Clyburn On Olbermann Tonight

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There's no need to watch the show: (5.00 / 4) (#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 / 1) (#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.

    Good! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    Then I'm glad he's doing it.

    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.

    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.


    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..

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

    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.  

    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.

    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?  


    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. . . .


    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.

    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.

    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.


    This Is Stupid (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 4) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:08:03 PM EST
    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.


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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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...

    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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    It seems odd to me that in all the years (5.00 / 12) (#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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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).


    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.

    I haven't forgoten SC and will not forgive (5.00 / 8) (#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.

    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???

    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.

    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.


    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.

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    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.


    If Hillary Can Hit High 60s or 70% (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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?


    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.

    This Bothers Me Because Of What It Can (5.00 / 0) (#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?

    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.

    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
    Ironic That Obama (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    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.  ;-(

    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?


    Problem is (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    If you look at it from the perspective of ... (5.00 / 1) (#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?


    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?

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    if Obama were really interested (5.00 / 7) (#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 / 3) (#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.


    Rovian projection (5.00 / 1) (#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??"

    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.

    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
    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.

    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.

    I am in shock at this whole thing as I (5.00 / 4) (#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 / 3) (#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?



    No strategy (5.00 / 4) (#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 / 4) (#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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    polling... (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    do it karen, go! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by proudliberaldem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:32:32 PM EST
    i flew to fla in 2004 when i really couldn't afford the time or the money and after everything -- the loss, the disappointment in kerry, having to witness the disenfranchisement -- i don't regret it for a minute.  follow your heart! no to nc.  

    supposed to be GO to nc, of course (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by proudliberaldem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:33:19 PM EST
    so excited about activism,  i can't type right. = )

    Go. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Mary Mary on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:56:49 PM EST
    You won't regret it.

    the bottom line of Clyburn's appearance (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:07:49 PM EST
    will be - OBAMA IS A VICTIM!
    He's had 24/7 positive media coverage enabling him to raise more money - but HE'S A VICTIM.
    The DC/Dem establishment and elites support him so - keep the debate questions about "hope and change" - and leave him alone!

    The only point of this (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by IzikLA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:28:09 PM EST
    In my opinion is that they are just trying to tear down Hillary Clinton's character and make her seem like an evil person, willing to say or do anything.  That follows their narrative and it is already being repeated over and over as such in the media.  This is what worries me.  The media does not dissect this stuff the way it is dissected here.  It is truly unfortunate and I am in agreement that this kind of stuff is going to make it really hard for me to hold my breath and vote for him in November.

    Their strategy (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:42:54 PM EST
    Are they trying to shame white Clinton supporters and undecideds into supporting Obama?

    What I mean is I'm sure they know they can get nothing more out of the AA community.  This message is targetting other people.  White people they feel might be open to the idea that the Clintons are racist.

    Just occurs to me polarizing this issue doesn't just impact the AA community.

    So they're making a bet that a percentage -- however small -- of white people who won't see what their strategy is here and really be inclined to think that they had better support Obama or support the racist Clintons.

    They aren't presenting a choice to AAs.

    They are presenting this choice to....

    I'm trying to make sense of this.  I don't think they're really that stupid.

    Or are they?

    My thought (none / 0) (#130)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:08:12 PM EST
    is that this is targeted to the undeclared superdelegates.

    And some will buy into it.


    Just guessing... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Rainsong on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    But the timing of all this has me suspicious, the NC ads for their gubers, Wright on TV, Clyborn etc - rather than parsing WORM, perhaps I'm just wishful thinking, but perhaps there is some hidden theme of trying to throw it for the good of the Party?

    The last couple of weeks, even the Puhleese-Let-Me-Eat-Waffle scene, is beginning to play on him. I also checked Obama's record again, the GOP dont have to get real dirty, they can bring him down soooooo easily on just some of his very thin Senate flip-flop-flaps, he has a library the size of the national archives, obvious lies and stumbles in debates, (the list is endless) to choose from without stooping to their worst arsenal.

    But Obama can't be seen to lose the nomination badly. To save the Party, Obama's narrative needs to be seen something along the lines of,  having run a great nomination race, but was just pipped at the post in the final stretch. As the old saying goes, how well the winner does, often depends on how well the loser loses. He needs to go out as a fantastic second-placer, focus on his positives like responsibility for massive new registrations, the increase in interest and engagement across the nation etc. If his campaign is doing something like that, then it raises my personal respect for Obama.

