The "Fairy Tale" Comes Home To Roost

McCain Camp Says Obama Playing The Race Card:

Senator John McCain’s campaign accused Senator Barack Obama on Thursday of playing “the race card,” citing his remarks that Republicans would try to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” The exchange injected racial politics front and center into the general election campaign for the first time, after it became a subtext in the primary between Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

After Obama supporters disgracefully smeared Bill and Hillary Clinton as race baiters in the Democratic primary, the fairy tale has come home to roost. Now, the McCain camp gets to race bait and get away with it. More . . .

Steve Schmidt, who runs the day-to-day operations of the McCain campaign, said the campaign had been moved to issue the statement in part because it saw the damage done during the Democratic primary when Obama supporters made accusations that former President Bill Clinton had been racially insensitive, or worse.

“The McCain campaign was compelled to respond to this outrageous attack because we will not allow John McCain to be smeared by Senator Obama as a racist for offering legitimate criticism,” he said. “We have waited for months with a sick feeling knowing this moment would come because we watched it incur with President Clinton. Say whatever you want about President Clinton, his record on this issue is above reproach.

In the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama’s supporters at several occasions accused the Clinton campaign of using racially charged tactics, particularly after Mr. Clinton equated Mr. Obama’s victory in the South Carolina primary with the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s victory in the nominating contest there in 1988. Mr. Clinton himself then complained in a radio interview in April that the Obama campaign had “played the race card on me.”

So McCain has played the ultimate race card - the Jesse Helms "they" play the "victim" to keep "us" down. And it worked. But it only worked because of what was done by Obama supporters in the primary. And, oh by the way, you think this does not appeal to Clinton supporters? Think again. The fairy tale comes home to roost.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night: Candy Everybody Wants | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh by the way (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:26:41 AM EST
    To fix this problem, Barack Obama could choose Hillary Clinton as his VP.

    Alternate Title (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:32:42 AM EST
    "Jim Clyburn, John McCain Thanks You"

    I am glad McCain called their bluff! (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    Now, let's see how it all backfires for Obama, because they've been crying wolf too many times.

    I seriously doubt that he'll choose her (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:47:52 AM EST
    I do not doubt it at all (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:50:04 AM EST
    I know he won't. I am just observing that that is an easy way to fix the problem.

    I dont' know, BTD (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:58:36 AM EST
    I think if he did choose her -- and he won't --, the The Clintons Are Racist stuff he desperately threw at them in SC will raise it's ugly head again. And even if the media wouldn't ask the question, the McCain Camp would:  if the Clintons are racist, why is he running with her as VP?  Or did he just out and out lie about the last successful Dem Pres in order to win?  (which runs directly counter to his Hope and Change, New Politics branding)

    I keep getting the sense that Obama's New Politics shtick has painted him into a small corner where, no matter what he does, McCain will effectively raise doubts about Obama's sincerity and honesty.


    Could be a way around it... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Mike H on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:18:39 AM EST
    He's got the silver-tongue.  I'm sure he could pass it off as "the primaries were hard-fought, we were both historic candidates and strong contenders, yadda yadda, some of the things said by our surrogates may not have been the most helpful, yadda yadda, the Clintons' record as strong advocates of the African American community is clear, and I'm proud to work with her to bring desperately needed change to our country."

    and then McCain (5.00 / 9) (#38)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:23:31 AM EST
    can run that footage and compare it to the footage of what was actually said at the time and wonder, aloud of course, why Obama didn't respond more forcefully in defense of the Clintons at the time?

    Oh, that's right:  He'll do and say anything to win.  Even if it means throwing the last successful Dem President to the racist wolves.

    And Americans will wonder 'how is that New Politics again?'


    Hannity did something like that (none / 0) (#138)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:30:32 AM EST
    yesterday comparing the campaign's statement on Ludicris with some audio about how his 3 year old liked a song by Snoop Dog. And then he played a bleep-riddled version of the song by Snoop...neglecting to mention that there's prolly a clean version out there somewhere.

    Easy enough for Obama to defuse (2.33 / 3) (#33)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:18:35 AM EST
    that question if asked, as Obama never said the Clintons were racist.

    perhaps (5.00 / 11) (#36)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:20:41 AM EST
    but he allowed his surrogates and his campaign to run rampant with it and then stepped in a week or so later and gave a tepid "oh, I don't know if they are necessarily"-type of response.

    Yes, so basically he did call them racists and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.


    this is so pathetic. the primaries devoted to (5.00 / 11) (#175)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:55:27 AM EST
    trashing the clintons. and now more division in the general election than usual thanks to race baiting and other issues that take away from the central critical issues we are supposed to be discussing. i don't want 4 years of what obama meant. i want someone to help my country.

    No (5.00 / 18) (#49)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:31:33 AM EST
    He just said they would say anything and do anything to be elected, at the same time his surrogates and supporters ran around charging racism at every opportunity.

    I think you know by now that no one here buys the "nothing the Obama campaign did counts if it didn't come from Obama's lips personally" defense.  I admire you for continuing to give it the old college try, but we all remember how the primary went down.  And now the Republicans are taking full advantage of it.


    Yesterday was a repeat (5.00 / 7) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:18:16 AM EST
    Obama has said the very same thing before to other crowds, the only difference is he threw in the Presidents on the dollar bills this time. He has said in the past, "they are going to try to scare you with: he has a funny name, and he doesn't look like you". It was called out as race-baiting then, and just because he injected the faces on money (all of which are not presidents) doesn't mean he meant anything different this time.

    Obama has done this to himself, and for how well it worked against the Clinton's, who really didn't expect him to repeat the tactic?


    Ohhhh, the old "Obama never said..." (5.00 / 12) (#53)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:34:52 AM EST

    You're technically correct.  But we are not stupid... "Obama" singlehandedly vilified two people as racists when those two did more to advance race relations than many others in my lifetime.

    And we will remember.

    Oh, but Obama never said that....BULL.


    yeah and obama never brushed hillary (5.00 / 6) (#178)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:56:58 AM EST
    off his shoulder or wiped her off his shoe. yeah, right!

    Never said, not what he meant (5.00 / 5) (#198)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:08:16 AM EST
    Axelrod this morning explained the comment as meaning "he wasn't a Washington insider". Not sure how the words "LOOK LIKE" fit that excuse, but this isn't the first time their explanations were void of logic, either.

