.  Indiana was primarily settled by Southerners, notably its favorite son Harrison of Virginia -- who as governor of the territory, instituted the infamous Black Codes with de facto slavery.  

    And Indiana repeatedly petitioned Congress to be let out of the Northwest Ordinance's ban on slavery.  So the Black Codes allowed and even encouraged slavery to exist in Indiana, after all, until the Civil War.  Its AA population is lower now than it was then, proportionately, but with good reason on their part.  And for good reason, it dropped again in the 1920s reign of terror of the KKK -- and that was not that long ago.  There are Hoosiers today who were raised in that time.

    And they are good folks, for the most part.  I agree that it's often owing to ignorance -- but I have been astonished at many things I have heard said there, once south of Indianapolis, as well as by widespread display of the Confederate flag, common use of "blackface" lawn ornaments, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Southern Indiana? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:20:45 PM EST
    Hmmmm . ..

    [ Parent ]
    You mean NC (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:18:17 PM EST
    and yes, this could get him potentially blown out in IN.

    [ Parent ]
    Is Craig Crawford still allowed on Countdown? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Iphie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:06:29 PM EST
    He makes sense, and generally has a very thoughtful, considered take on things -- my guess is that Olbermann doesn't have much use for him these days.

    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:13:22 PM EST
    b/c I don't watch Olbermann, but he was on Morning Joe this morning and he makes a lot of sense. He agreed, when Joe pointed it out, that Clyburn, though officially an undeclared superdelegate, is in fact supporting Obama - one of those small but crucial details that I haven't seen mentioned on any other news show.

    [ Parent ]
    Why are they doing this stupid thing? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:09:55 PM EST
    Are they intentionally making this into a black against white election?  Are they trying to get the whites to vote 90% against Obama just like the blacks voting 90% for?  And who was that who claims to be a uniter?

    In a way (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:13:12 PM EST
    yes. The thing is Obama and his campaign have forgotten that they aren't running in a primary in the south side of chicago.

    [ Parent ]
    Guy keeps this up... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:11:18 PM EST
    and he may have a future as minority leader.

    That's sort of over-the-top. (none / 0) (#67)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:31:56 PM EST
    Careful, do not be a reverse Olbermann...

    [ Parent ]
    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:11:55 PM EST
    I agree. I have to say that the campaign has been careening out of control since Wright and it seems bound and determined to continue.

    Joe Scarborough said that Obama has managed to create white resentment that the GOP will be able to turn into votes in the fall and win despite all they have going against them.

    Scarborough's Great! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:15:18 PM EST
    Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and Harold Ford are the only reasons to watch MSNBC

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:16:18 PM EST
    All you have to do is look at the way the river wards in Philly voted to see that this is happening. It isn't an accident that, in the city Obama won with 65% of the vote, in the working class white precincts, Hillary obliterated him.

    [ Parent ]
    Knowing Philly, such an interpretation (none / 0) (#75)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:39:27 PM EST
    does not surprise me.  But I studied neighborhoods like Frankford for 4 years.  White Catholic neighborhoods and black neighborhoods in Philly had their own systems of simmering, "informal" segregation.

    But Philly isn't the entire country.  The white working class should be more winnable for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    White working (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    class isn't going to be winnable for Obama simply due to way he has run this race. He has given them every reason to vote against him and no reason to vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    It's Maslow's Hierarchy (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    Obama is attempting to put people at "self-actualization" when the working class hasn't even quite passed the "security" level.  I know this because I'm FROM the working class.

    He doesn't get it.

    [ Parent ]

    In order to win PA in the fall (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:42:54 PM EST
    he needs these people. I believe they are now completely lost to him.

    [ Parent ]
    His campaign is also (none / 0) (#178)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:10:36 PM EST
    attempting to divide by class.  The blue collar working class are "low information, non educated", covert racists. The educated and professional are acceptable.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Supporters Look Down On Clinton Supporters (none / 0) (#198)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:02:30 PM EST
    on DKos and HuffPost, referring to them as the under educated.

    [ Parent ]
    Randi speak - far more efficient... (none / 0) (#209)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:34:08 PM EST
    white trash

    It's a good thing that they think that they won't need all of us in November because if they did think that and still carried on like this, then they would be pretty stupid wouldn't they?

    [ Parent ]

    It seems odd to me that in all the years (5.00 / 13) (#15)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:12:53 PM EST
    Bill Clinton held elective office, from Arkansas to the White House, he was never branded a racist - never.  Are we to believe that all this time, Bill was just hiding his racism, and he thought it would be a good idea, now that his wife is running for president, to finally let his inner David Duke out?