    All those calls for Clinton to be a good sport, and "take a hit for the team" etc - maybe just my wishful thinking and imagination, but is it in the realm of possibility that Obama's campaign might be doing something like that?

    You are delusional (none / 0) (#208)
    by Spike on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:27:50 PM EST
    Plouffe too (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    OK, here we go again.  From the dept of WTF: Plouffe has said..

    "[T]he vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already,"   ?????????????  So Clinton supporters and Republicans are racist?  Idiot.

    He didn't say that (none / 0) (#107)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:54:58 PM EST
    Where do some of these comments come from? Did Ploufe say that Clinton supporters (or even that McCain supporters) are racists? He said the racist vote is firmly in McCain's pocket. Some of them voted for Hillary but in in GE match up with McCain they would abandon her. They won't vote for either Hillary or Obama in a GE scenario.

    Oh so much better.... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:04:04 PM EST
    I interpreted Plouffe's statements as Clinton supporters and Republicans are racist.  You have clarified that...

    He said the racist vote is firmly in McCain's pocket. Some of them voted for Hillary but in in GE match up with McCain they would abandon her.

    My summary: Clinton supporters and Republicans are the racists.

    Your summary: McCain's supporters are racist and so are some of Clinton's supporters.


    Of course some of Clinton supporters are racist (none / 0) (#132)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:08:54 PM EST
    Exit polling and common sense bears that out. Thankfully I don't believe they constitute any sort of sizable block and surely they would abandon her in the GE for the white male.

    Bears it out, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    You just told 78% of the Democratic Party that they were racists.

    That's like 3/4s of the party.

    Do you have some actual evidence to support your claim?


    More sillyness (none / 0) (#191)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:39:57 PM EST
    Still waiting for actual evidence (none / 0) (#203)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:15:57 PM EST
    to support your claim. You say that the exit polling bears it out that "some Clinton supporters are racist."

    Frankly, I think that the claim is frustrating in a post hoc ergo propter hoc kind of way.

    I'd personally would like to know how you come to your conclusions. And I'd like you to provide the evidence that you base your claim upon.

    But I guess that's silly too.


    Are any Obama supporters racist (none / 0) (#156)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:33:07 PM EST
    Sure they are, right?

    No more than women voting for Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:38:31 PM EST
    are sexist. You raise a silly point. An AA voting for Obama will not say: "I will never vote for a white man." Chances are he/she has voted for plenty of white people. So the vote is positive, not negative. It's not motivated by hate or feelings of racial superiority. It's a member of a historically underprivileged minorty casting a vote for one of their own. Just like some women do for Hillary.

    Get it now?


    Yeah I get it (none / 0) (#211)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what they won't say.  Nobody's ever going to admit it.

    So you think a certain percentage of female (none / 0) (#216)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:52:21 PM EST
    Hillary voters hate men but just won't admit it? I don't agree. Sorry.

    All I know is (none / 0) (#217)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:19:08 PM EST
    If they did, they wouldn't admit it.

    Just like no black person would ever admit they were voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.

    Just like no white person would ever admit they were voting against Obama because the color of his skin.

    The question is, which of the following groups of people do you think is less honest with themselves about their motivations?

    Black People.


    White people.


    That's exactly what I said (none / 0) (#222)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:02:08 AM EST
    Many blacks vote for Obama for the color or his skin. Some whites and Hispanics do the same for Hillary. I think I've described the differences and the contexts in which these votes are made. I think back in the 1940s it would've been grossly unfair to describe a black supporter of Jackie Robinson as racist. In many ways the same applies to Obama.

    Well that's it then (none / 0) (#223)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:10:56 AM EST
    Good to know.

    Just don't ever describe a vote for Clinton as racist.  And then no one will ever be inclined to describe a vote for Obama as racist.




    Given that (none / 0) (#125)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:04:48 PM EST
    about 50% of Hillary supporters in Penn would either vote for McCain or stay home, I think he's saying that 50% of Hillary voters are racists, myself.  That's the way I interpret it.

    Actually... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:07:18 PM EST
    He said that. Here's the link.

    boy, is this a mistake... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:47:27 PM EST
    The Obama camp and the wine-track liberals don't get it. The blowback for this sort of stuff is what began the transformation of Obama from the post-racial candidate to the racial candidate. Wright helped, but the field was plowed in January by the Obama campaign's ridiculous claims that Bill and Hillary were being racists during the "fairy tale/ MLK and LBJ" remarks in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.