    I wonder if Obama has taken into consideration that the race-baiting he did successfully against the Clinton's got him over 90% of the black vote. Is he going for the remaining 10%, 'cause it didn't really move the needle in any other demographic. In fact, most others find his tactic offensive with its absence of substance and truth.


    maybe so.... (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    but Obama with his coments a couple of weeks ago did specifically charge the McCain was going to use race.  It wasn't a surrogate that time.  there is no way of reading Obama's quote from FL and trying to claim the racist charge against McCain didn't come directly from Obama's lips.

    Does anyone think they haven't and won't? (3.00 / 2) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:06:30 AM EST
    Since the GOP has used all sorts of key terms to split groups over the years, suggesting that the GOP would use race wasn't really starting anything. It was just acknowledging what has become the standard operating procedure of the GOP since Reagan turned it into an art form.

    What the Dems did this time was fire a preemptive strike across the bow rather than sitting back and trying to respond to the steady undercurrent that has been used by the GOP to win over southern whites for quite sometime.


    It doesn't matter if it was true (5.00 / 8) (#101)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:14:33 AM EST
    the argument that what Obama said is exactly what the Republicans were going to do anyway is so not the point -- in most people's minds, a person (or Party) should actually do something racist first before they are accused of racism. What happened four years ago doesn't matter -- this is about McCain v. Obama in 2008.  Trying to insist that "Obama was right" (even if true) gets you nowhere in this situation.

    Especially when Obama was wrong! (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:17:06 AM EST
    Then it's a too-fer...remind people what was said and "who" said it.



    No, (5.00 / 13) (#107)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:16:35 AM EST
    what one dem did first was to fire a shot across the bow of people in his own party, and those of us who had legitimate criticisms were called racists.

    He gets no points from me.


    Coral Gables, I preemptively predict (5.00 / 12) (#135)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM EST
    that you will attempt to defend the presumptive nominee again and again here with such stuff.

    Don't know where you are, but in this democracy, we don't convict -- except at Guantanamo -- on the basis of what people might do.

    Clinton could do nothing about this as a Dem, but the Repubs don't care, so they're going to call out Obama's use of the future tense.  And anyone who defends it will -- note, not yet but in future -- look foolish.  Just a preemptive warning for you.


    You betcha (4.33 / 3) (#183)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST
    Your preemptive prediction is probably right in that I will defend any Dem running against any Republican. Having never come across a republican that is closer to my stance on the issues than whatever Dem is running...yes I will defend the Dem every time. I find it far better than taking shots at Dem candidates and finding myself with more Republicans in charge.

    wow... defending the 'D' (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by jeffhas on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:18:53 AM EST
    even when the tactic or the candidate are despicable?

    It seems to me that being able to critically judge even those you support is just being truly honest... I mean who among us is perfect?

    Doesn't mean your candidate is not the 'best' choice... but do you really defend the indefensible? (FISA support?)

    What does that do for your own personal integrity?

    I like to be able to look myself in the mirror from  time to time, and make an honest assessment.

    Oh well - to each his own.


    I think both camps played it right (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:47:25 AM EST
    firing shots across the bow.

    But the McCain camp has more overt examples to point out of Obama's camp crying wolf during this campaign.

    I think Obama is reluctant to be 'divisive' and point out the very real racism that we know exists. He'd rather couch it in humorous terms like the 'faces on the dollar bill'.  I've never heard him rail against voting machine disparities in Ohio, for example.  Until he is ready and willing to get specific, he can't really make the argument as well as McCain can make the counter-argument.


    the generic GOP or (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:47:31 AM EST
    527's or cable pundits or bloggers or supporters might use racist tactics in the campaign.  But, McCain will not.  If you read Obama's quote from FL, Obama specifically said McCain will do it in the future.  He wasn'r warning about some generic 527 group, he said McCain's campaign.

    And, following the standards set by the Obama campaign, McCain is in no way responsible for anything that doesn't come directly out of his own mouth.


    this election will not be won on the basis of (5.00 / 7) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:03:28 AM EST
    and the McCain camp knows that as better than anyone.  if they go to far down that road they will lose.  I do not believe the racial politics that worked in the past will work this time and I dont think they think so either.
    this is why they are busy busy busy defining him as an empty headed light weight.
    using vacuous celebrities to turn his celebrity, formerly known as his greatest strength, into a liability.  this is what they are best at.  they did it to Kerry they will to it to Obama.

    not quite (5.00 / 9) (#205)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM EST
    Obama was attempting to inoculate himself to any criticism whatsoever by suggesting that it would be racially based.  He played this game throughout the entire Primary -- basically making people afraid of saying anything critical about his lack of experience, his associations, the decisions he's made because they'd be called a "racist" -- and is now attempting to do it in the GE.

    And McCain called him on it.

    McCain questioning Obama's lack of experience is not racist despite how desperately Obama wants to frame it as such.  McCain questioning Obama's decisions and choices is not racist, even if Obama will scream that it is.

    We need a candidate with thick skin and Obama ain't it.


    He just gave everyone around him (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:27:27 AM EST
    free reign to suggest, state, imply, accuse...and so forth complete with ellipsis-ridden memos sent, by the campaign, to supporters...potential supporters...and the news media.

    At any point in time throughout the early months of the campaign, he could've stepped up and said "stop." Feingold even pointed out that the whole thing was destructive.

    There was a sort of truce for a bit, but alas...it was already part of the text/sub-text narrative.


    i rather assumed that racism would (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:10:47 AM EST
    by an obama campaign tactic. sad to say that is what is happening. this type of hyping results in crying wolf too much. yawn! that will be the public and media response long before the vote.

    "I know he won't." (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:22:24 AM EST
    I dont disagree but step back for a minute and consider what would happen if he did.

    now tell me you still think he has the judgment and maturity to run the country.


    Choosing his VP nominee is his first major (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:30:53 AM EST
    decision.  If he flunks this test by not choosing Hillary then that tells me he isn't ready to lead the country.  The person chosen should be ready to lead on day one.  Kaine, Selibus (s;?), Bayh, et al do not meet this criteria.  Hillary Clinton does.  Nuff said.

    not only that (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    but it is such an obvious way to win.  if he is so arrogant he cant bring himself to try to heal the party how the hell is the going to heal the country?