    It all just defies belief, in my opinion, and worse, it completely invalidates Obama's platform as the one who can bring people together.  Ever since SC, I have felt like someone put the tolerance machine in reverse, and we are becoming more divided along racial lines than we have been in decades; this is not a good example of how one person can unite the country.

    I think Obama will pay for this - and if he loses white voters in NC to Clinton, it doesn't bolster the argument that Bill is a racist, it bolsters her argument that she is more electable.

    Stellar Point!! We Are Regressing Racially, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM EST
    or so it seems.  I have not heard much in the way of progress on racism, just picking at the scabs of old wounds.

    [ Parent ]
    Regressing Racially (none / 0) (#196)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:59:41 PM EST
    Regression may be a necessary step toward authentic racial progress. If Obama is contributing to this regression it is only because he is the first African American with a real chance of becoming president of the United States. Is he to blame for causing the "picking at scabs of old wounds" by forcing us to face something new that makes some of us uncomfortable? Would it be better for him to "stay in his place" so we can pretend that we are still making racial progress? I don't think so. While America is experiencing growing pains because of the Obama candidacy, I take solace in the younger generation. My children see the world differently than my boomer peers and our parents. With the passage of time, the racial wounds that have plagued America will ultimately heal and we will finally be able to say that reality matches the soaring language of our founding document. Barack Obama is a historic figure in helping us achieve that dream.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, But I Categorically Disagree.... (none / 0) (#199)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:05:16 PM EST
    So, Obama has played the race card so sometime in the great by and by, there might be racial harmony?

    He picked a helluva way to go about it.  And let's be honest, he never would have made that speech about race if his back hadn't been up against the wall.  It was a CYA speech only.  

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Get Me Wrong (none / 0) (#202)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:14:34 PM EST
    I never said Obama played the race card. The only thing he's guilty of is being a black American with the audacity to run for president. I realize that for many people, being an ambitious black American is playing the race card. But that says more about them than it does about him.

    [ Parent ]
    millenials (none / 0) (#224)
    by bigbay on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:18:05 AM EST
    there's probably more racism in the 20 year olds and millenials then in the boomers. I've had hundreds in the classroom and that's my opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll not take issue with your comments (none / 0) (#210)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:49 PM EST
    directly but I will point out that if Obama wanted to heal the nation, he could probably point out that he has been the beneficiary of support from AA's far in excess of what he believed possible given the Clinton's connection to the community.

    I'm not saying that he should do this, I'm saying that he could do this.

    Personally, I believe that his aspirations are to be president, not to be the race relations healer but that is not problematic because there clearly are a lot of people including the last 3 standing who are all similarly motivated.

    Yes, a serious black contender for the party nomination is a good thing and if he gets the nomination, even a loss to McCain is probably good for race relations in this country as it does move the dialog forward. In that sense, the dissection of Jeremiah Wright's sermons probably helps to foster dialog and understanding but not all of it is positive.

    But it also comes at the expense of our first serious female challenger for the job too. Perhaps it is just another way that the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot.

    My big problem with Obama is that the calculation that he and his campaign had which was to destroy all things Clinton was divisive/destructive and probably the thing that will ultimately prevent him from winning in November (if he does get past Hillary that is).

    [ Parent ]

    I think there's a difference (none / 0) (#227)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:09:08 PM EST
    between people who are racist and people who are indifferent to race, unless it have some value to them (and that can be positive and/or negative). I think 'racist' is too generic a term.

    [ Parent ]
    I haven't forgoten SC and will not forgive (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:13:00 PM EST
    the Obama camp's race baiting. It's that simple and the reason I will not vote for Obama, not in November, not ever.  Obama has earned "the will do and say anything to win".  It worked in SC and I hope those who are not in the Obama camp see the attack as nothing more that political race baiting.

    I Have Not Forgotten SC and Will Not Forgive (none / 0) (#200)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:11:28 PM EST
    At least we can agree on that one point. Aside from that, the way that Bill Clinton and his Jessie Jackson comments injected race into the campaign was unconscionable. He did everything he could to brand Obama "the black candidate" to keep him in the electoral ghetto. And in the wake of the SC campaign I reached the conclusion that I could never vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Nothing she has done since has changed my mind. This has been personally painful for me because I was a mid-level staffer in the Clinton White House for eight years. I spent years defending the man with my friends and family. I don't regret those years because I got a lot of things done I'm personally proud of. But I will no longer defend Bill Clinton's record because that legacy has been permanently tainted in my eyes.

