The Race Card

I want to be perfectly clear about my previous post, I think John McCain and Republicans ARE playing the race card, as they have for decades. But I believe Barack Obama is in a difficult position to combat it BECAUSE of the outrageous and disgraceful accusations that were hurled at Bill and Hillary Clinton during the primaries by many of his supporters. Jim Clyburn in particular was egregious in his smears of the Clintons. More . . .

But it was not just Jim Clyburn. Look at what Eugene Robinson writes today:

It's awfully early for John McCain to be running such a desperate, ugly campaign against Barack Obama. . . . The latest bit of snarling, mean-spirited nonsense to come out of the McCain camp was the accusation, leveled by campaign manager Rick Davis, that Obama had "played the race card." He did so, apparently, by being black.

I think that is a fair point. Here is the problem - on May 9, Robinson wrote:

From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- and that's why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.

By disgracefully smearing Hillary Clinton in May, Robinson's reasonable point today about the McCain campaign is hopelessly lost. As I wrote earlier, the fairy tale has come to roost. And it was Obama supporters likes Robinson, Clyburn, Jesse Jackson, Jr. and bloggers like Josh Marshall who have given McCain this opening. Their willingness to say and do anything about the Clintons in support of Obama's candidacy now creates a situation where McCain can race bait, and get away with it.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Friday Morning Open Thread | The Tracking Polls: It's Tied >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Not sure... (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    I don't think McCain's campaign has played it yet. The GOP? Prolly...at least the NC-GOP did a while ago.

    I figure that the campaign'll play it eventually...and any valid response will be completely muted by the "cried wolf earlier" effect.

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:12:04 AM EST
    Racism is a serious issue and any charges of it should be made with the same respect.  It isn't just a valid response from Obama in the future that we should be concerned with here either.  There is the potential for a backlash against valid claims of it by other people of color too.  

    It's a turn off (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    Americans eventually are going to be turned off by these racism accusations. Will it be like this for four years? There will be a point when the only beneficiary is McCain.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM EST
    Obama needs to be careful, because eventually Americans will realize that he is talking about many of THEM.

    we are way past eventually recall (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Salt on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM EST

    that it's not just a negative this inflames and hardens peoples position as it a Identify Grievance being wielded against groups.....there is no way Obama benefits from this continued dialogue the people who would rally to him have done so, this now can only inflame and alienate voters

    Agree, kredwyn (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by stxabuela on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    I fully expected blatantly racist ads in the fall from a 527 group.  

    If McCain's campaign wasn't so d@mn bad, I'd say this was a brilliant strategy.  Once Obama said the GOP would mention race, put together an ad that might be construed as racist AND/OR sexist (it was two blonde women, how stereotypical can you get?); wait and hope the Obama campaign condemned it on either/both issue(s); and then slam the Obama campaign by saying, "We knew this would happen because we saw what happened to Pres./Sen. Clinton, and s/he didn't deserve it."  Then, when the real slime hits from the 527s, McCain can denounce the ads and say, "We said earlier that we were campaigning on issues and experience, not race."  The nasty stuff gets out and McCain stays above it.

    In reality, I think the only thing the McCain camp planned was to throw everything they could at Obama and hope that something stuck.  They just got a huge break with the outcry and Steve Schmidt's brilliant response defending Bill Clinton, of all people.          


    Are you sure that (none / 0) (#178)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    McCain's campaign happened on this by accident? I think this was a well-planned maneuver. I also think that the "d@MN bad" campaign is meant to lull the Democrats. As this point Obama is campaigning for McCain. I'm sure McCain's folks are just collecting more and more of Obama's own words.

    Hasn't McCain called Obama Presumptuous? (2.40 / 5) (#206)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:29:37 PM EST
    Isn't that another word for uppity? I need not tell you want follows uppity...

    Certainly Dana Milbank did in the WaPo. Whether or not Milbank (or his editor) is savvy to understand the implication is another question.


    Thank you!! (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:56:35 AM EST
    This was the issue that truly turned  me off to Obama.  I was really curious how it was going to play out in the General Election.  

    Me too (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:10:40 AM EST
    We can talk about it at dinner with Hillary. ;-)

    or Bill (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:11:29 AM EST
    Yep. He played that card on the (5.00 / 14) (#25)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    Clintons and it was disgusting.  Now it has come back to bite him.  I can't say that I am sorry to see this. He and his campaign deserve it.  And by the way, what ever happened to the lie that Obama spoke about the senate banking committee being "his committee" you know the one he passed all those important pieces of legislation?

    don't worry (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:17:49 AM EST
    I'm sure we'll be reminded of it sometime during September/October.

    How is McCain playing the race card? (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    Please explain, cause I don't see it.

    I don't see it either (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    But it's clear that this meme will continue to be pushed, though it has no merit, and few of the members are going to buy it.

    Ditto. Now, calling out race-baiting (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM EST
    is race-baiting?  I said it in the last thread: That is shutting down discourse, and that's disastrous.

    Oh, and by the way, Eugene Robinson proved himself useless on the night of the NH primary.  He just started going downhill even before his candidate did.


    well (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:15:29 AM EST
    I have to admit something.  sqeakys pointing out that the same producer made the McCain ad who made the despicable Harold Ford ad got me thinking.
    maybe their goal really was to inject some sort of subliminal race baiting into that add.
    but I would also say that if that was the goal, it fell completely flat.  I and, I believe, most people would never even pick it up without knowing, for example, that the same guy produced both.
    now, just because the guy did one racist ad doesnt mean all his ads are necessarily racist but it is an odd sort of blond coincidence.
    I think it is also possible that they are smart enough to "bait" the race baiters a bit.  lets face it, if that ad had not contained Paris and Brit, no one would be talking about it.
    so, I cant decide if it was brilliant, if evil, subliminal race baiting or incredibly ham handed and incompetent race baiting or a funny ad about celebrity.
    in any case, it worked.

    IMO (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:19:40 AM EST
    the ad was designed to create some Outrage!

    I do not believe for a second that the McCain campaign didn't know exactly what the response would be.  I don't think they were going for subliminal race baiting.  I think they were trying get the Outrage! crowd to bring up race.


    The wolf is coming (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM EST
    and this time nobody cares. Bra. Vo.

    I think McCain is definitely going to try some dog-whistling (and perhaps some of his surrogates will be calling from the tops of the towers) race bait material, but Obama spent his clip on an ally rather than the wolf at the door.

    Obama apparently never learned the value of choosing your battles or else you run out of ammo. Now all he can throw are annoying / whining complaints about how unfair it all is? How does that jibe with his message of "Yes We Can"?

    "Yes We Can!" Unless Some Meanie Calls Me Names.


    Calculated risk. (5.00 / 6) (#167)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    It helped to win the nomination for Obama, didn't it?  Therefore it was worth it.

    Now, some of us were saying "Win the battle, lose the war." wrt to constant accusations of racism (and the real sexism) but we were largely shouted down or ignored.  Now, we will see if Obama can win the war.  I am honestly amazed Obama is being this dense about the obvious differences between the GE and the primary.  What Hillary couldn't do without practically throwing away her chances at the nomination, McCain can do and will do.


    what people may not be aware of (5.00 / 6) (#184)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:18:09 PM EST
    is this is Obama's FIRST serious contest.  He lost his first Congressional contest years ago and then, running for the State Senate, removed ALL of his opponents via legal means and "ran" unopposed.

    Then, running for the US Senate, there are many in Chicago who swear Axelrod leaked damaging divorce papers about his opponent to the papers -- which effectively ended his opponent's bid as well as humiliated his young children -- and ended up running against a man who didn't even LIVE in Illinois, Alan Keyes.

    So, I don't know if Obama really knows what to do in response to a practiced politician with a cut-throat ruthless team behind him.  Hillary had the GE in her sights when she ran in the Primary and was very, very careful not to say anything against him that might understandably upset the voters.

    Unfortunately, she also had a Media out to get her and an opponent who didn't mind painting her as a racist.  Understandably, McCain is putting a stop to THAT tactic right away.

    So, what will Obama be left to fight with?  It'll be interesting to see how the Poll numbers change in response to this "racist" dust-up.  


    If so, then McCain will be ahead (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    in more than one poll -- because Obama has dropped yet again in the Gallup tracking poll (a pretty good one, as I've been watching for months).

    It's a tie today in the Gallup tracking polls.  That's the first time in a long time, although it has been a downtrend for some time.


    C'mon, Capt (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    We proved yesterday that story about the Harold Ford/Obama ads connection was false.  That person was fired from the McCain a year ago.

    I honestly did not follow that as much (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:28:09 AM EST
    as I probably should have.  
    it was NOT the same producer?
    never mind.(probably) one could still learned from the other.
    dont get me wrong.  I am not jumping on the race baiting train.  just trying to cut through the fog of war.

    Let's see (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    Obama says that some of his opponents will attack him because he doesn't look like the guys on our money.

    McCain accuses Obama of playing the race card and accusing him of racism.  Yeah, that's playing the race card.

    McCain doesn't need to attack Obama because he's black.  He wants to portray as being overly sensitive and defined by his race.  He wants to make him the black candidate.

    He  is goading the Obama campaign.  His ad attacks are deceptive and sometimes outright lies.  He wants Obama to get defensive because then he will portray him as overly sensitive.


    We already know Obama is (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:18:07 AM EST
    overly sensitive about lots of stuff.  Now add this?

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:20:43 AM EST
    And how do we know that he is "overly sensitive" about a lot of stuff?

    Can you provide a couple of examples of Obama displaying over sensitivity?


    That's easy (5.00 / 7) (#98)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    His response to the only debate in which he was not pampered by the moderators. What did he do? "Dirt of my shoulder" and "dog crap off my shoe." Refused to participate in further debates. WATB.

    His humorless reaction to the New Yorker cover and exclusion of a NYer reporter from the press plane in retaliation.

    "Lay off my wife!"

    "Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions."

    "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"

    "I just want to put you on notice," he said."I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears."

    I'm sure I could find a lot more if I wanted to take the time. He's known for being uber-sensitive and incapable of taking a joke. You could  look it up.


    Yeh. I remember JFK, sir (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM EST
    and you're no JFK, Obama.  I've said several times to my spouse, who is quite pro-Obama but agrees, that Obama lacks the sort of sense of humor that we need in the straits this country is in now.

    JFK got off some great lines in his campaign.  So have a lot of othere pols -- the ones that win.