    I predicted at the time that this tactic would help Obama win South Carolina and other states with large AA populations, but it would hurt him in states with large, white working-class populations who aren't as patronizing about race as wine-trackers. (See Ohio and PA and Rhode Island.)

     And these culturally-tone-deaf people are cranking up in time for North Carolina--but also Indiana. Since Obama can't win more than 100 per cent of the black vote in NC and he already has something like 95%, I can't imagine what they think they'll gain. But they sure do stand to lose a lot in Indiana with this crap. Dumb, dumb move.

    Axelrod's gambit (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by reality based on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:47:41 PM EST
    Axelrod is trying to rehabilitate Wright (and therefore Obama) and trying to keep the Clintons from saying anything to the contrary.  This shows that Wright is indeed hurting Obama.  They are gambling that their white liberals will not be too offended.

    Oh, that's a good point (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:50:23 PM EST
    although I believe that strategy is misguided.  It's like picking at a scab instead of letting it heal over.

    With Wright's appearance on Moyers tonight and Clyburn on KO, not to mention the Wright videos playing every 5 minutes on Fox and other networks, it's gonna be all racial politics, all the time!


    Wow (none / 0) (#187)
    by IzikLA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:33:36 PM EST
    I'm kind of in agreement.  I would even say they are putting this all out there now as bait - just hoping the Clinton's or the campaign will comment so they can twist their words and make accusations again.  I hope Hillary and Bill and all involved just stay above the fray because anything other than that will get them into trouble.

    bless Maya Angelou...rising above it all (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:52:03 PM EST
    And Oprah (none / 0) (#144)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    loves her.  

    Maybe the Obama people think that they (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:55:37 PM EST
    will lose this campaign, so they are purposefully hurting Hillary thru the AA population so she doesnt have a chance either....Stranger things have happened...

    My Guess (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:28:20 PM EST
    Trying to scare SDs to make him the nominee (and scare black SDs in particular) and, failing that, to leverage himself on as VP to ensure party unity.  

    I know others think Nancy Pelosi has nixed a Unity Ticket because of some sort of partisan prejudice.  While I think she probably favors Obama, I suspect she's nixed a unity ticket because she thinks a white guy is needed to shore up weaknesses they both might have with white men.  Not that I think she should be publicly opining on the topic one way or the other.


    Strange things do happen. Just read a (none / 0) (#143)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM EST
    book by Bob Woodward. Unbelievable what grown men have done for power.

    I don't think it's IF (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jen on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:56:05 PM EST
    "Obama campaign is behind Rep. Jim Clyburn's boneheaded attacks on the Clinton camp." I have it from a very reliable source, who I am not allowed to reveal, that the Hillary attacks, from the beginning, have come from the TOP of O!'s campaign. I understand and realize since I'm not at liberty to say who I got this information from many will doubt it, but there it is.

    I Would Not Be Surprised. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:11:40 PM EST
    I take that with a grain of salt. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:46 PM EST
    OTOH, the outrage directed at Hillary because of criticisms of Obama were always laughable.  They were mild and nothing compared to what would happen if he were the niminee.

    Much ado about nothing.  I guess people are realizing just how negative she isn't.

    It just obscures the fact that Obama isn't ready for the big time.


    I am a little mad at Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    for not fighting this stuff more forcefully.  Yes she went to Nashville and the Black State of the Union but she did not react to these charges with the outrage that they deserve.  Of course, whe would likely have been crucified for any strong reaction and any outcries would have given more currency to the attacks so perhaps she did the right thing.  Hillary was in a no win situation.  It really was a brilliant Rovian move on the part of the Obama campaign.

    Yep (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by IzikLA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:39:05 PM EST
    You said it - because it's a no-win situation.  The smartest thing she can do is express herself through her actions and hope that people finally realize the truth. Going to the MLK event and the Congressional Black Caucus was smart, it just was not widely praised, as it should have been.  It's distressful to me that she has always fought for equality and civil rights for decades and this guy comes along and accuses her of such hateful, horrible things.  But believe me, she can not say as much and neither can her campaign.  Or Bill for that matter, as we've seen.

    I guess you just (none / 0) (#142)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:15:19 PM EST
    gave the answer to your first statement.

    How will this not be lethal in the GE? (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:57:54 PM EST
    If the supers are so deranged as to think the GOP won't annihilate Obama--and, thus, the Democratic party--for its overt smearing of anyone who doesn't vote for Obama as racist, then our party will be destroyed for nominating this man.  Not only has his campaign been ruthless and polarizing, but willfully suicidal.