    Is it really Obama's decision? (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:23:27 AM EST
    It seems to me that Senator Obama is ill-disposed to make the running mate decision on his own.  Mrs. Clinton, while the obvious choice,  is not a viable one for him since the whole point of the Pelosi-wing of the party appears to be the  ending of the Clinton influence to be replaced by another--theirs.  A senator midway into his first term being able to amass the vast funding and support of a segment of the party is part of an agenda that does not include Mrs. Clinton. Similarly, Senator Obama's FISA vote was probably not one for him to make, but a calculation with pluses and minuses placed before him by others with a "recommended" vote. Therefore, our best hope is for a qualified, progressive running mate who looks good and is good.

    he doesn't need to fix anything (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Rainsong on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:41:16 AM EST
    Obama's campaign don't perceive any problem that needs fixing. Dems will win, one way or another.
    I don't think Obama's Veep choice matters, but McCain's choice might help his campaign get a bump.

    Obama will win no matter what, and I think Sebelius was always his first choice, or choice of the Party maybe, just as Obama is. KS has been odds-on top favorite on all the betting markets for months - and I see the main reason being that she is just plain boring and inoffensive, and will not outshine him in any way, shape or form.

    But, most important of all? Her steadfast loyalty, she will never argue or disagree with him, or ask for some area of power, or responsibility, for herself. The ideal symbolic Woman, quiet-spoken, loyal, submissive and subservient, will follow orders to the letter, never step outta line etc. All the others that have been touted in the media, are decoys. Also, quite opposite to someone like Gerry Ferraro, the original first - another way of distancing Obama from "old-style" politics.  

    For Obama, and the DNC, its all about him/them, not about the country, or policy, or needing help with winning swing-states etc.

    perhaps one of the most "historic" things about 2008, will be a historically poor turnout. From the polls, I'm more surprised at the size of the undecideds etc, and reading it as an increase in the classic Great American Apathy settling in.

    Registrations may be way up, but I dont see so many showing up on the day. More and more people have just turned off, tuned out, whatever. I'm guessing that it will be slightly more Indies and Repub-leaners who will stay home, than Dems, and that some states will turn blue as a kind of side-effect of something like a 22% turnout.

    The only wild-card that might upset the Dems  apple-cart now, is McCain's Veep choice, and how they play their campaign after the Convention - and that may even be a long-shot.

    For this originally tepid Clinton supporter, who became much stronger supporter watching her campaign, I'm way over it now.

    Any Dem who played the race-card the way Obama's campaign did in the primaries, doesn't deserve my vote. Any Party which would support and pro-actively aid and abet such tactics, including the widespread suppression of dissent, both actively and through media propaganda, doesn't deserve my registration or support.

    As others have mentioned, I too, have for many decades, held my nose and voted for poor quality Dem candidates, and supported their campaigns, because in the end they were still Dems, and mostly centrists with a record to back it up. Not this time. Obama scares me, and his upcoming Administration terrifies me.


    I don't understand your reasoning (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Truth Sayer on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    for why picking Clinton as would fix the race thing. Can you expand on why?

    And what is with the "fairy tail" remark? What fairytale? Obama played the race card in the primaries - that is no fairytale. And now he played the race card again basically accusing McCain of being a racist when McCain did nothing of the sort. That is no fairytale either.

    McCain is just defending himself against the innuendo that he is a racist. Again no fairytale.

    Obama is flat out taking the fact that he is Black and trying to paint every opponent as a racist when they are not. So where is the fairytale in that? And how does Clinton as VP fix things for Obama? As several posters have said if Obama had not painted Hillary and Bill as racists then maybe she could help. Maybe!! Because just having a White person as VP pick does not negate the fact that Obama is playing the race card against his opponents Now (and then).

    In the end he is vying for a sympathy vote from White liberals and Independents saying 'vote for me because I am Black and there are those who do not want a Black man in the WH'. That's a disgraceful way to try to win a race. It's the reverse race card and Obama has played it every step of the way. Color of skin is no qualification for the WH and if that is what Obama is running on he deserves to lose. He says race has no place in our society yet then uses race to his ultimate advantage? Despicable.


    fairytale (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    was one of the first comments (not the first) by a Clinton campaign member or surrogate (bill Clinton said it) that was twisted out of context by the Obama campaign, specifically Michelle Obama and Donna Brazile) and called racist.  It was the beginning of the end for Clinton because it riled up the black community who had been supporting Clitnon up until that point.

    Riled up people based on a lie. (5.00 / 9) (#181)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:58:56 AM EST
    Think about that....Obama and Friends instigated the division that now exists.  They threw race relations under the bus for their own personal gain.

    This posting by BTD has made me so angry once again - actually furious - as I am reminded of the disgusting tactics that this "Candidate of Change and Hope" has pulled - all with a straight face.

    I would tell you what I really feel, but this is a family-oriented site!


    OK thanks (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Truth Sayer on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM EST
    Totally forgot about that. I remember more the 'unsourced' article in the British newspaper that kick started the race thing. As you will recall Obama was losing the Black vote big time to Clinton and in desperation played the race card via the unsourced article, that I believe he planted, so he could win over the Black vote in the only way he could.

    But I still don't understand how Clinton as VP fixes Obama's problem. I just don't see that as being a fix as several other posters have pointed out here.


    Might have worked (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    in the Dem primary; will backfire in the general.

    I agree ... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    and further think it would be a blessing in disguise if he didn't choose her as VP. That boat may be sinking and it would be unfair for her to take one more political beating on his account.

    when, excuse me, if he loses (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    the hordes are going to be looking for someone to blame.  of course it will be Hillary in any case but I think it would be even more so if she was the VP.
    run away Hillary.  I would still vote for the ticket if you were on it but run away.

    Yep BTD is right again! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by fctchekr on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:23:46 AM EST
    Please don't delete me BTD. This is not a jibe, you're right on.

    This is McCain's best chance to snag... (5.00 / 16) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:31:31 AM EST
    ...disgruntled Clinton voters because what the Obama supporters who branded Clintons racists didn't realize was that many good Democrats and good people were hurt and confused by those accusations. Even worse for many people was what was done to Geraldine Ferraro. Yes, she said some thing that were not strictly kosher, but she was being honest. And honesty is essential if we are really going to reach a post-racial society because honestly leads to discussion and without discussion people can never really cast aside their negative feelings about race. However, it has become the elephant in the room that you cannot discuss without being branded a racist.

    Remember...Ferraro just said something... (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:37:29 AM EST
    that Obama had said about himself a few years earlier.  But "Obama" spun it against her and ignored that he believed it himself.

    someone posted an Obama quote (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:39:18 AM EST
    just the other day where Obama compared himself to Paris Hilton too.  But, if McCain does it, it's demeaning and race-baiting....

    Oh, that's great. Can someone find that? (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:42:28 AM EST
    and pass it along to the McCain campaign...I can already see the next commercial.