    [ Parent ]
    Same thing on Fox (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    Two AA men (Armstrong Williams and Mark Lamont Hill) on to discuss Clyburn's statements about WJC.... the viciousness of the Clinton campaign, lack of grace and dignity, arrogance above the party, implode the party, making sure Obama is not electable, running for 2012  don't care if McCain wins, purposely used Osama in an ad to link the names Osama/Obama (WTF).  They agreed with Clyburn's statements and agree with each other on every wacky idea.  sigh.

    I asked if the AA vote had fallen off in Penn and someone said it had.  Weird way of motivating the base.

    Karl Rove's wet dream--coming true-- (none / 0) (#139)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:12:17 PM EST
    What is BO thinking???

    [ Parent ]
    It is very depressing. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:13:45 PM EST
    Is the Obama campaign basically writing off Pennsylvania and other like states in the general election?

    They put Wright out there again to talk about the evils of "rich white people" and then put Clyburn out to call the Clintons racists.  Maybe the Obama campaign is right when they send out surrogates to suggest that white people are racists.  Maybe we all are just as horrible and evil people as Reverend Wright suggests, but is this really how they expect to win votes?  By shaming white people into supporting Obama?  Why would anyone want to vote for someone who hates them?  Why would anyone want to vote for someone who clearly holds them in contempt?

    Did I miss anything... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:14:03 PM EST
    Did Bill Clinton say anything new?? or are Clyburn's comments are based on his old comments?
    Ya. Chris Mathews calls him a neutral ... but we know how neutral he is. Chris Mathews is making the foundation for Olberman to call Bill a racist.. strangely no one has done more for the black than Bill and this is what he gets.. Only if Barrack could had waited few more years before running for the coveted office... this would all have been a piece of cake! He let his interest before the party.. call Bill what ever he wants, he does not realize that his comments are making people like me more resolute of not voting for Obama come Nov if he does wins the nomination (by hook or crook).

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:15:25 PM EST
    If the next primary is in a heavily African-American state, you can set your watch by the Obama campaign's stoking of the racial fires!  

    It was less than 24 hours after the polls closed in New Hampshire that Obama's campaign chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., went on national TV to declare that Hillary had cried about her campaign, but hadn't cried over Katrina.  The upcoming primary at that point was, of course, South Carolina.

    Sure looks that way (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:17:33 PM EST
    Outside of city politics, I've never seen such craven playing of the race card. Ever.

    [ Parent ]
    It bother sme less than most of you I suppose (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:20:00 PM EST
    Politics is what it is.

    The stupidity really bothers me.

    [ Parent ]

    It wouldn't bother me so much (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    if it weren't helping to make it impossible for either of them to win in November. I think that's where we are now.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:29:13 PM EST
    because I am FROM a place that was torn apart by racial politics, it probably comes across as worse to me.

    I feel the narrative that "the Clintons are race-baiters" is far more disgusting than the narrative that "Al Gore is a liar," not that I liked that one either.  Perhaps I'm just oversensitive and they're both the same, but I think racism is one of those accusations that occupies a heightened place in our culture.

    On the point that this is dumb politics, I dunno, how can you expect them to stop when it's working so well for them to date?  The idea that this might come back to bite them in the GE hasn't dissuaded them up to this point.  Frankly, between their insistence on playing racial politics and their intense desire to destroy Hillary Clinton's character rather than trying to mend fences with her supporters, you start to wonder if the Obama campaign truly realizes there's going to be another election after this one.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it bites them (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:32:51 PM EST
    in BOTH NC and Indiana.

    Obama has no freaking problem with A-A voters, turnout or margins.

    this is crazy.

    [ Parent ]

    If Hillary Can Hit High 60s or 70% (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:48:28 PM EST
    of non-AA vote in North Carolina, then things start to go bad for Obama in the overall vote.

    The only thing I can think is that the AA vote wasn't what they wanted in Pennsylvania and this is an attempt to build a firewall on the popular vote.

    The problem is I don't think the SDs will be looking at Obama's victory margin (unless it's small), they'll be looking to see if he's made in-roads with the non-AA vote.  This strategy has the ability to seriously backfire in that regard.

    Unless the new plan really is to threaten to racially split the party if Obama is not the nominee.  If so, then I think that automatically makes Obama unfit to lead the Democratic Party.  Right now, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of not wanting to permanently divide the party.  But that benefit gets harder to give the more often they do this crap.