    If what he said to the (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by JDM in NYC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    Congressional Black Caucus was reported accurately, as recently as 6/20 he was still claiming that HRC had said he was a Muslim, and praising himself for "biting his tongue" in the interest of "Unity."

    We could go back to the CBS (4.57 / 7) (#80)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    interview with Stehanopoulus and Charles Griffin. They grilled him in the same way that others grilled Hillary (with help from JRE & BHO)in all the other debates.  After that BHO stopped agreeing to debates and refuses to take any questions at any events (National La Raza event). That is what I would call sensitive to the fact that he cannot answer anything on his feet without a telepromptor.  However, do not respond to this post as you cannot think outside of your Obama box and I find your responses reflect that.

    Right (3.00 / 2) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    I'm just so in the bag for Obama that I can't respond intelligently on the matter.  Nothing like a little proactive name calling to claim righteousness.

    I assume you are referring to the ABC debate with Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous?  

    That was the last debate because Obama had effectively won after North Carolina primary.  It had absolutely nothing to do with Obama having hurt feelings.  It had to do with the tactical situation.

    But don't let reality impact your opinions.


    that was the debate in PA (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:50:21 AM EST
    it happened BEFORE the NC primary.  It was what caused Obama to refuse to debate in NC, IN and OR.  Because he didn't want to chance that kind of performance again.

    And, if you don't remember all the whining and gnashing of teeth from the Obama campa and surrogates and supporters about how "unfair" that debate was, your memory is failing you.


    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:55:34 AM EST
    you conflate bloggers and supporters with the Obama campaign.  They are not one in the same.

    really... (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    I beleive some of the complaining about that debate came directly from the Obama campaign.

    That was what Obama himself was "dusting off his shoulder" and "scraping off his shoe" according to him.

    I notice also yu didn't bother to respond to the fact that you had the timing of that debate all wrong with your reference to NC having been already completed.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM EST
    Nothing like a little proactive name calling to claim righteousness.

    Kind of like Obama saying that McCain will attack him because he doesn't look like the guys on our money.


    nope (5.00 / 6) (#198)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    he canceled the following debate in NC effectively screwing the NC Dems out of more than $300,00.  Furthermore, he spent the days after the debate complaining quite publicly about how hard the debate was and how it was unfair.

    Hillary just laughed and, in effect, said "welcome to my world".


    Obama had "effectively won"? (4.62 / 8) (#105)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    Why did his campaign say Indiana was a "must win" state (IIRC)?
    When the Hillary hate AND the McCain hate are both blinding you, your comments are pretty funny.

    WTF are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    What Hillary hate?  I have absolutely no problem with Hillary and I never have.  

    I will freely admit that, as a Liberal, I vehemently oppose John McCain on virtually all levels.  That is absolutely true.

    You are the one who attacks Obama at every opportunity.


    Actually I was trying to be generous, (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM EST
    saying that your rationality was undone by the force of two hates. Apparently it only takes one strong hate to make your comments silly.

    Right (4.00 / 2) (#166)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    Well, unlike you, I care more about our country than about petty political preferences.  So, yes, when it comes to a candidate who does sing-songs about bombing Iran, whose understanding of economics barely reaches that of a college Freshman,  who thinks the solution to our energy crisis is drilling for more oil,  and who believes that a woman's right to choose is immoral and should be abolished, I tend to get unreasonable.

    What's your excuse for your irrational hatred of Obama?


    Well.... (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    First paragraph:  I think that was a pretty stupid thing for Obama to say, essentially making a predictive claim that McCain would attack him in the future in a racist manner. It's easy to see that that would rankle people.

    Second paragraph:  McCain was right to characterize that as playing the race card because it IS playing the race card, isn't it? I mean, McCain hadn't said anything racist at that point, had he?

    Third pagagraph:  I completely agree.

    Fourth paragraph:  I completely agree.

    So, I guess where I'm confused is that, although McCain is attacking in a nasty manner, it seems that Obama provided the opening by stupidly racializing things again. He's making himself the black candidate with these stupid preemptive comments, McCain doesn't have to do anything by react and confirm.


    To be clear (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM EST
    Obama never said that McCain would use race to attack Obama and explicitly stated that he does NOT believe the McCain campaign would do so.

    Obama made use of the vague "they" which is nobody in particular but can be anybody that wants to play the victim.


    Hmm (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM EST
    It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?

    Who, exactly, was going to run that campaign against him, if not John McCain?  Is there another Republican nominee this year?


    The Republican Party (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    That includes their subsidiaries in the press.

    Well how bout (none / 0) (#92)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    those evil 527s that people here have been saying for months are just waiting to pounce on Obama?  

    You know, the guys who lied about John Kerry in 2004?  Maybe they might be willing to do so?


    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#114)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    This is the one of the best WORMs to date.  He says this is the type of campaign the Republicans will run, but of course he doesn't actually mean the campaign of the Republican nominee, he just means a bunch of 527s that are independent of the campaign!

    Look, here on Planet Earth, when someone says the Republicans will run a racist campaign, the Republican nominee gets to respond to that.


    I suppose if Obama has to answer for (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    every AA rapper's lyrics, its fair for McCain to have to answer for every rank and file Republican - including ones spreading overly racist emails.

    Makes sense to me.


    It's not like we have to wait. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    There is that whole Fox News thing, for example...

    Well, again, (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    I agree and disagree with you FH. I think the Obama campaign knows just what they're doing with these comments, and that it's a strategy, but a misguided one. I agree with you that the McCain attack ads are cheap, dishonest and nasty, but I think Obama is playing into their hands here with the racial talk.

    I hate that term (none / 0) (#100)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    "playing the race card"

    It implies that race isn't an issue in America that obama needs to deal with.

    Race IS an issue.

    Obama needs to deal with it.


    That Is The Setup (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:47:25 AM EST
    In order for Obama to "deal with it" he needs to define himself as the black candidate. It is a trap, not far off from "do you still beat your wife'

    It is quite a limiting position to define oneself as a special interest candidate, imo, wouldn't you say?


    Yet there he is, black. (none / 0) (#144)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:56:24 AM EST
    What do you do with that?

    Same Thing YOu Do With A Woman Candidate (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:08:19 PM EST
    Ignore it. Hillary was representing all of us regardless of gender, and was not favoring women's issues over any other issues. She happens to be a woman but that is not why she was a great candidate.

    And yes it is slightly different for a woman candidate because women are a majority in America, but still it would be a death nell for any woman to run as a special interest candidate or get pigenholed as the woman candidate.

    AA's are what 12% in America, to be defined with being the black candidate, even if there were no racism in AMerica, would be a sure loser.


    Talk about what being black (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:15:04 PM EST
    means to you.

    The minute I say "Hey, I'm white and female and certain (unnamed) people are going to use it against me." I've gone from stating a fact to casting aspersions on Certain People.  That's going negative.

    Now if I say "Hey, I'm white and I'm female and I think this has shaped me in positive ways..." and go on to list what I have learned about myself and others, then that's going positive.  No need to drag Certain People into it, especially if I want Certain People to vote for me.


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#197)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    McSame is desperately trying to bait Obama into getting defensive about being black.

    Your points are clear and I agree that positive framing is a thousand times better than getting defensive and going negative. But the difficult question, imo, is how to deal with race baiting. I think the only for the Obama campaign a to deal with it is to ignore it. Obama surrogates made a huge mistake in the primaries  by reacting, regardless as to whether or not the claims were legitimate or not.


    Calling Obama overly sensitive is racist (5.00 / 11) (#43)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:23:09 AM EST
    So is not letting Obama win.

    not "letting" Obama win (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:26:01 AM EST
    is racist?
    please tell me I misunderstood that comment.

    Pure snark (3.50 / 2) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    myiq2x is one of the most strident Obama haters around.

    Oh, Darn! (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by katiebird on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    I didn't know there was a contest.

    gotit (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:30:25 AM EST
    Im already gone for the weekend.

    No, the race card -- or race canard (5.00 / 9) (#50)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:24:47 AM EST
    as it were, was Obama -- for weeks now, at many campaign stops, but only now is it getting traction -- saying that McCain will use the race card.  

    Sorry, but we're not back in the USSR just yet, at least not north of Guantanamo.  We the people don't think it's fair play to convict on the basis of what someone hasn't done but might do.  

    And in this case, it really doesn't work, since Obama is not the only presumptive nominee with biracial daughters.  Maybe not a lot of people know that yet, since only one presumptive nominee is, to quote MSNBC, "pimping out" his daughters.  But enough people know it -- and they don't even need to know that to know it's not done to blame someone for what they might do.  Or might not do.  


    Really (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:27:50 AM EST
    So I assume you have a quote from the Obama campaign accusing the McCain campaign of race baiting?  I asked for this last night and received nary a single example.

    Just because the McCain campaign chooses to get offended by Obama's generic remark, something they seem to excel at, doesn't mean that Obama accused the McCain camp of anything.  And they specifically said that they don't believe the McCain camp is using the race card.


    I believe you got a cite to (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:37:18 AM EST
    a Florida speech...as well as a cite referencing Obama speaking about "that ad."

    I referred you last night to a source (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    so look back and look it up again.  You're just playing your usual game here.

    I read somewhere in the last day or (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:28:36 PM EST
    so that the O Campaign actually paid trolls to invade pro Hillary sites.  Have you ever read that?  It would certainly explain a lot of behaviors like FH who refuse to accept any information and always "forget" what was said repeatedly to rufute their claims.

    Yeah I saw the quote (none / 0) (#157)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:01:23 PM EST
    you referenced and linked to the quote from the Obama campaign that said that they do not believe the McCain campaign is race-baiting.  But we'll ignore that quote because it doesn't suit your narrative.

    That's not what I referenced (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    but you just keep playing your ridiculous game to fill up bandwidth here and shut down rational discussion.

    Rational discussion (none / 0) (#190)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    from you about Obama?  Yeah, it's me that's preventing that.

    that's standard (5.00 / 6) (#202)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    Obama tactics.  First put the charge that McCain is race-baiting into the public.  Then come back later with a statement saying you don't believe he is doing it.  Obama did the same to Clinton over and over again.  Most recently with the remarks about the Kennedy assasination.  Obama let the "Clinton is waiting for Obama to get assasinated" interpretation sit out there all weekend and fester.  Then on Monday they came out and said the campaign's official position was that she didn't mean that.

    Really? (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    I gave you an example in a reply to one of your comments last night.  