    Obama compares self to Paris Hilton (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:58:56 AM EST
    Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," then Senator-elect Obama said at a Gridiron dinner in December, 2004. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

    That attempt at self deprecating humor was delivered little more than a month after he was elected to the US senate, and just weeks before he was sworn in.

    There's more - CNN -


    Thank you. I'm e-mailing it to McCain. (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:03:58 AM EST
    Chances are Obama's own comment is (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    what sparked the idea to use Paris Hilton in the ad in the first place. They have people all day, every day collecting everything he says and does.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#144)
    by rottenart on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    Wow...that's (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:07:35 AM EST

    Is the ship sinking?


    Obama's strategy (5.00 / 13) (#62)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:39:58 AM EST
    will backfire because instead of reaching out to voters, he decided he didn't need certain groups.

    Those of us under the bus aren't going to come to his defense or want to vote for him.  Quite the contrary now.


    There are so many other good peeps (5.00 / 10) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:23:41 AM EST
    under the bus at this point, and I'm having such a fun time with most of them, I see no reason to come out from underneath.

    That is, even if the Obama campaign was asking me to, which he's not.


    Val, are you hanging with the front-axlers (5.00 / 10) (#147)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    again?  They're such fun up there.  Now, you let me know next time you're heading up to that end of the bus.  Back here, the busunderers are so darn serious.  If the Rev. Wright isn't ranting, it's just too darn quiet.  Now, that's good for Obama's grandma and Alice Palmer, who deserve their hard-earned rest, but it's pretty tame for the rest of us when the Rev isn't revving up for his book tour. . . .

    I hear that Gerry Ferraro is a front-axler, though.  No wonder that end of under the bus is getting the rep for good times.  I bet it's a hoot when she and Bill and Jesse get going!


    Agreed (5.00 / 7) (#131)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:28:08 AM EST
    This dollars quote was on the blogs yesterday, as was the constant accusation that referring to Obama as arrogant constituted racism. The talk media last night had several Obama spokespeople making the same claim. Funny, the word "arrogant" has been the prime descriptor for him since early 2007 when he entered the primary, but all of a sudden it has become a race-based word.

    The man IS half black, but grew up in the white side of his family. I think Dennis Miller said it best, "I don't notice the color of his skin, but I sure as h*ll notice how thin it is."


    I love that every step Obama takes (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:55:05 AM EST
    makes him need Hillary as VP more.  By convention time maybe the superdelegates WILL be ready to change their minds.

    Yeah, I'm sure that if the impossible (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:11:23 AM EST
    happened and Hillary was named Veep, then gentlemanly McC would immediately instruct his Rovian political/media team not to engage in further negative campaigning, and certainly not against her!

    Sorry ruffian, but the Rs are the party of Nixon and Rove and Atwater, and McC, his promises to the contrary notwithstanding, is going to avail himself of their morally dubious assistance, do whatever he needs to do just as Dubya did against him in 2000, in order to win.

    And if it became an Obama/Hillary ticket, this contest would get really ugly, and fast.

    Right now, no need to panic by running to Hillary. O just needs to get smarter and more aggressive in waging the battle.  He needs to stop playing defense and make the other guy start defending the sorry Bush-McCain record of incompetence and corruption.


    you can expect (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:45:27 AM EST
    McCain to resurrect every dirty little thing Obama and his supporters did to Clinton during the Primary.  He's more than aware of the divisions in the Dem Party and the only way to keep those wounds fresh is to stir the pot.  A bonus to that, of course, is he gets to continue negatively defining Obama via his own actions and words as well as keeping those who were still reluctant to vote for Obama -- older voters, blue collar, rural and even some Independents now -- on the fence and open to voting McCain.

    By the time we get to the Convention and Obama becomes the Official Nominee, I trust more than a few people will be openly asking "is THIS who we're running for President?"

    Clinton could diffuse as VP (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by fctchekr on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:38:12 AM EST
    She's the only one who can. And thankyou for SAYING what many have us have been thinking from day one--- Obama put his foot in mouth again, this time the media can't save him..

    this time the media (5.00 / 9) (#64)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:41:32 AM EST
    is attacking Obama for it.  And, they aren't just attacking him for playing the race-card.  Now the media is questioning whether the ad is right and is Obama just an empty suit after all....  There ar even Obama supporting pundits out there now who are agreeing that Obama played the race card and that it was a BIG mistake to have done it.

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by nell on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:09:40 AM EST
    I don't watch the news much anymore, but based on that interview Andrea Mitchell did with the McCain rep yesterday, I had a very different impression. She clearly showed her contempt for McCain's position...so if they are slamming Obama for this, it is very surprising. My impression was that they are expressing confusion as to why McCain would be saying a black guy is playing the race card...and also that they are saying the Paris ad was racial (I TOTALLY disagree, the point was he is famous for being famous and has no accomplishments. There are no other celebrities that would have worked as well).

    Meanwhile, the media should be slamming themselves. The media is the one who let the Obama campaign get away with playing the race card in the first place. Tbey both carried and amplified his message with glee.


    i watched CNN last night (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:26:02 AM EST
    and they were talking about it constantly.  I wouldn't expect Andrea Mitchell to go after Obama any more than I would expect Matthews or Olbermann to do it.

    But, Obama supporters on CNN were calling out Obama on this.  They were saying there was nothing racist about the ad.  Gergen even agreed that Obama was wrong on this which amazed me.  Even Harold Ford was interviewed and said there was nothing racist about the ad.

    Then the CNN pundits were discussing the rack start, celebrity, empty suit charges from the ad in addition to all the race issues.

    So, it ended up being a free two-fer for McCain


    Gergen from what I've seen lately (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    is favorably inclined towards Obama, but in a discussion which might cover 3 candidate issues where he sides with O on two of them, he will usually find one with which to disagree with O or find agreement with the Rs' position (offshore drilling for instance).  

    This keeps him somewhat inoculated against viewer charges that he's completely in the tank for O.  It comes across as some carefully calculated punditry, not to be taken too seriously.  Almost all of them do it, except for the outright O cheerleaders like Olbermann.  Harold Ford, being a controversy-averse MOR type of soft-spoken pol who wants a future in the game, was predictable in his response.

    As for the ad, O's problem is that it could plausibly be viewed as sending some dog whistle signals to white voters, à la the racist anti- Harold Ford ads -- and McC in fact has brought on his team the lowlife responsible for those ads.  Iow, there is something there both in the ad, in its subliminal messaging, and  in the context of the person responsible for its creation, to suggest racial overtones if considered in the context of the recent disturbing history of Repub ad making against a black opponent.  