    To me, this proves how utterly unelectable Obama is in the GE.  This will kill Democrats downticket in red and purple states.  And it will neuter Bill and Hillary Clinton's ability to campaign for Obama (if he's the nominee) or other Democrats.

    Red herring to distract from Obama cant win why? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:02:13 PM EST
    Just another racist victim bomb to change the subject and re introduce ugliness so you wont talk about Hillarys win and her strengths, its just like having a abusive spouse nag nag nag nag nag to tear you down.  Dont fall for it.

    He isn't the only one. (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:04:02 PM EST
    I linked to another article earlier on the Clinton's racist ways.  Now here is another.

    Clinton hate is fine...small-minded...but fine...I hate Obama so we're even.  But I'm not calling for Obama's proverbial head, I'm not calling Obama a bigot, I'm not calling Obama a closeted-Muslim, I call Obama an polished politician (old school politician) who lacks relevant experience for the job he is in; and the one to which he aspires.

    Calling the Clinton's bigots is bullcrap.  Continually trying to blame a leaked photo of Obama in Muslim garb is bullcrap (consider the frigging source: Drudg(ery)).  

    Not to continually blow the same horn BUT:  WHO benefits from playing the race card before primaries in states with a large percentage of black voters?  UM, not HRC.  Obama is playing the race card once again in just such a situation...Obama et al are sick of questions about Ayers???????????

    SFW!  I'm sick of a former President and a potential President being likened to slave owners and Klan members.

    The Popular Vote Gambit (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:06:40 PM EST

    It's starting to look like the Obama campaign has calculated that the most important thing for them to do now is win the popular vote at all costs.

    The best chance Obama has of running up the numbers is to create outrage and urgency among African American voters in North Carolina.  If the racial pot gets stirred they may be able to maximize turnout from that 90%+ of black voters which seem to be going for him no matter what.  This could translate into substantial padding to hold off Hillary's gains from places like Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico.

    It is cynical, it is destructive, it is the opposite of what a unity candidate would do, but it is a very probably scenario that is developing.

    The Democratic Party chose very bad "leaders" in Pelosi, Reid, and Dean.  We shall now reap what we have sown and defeat in November appears certain for whoever our nominee is.

    The only hope of salvaging this is with a unity ticket, but Pelosi has spoken.

    I Think That This Has Gone So Far (none / 0) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    that I don't believe a unity ticket can walk that dog back.

    Politics makes (none / 0) (#146)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:19:26 PM EST
    strange bedfellows, but they might have to be on the same page as far as influence and policy are concerned.

    Maybe not.


    I'm Not Talking About The Candidates (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:25:37 PM EST
    I'm talking about their supporters.

    Well then there's no chance (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:33:39 PM EST
    McCain was the wrong candidate for us to go up against this year.  He is "likeable enough" for a great deal of moderate Democrats who may feel angry at what has happened to our Party.  I predict he will win against Clinton (due to a protest "sit-out" from black voters if Barack is not on the ticket) and I predict a landslide for McCain if he runs against Obama, especially without Hillary on the ticket.

    Either way, it is FUBAR thanks to Pelosi, Reid, and Dean.  They have been so bad during this process that it is fair to question whether they want to lose.


    Oh (none / 0) (#152)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:30:45 PM EST
    Well, we're seeing threats and anger on the blogosphere.  It's a small percentage of voters.

    The eventual nominee will have to make the case.

    Four more years of Bush?

    Think about that hard and long.


    It is not just the blogs (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:23 PM EST
    Exit polls have consistently been showing 30% defections to McCain(especially by Hillary supporters) for months now.

    That number goes way beyond bloggers.


    As I said... (none / 0) (#165)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    what people say now and what they'll do in November are miles apart.

    I wouldn't worry just yet, no matter who the nominee is.


    The percentage is too large to begin with (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:44:46 PM EST
    I heard Joe Scarborough make the same observation, that it's fine and good to say that people will "come around" later and fall in line, but when you're starting with huge chunks of voters like 30%+ and even close to 50% depending on the poll there is a lot of falling in line to be done.

    There will be a hardcore fraction of that number that WILL be true to their word and even if it's just 10% you add in a mild October surprise and the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan and it's FUBAR.


    I Agree With Scarborough (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    Percentage is too high and you are not going to convince enough in that large of group to come around. The more Obama's supporters go on TV and declare the Clinton's racists and the more the media chants Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama because he is black, the higher  those numbers will be and those people will be more entrenched in their position. No October surprise will be necessary if there is any trouble at the convention due to race.