    Look at this clip.  Listen to Roland Martin explain how Obama made a mistake in the way he spoke about this and how it has led to people believing Obama said McCain was using the race card.  You seem intent upon dismissing what is a possible interpretation.  Why can't you accept that Obama might have stated things in a fashion which made this a problem for himself?


    Yep, a pronoun refers to the previous noun (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:06:31 PM EST
    and Roland Martin understands that.  Flyerhawk must have missed that week in third grade on pronouns.

    So did most of my students, it seems.  Makes for a lot of incomprehensible -- and downright ridiculous -- writing.


    o coem onn (none / 0) (#205)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    wee trie two doo awr bezt



    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:07:24 PM EST
    That is some good smackdown. Drizzle it over pancakes, its so thick and rich.

    Amazing what Teh Google allows nowadays, eh? No more memory hole.


    Here you go (4.40 / 5) (#116)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:48:37 AM EST
    In FL -- about a month ago, Obama said:

    "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.
    They're going to try to make you afraid of me.  
    They're gonna.... They're going to say, "You know what, he's -- he's -- he's young,
    inexperienced, and, uh, uh, he's got a funny name. Did I mention he's black?"

    Here is the post from the other thread on this topic today.

    Please note, Obama is specifically talking about McCain and the campaign "they are going to run."

    He's been saying it for weeks -- true he took a time out during his 9 day tour (except in Berlin, where he reminded everyone that "I don't look like the others [Regan, JKF] who have come to talk to you"), but don't let that effect your meme.


    Let's take the whole quote (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    "The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

    "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

    He said he was also set for Republicans to say "he's got a feisty wife," in trying to attack his wife Michelle.

    So he specifically said the Republicans and their campaign.  

    Not that this matters to you guys because you want to find Outrage! in all things Obama.


    Um (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    Angie: Please note, Obama is specifically talking about McCain and the campaign "they are going to run."

    You: So he specifically said the Republicans and their campaign.  

    Please explain to me how you are even disagreeing?


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    we are talking about a quote that was primarily designed to point out how bankrupt the REPUBLICANS are, not John McCain specifically.

    Because they can't focus on issues they will focus on fear.  That was the entire point of the quote.

    But we'll ignore that and accuse Obama of race-baiting instead. Sounds good.


    My gosh (5.00 / 5) (#211)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    I have never seen a hair split so finely.

    You cannot bring up "the campaign the Republicans are going to run" and then say it wasn't a reference to the actual Republican nominee.  That's ridiculous.

    Let me change the subject for a second.  Do you remember when Bush gave that speech in Israel about how "some people want us to appease the bad guys, blah blah blah," and then when Obama responded, some people tried to ridicule him because Bush hadn't mentioned Obama specifically?  I'm guessing you thought it was perfectly fair for Obama to respond to that smear.  I did too.

    Now, by the same token, I really don't think Obama gets to be all cutesy by saying "THEY will do such and such," and then when the McCain campaign pushes back, act all innocent by saying "I never mentioned McCain specifically."  The point is even more true with respect to my quote where he brought up "the campaign the Republicans are going to run."  I mean, you can be all cutesy with pronouns and the "some say" locution, but you can't expect that everyone will play along.


    you have to understand... (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    that flyerhawk will NEVER agree with you on this until the day he sees Obama on tv say

    "John McCain is going to try to scare you by reminding you I'm black.  John McCain is bringing my race into this campaign.  John McCain is a race-baiter."

    It doesn't matter to flyerhawk that it is NOT the reppublican's campaign...  It is John McCain's campaign.

    Does anyone refer to Obama's campaign as the democrat's campaign?  Does anyone assume that anyone other than Obama is in control of his own campaign?


    Yes? (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    So he specifically said the Republicans and their campaign

    Are the Republicans running another campaign against Obama that I don't know about?


    Patently ridiculous (5.00 / 14) (#57)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    But at least you have your Obama talking points right, which is that when Obama was referring to the men on the money he was talking about his status as a young, relative newcomer to Washington politics. And, therefore, it is McCain who brought race into it. (Exactly what Axlerod said this morning).

    The problem with this is, as pointed out here on the previous thread, Obama made the same comments in FL, but instead of saying the GOP was going to try to scare voters by reminding them that he "doesn't look like the presidents on the dollar bills" the would say "oh, yeah, he's black." Obama  preemptively accused McCain of using his race against him a month ago, and well before the ads to which you refer.

    The other problem which NO ONE is bringing up, is that except for Jackson, the presidents on our money were close to Obama's age when they became President -- Washington ($1s) was 57, Lincoln ($5s) was 52 and Grant ($50s) was 47 -- the same age as Obama.  

    Furthermore, all these men were relative newcomers to Washington (well, Washington himself didn't even reside in Washington, but I hope you get my point -- he wrote the job description of the US President -- but he was certainly an outsider to politics, as he had previously been a military man, as had Grant).  They were all considered change agents.  Jackson, in fact, was seen as a "Washington outsider."  So, even if you want to pretend to yourself that when Obama referring to the "presidents on the money" was drawing contrast to his (alleged) "youth" and "outsider status" then you have to admit that Obama is an extremely poor student of American history.


    LOOK like (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:11:52 PM EST
    doesn't really have multiple meanings. How does LOOK LIKE reference number of years in "the inner circle of WA DC?"

    angie's comment is spot on, and anyone who doesn't think Obama was referencing his color in his statement needs to read angie's comment several times.

    The problem Obama has is that he has made this comment before, but didn't mince his words at the end so his campaign spokespeople could play games.

    Big problem, though, is Obama's playing with this topic during the primaries got him all the votes he could get as the result of the tactic, so he is wasting his time unless he thinks he has lost the AA vote since the primary.


    besides that (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    when anyone else called him "young" in the primaries they said it was coded racist language.  They said it was like calling him "boy" to belittle and demean him.  No adult man of 46 should be called "young" they said.

    McCain compared Obama to a white person (5.00 / 16) (#33)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:18:41 AM EST
    That's racist.

    Just like when Bill Clinton compared Obama to another black person (Jesse Jackson)  That's racist too.

    And McCain is white, so when he puts his own picture in an ad that's racist, because it makes Obama look black.

    If you don't understand, that makes you a racist too.


    ROFL! (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    Good one, myiq2xu!

    ok, snark (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:29:51 AM EST
    honestly, you have to admit, sometimes its hard to tell.

    LOL (5.00 / 13) (#70)
    by Truth Sayer on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    So Obama is compared to a couple of celebrities who happen to be White and that is racism?

    But yet compare him to a Black man and that is racism also?

    But yet Obama is both Black and White but yet to compare him to any person walking the face of the earth who is Black or White is not acceptable and is racism? ROTFLMAO.

    Obama talks up his being Black to Black audiences and 'sympathetic' White Liberals...

    And then talks up his Whiteness to Missouri audiences...

    But yet no one else can even put a picture of a person of any color in ad about him because it is racist to do so. Bizzaro.


    it starting to catch up with him (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:36:29 AM EST
    African American protesters heckle Obama



    I think the Jessie Jackson's remark hit home (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    with many AA people. Many love Jessie and since he was not a factor in the primary, I figured they shipped him out of town. Then he appears and says what he really is thinking. Whoaaaaaa.It brought attention to the candidate that he was being condenscending to the black community and taking the AA vote for granted.  

    The article doesn't say (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    but I wonder if, in fact, he answered their question later in the promised "Q&A" session -- I distinctly recall he did not answer "sweetie's" question later in that factory (although he promised to).

    The republicans ALWAYS (5.00 / 19) (#44)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    play the race card.  They do it overtly and subtly and they don't care.  They know their chances of getting AA votes is minimal at best.  In the end, they figure if it brings a few "on the fence" folks in who buy into the fear of others different than themselves, it's a win for them.

    Of course this is WHY the Obama campaign was wrong, so stupid in using race against the Clintons.  The Clintons are NOT RACIST.  Brazille knows it; Richardson knows it; the MSM knows it.  There is a reason why Bill and Hillary were loved in the black community.  They have been inclusive all of their political lives.  Bill's grandfather owned a grocery store in the black community when Bill was little and he spent many hours there.  

    The "racist meme" against the Clintons was Axlerod's "Rove moment."  It was a swift boat tactic that worked.  When Rove realized that military service was a strong point for Kerry, a purple heart recipient, he knew he had to neutralize it.  I was shocked then and I am shocked to this day that it worked.   How could a war hero lose that point to a rich boy who went AWOL?

    With the Clintons, how could a woman who had worked her entire life for and with the minority community as well as for and with the poor women of all races ever be framed as a racist?  How could a man who was called the "first black president" by many AAs be framed as a racist?  
    The Obama campaign knew that a newcomer needed a boost.  As a black man, the boost he needed was a guarantee of taking all black voters away from the Clintons.   By framing the Clintons as racists, they succeeded.  Like with the Swift Boating of Kerry, I did not believe it could happen.  No way would voters buy into it.  But again I was wrong and I was stunned.

    Sadly though there is fall out.  People like me, who identify with Hillary in age, in life experience, are angry.  Like Hillary many of us have worked with and for minority issues by virtue of being educators/health care workers in diverse communities.  To me, calling Hillary Clinton a racist is the same as calling me a racist.  And quite frankly it hurt.  Terribly!  Resentfully!!!

    Now, it's the "what goes around, comes around."  I should be defending Obama, getting angry at McCain.  Instead, these issues are bringing it all to the surface again: the unfair lying accusations against the Clintons.  It's human nature to say "Now how does it feel.......to have this crap come back at you?"  

    I don't want to feel this way.  But neither the Obama campaingn nor the Obama supporters have yet to make an effort to unite.  There is a continuous trashing of Senator Clinton in some of the netroots nation and the Obama campaign has not made an effort to reach out to women like me.

    I will NEVER vote for McCain.  But I have no enthusiasm for the democratic party or for Senator Obama.  The ball is in their court to change it.


    Oh oh, Flyerhawk and Sher alert! (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    I said this same thing last night:

    They know their chances of getting AA votes is minimal at best.

    And Flyerhawk called out that fact, repeat: fact, as racist of me.  And Sher gave it her good ol' downrating.  It is what it is here -- but their denial doesn't change how it really is out there.


    How the heck is that racist? (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:51:38 AM EST
    The republicans for the most part have neither cared about nor reached out to the AA community for as long as I remember.  And when the LBJ pushed the civil rights legislation into law, the dixiecrats went republican.....and we all know why.

    The miniscule amount of AAs affiliating with the republican party is proof enough.