    [ Parent ]

    There you go. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:02:24 PM EST
    If Hillary Can Hit High 60s or 70% of non-AA vote in North Carolina, then things start to go bad for Obama in the overall vote.

    It boggles my mind that Hillary supporters can think in terms of racially polarizing the vote to gain an advantage, but they strenuously deny it when it is suggested that that is precisely what Hillary has tried to do.

    This has been the obvious strategy of the Clinton campaign since Obama became a threat. Read through the comments on this and other threads and you'll discover that many of you are advocating that same strategy. So please don't have a fit when it's suggested that this is Hillary's strategy.


    [ Parent ]

    I Thought I Was Clear (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:13:38 PM EST
    I believe that Obama is seeking to racially polarize the vote.  I'm just trying to figure out why and what the effect will be.  It seems to me to be a divisive, morally repugnant, and politically stupid thing to do.  You can only pull this trick so many times.  Obama has hit his limit.

    [ Parent ]
    You were clear (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by joc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:21:34 PM EST
    This guy has a habit of going around and calling Clinton voters racists. Look at his past comments. Don't waste your time. If he isn't a Republican troll, he's not helping Obama, so just ignore him.

    [ Parent ]
    Quote me calling Clinton voters racists (none / 0) (#212)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:27:25 PM EST
    You claim it's in my history. Where is it?

    [ Parent ]
    The way to find it is this (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by joc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:42:05 PM EST
    First, go to the page that lists the comments you post. That page can be found here. You are looking for the comment entitled, "Of course some of Clinton (sic) supporters are racist."

    Any more questions?

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, amatuer parsing (none / 0) (#215)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:48:00 PM EST
    and taking things out of context won't do. It's amazing how ordinary people posting on blogs have adopted these schemes.

    [ Parent ]
    Hah! (none / 0) (#218)
    by joc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:26:49 PM EST
    You asked where you called Clinton supporters racists and I showed you where you did. I guess that makes me an amateurish, ordinary person.

    Tell me in what context is "Of course some of Clinton (sic) supporters are racist" not calling Clinton supporters racist? I'm really interested to hear you professional, extraordinary elucidation. Actually, you know I'm not. You're a hack. I'm moving on.

    [ Parent ]

    You're making a fool of yourself (none / 0) (#220)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:50:11 AM EST
    My quoted remarks are in direction contraction to your accusation. You thought you could parse words and intentionally take things words of context like political operatives and talking head hacks, all of whom I suspect you idolize. Those people do it for money. They'll say anything for their paycheck. What's your motivation? No one's paying for your "analysis" I can assure you. So how does "some" become "all" in your bizarro world? How does a relatively small (and racist) percentage of Hillary's voters become all Hillary voters?

    [ Parent ]
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:21:55 PM EST
    I have not seen one single comment advocating that Hillary attempt to polarize the vote, including the comment you just responded to.

    [ Parent ]
    This Bothers Me Because Of What It Can (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:55:21 PM EST
    do to the party not just the individual candidates. Not only do I think this will cause the Dems to lose in Nov no matter which candidate gets the nomination, I think it will have long term effects. The last thing the party needs is to drive more white people out of the party in disgust. They have not only tarred and feathered Clinton as racist but her white supporters as well. Also, with this build up of racial resentment how willing will the AA community be to come out in full force for a white candidate?

    [ Parent ]
    I know my AA Congresswoman (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:09:26 PM EST
    in a very mixed district, a newcomer not doing that great, would be one of the Dems who might not do well by this.  Racial issues also hot and horrible here -- real playing of the race card by some very crass local pols -- and this could boomerang badly if her white support suffers from "liberal fatigue" at being called racists.  She may not need our votes, but she needed our donations.

    [ Parent ]
    That Is The Other Side Of The Coin n/t (none / 0) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:38:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ironic That Obama (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:32:24 PM EST
    is just as out of touch with the AA community as he is with the rest of the country except his hi-tech, latte sipping, arugula eating crowd.  He is facing with the younger AA's the same thing that Hillary faces with the post women's rights generation.  They do not understand or see the need for passion with the civil rights movement or the women's rights movement.  They were not part of the struggle and have no appreciation for what their elders had to go through just to give them the sweet fruits of all their bitter struggles.

    And now those same elders are seeing once again, those issues beeing stirred up that bring such painful memories by, by people who should know better.  They are again creating another generation of contention.  Ironic, because it is being spearheaded by someone who campaigned on the basis of transcendence, post partisanship, blah, blah blah.  Shame on them.