    You could say you agree with me :) (none / 0) (#180)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:20:37 PM EST
    I had the thought before watching Scarborough, but alas I get no pay from MSNBC (thankfully)

    You Are Right (none / 0) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:28:14 PM EST
    I should have agreed with you. I, also, had the thought before Scarborough went on the air with it. I don't get paid for my opinion either but I'm sure that either of us could do a better job then most of the current talking heads (bobble head dolls).

    Let's petition for a show (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:46:05 PM EST
    Talk Left radio? Oh no... reminds me of bloggingheads.tv nevermind.  I don't want to follow in the footsteps of Mickey Kaus in any way shape or form.

    Clyburn would had more credibility if (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:11:10 PM EST
    he would had equally criticized Obama for saying some pretty demeaning stuff about Hillary... you don't get credibility because you say you are neutral... [just words]

    Oh geeezz. (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by mrjerbub on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    What a mess. I used to think of myself as a pretty liberal dude. I'm a 58-year-old vietnam veteran who lived through the "turbulent" 60's, a very traumatic tour in the "Nam" and all the crud since but I think (fear) this has become too much for me to handle, even with the VA drugs. What if it's true? What if, after all these years, it turns out I am a racist? Heck, I can even watch TV anymore. I sense a great unraveling happening right before my eyes. To copy lyrics from a song; I think I need to "go underground and get some heavy rest". Check Please!

    Today is Edward R. Murrow's 100th birthday (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:21:01 PM EST
    Now, fair warning, make sure and take your anti-nausea meds or hold your nose, or that you don't have a mouthful of coffee, while you read this.....

    Here is Keith Olbermann's quote in honor of Murrow (as if he should have anything to say about Murrow).

    "The entirety of Murrow's career," Olbermann tells TVNewser, "testified to the fact that he was beholden, not to the ratings, not to his employers, not to his own self-interests but to the truth and to the public good.,  It must have been rewarding beyond measure to find his ratings, his employers, and his self-interests served as a byproduct of his dedication to what was truly important.

    Anybody sense any self-congratulation in this?  NO?  Oh you will soon.

    "I quote his sign-off each night not because I have any right to claim it," Olbermann continues, "but for the same reason the show begins with the theme music from The Huntley-Brinkley Report: television news needs to aspire, whenever and wherever possible, and to whatever degree possible, to uphold the standards of those men whose memories are evoked, either by a passage from Beethoven, or the mere words 'good night, and good luck.'"

    I return you to reality now.

    I just barfed (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:31:32 PM EST
    all over my keyboard.  

    The self-aggrandizement and pomposity is just amazing.  

    Keith is a legend in his own mind.


    So sorry ;-). (none / 0) (#172)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:50:00 PM EST
    But you were warned!

    I think (4.00 / 2) (#40)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:22:26 PM EST
    This is geared more towards the so-called "latte liberals" - Hillary is a liar, she's also a racist, and those living in the Research Triangle will undoubtedly vote for Obama. This kind of interview will only confirm their attitude.

    I doubt it (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    I think it is harmful, not helpful with white of all types.

    I tell you I worked for Dinkins in 93 - the lattes of the UpperWestSide did not like playing it this way.


    You could be right (none / 0) (#54)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:26:37 PM EST
    But I think many of the lattes have such a firm opinion about Hillary, that they won't be dissuaded.

    I tend (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:41:27 PM EST
    to agree with you. It probably worked at first with the wine drinkers but it has been played so much that I think it now hurts him. Honestly, the only thing I can think of is that their internals are so bad that they are desperate to try to change things. The lattes in PA didn't go to Obama did they?

    I think they did about 60/40 (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:43:43 PM EST
    Breakdown From Exit Poll (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:30:34 PM EST
                                          Clinton              Obama
    Very liberal (19%)                   47%             53%
    Somewhat liberal (31%)    53%             47%

    Directly quoted from the poll and not my faulty memory.


    Problem is that you can't (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
    tell which was what percentage black.

    That Is True (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    but I though it was a pretty strong showing in those groups for Hillary and disproved somewhat the meme that Obama consistently won the lion's share of white progressives.

    Backing out any black voters from those numbers would only increase her percentage of white voters in those categories. She only lost the very liberal voters by 6% and won the liberal voters by 6%, So it is possible that she got the majority of white liberals depending on the racial mix.