    Exactly. Tell it to Flyerhawk. (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:55:25 AM EST
    But don't expect a reply that addresses the point.  Expect a deflection.

    And, of course, a downrating from Sher.:-)


    Yep. As I said on another comment on (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    this thread: flyerhawk needs to chill out a bit. He/she I'm sure is a wonderful human being, but he/she is playing right into the GOP's newest strategy.

    Jjc2008 this post is pretty much dead on and (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:44:05 AM EST
    it captures what BTD, flyerhawk, and I see as a masterstroke political move by the McCain camp. I gotta say, I'm impressed. People are actually DEFENDING the GOP on racial grounds on a PROGRESSIVE website. They are exploiting the bitter feelings on race in white america and from the primary at the same time. Incredible. Note to flyerhawk: stop defending O's every move. He's a pol that uses every issue to his advantage and all you're doing is playing right into the Rethuglican's racist playbook. Note to ODS/McCain apologists: Your "but McCain is not a racist" is absurdly hypocritical because the candidate himself NEVER takes the lowest route. His surrogates do (i.e. swiftboat, 2008 Dem. primary)
    Oh yeah one other thing: McCain is AT LEAST as sexist as anyone associated with Obama's camp. And I would blast any CDS hack if the shoe were on the other foot.

    Then, that's what Obama needs to show (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:00:58 PM EST
    not tell.  That kindergarten game gets forgotten too often by the sorts who think that if they just say it, people will have to agree with it.

    They won't.  And especially when told so inartfully as saying someone is racist because of what they haven't done -- not yet, maybe never will do.  That sort of accusation has hit too many of us.

    Btw, I happen to agree with you that many Repubs are racist, but McCain's daughter doesn't make that work for you or for Obama.  Heck, many Dems are racist, too.  When they do something racist, then say so.  But be able to back it up with evidence, not predictions.

    And I happen to agree with you that McCain has said sexist things, too.  Just like Obama.  So, so far, neither one distinguishes himself as the leader I seek.  And the lesser-of-two-evils argument?  Well, I'm just glad I'm in a state where my ballot won't count, according to the Obama supporters crowing about my state.


    I agree completely with your entire post here (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    Cream City. Everything you said about the race game is so obvious it's laughable.

    I agree... (none / 0) (#99)
    by santarita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:40:38 AM EST
    McCain can't win without the Republican base and part of that base is racist and anti-Muslim so McCain himself may not use race but his surrogates will (and without  direction from him) in order to get those people to come out and vote.

    Why Obama feels the need to keep that narrative going is beyond me.    


    McCain isn't (4.81 / 16) (#23)
    by Truth Sayer on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    BTD is looking at this through the filters of an Obama supporter.

    Certainly as many in the previous thread, including myself, pointed out it is Obama who is playing the race card and has done so since right after NH in the primary when he resorted to planted false stories in the press to win over the Black vote which he was losing badly to Clinton.

    Yes it is Obama playing the race card BTD. No one forced Obama to bring up that he looks different than the other guys on dollar bills and McCain will use his skin color against him. He is the one bringing up his race and then saying that McCain is playing the race card. BS.

    If anything McCain is defending himself against Obama's false accusations. The same false accusations he used against Clinton to win over the Black vote which without he could have not won the nomination.

    I am truly surprised that you would not see this for what it really is and instead fall into the trap that it is McCain who is doing this. But then again maybe I should not be surprised as Obama supporters view things through filters that completley ignore certain inconvenient facts.

    Hey if Obama wants to play the 'sympathy' race card to brand his opponent as racist then the opponent has every right to fight back against that charge and to also point out how Obama is playing victim here by his own invention.


    Let me ask you a question (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    Is Obama not supposed to mention his heritage and the fact that he's black at all?

    I keep seeing people here saying that Obama needs to "tone" it down if we are going to have a serious discussion about race.  But the reality is that Obama rarely mentions race and any time he does it becomes front page news.  

    Obama isn't Jesse Jackson.  His campaign is not race based.  But it is absurd to suggest that the first African-American Presidential candidate should completely ignore the fact that he is, in fact, African-American.

    There is a reason why the Secret Service provided a detail to Obama earlier than any other candidate.  


    Don't you get it? (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by Truth Sayer on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:36:34 AM EST
    When he uses his race to play victim and accuse his opponent of using his race against him 'in the future' then Obama is no longer just talking about his race, he is using it as a political tool to slime his opponent when his opponent has done no such thing. That is crossing the line and it is using what known as the Reverse Race Card.

    Shades of Rev. Wright.


    I have to agree....obama and his surrogates (5.00 / 16) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:00:55 AM EST
    overplayed the race card and now it is coming back to bite them in the butt.  It was a huge mistake for someone who said he didn't want this campaign to be about race, unless, of course, he brought it up.  You know what they say about karma...

    Well, in the Greatest Speech Ever, Obama... (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    did ask for a dialog about race.

    Looks like now he's going to get it!  He may not like the outcome because of how he set the storyline, but you reap what you sow.


    Obama: "And did I mention he's black?" (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:05:43 AM EST
    Are you aware that just last month Obama said:

    "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. `He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?'


    So tell me again, how is McCain playing the race card and Obama isn't?

    a little difference of opinion (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    This particular ad by McCain is in no way racist.

    That being said, there have been others in the GOP who have been using race against Obama.  But, it hasn't been by the McCain campaign.  And this ad is NOT an example of it.

    Eugene Robinson???  Isn't he always on MSNBC?  Would you expect anythign different from him?  Are you expecting Olbermann to come out anytime soon and admit that Obama unjustly accused McCain of using race-baiting in this ad?  LOL

    Maybe it is possible that the McCain campaign isn't as bumbling as everyone thought.  It's possible they put this ad together expecting exactly what they got.  Give Obama just enough rope here to hang himself with.  Make the ad look poorly produced.  Put in the very smallest thing that you think Obama might jump on as race-baiting.  But, at the same time make sure the the charge of race-baiting wouldn't stand up under further scrutiny.  Use Paris Hilton in the ad because you know there ia a previous quote from Obama himself comparing himself to Paris Hilton.  Feed right into the large group of Clinton supporters who felt the same way in the primaries all at the same time to.

    If McCain's camp didn't plan this for the exact response they have gotten, they should have and they are very lucky.

    It's not about the McCain ad (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:09:03 AM EST
    It's about Obama's own comments.

    And exacerbated (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    by Obama surrogates and supporters.  I do agree with BTD on that point.  The accusations were flying to fast and loosely from some which now serves to weaken the point instead of strengthen it when it really does happen.

    maybe, but.... (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:21:16 AM EST
    I think with BTD's post here he still thinks that McCain has somehow tried to inject race into the campaign with this ad.  And, it just isn't there.  This ad is nothing more than Paris Hilton, famous celeb, what has she done to earn it?  Barack Obama, famous celebbrity politician, what has he actually accomplished?

    It may be true that there are certain people in this country who would see the ad and think white woman / black man.....bad     But, no rational thinking person could actually get that interpretation from the ad ifthey look at it honestly.

    Also, I'm saying I think McCain's campaign may have put this out there just the way they did in order to get Obama to react to it the way he did.


    the McCain campaign (5.00 / 14) (#83)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    was seeking with that ad to turn Obama's rock star celebrity status against him, making it a negative rather than an overwhelming positive.

    It's what political campaigns do.  

    McCain has now -- in an impressive bit of political jujitsu -- gotten way more airtime for his stupid celebrity ad (saving him a ton of cash), but has also prompted the surprisingly thin-skinned Obama to reopen the wounds of those disaffected Clinton voters who could without a second thought vote for McCain and made it much more difficult for Obama to scream "racism!" every time someone criticizes him.

    He's painted Obama in a corner with Obama's own paint and paint brush.  

    And they thought Hillary was tough?  Sheesh!


    I'm reminded of the outrage over (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    the "Kindergarten" joke from the Hillary campaign.
    I have long thought that Obama's Achille's heel as a candidate was his overreaction to criticism.
    Sure, sometimes he gets off great zingers, but you have to let some things slide off. He never does.

    his Pride (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM EST
    will be the undoing of him in this contest.  (ugh, I first typed "race" and the capitalized it so that people would understand I was referring to the GE and then said "screw it" and typed "contest" instead ... how f*cking crazy is that?!?  Grrrrrrr)

    Imagine a debate where McCain says something, Obama responds, McCain responds in kind and then Obama, feeling cornered because -- for whatever reason -- he's sinking fast on X issue, loses his temper while McCain (who's aware there are many aware of his own bad temper) keeps it in check and ends up looking like the sane, calm, cool, collected, mature one.

    McCain looks strong and competent, Obama looks out of his league and angry and voters pause and think 'do I really want to trust the New Guy with all these big decisions?'

    As debates are in no way his forte, the above isn't difficult to imagine.

    Obama just doesn't get it when someone doesn't fall head-over-heels for him or buy hook, line and sinker what he's selling.  I suspect he thinks something's wrong with THEM!


    House of Cards (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:07:00 AM EST
     First he was transcended, then he was offended, then he gets transcended, then he looks for his roots in Kansas, now we are back to being offended.  Where are we landing?  Transcended or offended?  

    Nope. Dead-ended. (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    I'm confused. I know the Repub's have in the past (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:08:16 AM EST
    and most likely will in the future, play the race card, but I haven't seen it yet from McCain. Are we talking about the stupid Britney/Paris ad?

    Maybe I'm dumb or still have Hillary blinders on, but would someone explain to me what was racial about that ad? Offensive, I will agree but racist?

    You're Not Stupid (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:19:26 AM EST
    There are so many gyrations about the race issue that many could easily get confused.  I'll try to clarify:

    McCain made a statement recently that Obama is playing the race card when he claimed that the Republicans would try to make race an issue in the campaign.  I can't quote Obama directly, but he said he would be attacked over his funny name and the face that he doesn't look like all the presidents on our currency.

    However, this all does tie into the ad and all the other race-baiting issues that has gone on all the way back to the Democratic primaries.  Confusion is certainly understandable.


    I just don't see that particular ad as racist. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:32:45 AM EST
    To me, they are making fun of Obama for being a celebrity like those two, who are famous for being famous and little else. They should have just pointed out how silly it was because I thought it made McCain's campaign look stupid.