    But the evidence was too slender and speculative since the ad worked at a plausible level of Obama = "shallow celebs" .  Obama really should have held his fire or been more cautious on this one, and then launched a more aggressive and focused and sustained attack of his own against McC for his broken promise not to engage in negative campaigning.


    yep, and tell me (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:56:57 AM EST
    what would be wrong with Obama dating a white woman (if he wasn't already married) since he is the product of an interracial relationship himself?

    Right on TImNcGuy (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by fctchekr on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:10:28 AM EST
    This could be the straw that breaks the hopes of Democrats in 2008. Clinton to the rescue.

    Hope this is not OT but (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:29:30 AM EST
    After the OJ trial, Robert Shapiro was asked if they played the Race card on the defense. He said, of course they did. Johnny Cochrane was asked the same question later and he said No they did not.

    I just hate the whole line of race questioning and baiting. When this started out, I looked at Obama as a candidate who happened to be black and white. Obama himself brought the attention to his race by self deprecation which is his MO. If they had not paniced after NH and started claiming Bill a racist, we would not even be having this discussion. I believe this was a Obama mistake but he used it for the primary. Now, it is coming back to haunt him. I don't want to have to tip toe around innocent words. Obama's circle said they were going to call out anything remotely racist and they are keeping their word. Bad stradegy.Some of us who are not racists do not like being accused of it just because we are not bowing down to Obama. I am assuming he is going to win and I do not want to endure 4 years of the same tactic. It is probably better that we deal with it now and get it off the table. But in my heart, I know it is not going away.


    Remember that after NH (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by Truth Sayer on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:57:17 AM EST
    Obama was losing the Black vote to Hillary by a large margin. It was at that point that they decided that without the Black vote he could not win. And given that the Black community at the time had doubts that he could win and were also comfortable with Clinton Obama had no choice but the terrible one of hitting Blacks where it hurts the most - with race.

    The all of a sudden up pops an unsourced article in a British newspaper attributing racists comments to the Clinton's and away we went and it never stopped from there.

    Guess where that unsourced article originated from?


    I don't think voters (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    like candidates who overplay the victim card too much.  

    And, it's such a distraction from issues voters really care about.  Why would a candidate so confident in his own victory put salt in old wounds?  It seems to me that in the U.S., we vote for presidential candidates who made us feel good about ourselves, the future, etc.  By rubbing salt in old wounds, the Obama campaign is making everybody feel bad -- angry, defensive, whatever. May be the way to grap media time & attention, but not, in my opinion, an effective way to get votes.  

    As I said in last night's open thread, just as 27% or so of the voters approve Bush's job as president, despite all that has occurred since 2001, there is perhaps a core of voters who will not vote AA for president.  In both cases, nothing anyone says or does is going to persuade them differently.  Yet there are millions of independents, trying to decide how they will vote right now, and Obama has been losing their support.  This "McCain is playing the race card" claim is not going to help, especially since it is questionable that McCain did. So, if pro-Repup 527s do place the race card down the line, valid outrage will have less of an effect, at the very time when it may truly be needed.  


    Sticking w/McCain's deck of cards . . . (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by wurman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:54:53 AM EST
    . . . dealing from the bottom of the deck, etc., it appears to me that the Obama campaign vastly over-played their hand.  They threw the "race" accusation at a specific tv spot which does not "suit" the definition.  The commercial is ridiculous, but it's also vapid, innocuous, & doesn't seem to have any racial overtones.  How comparing Sen. Obama to a couple of celebrities is racism is far-fetched, at best, & looks quite stooooopid to me.

    In my opinion, agreeing with Big Tent, Sen. Obama threw the gate open for the McCain campaign to "bait" & switch the ethnic comparisons from now until Nov 4.  That issue could've been left off the table if Obama had been smart.

    Really foolish move.  Dumb.

    kinda makes you wonder (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:01:35 AM EST
    if we're going to see an Obama Campaign Shake-up at some point.  They've been really flat-footed and amateurish in responding to McCain who, himself, hasn't exactly been stellar yet.

    If he's struggling against McCain's B Game -- with surprisingly anemic poll numbers and cross tabs to boot! --, what's he going to look like when they bring out the AA Game post-Convention when he's the official Nominee?


    But Obama is the gift to McCain that.... (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:16:23 AM EST
    keeps on giving.  It's looking more and more that McCain's "campaign" can be as flat footed as it wants as BO and Friends will keep doing really dumb things to turn off voters.

    I can even see a McCain commercial about Obama complaining about McCain "being mean to Obama" ending with a snip of Rev. Wright saying, "The chickens have come home to roost".  That would be a too-fer for the McCain camp!


    The ad (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:38:59 AM EST
    is actually rather sexist IMHO. The symbols of 'bad' celebrity are two blonde young women which is a pretty obvious stereotype and the tactic of feminizing a Democratic candidate is nothing new. Plus, despite what anyone thinks of Britney Spears, she built a fairly impressive career for herself and the underlying implication of 'celebrity without accomplishment' is false. I'll save the rant on the inherent misogyny of that tactic for another time when it's more pertinent. :-)

    The Obama campaign went the route they always take and instead missed the substantive critique of the ad.


    Yup, Obama played the race card...again (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:44:02 AM EST
    What fools.

    the only reason the ad contains (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:45:25 AM EST
    two young women is because at this point in time they happen to be the best examples of being famous and having no talent.

    Two years ago you could have replaced them in the ad with American Idol Sanjaya and the ad would have meant the same thing.  All fame and no talent.  The year before you could have used William Hung.  But, those two have had their 15 minutes of fame and it's over, so they wouldn't work now.  Which is too bad.  Because using the two of them would have diffused any talk of racism around the ad.

    But, right now it appears to have worked out better for McCain this way.


    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:47:50 AM EST
    Unlike many, I didn't see racism in the ad but I did see that it used sexism to imply that Obama was a vapid, feminized, superficial, celebrity bimbo - which is a nasty thing to imply.

    But maybe I'm out of it because I never saw racism in the Harold Ford ad either and so many others did. What I saw in that ad was a nasty attack suggesting that Ford was a superficial playboy.

    I guess I don't get the racism charge because I don't understand the 'blond white woman with a black man' issue. IOW, what's wrong with a black man hooking up with a blond white woman? Or any other combination?