    How did that work? (none / 0) (#160)
    by rilkefan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:16 PM EST
    The media (if I vaguely remember correctly) wasn't pro-Dinkins, and the discussion of race in NYC is probably much franker than in most of the country.  It's not clear to me how the Obama's playing-the-race-card argument will make it to the white voters who might react against it, esp. with the press helping to push the Clintons-are-racists fairy tale.

    The Research Triangle (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:29:51 PM EST
    should remember it was Clinton that doubled the NIH budget and supplied them with the cash infusion that powered their growth.

    Of course it is. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by janarchy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:40:24 PM EST
    These are the same people who talk on Debunking White and read books which foster the whole 'white people need to be guilty 24/7 about racism in America and it's All Their Fault' and believe that anyone who questions it are horrible racists.

    That said, this makes me furious. I will not vote for Obama come hell or high water -- I'm tired of being called names and seeing the candidate of my choice called the same. My heart breaks for intelligent people like Sheila Jackson Lee, Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Alcee Hastings who are working for Clinton's campaign and called 'race traitors' just for having a preference.


    All RTP people are NOT (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:56:10 PM EST
    Obama types.  Two of my kids and two of my sons-in-law were RTP/Duke inhabitants.  One son-in-law is an indie, the other is a dem.  And my son is for Hillary, as I expect his sister is.  It maybe depends on the values you raise them with--fair play and respect for others, for instance?

    Which leads into: Mamas, don't raise your boys to be misogynists!  Respect is taught from babyhood.


    Yes, it will stoke up (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    blacks and latte liberals. Were that the entire electorate were composed of such voters. . .

    No (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:24:57 PM EST
    I disagree, Obama has the latte liberals he would have already. HE does not need this. this hurts him.

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:29:16 PM EST
    And (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:25:42 PM EST
    apparently few Hillary supporters watch Olbermann anymore, so it will be preaching to the choir.

    You don't think Morning Joe's (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:31:22 PM EST
    crowd won't hear about Clyburn?  You think that the GOP won't use this story to both dammage the Clintons and at the same time amp up white voters' angst about a Presidential candidate that appears to call anyone who disagrees with him a "racist"?

    One would think that Clyburn at least would be smarter about the effect of calling racism at every turn.  There isn't going to be anybody left to vote for Obama after they get through accusing every dissedent to his campaign a racist.


    Clyburn Switched To O From Hill...Not A Smart Guy (none / 0) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:56:11 PM EST
    ...but he is an opportunistic one.

    Clyburn declared himself neutral, but forced by (none / 0) (#167)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:42:35 PM EST
    the Clintons to come out against their comments about MLK.

    Back on January 11, NYTimes had this article:

    Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he was rethinking his neutral stance in his state's presidential primary out of disappointment at comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that he saw as diminishing the historic role of civil rights activists.

    SNIP But he said recent remarks by the Clintons that he saw as distorting civil rights history could change his mind.

    "We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics," said Mr. Clyburn, who was shaped by his searing experiences as a youth in the segregated South and his own activism in those days. "It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone's motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal."

    In an interview with Fox News on Monday (1/7/08), Mrs. Clinton, who was locked in a running exchange with Senator Barack Obama, a rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, over the meaning of the legacies of President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., tried to make a point about presidential leadership.

    "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean more to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. "It took a president to get it done."

    Quickly realizing that her comments could draw criticism, Mrs. Clinton returned to the subject at a later stop, recalling how Dr. King was beaten and jailed and how he worked with Johnson to pass the landmark law. Clinton advisers said her first remark had not captured what she meant to convey. And they said she would never detract from a movement that has driven her own public service.

    This was preceded, iirc, by Billy Shaheen telling a reporter that he was worried the Republicans would use Obama's self-reported cocaine use against him in the general election. This was called accusing Obama of being a dope dealer. As if Repubs were incapable of reading Obama's book. Then Tweety played the multiple questions thing with Mark Penn to get him just use the word "cocaine," which then became another instance of racism.

    The MCM played very nicely with the Obama campaign to play this dangerous game.  The MCM doesn't care about the well-being of the Dem Party--the BO campaign ought to not only care, but take care.

    This has been going on hot and heavy since early January.  And Karl Rove smiles approvingly and licks his chops.

    We've essentially spent the year so far on this stuff.


    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    A conservative friend at work was telling me about some funny comment Olbermann made last night about Bill O'Reilly.

    His assumption was that I might have watched it.  He looked totally dumbfounded when I told him it would be a cold day in hell before I watched MSNBC.