    By bringing up race when race isn't the issue, who is going to listen when they do bring race into it? And bringing it up over something so stupid, they bring back bad memories for Clinton supporters. I don't care if they call McCain racist so much (when/if it is deserved), but I don't need to be reminded of what they did to Bill and Hillary Clinton. This is a mistake by Obama's campaign. It gives McCain a perfect opportunity to play up to Clinton supporters by saying this is what they did to Bill, etc.


    Many Of Us Here (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:35:48 AM EST
    feel exactly as you do.  The FP'ers seem intent on pushing this meme.  The commenters continue to push back.  This group is way too sophisticated to swallow the race-baiting balony.

    Well, I think BTD's point is different. He (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    said he will explain in a later post about the race baiting of McCain, but his point here is one most of us agree with...by painting the Clinton's as racists when they clearly weren't, it's going to be hard to do the same to McCain to the people he is trying to reach now (voters who aren't 100% decided).

    It plays right into McCain's hand when they get to defend Bill Clinton. If the false charges hadn't been made against them, we might be more likely to jump to Obama's defense (though I still don't see this particular ad as racist, just silly).


    Respectfully, I Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    with your interpretation of the FP's post.  He is saying that McCain is engaged in race-baiting ( I think he means racist attacks ) and that poor Obama can't properly defend himself against because of his prior race-baiting and that from his surrogates.  He is basically accusing McCain of the same thing that the Clintons were accused of, but saying Obama can't effectively counter it because he is all played out of race cards.  It's brilliant really, but the audience isn't taking the 'bait.' ( pun intended )

    exactly (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:39:36 AM EST
    and on the heels of learning Hillary has been relegated to Ladies Night at the Convention and perhaps just a week or so before another woman -- perhaps -- is offered and accepts the VP spot.

    I think McCain knew Obama would respond the way he did, all those bad memories about how he branded the Clintons racist would return and any inkling of support Obama may have been getting from those "oh, just get over it" voters would be kaput, over, finito and done.

    At a time when he should be solidifying support, Obama finds himself in some respects back at square one.  Unnecessarily.


    Honestly? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    I thought McCain was playing the "dilettante" card.

    hmmmm ... (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:43:07 AM EST
    guess he'll save that one for September/October.  Probably with a dash of all that legislation in the IL State Legislature Obama "authored" and a healthy dose of "his" banking committee work.

    Throw in a questionably high raise for Michelle in her hospital work at a time when Obama sits on a committee which might oversee something like that, and the GOP is looking at swamping the Dems in the Perfect Storm in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

    I don't think screaming "racism" is going to work in responding to that.


    This is going to be a looooong (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM EST
    election season.

    ::wanders off to grade papers::


    I don't see how the Robinson quote is fair (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:09:00 AM EST
    It's awfully early for John McCain to be running such a desperate, ugly campaign against Barack Obama. . . . The latest bit of snarling, mean-spirited nonsense to come out of the McCain camp was the accusation, leveled by campaign manager Rick Davis, that Obama had "played the race card." He did so, apparently, by being black.

    No, not by being black. Davis' accusation of the race card referenced Obama's comments, which preemptively predicted that McCain would racebait during the campaign. That IS playing the race card, isn't it?

    By now, I'm confused. Maybe they're both playing the race card. In any case, I find Robinson to be pretty vacuous.

    I dunno (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    It certainly sounds like a classic Jesse Helms narrative to me.  But isn't truth something of a defense?

    I mean, when Obama says the Republicans are going to make race-based attacks against him, what is the McCain campaign supposed to say?  "Of course we will, we're slimy Republicans and that's what we do"?

    Exactly (5.00 / 14) (#24)
    by BRockNYLA on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    I hate to say it, but I'm actually enjoying watching the Obama team squirm on this point.  It was a dirty trick that I found especially offensive in the primaries.  It is about time someone called them out on it.

    I like Hil, but I do think Gene was right on this: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right

    In the sense that Obama was an upstart and didn't have the same right to the presidency. (The "divine right" characterization was too strong, however)

    However, i think McCain feels that way even more. He acts like he is entitled.

    But then she *earned* it (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    She was clearly the best candidate we had.  CLEARLY.  There wasn't one candidate who could touch her as far as command of policy, presentation skills, energy, enthusiasm.  She started out good and she got excellent.  If she felt she was entitled, maybe it's because she knew what she was made of and it took a primary season for the rest of us to see it.

    It's time to put the entitlement argument to rest.  It is no longer relevent in light of current history.    


    I think she was entitled (none / 0) (#152)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:59:33 AM EST
    and that he could have used some more experience.


    However, let me say that in McCain's case, experience will allow him to be effective in screwing up the country further. Remember Dick Cheney is also "experienced"


    whether you agree withthat or not (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    You surely know that is NOT the part that is germane to this post. Perhaps I need to bold it for you.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#76)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM EST
    your premise is that Robinson made the same argument 2x and in Hil's case it was false, therefore lessening his true statement that McCain feels similarly entitled.

    I disagree it was false in Hil's case.

    Disclaimer: In my opinion Hil's feelings of entitlement were not a major flaw, they were the reflection to Obama's major flaw (that is, his inexperience). In McCain's case, his entitlement feelings are more pronounced and obvious, and it's a good counter-attck by the Obama campaign.

    Feel free to highlight "your point" if I missed it.

    But my current read is that I just disagree with you.


    You certainly missed it (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM EST

    Try reading the rest of the quote.


    Yeah, I don't get that part (of Eugene's comment) (none / 0) (#140)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    The most dangerous split would have been along gender lines and age lines.

    I just got excited because I think the key to taking McCain down is his sense that he is owed the presidency after all these years.

    But I do see your point.


    I'm still not seeing (5.00 / 12) (#28)
    by OxyCon on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    Where McCain played the race card. You are 100% correct on your other points though. There are so many pundits, "journalists" and bloggers who will never be taken seriously again because of the manner in which they smeared the Clintons. Eugene Robinson is a freaking joke, as is Marshall. I could spend a half hour coming up with a list of all the rest, and it still wouldn't be complete.

    His side is (none / 0) (#90)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    the Muslim mischaracterization that won't go away, the mistakes about his name being swiched with Osama on Fox news, and the white women in the Paris Hilton ad (images similar to the one that crushed Harold Ford Jr...images if not content).

    I think it's mild from the campaign so far, but that it will intensify, and Obama's comments are trying to nip it in the bud.

    Just a guess.


    Apart From The Smears (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:20:54 AM EST
    Against Hillary and Bill, I do not see how Obama could address any carefully designed racist dogwhistles today.

    From my point of view, even though many have lost credibility, crying wolf, making false claims, and relentlessly smearing Clintons for sport, Obama could not touch the race baiting of McCain even if no charges of race baiting by him or his surrogates ever surfaced during the primaries.

    The GOP has realized, after years of practice, that is able to design attacks that not only deliver smoke signals to all the racists out there, but that also dare Obama and his surrogates, knowing that the slightest peep would result in essentially an exploding cigar.  

    As far as I know Harold Ford Jr's response to the bimbo ads went something like this: racism? no racism here... sorry no racism as far as I can see.

    Quite right (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:25:12 AM EST
    Those are the wages of crying wolf.

    I truly don't understand why the GOP would have to "send smoke signals" to racists in order to get them to vote against a black guy, though.


    NOoooo (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    Not the wages of crying wolf. Hardly. It is the setup and the rules. A black man or woman running for office cannot call out racist dogwhistles for what they are.

    I truly don't understand why the GOP would have to "send smoke signals" to racists in order to get them to vote against a black guy, though.

    Two questions in lieu of an answer. Do you think the Harold Ford Jr ad from 2006 was using dogwhistles?

    If you do, then why would the GOP have to send smoke signals to racists in order to get them to vote against a black guy then?


    Because... (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by santarita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:50:20 AM EST
    in a close race playing on racist themes might tip the balance with a few fence-sitters and would also motivate the racists to come out and vote.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:53:00 AM EST
    to some extent, you're right, if it's subtle enough.  But crying wolf absolutely has the effect of desensitizing people.  In a sense, even if the Obama campaign had never cried wolf, he's a victim of all the people who cried wolf over all those years.

    Possibly liberals should have wised up and, you know, not done it.  It sure makes it a lot harder to combat real racism when the accusation has become a sad joke with most people due to sheer overuse.


    Subtle Enough? (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    That is all dogwhistles are, subtle enough so that when they are called out the whistler only has to say:

    You are hearing things, I never said that, I only said.... you must be a racist or you are just pulling the race card.

    McSame is chomping at the bit to pull Obama into this quicksand.


    Whistles even dogs can't hear (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    Is the entire english language a dogwhistle?

    According to some "journalists", it is! (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    Take for example this statement by Greg Sargent:

    "Look, let's be as clear as possible about what's really going on here: By charging that Obama is playing the race card, the McCain campaign is itself playing the race card.


    To date, Sargent's statement ranks as one of the most absurd of the entire election season.  I mean, what is this guy smoking?  (And can I have some, please???)


    You miss my point (5.00 / 10) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    Those who could have pushed back, now can't. Because of what they did to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They have no credibility now.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    Many people shamelessly soiled themselves and will have to live with that, and I understand that they are fools now without credibility.

    Defending against racist dogwhistles, or taking the bait by anyone that is part of Obama's campaign, is off limits. To do so defines Obama as the black candidate.

    Very tricky stuff, I do not see how calling it out cannot backfire.


    Did Hillary Clinton say over and over (5.00 / 9) (#49)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:24:28 AM EST
    "You know, I"m a woman, and some people are not going to vote for me because of that"?
    I missed it, if she did.
    She did talk about the historic nature of hers (and Obama's) candidacy, but that is quite different.

    No but (2.25 / 4) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:29:33 AM EST
    she did say, on many occasions, that women should vote her because she is a woman.

    Which is a positive appeal, and miles (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    from what Obama is doing. The funny thing is that the Obama campaign strenuously denies that black people are voting for Obama because he is black, or that they are appealing to blacks to vote in that way, yet they have no hesitation in accusing those who may not vote for Obama of being racists.

    Huh. The only thing close to that (5.00 / 8) (#78)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    I saw was when Clinton said in my state that voters should not vote for her because she's a woman but because she has the experience.

    OK, let's use your own standards here (5.00 / 6) (#104)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:42:33 AM EST
    and ask you to provide the quotes proving what you said.

    *crickets* (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    Well let's see (2.00 / 0) (#183)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    there was
    "I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress. There has got to be something at work here," she told Yepsen, theorizing it may be the risk-averse nature of a state built around agriculture.