    Well (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:29:11 AM EST
    I thought the ad against Harold Ford was despicable because it seemed quite clear to me that it was trying stir up that 'black men are out to have sex with your white daughters and you should be very afraid' odiousness.  I'm really not quite getting the racism angle of the McCain ad, though, so I guess I'll have to raise my sensitivity meter or something but I think BTD's point is well-taken regarding fairytales coming home to roost.

    However, the celebrity of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears does come in part from a media fascination with exposing and shaming the sexual exploits of women so that implication is also not too favorable for the Obama campaign. Plus, re-reading Britney's wikipedia entry, one has to wonder why this young woman is even held up as an example of no accomplishment. She may have her troubles but she's had quite a bit of success in business. The Obama campaign have their hands tied there as well because they didn't forcefully come out against this when it was directed at Hillary.

    I think ultimately that though, that the more the Obama campaign uses the 'I look different and they are trying to make you afraid of me' meme, the more likely that they are going to induce fatigue in voters and reap a backlash.


    There was a lot in play in that ad (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Pol C on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:14:56 AM EST
    It was definitely racist, but it hit on other concerns about Ford as well, specifically his youth and possible emotional immaturity. Ford was 36 at the time, and he was single. The ad raised questions about whether he was a carefree playboy (no pun intended) whose main concerns were partying and getting laid. The ad implicitly asked if he still had some growing up to do, and whether he was emotionally ready for the responsibilities of a Senator. Ford's connection to the country's most prominent pornographer wasn't going to win him points with anyone, either.

    Explanation (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by ks on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:26:09 AM EST
    I understand what you are saying but the point of the Harold Ford Jr. ad was not "interracial dating". There is a long lived and nasty stereotype about relationships between in particular, white women and black men.  The blonde version of the former have been stereotyped to be the essense of American womanhood and the latter have been stereotyped to be dangerous wanton sexual brutes. Think "Mandingo" or "Jungle Fever"  or "Birth Of a Nation" where the crazed Negro savages ran amok and defiled pure innocent white women until the KKK came along to save the day and restore order.

    Things have certainly improved a lot but there was a long time in this conutry when it was not only illegal in a lot of places, but physically dangerous for black men and white women to be together.  Emmitt Till was tortured and killed in the 1950s because people thought he whistled at a white women.

    The Harold Ford Jr, ad played into that undercurrent and was targetted to an audience that would get it.  After all, if they wanted to show him as "just" a playboy, they could have used a hot black woman as the come hither bait, no?

    Insofar as Obama, BTD and others are on point.  The nonsense his camp and supporters pulled on he Clintons during primary is coming back to bite him in the butt and has opened a tactical door for McCain.


    It wasn't racism (none / 0) (#95)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:11:38 AM EST
    It suggested interracial dating. It was designed for a certain population segment, and it was successful.

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:21:56 AM EST
    Interracial dating is a wedge issue? I guess I really AM out of it. That seems so anachronistic to me; it's 2008 not 1958. We are surrounded by interracial marriages, families, couples, etc.

    It's hard for me to believe that this is still an issue, but it wouldn't be the first time I don't understand the way people think!


    that ad was created for (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    Tennessee, it's not really 2008 there anymore than in the rest of appalachia.  You know what Obama thinks about the blue collar white voters in that area ofthe country, right?

    Well, I guess the proof is in the pudding (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    People much smarter than me about politics say the Ford ad worked by implying something horrible about black men and white women, so I guess I'm missing something and I'm happy to admit that I'm wrong about the politics of it all. Maybe it's because I don't live in the south and live in a very integrated neighborhood with lots of interracial families (of all races) - I guess I live in a bubble and it's hard for me to accept that that line of thought still works.

    with McCain's ad (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:42:37 AM EST
    we have seen Obama supporters claim it was implying the same inter-racial white women / black man story against Obama.

    Now, just think about that for a minute...  Obama is bi-racial.  He has a white mother (white woman) and a black father (black man).  Their chosen candidate is the product of an interracial relationship and they still are trying to claim that the ad contained some kind of interracial smear.  This on top of the fact that the McCain ad didn't even attempt to link the white women to the balck man in any sexual or romantic way at all.


    McCain ad (none / 0) (#188)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    was as inept at getting the real point across (fame without talent/substance) as Obama campaign was foolish in calling the ad racist.

    Slap my head (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:44:42 AM EST
    I didn't get the inter-racial theme at all. I really thought they were referring to his playboy status. I know if they put a attractive AA woman in the ad, we would hear the accusation that all AA woman are, well you know what I mean. Once again, I missed the underlying message. Aren't we all just different shades of beige?

    Karma (5.00 / 8) (#108)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:16:49 AM EST
    is a bi**h. Just as Earl Hickey ("My Name is Earl").

    ...it appears to me that the Obama campaign vastly over-played their hand.

    Yup.  Now people who were maybe on the fence could be thinking that what if this guy is elected and Congress doesn't agree with him - are they are all racists?  What if Brown, Sarkozy, or Merkel don't agree with him - are they racists?  What if, Ahmadinejad doesn't agree with him?  

    The Boy Who Cried Wolf will be this election's theme.


    Uh oh, you just used a fairy tale (5.00 / 7) (#154)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    that's racist in this context, y'know.  The Boy Who Cried Wolf?!

    Just imagine four years of this.  That's what voters will be saying. . . .  


    Yeah (5.00 / 7) (#208)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    I'll have learn to live with myself.  After all, I live under a crowded bus, near the exhaust pipe.

    So I guess talking about The Frog Prince is out? How about the Three Billy Goats Gruff? Jack and the Beanstalk? Rumplestiltskin? Anything by Aesop?

    I know for sure The Emperor's New Clothes is definitely out....


    I'm not in the least surprised that (5.00 / 18) (#12)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:59:07 AM EST
    the Republicans would use this very effective line of argument.

    I had actually predicted it back in February:

    Consider, for example, the entire issue of racism. There is nothing more certain than that Obama and his followers will accuse the Republicans of racism when they criticize Obama, on however flimsy the ground may be.

    But the Republicans now have a perfect inoculating response: "Well of course they attack us as being racists. They attack every critic as being racist, including fellow Democrats. Look at what they did to Bill Clinton. One day, he's the first black President. The next day, when it suits their convenience, he's a terrible racist, based on nothing. I tell you, they'll say it about anybody. They have no shame in using that smear."

    In short, the Obama campaign, having cried wolf again and again in the Democratic campaign, will make it very hard to do so effectively in the general election.

    good point (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:10:33 AM EST
    I wonder, though, if Obama doesn't have the race card to play when criticized, how else will he respond?  He seems to have become quite comfortable chalking up criticisms, his inability to get votes, etc. to racism.  Without that card to play, what else will he do?