    If what I think will happen (none / 0) (#6)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:04:02 PM EST
    happens, I'm gonna send both Clyburn and Obama a nice "Thank You" Fruit & Nut basket. (and, no, it's not because I think they're fruity OR nutty)

    The list of Barack's Boneheaded Mistakes grows daily.

    It's good for Hillary and her campaign, though.  :-)

    Yup! (none / 0) (#12)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:11:52 PM EST
    See ya'll at Hillary's inauguration.  

    RE : (none / 0) (#9)
    by az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:08:40 PM EST
    Harry Truman said it best :

    If you can't stand the heat , get out of the kitchen.

    Both sides have used race to its advantage .

    The Clinton camp can decide not to respond.

    Explain with each instance that HRC (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:21:11 PM EST
    or BC used the race issue.  I've investigated each attack and found it to be 100 percent from the BO camp.

    What was Bill Clinton doing in SC (3.00 / 1) (#57)
    by az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:27:29 PM EST
    comparing his win to Jesse Jackson .

    No one is innocent here .


    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST
    Even Jesse Jackson said BC's comments weren't racist, so where do Obama supporters get off saying they were?

    What did you expect him to say ? (none / 0) (#68)
    by az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:32:44 PM EST
    The implications were clear to most blacks whether you like it or not.

    The insult to blacks (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    is what the media and the Obama campaign wanted as the narrative.  Why would Bill Clinton want to insult blacks and hurt Hillary's support among AA and liberal audiences?  It made no sense.

    It seemed to me from the offset that (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:01:59 PM EST
    the Obama campaign had to do two things to bring Hillary down: 1) deny the economic success of the Clinton years and 2) peel the black voters from the Clintons.   I lived in a heavily AA community for many years and they loved Bill. Times were so much better for AA/Latinos and the LGBT community.  Axelrod's goal was to swiftboat the Clintons  It seems to have worked in some quarters.

    x (none / 0) (#72)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:35:12 PM EST
    I've never known Jesse Jackson to back down from a fight / discussion on race.  He has even been on TV decrying racism even for things that weren't racist at times.

    U Do Know Jackson Is Black & Supports Obama? (none / 0) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    What's wrong (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:31:51 PM EST
    with comparing his win to Jesse Jackson.

    Oh come on (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:39:32 PM EST
    If it wasn't that remark, they would have distorted some other remark to paint him as a racist. There was no way that any white opponent of Obama's would have made it to this stage of the race without being branded a racist. It was their strategy. At the same time they were calling the Clintons racist, Obama was going around SC calling Edwards the "white man" in the race. If Edwards had stayed in the race, by now they would be portraying him as a grand Wizard of the KKK. You know it is true.

    If they could imply Hillary was racist, because they don't have any first hand knowledge of her crying for Katrina victims, they will stoop to anything.


    this is why he jumped out (none / 0) (#168)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:44:13 PM EST
    He was trailing and he realized he was going to get smeared something aweful.

    An unfortunate reference (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    You have to go a ways before you can see malice in that statement.  What would be its purpose?  To depress support among one of Hillary's constituencies?  Why would he do something that gained her no votes and lost her some?

    The way the Obama campaign and his media allies have used race in this election is quite clear.  Check out the Daily Howler archives for the Sergio Bendixen story.


    Speaking from SC (none / 0) (#140)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:12:37 PM EST
    Pres. Clinton must have lost his cool, because I believe what he was saying was that Obama was not the very FIRST.  Now why the O camp took that as a put down, I am not quite sure*. jj is from Greenville, and as a hometown boy is rather well thought of here.  (Incidentally, during the '04 debate (was it here?) I thought that the sharpest wit was Al Sharpton.

    *unless because JJ did not ultimately get the nomination; but then only one debater did win--a lot of white losers?


    Honestly, I couldn't care less about (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:25:45 PM EST
    the Clinton's response.  I care about how white voters in this country internalize these relentless accusations of racism.  Everyone it seems that isn't on their side is deemed a racist.  That is a dangerous game when 80% of the nation is a potential target for that accusation excusively on the basis of choosing a different candidate.

    I might have voted for more black people than white people in my lifetime - counting up major elections in my world I think that I actually have - but I have never seen a race run this way before and I wouldn't have voted for anyone black or white who played these games.  I am blown away by the choices that the Obama campaign have been making on this front.  Really disappointed and blown away.


    It Is A Two Edged Sword That Has The Potential (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:42:10 PM EST
    of seriously damaging race relations and the party for years to come. Completely irresponsible to sow these kinds of seeds.