    "I think not only do I have to bring people to me, I have to maybe reassure people here maybe more than I do in New Hampshire, which has had a woman governor."

    "How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi?" she asked, siding with the Hawkeye State. "That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

    She appealed to women specifically all the time.

    I don't have a problem with this, mind you.  But it was part of her campaign.


    Big difference (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by sj on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    This was your statement:

    she did say, on many occasions, that women should vote her because she is a woman.

    Your example does not support your statement.  What she is talking about in your example is what she had to do.  Not what the voter should do.


    Allow me to say (5.00 / 0) (#218)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    I thought that was one of the lowest moments for the entire Clinton campaign.  She is lucky it didn't get more play (except much later, when Obama used it against her in Mississippi).

    Let me be very real here: it is EXACTLY the counterpart to what people here accuse Obama of doing all the time, saying that anyone who doesn't vote for him is racist.  I don't know what made her think this was a good strategy, but she basically told the people of Iowa "wow, you guys are really backwards on gender, you should vote for me to prove you're not a sexist state."

    And for the record, that quote may be a true statement, but Iowa Democrats have nominated plenty of women for those positions.  So if there really is something uniquely sexist in the water in Iowa, there's still no basis to accuse the Democratic voters of drinking it.


    If there is an ounce of truth in your comment (none / 0) (#199)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
    then you won't have any problem putting up several of those MANY links that must exist.

    Prove it, flyerhawk.


    You say tomato, I say tamato. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by vicndabx on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:31:22 AM EST
    Yes, McCain will "play the race card" in the eyes of some.  But the reaction one has to these type of comments is so subjective, one person's racism is another person's valid criticism.  Here's the problem.  How does one defend themselves against charges of racism?  McCain said he wasn't talking about race in that ad even though Obama claims he was - I believe McCain (although I don't support his run for president.)  As a minority, I have a huge problem w/those of us who cry racism whenever someone says something negative about us.  We need to save those charges when they're applicable.  Reagan's Willie Horton ad, that's racism.  The stuff about inherent, genetic inferiority, that's racism.  White women clutching their purses as I pass them in the street when I'm dressed as a professional, that's racism.  If we're going to have a serious discussion about issues this election, the BS distractions need to be nipped in the bud before they gain traction or that's all we'll be talking about - to the detriment of us all.  We need to save the criticism of those who come off as racist for those time when it's indisputable.  The times when it's in dispute, like now IMO, is when we should discuss the issue, so a consensus can be reached and we can all be better for it.

    As I said late in the earlier thread (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    How does one defend themselves against charges of racism?

    MacCain does it by saying, "Have you seen a picture of my family?"


    That doesn't stop some people (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    I have a brother and sister who are adopted and both dark-skinned and different looking than the rest of my family. One of them has been a family member longer than myself! My father was responsible for initiating a no-tolerance atmosphere in his city at a time when it wasn't easy to do so, and won a Mayoral award for his work. He raised his children to be tolerant and enjoy all races/cultures/creeds/genders of this world.

    And yet, when I say someone who happens to be black is an a$$h*le, I become Jesse Helms.

    It doesn't matter. Look what they did to Life-long civil rights heroes like Bill and Hillary... There are literally no limits to who you can smear, including other black people like Bill Cosby, who when he made his points a few years ago about responsibility, was cordially invited under the bus by the AA community. Points, I might add, that were made by Teh Obama a few weeks ago to roaring approval.


    Heh! (none / 0) (#193)
    by vicndabx on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    'dog whistling' (5.00 / 13) (#91)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    I doubt that either the McCain campaign or the GOP itself will 'play the race card' overtly (some 527s might, tho).

    To me, the criteria is "Would this ad have been made if Obama was white?"  If the answer is 'yes', then McCain is off the hook.  The fact that Obama is open to certain lines of criticism that also have racial subtexts when they involve a black candidate is Obama's problem, not McCain's.

    Hillary Clinton spent eight years positioning herself in a way that made her gender irrelevant -- she 'transcended' gender.  Obama didn't do anything like that -- he didn't establish a record that clearly defined him, and as a result he is vulnerable to 'dog whistling' and questions about his character that strongly resonate subconsciously because he is African American.

    Being a "historic" candidate provides certain advantages and disadvantages.  Obama has availed himself fully of the opportunities provided by the "historic" nature of his candidacy without bothering to insulate himself from the downside of being the first potential African American candidate.

    So don't ask me to get upset about the racial 'dog whistles' that are inevitable; Obama is the presumptive nominee in large part because he is black (no white guy with his resume and schtick would have gotten the support he did from African American voters against Clinton and Edwards) -- he exploited his race to the hilt against Clinton, and now has to deal with the consequences.

    What bothers me today... (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by EL seattle on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    ... is the impression that I'm getting from a lot of this discussion that we have to rely on certain bloggers and pundits to let us know exactly what words are actually "dogwhistles" and to explain for us "what candidate X really meant" in any given speech or ad or response to a question.  Because if we don't interpret those things properly, then we're all just rubes and suckers.  If that's the case, I want a real decoder ring that I can use, or at least a scorecard that keeps track of all of this.

    I was asking for the new rule book (none / 0) (#187)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    during the primaries. Never got one . . . If you get your ring, lemme know!  ;)

    no flyerhawk, that would be me. (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by cpinva on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:52:12 AM EST
    myiq2x is one of the most strident Obama haters around.

    obama and his ilk are destroying the democratic party. what's not to hate? sadly, i used to like the guy, until he opened his mouth, and his supporters, such as yourself, fell in.

    and again you lie flyerhawk, blatantly so.

    she did say, on many occasions, that women should vote her because she is a woman.

    do we need any more reasons to despise you? i think not!

    I'm so sick of hearing about Obama's arrogance.

    then please tell him to shut up, unless he has something already printed out, in big, block letters, to say. otherwise, he comes off as, well, arrogant. oh, and not very smart.

    faust, she's widely used to cover the bottoms of bird cages.

    Case in point: MoDo is still widely read and taken "seriously."

    and not even the editors of the NYT's take her seriously, much less anyone with at least half of a functioning brain. she's a nutjob, and has been for a good 16 years now.

    thank goodness va has a write-in section on its ballot!

    Ridiculous. McCain has not played the race card. (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:56:35 AM EST
    The repubs may, but McCain hasn't and there is nothing to suggest he wants anything to do with it.  He immediately got rid of his supporter who used Obama's middle name and said it wasn't appropriate.  He's had the race card played against him in the 2000 primary.  No, he hasn't played the race card.  Please provide some evidence when you insist he's "playing the race card".  Actually, he doesn't even have to play the race card.  The voters who will vote against Obama on race don't require any motivation to do so.  McCain had to nip this in the bud immediately.  He saw what was done to Hillary and her husband.  He didn't call out Obama until Obama specifically linked him to the race baiting.  He did what he had to do. And, now Obama will be careful to swing the accusations at actual examples of race baiting.  And, he should call it out when it actually occurs, and I do think repubs have and will do that.  I do think McCain is playing the "cult following card".

    Yep. And the "cult following card" (5.00 / 7) (#174)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    is what I saw the tv ad mocking.  And quite well.

    It's "the boy who cried wolf" ... (5.00 / 10) (#151)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    Obama's campaign accused people of racism who weren't racist.  So now people are always going to question his campaign when it makes these accusations.

    The way McCain's campaign is currently reacting was predicted months ago.

    By suggesting that Bill Clinton is a racist the Obama campaign effectively immunized the Republicans from similar charges.  Even if the charges are true.

    And he allowed the McCain campaign to say nice things about Bill Clinton.

    I'm surprised the Obama campaign walked into this mine field so early.

    Card Game of Distraction (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by santarita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:02:55 PM EST
    McCain* and Obama* are both playing the race card to distract the media's attention from their obvious weaknesses - Obama's age and  inexperience and McCain's age and sterling Republican credentials.    And while they are busy distracting, they are avoiding talking about the issues.

    Obama's proper response to any card of distraction played by McCain is to talk about the issues and what his plans are to resolve them.  Obama should be able to thump and trump McCain soundly on the issues.  

    *I use the proper names to refer collectively to the candidates and their campaign surrogates.  To the extent that an official or unofficial rep. says something that goes unchallenged by their candidate, to me it is as if the candidate said it.

    The debate ion this thread (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    has been heated but largely substantive.

    Let's make sure we do not get personal in our exchanges.

    McCain is avoiding race like the plague (5.00 / 4) (#213)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    The problem is that every time they criticize Obama somebody finds a racial aspect. "Arrogant" becomes "uppity". Showing two blondes in an ad denigrating Obama becomes he offensive Harold Ford ads. Even McCain criticizing Obama for race-baiting becomes a reference to OJ. According to Obama supporter's, McCain is using "code words" to appeal to racist voters, the way Bush used code words to appeal to religious voter's. But there seem to be a lot of code words that nobody, including racists, know about until it is pointed out to them. The right conducted marketing tests to find out which attacks they could get away with about Obama. I think they found out that his name and race were off limits, so they decided that they would avoid those kinds of attacks and focus on other vulnerabilities. They're going to get the racist vote, anyway, and moderates would be turned off by racist innuendo.  

    The point was NOT the "Race Card"! (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by HadIt on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    Do we even read the actual posts to which we comment?  I know I almost never comment here, but really...

    The point was that any authority to comment on racial plays was lost back in March-June by quite a few bloggers like Marshall, Aravosis, Kos etc.

    This loss of trust was due to their own overblown lies about Clinton blackfacing Obama and calling for his assassination and all the other bs of that type - claims which, btw, overshadowed any true bits of racial slurring which did exist in some circles.

    My point then, as is I think BTD's in other thread's(?), is that this makes these bloggers and pundits, so evidently prone to lying about good people, hard to trust when they comment about "bad" people.  

    In this thread, it's about those same people's ability to cry "RACISM" when there was none at all to be seen and refusing to admit they were wrong.  So now that everyone is aware how untrue those claims were then, it makes the same screams of "RACISM!" now sound like a pure political ploy.

    So, those who contributed to the atrocious activities back in the earlier months, do not complain.

    You break it, you bought it.

    Obama's Played the Race Card All Along (5.00 / 5) (#216)
    by bmc on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:37:37 PM EST
    Barack Obama has played the race card since New Hampshire.

    There is no question that the GOP's historical political strategy has been racist. But there is no proof that John McCain has played the race card.