    Sad thing is, racism is evident in this country and it could have been an opportunity to talk about it and spotlight it when appropriate.  But Obama overused it as a tool against two honorable people in order to win a Primary.  Because of that, the republicans can run quietly rampant with it because, should Obama pull out that card in response, people might be more apt to say "oh, there he goes again".  

    And, really, if you're trying to get votes, that's not exactly the response you're looking for.


    Heh. There you go again. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:44:26 AM EST
    But I can't do Reagan for the life of me.  

    You're one smart cookie! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:17:46 AM EST
    Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by spiceweazel on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:00:39 AM EST
    This describes just about every thought that ran through my head yesterday, when I heard about this statement. (Hello, first time poster here.)

    That wasn't so bad, (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Xanthe on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:03:02 AM EST
    was it? I'm a newbie too.

    wel (5.00 / 14) (#15)
    by nell on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:02:20 AM EST
    obama should not have repeated on multple occassions now that mccain was trying to make people scared of his name and the fact that he looks different. there is no other explanation for what he said, burton can spin until the cows come home. he accused mcain of runing a racit campaign when no such thing happened. when and if mccain does do such a thing I will be the first to scream my head of. as a clinton suporter and a minority who knows what racism looks and feels like, I won't vote for mccain but I am glad he called obama this crap.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 16) (#43)
    by BernieO on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:26:59 AM EST
    How bizarre is it that the first strong defense of the Clintons against charges of racism is coming from Republicans. We are down the rabbit hole, folks.

    It is long past time someone called Obama out on this despicable tactic. When threatened, he and his campaign have repeatedly cried racism. This is not only grossly unfair to his opponents(if the Clintons are racists, then all white people must be) but worse, it is extremely damaging to race relations in this country. But Obama knows that it can shut down legitimate criticism. Far from healing us as Obama claims to want to do, he and Axelrod have no qualms about damaging race relations in order to win. I personally have several liberal friends who are afraid to write letters to our paper which are critical of Obama but were too afraid of being seen as racist by their black friends and/or colleagues. They are extremely resentful of this.

    This tactic is consistent with Obama's staying at Trinity UCC for twenty years. He was perfectly willing to align himself with a church and minister that are clearly racially divisive for his own political gain. (He only rejected the church after Wright insulted him personally.) Barack is smart enough to know that Reverend Wright's message of victimization is bad not only for race relations, but also for his own congregation. But membership benefitted Obama because it helped him with his South Chicago base and that was all that mattered to him. Only when it became a negative, he bailed.

    It is time Obama paid a price for this sleazy, disgusting, damaging tactic. It is bad for our democracy.


    Obama has set race relations back... (4.22 / 9) (#85)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    50 years.  I no longer have any spontaneity in my dealings with AA friends and colleagues as I worry that what I say may now be suspect.  I analyze every thought, word and deed to make sure I don't offend.

    Not a comfortable way to live and work.

    Shame on Obama and his disgusting campaign tactics.


    Not just that (5.00 / 11) (#105)
    by nell on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    I find myself watching every word, particularly when criticizing Obama, not just with black friends, but also with white friends who support Obama.

    In May, I was giving two friends who I hang out with sometimes, but who are not really familiar with my politics, a ride home. They saw the Hillary placard in my car and asked about it and I said that I had been knocking on doors for her in PA and IN, so it was still my car. They asked what I would do if she was not the nominee and I said that I didn't know yet and expressed my anger and frustration over the way Clinton had been treated during the primary by the media and the Obama campaign. From there, the conversation went downhill. One of them was respectful, while the other actually accused me of being racist when I said that I felt Obama was inexperienced and that I could not point to a single significant accomplishment. Since she also could not point to a single significant accomplishment, she told me I was racist and went on and on about the Clintons and how racist they are...

    Never mind the fact that she has lily white skin and my complexion is about the same as Obama's...but whatever.


    This is a highly (1.20 / 5) (#146)
    by Jgarza on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:38:02 AM EST
    offensive statement.  I would even call it race baiting.  But i'm sure this admitted McCain supporter will get away with it because this site remains committed to bashing Obama.  

    I know i would get banned if i ever said HRC set back feminism 50 years.


    "set back feminism 50 years" (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:43:22 AM EST
    the first problem with that is that it is patently ridiculous and anyone who cares about race realtions in this country has to agree to some extent with the comment you are responding to.
    personally I would say a decade at this point. but 50 years is certainly possibly before this is over.

    I think (2.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Jgarza on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:50:04 AM EST
    they are both ridiculous comments.  that was my point clearly you guys understand why the version addressed to Hillary is, i put it up for comparison.  

    Then your recourse (none / 0) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:56:50 AM EST
    is to call it a ridiculous comment.

    I don't think that Hillary's campaign (5.00 / 10) (#160)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:48:59 AM EST
    set feminism back 50 years since she was very careful not to run on being a woman. She ran as a first class policy wonk.  However, the way she was treated during the campaign woke some of us up who thought we had come a lot farther than we have.

    i didnt say she did (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jgarza on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:52:13 AM EST
    i dont think they did, i put it up for comparison.

    Ah, playing the Obama verb tense game? (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:50:33 AM EST
    You would call it race-baiting, huh?  Just like Obama calling out McCain for he will do -- but hasn't done?

    The preemptive ploy isn't working for Obama, and it won't work for you here, Jgarza.  Go try it somewhere else, where it won't make you look foolish, too.  


    How foolish of me (2.66 / 3) (#169)
    by Jgarza on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:52:49 AM EST
    to not understand why race problems are the black guys fault.

    ummm.... (5.00 / 6) (#187)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:02:50 AM EST
    they aren't his fault excpet for the fact that he has accused McCain of running a racist campaign and McCain has done no such thing.

    They may be OTHERS out there who have been using race against Obama, but it hasn't been McCain.  That's where Obama ran into more trouble this time.


    I think race relations have been (5.00 / 9) (#191)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:04:17 AM EST
    damaged when scientific terms like "black hole" are now racist. I think that race relations have been damaged when someone says "smart cookie" on this post, and I think, OMG, will someone pick up on that as a possibly racist remark? And how many times do I cringe when I read "pot meet kettle" and wonder if someone is going to flame over that. And are we still at place where showing an interracial couple would be race-baiting? I didn't think so, but now I'm not so sure. If what has happened is just a band-aid being torn off of a wound that still existed, then we should be able to talk about that, but our vocabularies are being purged of the words we need to be able to use to do it. I can discuss whether Hillary is really a b!tch or not and whether that's a slur or a compliment without getting pilloried. Not so easy with racial issues.