    [ Parent ]

    and Latinos (none / 0) (#221)
    by ginamc on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:10 AM EST
    we have been branded as racists starting in Nevada, then CA, AZ, NM and I really took a lot of blows in TX for supporting Hillary.  Absurd and disgusting.

    [ Parent ]
    It wasn't the Obama camp who called Latinos racist (none / 0) (#226)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:07:37 PM EST
    The Clinton camp said it was a 'historical fact' that Latinos wouldn't vote for an African American.  The media followed that narrative without critically examining it and pushed it as a 'fact'.  The fact is that Older Latinos trusted a name they knew (the Clintons) and younger latinos overwhelmingly supported Sen. Obama.  The media should have been taken to task for repeating it.  They should have known better, but I'm guessing stirring racial tensions seemed more 'ratings worthy' to them.  ;-(

    [ Parent ]
    Why would it be stupid (none / 0) (#181)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:21:54 PM EST
    if it stirs up and firms up the AA base? and depresses the white vote? Look, he did it in SC, and was rewarded.. why  do you think NC is any different? No one in the media is calling him on it..

    Seems smart to exploit race since he has no downside, and it only drives up Clinton's negatives.

    Do you really think his numbers in NC are going to be any different because of this?

    [ Parent ]

    Problem is (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:19:07 PM EST
    He already gets 9-% of the A-A vote. How much more can he get?

    And the other problem is he is bleeding white votes.

    And the other problem is Indian is the tiebreaker.

    This is just plain stupid.

    [ Parent ]

    If you look at it from the perspective of ... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by dwmorris on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:58:09 PM EST
    the Obama camp's position that they have already won the nomination based on an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates --- perhaps their agenda is to now to deliberately agitate their AA base.  The implied threat, of course, is that there could be race riots in Denver if the Party doesn't acquiesce to their math argument.  Viewed from this angle, there is some logic in putting Wright and Clyburn front and center.

    Wright and Clyburn pop up again at exactly the same time?  What are the odds of that?

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't the AA turnout (none / 0) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:25:12 PM EST
    drop in Penn?  He's getting the % but not the turnout?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:26:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No, I don't believe so (none / 0) (#55)
    by NOBAMA08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:27:08 PM EST
    I think more than 90% of AA vote in PA went to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    IIRC Some Polls Had It Projected At 18% (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:45:55 PM EST
    The exit poll had it as 13%.

    [ Parent ]
    That's what I meant (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:51:41 PM EST
    I thought the percent of AA for the state was about 15, would have expected higher for Dem turnout of about 17, but not even 15 turned out.

    [ Parent ]
    You Are Right It Was 15% (none / 0) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    I was sure that I saw 13% election night. Guess my old eyes betrayed me that late at night. Darn I was so sure about that number. I hate when I state something as fact and find out it isn't.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw it, too. And it was probably here (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:33:23 PM EST
    since I get alot of info here. I can't think of anywhere else I was online Tuesday night.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks For The Confirmation (none / 0) (#213)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35:31 PM EST
    Makes me feel somewhat better. Like I said, I really hate adding to the disinformation that flows through the blogosphere lately.

    [ Parent ]
    if Obama were really interested (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:18:56 PM EST
    in being the unity candidate, he would denounce Clyborn's remarks.  The Obama campaign, with its constant playing of the race card, is cheapening the issue of real racism in this country and when all is said and done, may have significantly set back race relations in this country.

    Yep, (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:21:39 PM EST
    his campaign is throwing TRUE RACISM as an issue, under the bus, just as he's thrown many other important issues under the bus.

    All for the sake of "the one".

    Again, more that I really can't in good conscience reward with my vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Rovian projection (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:26:17 PM EST
    It is Obama that has implied his people will stay home. He is the young one. Scuttling Hillary's chances so he can run again in 4 years makes much more sense.

    The message being sent is clear.

    Do you think (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:33:11 PM EST
    That all these young "new" people supposedly brought to the party by Obama will understand what happened when he gets annihilated in a GE?  I know, I know, it will be all Hillary's fault - but do you think they may actually wake up on November 5th and think "Wow - maybe Hillary supporters (i.e. old people) actually knew what they were talking about??"

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    It will be Hillary's fault.  There is no question about this whatsoever.

    [ Parent ]
    Blame Mommy. Freud would be so proud. (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:10:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So true (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    Not only Obama but Olbermann, Matthews, Russert, Shuster and the rest.