    But there is ample evidence that Obama has played the race card from the very beginning of the primary, and is continuing to do so in the general by suggesting continually that McCain would play the race card

    It is a very risky strategy for Obama and he over-reached on the "I don't look like the other presidents" faces on the currency ploy.

    Well, those other faces on the currency--our founding fathers--are elder statesmen in voters' minds.

    So, Barack's intended message was diverted in voters' minds to: Obama doesn't have their wisdom or experience.

    Or even "Obama compares himself to Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington?!


    Big mistake. It gave McCain an opening to highlight Obama's hubris. And, let's face it, his "hubris" is becoming somewhat of a joke around town these days. When late night comics take it up, it's pop-vox.

    But, please, Eugene Robinson? He's really become just a pathetic caricature of a journalist anymore, along with Chris Matthews and that odious Keith Olbermann. When Joe Scarborough becomes the only anchor to offer an objective viewpoint on the network, you know you've got a problem with credibility!

    I am sick of hearing about Obama's race. Does he have anything to offer the American people except the fact that he's black? Of course, John Kerry says that makes him "uniquely qualified to be president."

    Voters are forming the following narrative in their minds about this election:

    Democrats think that Barack Obama should be elected President because he's black, and anyone who says otherwise is a racist.

    That is a very sad narrative for this party, in my view.  

    Not exactly,. (5.00 / 4) (#222)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    Second, it's clear McCain is desperate and will do anything to win.

    The same can be said for Obama in the primary.  He refused to debate when it was clear that Hillary had the knowledge of issues at her fingertips and solutions that she'd spent months and years developing.

    Obama did not use race against Clinton.

    Funny that you'll get almost no one to agree with you here.  Of course he did.  As others have pointed out, the big smears started after his loss in New Hampshire.

    Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro instigated that dust-up - whether or not they intended to.

    Saying Obama's views about the Iraq War being a fairy tale was racist?  Really?

    Also, Ferraro repeated what Obama had himself said - that, in this election cycle, he wouldn't be enjoying his prominent position if he had been white. Not racist.

    It was the power of suggestion by his campaign and his supporters that gave those remarks their racist veneer.

    Enjoy what you have wrought.

    I don't know that the (4.70 / 10) (#18)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    McCain Camp IS playing the race card.  Not to say the 527s won't or that he won't, at some point.  But I'm not seeing it yet.  

    I DO know, for a fact, that Obama and his surrogates/supporters do their best to mute any criticism (fair and unfair) by alleging it's racist, neuter any talk of his inexperience or poor decisions he's made in the past by insisting the reason we're hearing about it is because he's black and, in effect, hide behind whatever cloak of safety he believes his race can provide him all the while accusing everyone else of being -- you guessed it -- racist!

    My AA friends recognize it -- and it turns their stomachs -- and those I know who are officially on-the-fence both voting-wise and donation-wise are decidedly turned off by Obama's constant focus on his race.  In their eyes, they don't CARE if he's black!  It's a non-issue for them until he, yet again, brings it up!  They DO care about his lack of experience and his arrogance, though.  And he has yet to offer any answers about those issues.

    Sadly, when the GOP does play the race card, whatever stink Obama rightly raises about it will be met with shrugs and "oh, again?  r-i-g-h-t".

    Oh please (3.50 / 2) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:17:06 AM EST
    Obama's constant focus on race?  Are you serious?  

    His campaign avoids the race issue as much as he can.  But if he makes reference to his looking different the media and McCain claims he is a race warrior.  

    Obama's race cuts both ways. To deny that his race is a significant factor in this election is deny reality.  

    I'm so sick of hearing about Obama's arrogance.  This is a smear that is levied at every single Democratic nominee for the last 20 years.  Yet this time there are Democrats who are accepting it.

    What makes Obama any more or less arrogant than any other person vying to become President of the United States?


    I don't get it (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:22:41 AM EST
    If his campaign avoids the race issue as much as he can, who is this person who keeps saying "the Republicans are going to use racial attacks against me"?

    come on Steve (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    Do you really believe that making a couple of throwaway comments equates to focusing on race?

    The Republicans WILL use racial attacks against him.  That seems fairly obvious to me.  It's what they are good at.


    "A couple of throwaway comments?" (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:34:33 AM EST
    Please, don't let your McCain hate blind you to reality. There has been a steady stream of such comments from Obama and his campaign.

    A couple of throwaway comments (5.00 / 10) (#88)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:37:13 AM EST
    thrown away over and over and over for weeks and even months now, at campaign stop after campaign stop, all on videotape.

    Nah, no focus there.


    Um (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:41:47 AM EST
    I don't believe saying that the Republicans will attack him because of his race is a "throwaway comment."  I think it's an accusation that, if I were a Republicans, I sure wouldn't let him just go on repeating again and again.

    Obama has a very deep understanding of racial issues and the intersection between race and politics.  There's just no question about that.  And he knows that every time he makes this particular claim, it grabs headlines.  Yet he keeps on doing it.  Let's be real here: it's not an accident.


    Yes, let's be real here. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:46:41 AM EST
    The thugs that McCain associates with and are helping him get elected are using Obama's race against him.

    Terrorist fist jab

    Osama Hussein

    These aren't accidents either.

    Nor was it a mistake when McCain claimed that Hamas endorses Obama.


    About your last example: the Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:48:56 AM EST
    always claim that the terrorist threat du jour endorses the Democrat.  That has nothing to do with race.

    That's the beauty of dog whistles. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    They can be explained away if necessary.  The underlying context here is large parts of the Republican Party are pushing the message that Obama is a Muslim.

    And you are demonstrating the ugliness (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:52:28 AM EST
    of paranoia. The two are so complementary.

    Intent is not an issue that can be argued... (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:58:31 AM EST
    ... since neither of us can read minds.  But it clearly acts as a dog whistle.  You don't have to be paranoid to see that.

    Wait (5.00 / 7) (#119)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:49:20 AM EST
    It's racist to say that Hamas endorses Obama?

    How the heck are these things racist?  Are you under the impression that the Republican attack that goes like "the terrorists want Democrats to win" was only invented once we nominated the black guy?


    It's reinforcing certain stereotypes of Obama.. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    ... that his allies are pushing.

    Er (5.00 / 9) (#158)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:01:28 PM EST
    I am not prepared to agree that the exact same smear the GOP aims at every Democrat somehow becomes racist when it is aimed at Obama.

    This is, in fact, exactly what I mean by crying wolf.  By making this absurd argument, you just encourage people to roll their eyes and ignore you when an incident of real racism comes along that you want to point out.

    And in the meantime, the Republicans get away with a disgusting, vile attack - claiming that the terrorists want Democrats to win - because you've hijacked the debate into the stupid side issue of whether the attack is racist.  You want people thinking, "Wow, that's a really low thing to say," not "Wait, how is that racist?"


    I agree that it's disgusting for other reasons. (5.00 / 0) (#210)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:31:50 PM EST
    And that it has been applied to other Dems.

    But it's also a dog whistle.  A significant portion of the campaign to stop Obama from being elected, whether or not it's personally run by McCain, is about furthering the idea that he's a Manchurian candidate.


    How does (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:18:55 PM EST
    Terrorist fist jab

    refer to Obama's race? He's half white, half AA.

    Obama is setting the stage with his comment/warning that McCain's campaign will use race. By laying that expectation out, they will be able to twist everything negative (or showing inexperience, poor judgment) into a subtle attack against race.

    The word "arrogance" is not racist, and no matter how many times I read it or hear it, I still can't see the connection.


    His ethnic background is part Kenyan. (none / 0) (#215)
    by Ramo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    That branch of his family was Muslim (excluding his father).  The whole "terrorist fist jab" thing wouldn't work if that half of his family were Kansan as well.

    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    Your last paragraph contains an important point that many here are unwilling to acknowledge:  the Obama campaign's use of race is not an accident, it's a strategy.

    That's not to say that the republicans haven't or won't use racist attacks but, to be honest, you have to also acknowledge what Obama is doing here...  and, indeed, what he's been doing all along.


    Maybe this time, it's true... (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    that the Dem candidate is arrogant.  And sometimes the truth hurts!



    why does Obama have to be MORE (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    arrogant than other politicians to be able to be called arrogant?  If he is arrogant, then he is arrogant.  It really doesn't matter how his level of arrogance compares in relation to other politicians.  All that means is that people can call McCain arrogant too if they want to.  So what?  Go ahead.

    BTW, Obama has been tagged with the arrogance label as far back as his law school days.  Classmates who attended school with him have been quoted in the media as saying he has always been arrogant.

    If Obama's own little pre-presidential seal wasn't the height of arrogance, then what would qualify?


    or the back of his chair (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    on his plane reading "Barack Obama, President 2008"

    I still think that is (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:21:20 PM EST
    Oprah's contribution to his campaign. "The Secret"...use the Law of Attraction to make it happen!

    Prejudice seethes in all of us (2.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:52:20 AM EST
    Any suggestion otherwise is pure denial.  The notion only other people's sh*t smells is as old as the country itself.

    Every prejudice card gets played in every election by almost everyone, be it in obvious ways or less so.

    The Clintons did not help themselves (so can we please stop acting as if they are somehow free of what we all suffer from), and let their own subtle biases come to the surface out of frustration, and so has Obama.  AND SO HAS OBAMA.  

    I repeat: we are all prejudiced.

    Personal note: as a white kid who was abused by my black stepfather, I am constantly on the check for my own tendencies -- and having a brother and sister from that stepfather makes it even more difficult sometimes.

    Anyone else wanna cop to their own prejudices?

    Look, in a way what Obama is doing (none / 0) (#136)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    is brilliant: so far, he has actually turned his race into an asset---even a weapon. Since it has worked so far for him, it may continue to do so.
    We shall see.

    I disagree. (2.00 / 0) (#227)
    by AX10 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:28:16 PM EST
    McCain is NOT playing the race card. Obama is.
    The right wing did this to McCain in 2000, and now the left wing is doing it to him again.  I do not believe that McCain is a racist nor a race baiter.
    Afterall, he has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh.

    Remember, it was Obama and his surrogates:
    Robinson, Clyburn, Jesse Jackson, Jr. etc...
    that were race baiting to galvanize the AA population against Hillary.

    It has come back to bite Obama in the A** and I do not have one ounce of sympathy for him.
    He has earned it.

    It seems to me (none / 0) (#13)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:09:01 AM EST
    that we will have to wait a little while before we are sure that your argument is correct. This dance has only recently started between McCain and Obama. It remains to be seen how the media narrative flows from here on out.