    RE : (none / 0) (#65)
    by az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:31:30 PM EST
    Its a tough business.

    The electorate is already polarized , she is barely getting 10% of the black vote now.

    There isn't much more polarization that can be done.

    Both camps went into SC trying to exploit race and I believe it has backfired on the two camps.

    It would be worse for Obama in the long run when he is the nominee .


    I disagree (none / 0) (#80)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:42:06 PM EST
    When 90% of whites vote against Obama, then it is polarized. If that is where he is going, I'm not following.

    AZ, Just Here To Stir Up Trouble? (none / 0) (#126)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    If and when AA's come to their senses, obama is going to be a distant memory, which cannot come soon enough.

    Clarification, please. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Denni on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:22:53 PM EST
    I'm AA. Can you tell me what the 'come to their senses' comment means?  I have an advanced degree, I'm logical, I'm a member in good standing in my community, and I feel that I've wisely chosen my preferred Democratic nominee.

    Second question... is this a 'pro Hillary' site or is it a progressive site?  If it's pro-Hillary, I'm comfortable discontinuing participation here.  I am not pro-Hillary and I'm also not here to disrupt your board.


    progressive is a label... (none / 0) (#188)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    I've heard DailyKos called progressive - I guess the label only works for those who want to believe in labels.

    Is this a pro-Hillary site...sort of.

    Is it possible to support Obama and participate here? Sure, but you're liable to hear some over the top pro-Hillary comments.

    Intelligent discussion and dissent is always respected.


    Thank you for the reply. (none / 0) (#225)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    Should I decide to post, I'll keep it respectful.

    thats what I dont understand either (none / 0) (#14)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:12:27 PM EST
    Why on earth are they doing this...Do they think Democrats are such bleeding hearts that they will vote for him out of pity? Geezzzzzzz

    Athyrio! (none / 0) (#163)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:37:12 PM EST
    Is that a real question? :)

    no just me thinking out loud but I was thinking (none / 0) (#205)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:21:37 PM EST
    that maybe if the Obama campaign says to the SD's, hey Clinton isn't going to get the AA vote in the general election, while thinking it will persuade them to not go with Clinton...I, for one, don't believe that the AA vote is in lockstep, as they do think for themselves and might be a little sick of being taken for granted...

    KO Will Do What He Can To Make Clyburn Look Good! (none / 0) (#89)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:45:55 PM EST
    KO is on Obammie's side after all.

    African-Americans (none / 0) (#101)
    by carrienae on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    are bigger than this. This campaign should be about what is going in this country. This campaign is about making the lives of every Americans... whether black, white, yellow, red, purple... improve their lives.
    This politician has a lot of dirt on his sleeves. I don't know where he trying to accomplish. He and Wright are such sad cases.

    umm.. (none / 0) (#192)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    I may be called racist for saying this.. but why exactly do you believe that? As a relatively recent immigrant to this country, I have not seen any evidence of this (when you say that AA's are better than this) thus far. To me, they seem to be the most easily manipulated segment of the voter base.

    Is Clyburn picking a fight? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Sunshine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    The whites know that Bill Clinton has always gone out of his way to help the AA's and their living standard really went up under the Clintons... I think both Bill and Hillary have always really had an affection for the AA's...  I think that both Bill and Hillary were both very proud of the black support at the beginning of this campaign... I don't think that Bill has ever had any intent to say anything racist..  After the accusations of racistism the blacks now vote 92% against Hillary...  Many of these accusations were made by Clyburn... Many whites are watching all this and if Obama does get the nomination, the resentment is now high and it will go up amoungst the whites and more and more are planing to either stay home or vote for McCain...  If the contest is fair, Obama will have the white vote but he will not get it if it is unfair...  This is not fair....

    For some odd reason (none / 0) (#138)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:12:11 PM EST
    I thought Clyburn was white.

    Raw Racism (none / 0) (#145)
    by Sunshine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    This is pure racism but not from Bill Clinton, it's racism from Clyburn and whoever else is behind this smear....

    KO got skewered... (none / 0) (#171)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:49:19 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann's Idea for Beating Hillary; Literally Beating Hillary by Rachel Sklar today...must be a tough day on Arianna, having her hirelings run so many stories that run counter to Obama the golden boy.

    So Keith puts Clyburn on to make sure that they run out the week of conspiratorial nightmares. MSNBC in self destruct mode...glad they don't care.

    Me - I don't find myself turning to MSNBC these days...not even to watch Hillary.