    [ Parent ]
    Scuttling Hillary's Chances? (none / 0) (#207)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:24:28 PM EST
    So Obama has "played the race card" by "scuttling Hillary's chances" by getting more delegates? It just isn't fair, is it, that someone has had the audacity to beat her.

    [ Parent ]
    I am in shock at this whole thing as I (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:29:02 PM EST
    was one of the "civil rights" marchers way back when...Now it truly feels like a hostile takeover of the democratic party...These aren't the values of the party at all...reverse racism is as bad as racism....no excuse....as MLK said...judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin....

    I guess we now know (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by stevenb on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:29:46 PM EST
    ...that if the race card wasn't initially played from the Obama camp, it sure is now.

    It is really a sad state of affairs that the sheer obviousness of racial preference in this election trumps actual policies, experience and reliability that either candidate might have.

    I'm totally willing to concede the point (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:36:47 PM EST
    That every single black person comprising the 90% supporting Obama is taking actual policies, experience and reliability into account.

    But then what are the chances any Obama supporter is going to concede that every single white person comprising the 65% supporting Clinton is taking actual policies, experience and reliability into account?

    Nil.


    [ Parent ]

    No strategy (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by cygnus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    Obama and Axelrod never seriously considered how they could defeat a formidable Republican in November.  If they had, Rev. Wright would have been jettisoned last year.  The chickens are coming home to roost.

    It's counterproductive (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:37:57 PM EST
    Obama already has 90% of the AA vote in the bag, so what's the point of playing the race card?  The only thing remarks like Clyburn's can possibly accomplish is to drive away non-AA voters.  Obama has trouble with working class whites, older voters, women, Asians and Latinos.  Tell me, which of those demographics does he hope to attract with Clyburn's accusations?  

    It's not going to help him in the primaries, and it could be fatal in the GE.  

    Obama has been walking a very fine line for months, posing as the post-racial, unity candidate while sending an entirely different message to AA audiences.  It's going to catch up with him sooner or later.

    It seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by janarchy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:44:11 PM EST
    this is the politics of fear. Obama did not do as well amongst AAs in Philly as his campaign expected. Perhaps some voters, regardless of colour, are having second thoughts. He can't afford the attrition -- play the race card, stir up the same old paranoia and fears, and get the preferred demographic back in line.

    Of course, that might backfire on him but apparently working class white voters and women voters aren't important so he doesn't matter if he turns them off or not.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't he get (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:46:00 PM EST
    around 90% of the AA vote?  Perhaps the turnout wasn't what he'd hoped?

    It certainly does smell like fear.  Either that, or just plain stupid politics - another boneheaded mistake from the guy who's supposedly run such a stellar campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    he got the AA vote he needed. What he did not get was the white vote. See here and here.

    [ Parent ]
    The polls had actually (none / 0) (#195)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:52:19 PM EST
    predicted 17-18%AA turnout and it was 15%. That is where the difference is. The AA turnout was less than the pollsters predicted and I suspect less than his campaign predicted as well.

    He did get 90% of those who turned out though.

    [ Parent ]

    I predicted 17% (none / 0) (#219)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:03:34 AM EST
    the only pollster who did was PPP, and they were totally wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    polling... (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by karen for Clinton on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:58:11 PM EST
    Am I misremembering a poll that said more Blacks in North Carolina were considering Clinton?

    Is it possible he is finally losing some of his Black base as well as his other bases?

    It would make me very happy to see African Americans return to the Clinton fold.

    It would be justice and karma if it happens.

    I have time off work the first week of May and am considering following my heart to Greenville NC to campagin for Hillary.  I might not get many folks to listen to me or change any minds, but it would be good for me to feel I did all I could.

    1400 miles round trip is a little extreme with the cost of gas and all, but NC is lovely in May.

    And this is crucial to our whole world so I don't want to say "I should have" and will have a clear mind if I say I did all I could.

    The reason I chose her Greenville NC office is because I spent my life fighting for Human Rights just like the Clinton's did and this is one issue with Obama that is entirly unforgivable.

    Clyburn will only succeed in further damage if he continues on this horrific smear campaign.

    Bill is right as he said at the end of that radio rant - he doesn't have to take that sh*t at all.

    Obama's campaign has pissed off the woman in me, but it has entirely infuriated my life long anti-racism stance with his horrific treatment in every single way ironically about race.  

    I can still keep my sense of humor most of the time but it does get hard to when everyday they come up with some new entirely unacceptable plan.


    [ Parent ]

    do it karen, go! (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by proudliberaldem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:32:32 PM EST