    For one I do not see how it is obvious that the fact that a previous Robison smear results in an automatic failure of subsequent criticisms along the same line (whether they are smears or not).

    Nothing in our Media discourse has any necessary connection to reality. Reality is MADE by the media. This is not to say you are wrong, but if the media as a whole decides to go with Robisons recent comment (and those making similar comments) then that is the reality that will frame the discussion going foreward.

    The history of beltway smears proves that previous smears have no affect on subsequent smears (OR TRUTHS). Case in point: MoDo is still widely read and taken "seriously."

    There is some traction to your argument insofar as Obama's campaign itself is concerned I think, but the dominant media outlets will ultimately decide if they are going to shape this in the way you suggest or let it pass.

    We'll know pretty soon if you are right.

    The problem is Clinton supporters (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:11:17 AM EST
    on some level will be put more into play in this battle.

    The McCain campaign knew EXACTLY what to say, thanks to Clyburn, Robinson, Marshall and others.


    Well, McCain is on the right side here. (4.20 / 5) (#54)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:26:04 AM EST
    That is the real dilemma for you.

    Only (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jb64 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:32:01 AM EST
    because of the disgraceful treatment the Clinton's received by other Democrats and lefty bloggers. In other words, as a result of those smears against a fellow Democrat, and a former President, McCain (briefly) gets to win this point.

    Briefly? This subject is poison for Obama. (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:33:20 AM EST
    I do not see how he can extricate himself.

    Obama has tied his own hands (5.00 / 9) (#122)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:49:49 AM EST
    behind his back.  When things get REALLY ugly -- this is child's play compared to what will be seen post-Convention --, his accurate cries of racism will be met with shrugs and "oh, again?" and then a potential branding as a complaining whiner who isn't tough enough to be CiC.

    I swear the McCain Camp KNOWS how thin-skinned Obama is and KNEW he would respond the way he did.  So much for McCain's campaign being flat-footed and inept.


    Yeh, and look who lost it. (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    Isn't McCain supposed to be the one with the temper?  The one whose goat Obama would get?

    Interesting point (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    Weren't the bloviators talking early on about the way to beat McCain was to make him lose his famous temper so he will say something stupid?

    Sounds like the R's are going to take a page from this playbook.  We all know Obama doesn't like confrontation or to be challenged, and I think he looks ready to blow whenever he is pushed.  Watch the R's really push him come August 29th.


    Are you suggesting (none / 0) (#118)
    by jb64 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    That Obama needs to play the race card and McCain's pre-emptive strike prevent this? Or are you saying that every day the campaign is focused on race  hurts Obama. If so, then the Obama campaign is truly a house of cards waiting for the wind to blow it over. I'm no fan of Obama, and much of this seems like just desserts, but I believe his campaign can withstand this little dust-up, and I could never accuse John McCain of being "right" about anything.

    Obama doesn't seem to care very much whether Hillary voters support him or not, and that may be fatal to his campaign. If it is then this works very well for John McCain. But he's not "right" about anything  


    McCain is right that Obama is playing (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    the race card, to be clear.

    Indeed (2.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jb64 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:23:44 AM EST
    As the comments on this thread indicate.

    For those who are interested (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:09:51 AM EST
    I am not going to get into a pointless discussion with some of you about the GOP and McCain playing the race card.

    Believe what you want. My posts and points today are about something quite different.

    We're not arguing, we just want you to explain (none / 0) (#32)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:18:12 AM EST
    how, exactly, McCain is playing the race card and Obama isn't.

    It's a fair question, no?


    It is a fair question (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    I believe it distracts from my point in this and my previous post.

    Perhaps in a later post I will explain my view of why I think it is race baiting by McCain.

    flyerhawk hints at it by my brief for the argument is more comprehensive.

    But right now I want to concentrate on the point of this post, Eugene Robinson, Josh Marshall and a host of others disgracefully smeared the Clintons and now they lack the credibility to make the case that McCain and the GOP are race baiting.


    that is because (5.00 / 7) (#101)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    flyerhawk has been basing his whole argument on the assertin that Obama has never personally accused McCain directly of race-baiting.  So, flyerhawk thinks Obama is within his rights to say "they will try to scare you by reminding you I'm black" because they doesn't specifically mean McCain and some vague "they" out there has done it in the past and will do it again in the future.

    But, if you look at the entire FL quote, flyerhawk's assertion is false.

    here is the whole FL quote

    We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.
    They're going to try to make you afraid of me.
    They're gonna.... They're going to say, "You know what, he's -- he's -- he's young,
    inexperienced, and, uh, uh, he's got a funny name. Did I mention he's black?

    In this statement,  you know what kind of campaign "they're" going to "run".  Obama did use "they" but paired it with campaign.  It's McCain's campaign, McCain is running his campaign.  It's not some 527 group or the generic GOP or some surrogate that Obama has called out here.  It's McCain.  And, in this quote Obama specifically said they will try to scare you by mentioning that he's black.  Pretty specific.  They can't spin that like they tried yesterday with the presidents on dollar bills.

    And, we now also have Obama's own quotes comparinh himself to Paris Hilton.  So how he can now claim the Paris Hilton ad is subliminally racist whne he has used comparisons to Paris himself is laughable.


    Had the fore mentioned (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by Truth Sayer on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM EST
    never smeared Clinton they would still not have a case against McCain.

    Let's get real here; Josh and Robinson? Those are two credible and non-biased players here? Not hardly. It's preordained how they would respond to this and it isn't objectively. If there is a reason of late to why the earth revolves it is because of the spin meisters like Josh and Eugene.

    BTW when you get around to explaining just how McCain is playing the race card please explain how Obama is not playing the race card with his obvious statement which does not require a lot of thought to what he was saying.


    Outrageous? Disgraceful? Egregious? (none / 0) (#179)
    by NealB on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    Clyburn and Robinson, and most of the rest of us who were looking at the delgate math, did nothing "outrageous," "disgraceful," or "egregious" in expressing amazement at Hillary's persistence after Obama's primary wins in March, April, and May.

    We may agree that they were wrong in their theory that Hillary's staying in and so vigorously challenging Obama to the end was damaging to his prospects as the nominee. Looking back, I think the Clintons did Obama, and all of us, a big favor by giving it all they had. But three, four, five months ago suggesting that the Clinton's relentless criticisms of Obama were damaging wasn't a "smear" of the Clintons; it was a fair and logical observation. Further, they were right that the delegate math didn't add up in the Clinton's favor. Give them credit for that. It's a fact.

    Whether Obama's campaign has the moral authority required to play it or not, the "race card" is a duece. What significant segement of the electorate that wasn't always going to vote for McCain anyway believes that being white matters?

    Obama was not entitled to the nomination. (5.00 / 9) (#185)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    Once you understand that simple, obvious point, your comment becomes completely vacuous.

    Do you mean February? I wouldn't use (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    March, April and May as proof of how well Obama did.

    Whoopi and the Word only (they) can use (none / 0) (#221)
    by fctchekr on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:07:47 PM EST
    She was talking about the N word on the View and telling Hasselbbeck she couldn't use it. (blacks use it amongst each other both positively and negatively.)

    Maybe this shows that the whole idea of some words being off limits to whites and not blacks and vice versa, needs to reevaluated.

    In fact according to the View's web-site Obama will make an appearance on Monday. McCain will follow on Tuesday.


    We should watch and come back and discuss it.

    Looking at this totally objectively, they both represent something different and or new to the Presidency. Someday, we will get beyond superficialties and choose candidates based on their qualifications, integrity and honesty. Values sorely lacking amongst our current public officials.

    I'm kind of tired of repair mode politics.

    I believe the phrase is... (none / 0) (#223)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    ..."hoist by his own petard". In the well-established tradition of metaphor mixing, the race-card is a double-edged sword.

    McCain has not played the Race Card (none / 0) (#224)
    by Richjo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 04:52:28 PM EST
    Obama is being attacked because he is ahead, and because he is a major party nominee for President, not because he is black. A white person in his exact same position would be being attacked in the same way, that's politics.

    The real problem is that no one wants to admitt the truth which is that race does matter in the election. Until this country begins to overcome its shameful history of racism and actually elects an African American President then race will always be an issue whenever an African American runs. Until those people on the money Obama is talking about aren't all a bunch of white guys then race is going to be a factor. Many people are inclined to support Barack Obama because they feel it is long past time that America elected an African American President. One of the major reasons I plan to vote for Obama is because I do believe it is important for this country to break this particular barrier. I am voting for Obama in large part because he is black. Unfortunately that is not something that can be openly stated and discussed because it risks undermining Obama's credibility in light of the fact that he is an inexperienced, unaccomplished, and all too typical kind of politican. He was not the best candidate the Democrats had to offer this year, but he is at least as good as any Republican, and considering what it will mean for this nation for an African American to be elected President I don't see how the country can afford to let that opportunity slip away.

    Obama to me is just like Two Face Harvey Dent in the Dark Knight. He is not the hero we deserve, he is probably not even deserving of being a hero; but he is most likely the hero the country needs right now. People deserve to have their faith rewarded, even if that requires a little deception about the true nature of the one they have placed their belief in. Those of us who know the truth should probably hold our toungues just for a little while, so long as we don't ever forget the true nature of exactly who we are dealing with.

    Or Mr. Wolf (none / 0) (#225)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 04:54:41 PM EST
    Peter calling.

    Race and Clinton (none / 0) (#226)
    by Amaliada on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 06:26:02 PM EST
    I guess I don't understand how it can be acknowledged that the Democratic Party has fault lines along gender while at the same time denying that the Party has fault lines along race.

    the race card is being played, but not by McCain (none / 0) (#228)
    by LCaution on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:03:53 AM EST
    All one needs to do is look at Obama: he is Black or, more accurately, 1/2 African, 1/2 Caucasian.

    People who won't vote for a Black man don't need Republicans to tell them he's Black.  This isn't like swiftboating Kerry by making people who don't know him believe that he was only pretending to be a war hero.

    The Muslim issue is a different matter, because of Obama's background and name.  That I can definitely see the Repubs. using.

    The only people who are, possibly, effectively using the race card are Obama and his supporters - by taking every opportunity to call McCain and his supporters racist.

    Why?  The only explanation I can find, other than to ensure that he gets 100% of the AA vote, is to hope to tip some white liberals over to his side by making them feel that a vote against him is a symbol of some kind of hidden racism in themselves.

    Anything to get those couple extra % points he's going to need to win this election.