    You must be joking (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:55:00 AM EST
    That someone writes an asinine comment is not a basis for suspension or banning. You would have been banned the first day you appeared here.

    i'm not suggesting (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jgarza on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:59:00 AM EST
    that.  I'm suggesting it be deleted.  and that rules be applied fairly.  its not my site, all i can do is suggest.

    Sad but true. (5.00 / 21) (#16)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:02:59 AM EST
    When Axlerod and friends played this meme against a woman who by any one's definition was never, never could be a racist or married to one, I was disgusted. It's was classic "swift boat" and the Obama folks who jumped on that bandwagon knew it was a swift boat tactic.  

    NOW, the old "what goes around comes around" is coming true.  Some Hillary fans STILL resent the racist charge. I do.  Hillary is not perfect.  Neither is Bill and certainly there were plenty of debates  where those not wanting her as the candidate could go.  But the race thing was disgraceful and offensive.  

    When pundits like Maddow are saying words like "presumptuous" are racist, it's mind boggling.  When bloggers insist "arrogant" is a racist word, it's mind blowing.  Just like saying that "fairy tale" was a racist word was laughable, defining a word because it was describing something Obama said or did with a word does not make it racist.

    Arrogant is the word I have used to describe George W since the moment he came on the national political scene.  Presumptuous can aptly describe ANYONE who does things to make it look like they have already won a race not run.  It has nothing to do with ethnicity.  Saying someone's own words, when you think they are not accurate, are a fairy tale is not racist.

    On the other hand, calling a woman a "b*tch" is clearly sexist and yet the incident of the woman with McCain got nothing more than giggles from the pundit class.  "*uc*ing ho" is definitely sexist but the comedian launching that diatribe at democratic women candidates gets applauded by progressives no less.

    No doubt about it.  With the help of the pundit class, with the free reign of Rove and his dem clones, the "spinning" has become insane.

    All the spinning (5.00 / 8) (#75)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:48:56 AM EST
    is just a cover for Obama's elephant in the room - his lack of experience and qualifications for the job when compared to Clinton and McCain.

    Sorry, that remains at the forefront of my critique of the guy.


    Say it again .... (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:04:32 AM EST
    "So McCain has played the ultimate race card - the Jesse Helms "they" play the "victim" to keep "us" down. And it worked. But it only worked because of what was done by Obama supporters in the primary. And, oh by the way, you think this does not appeal to Clinton supporters? Think again. The fairy tale comes home to roost."

    Truer words were never spoken.  I was in Ohio right before the primary for a family event and instead of making this an opportunity to increase the comfort level in discussions of race it has once again become a wedge issue.  

    And this is early (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Coral on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:05:17 AM EST
    The personal attacks on Obama will get much less subtle once the fall campaign gets under way. Obama seems more vulnerable to Republican attacks on "arrogance" and "playing the race card" than on other charges, precisely because of the way he waged his campaign vs. Clinton.

    The Clintons had a delicate path to trod in responding to those charges. It was a campaign for the Democratic nomination, after all.

    The Republicans, I'm sure, are relishing going full throttle down this road. They've had lots of practice, and so far, with great success (Dukakis comes to mind). And, unlike the Clintons, on the race issue they are shameless.

    The "Fairy Tale" not only came home to (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by BronxFem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:07:21 AM EST
    roost...it hatched!

    Live by the fairy tale (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Lahdee on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:09:30 AM EST
    die by the fairy tale.

    Meanwhile (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Lahdee on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:42:49 AM EST
    as McCain continues his Dance of Distraction,
    The U.S. unemployment rate climbed to 5.7 percent in July, its highest in more than four years as employers cut payrolls for a seventh month in a row, though less severely than predicted, according to a government report in Friday.
    Link Can Obama overcome the McCain campaign's faux outrage and the anxiety the race card engenders to keep the voters focused on the issues? He'd say yes, but I'll bet we'd hear a hearty, "Heh" from the McCain camp.

    Biographical narrative, too. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:48:32 AM EST
    If Obama starts leaning on that again, I'm sure the McCain campaign has a handful of ads just waiting for air time.

    This repeat pattern proves Bill was right (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:09:32 AM EST
    Bill was skillfully maneuvered into the race bait position by the Obama.    Obama wanted Bill to say what he did so he could overwhelmed the AA to come to his side.

    I am becoming very untrustworthy  of  Obama and I am getting very  leery in continuing my weak support for him.   Who is the guy anyway.  If he wins the GE are we going to regret he ever came by.

    Yes, Saul...my 62 year old gut... (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:26:27 AM EST
    tells me that America will regret that Obama came by.

    And I really believe that the words "fairy tale" were never the issue - Obama would have grabbed ANY WORDS they wanted from either Clinton statement and twisted and "spun" those words to be hateful anti-AA.

    I have said for months now, the Obama campaign may well have set race relations back 50 years.  And I still believe that.  

    For that, I say "Shame on them/him".


    but don't put it all (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:34:51 AM EST
    on Obama's doorstep.  Brazile and Obama's other cohorts who hit the airwaves enraged at those racist Clintons carry a great deal of the blame as well.

    I just can't believe they still call themselves Democrats!  It just ain't my Party anymore.


    Brazile is Obama. Dean is Obama. (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:39:44 AM EST
    All of Obama and Friends are Obama.

    It was his strategy.  The buck stops right at his feet.  And I, for one, can't wait to see the s*&t that is dumped at his door.


    okay (none / 0) (#71)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    I agree with you.  :-)

    :>)))) Actually.... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:09:26 AM EST
    .....we agree on many things!

    Shainzona & ccpup, can I tag along? I agree (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:12:58 AM EST
    with so much of what both of you say.  

    This is perhaps the only issue. . . (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:12:48 AM EST
    on which McCain might be able to make a real appeal to Clinton voters.  Policy-wise, he's a disaster.  But if he can get people to feel that Obama is against "us" he might peel off some support -- or at least, keep it home.  I would be and extraordinarily cynical thing to do, but what the heck -- it's politics.

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by dk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:52:53 AM EST
    there are some parallels I think with Obama's outreach to evangelicals.  You know, the idea that Obama is, literally, on the side of the angels against "some" on the left who fail to see religion as the "core" of government, and who fail to see the "morality" in women's reproductive choices.

    No, there are other issues which fall into the (5.00 / 9) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:08:53 AM EST
    same category.  This is the most inflammatory, though, I agree there.

    McCain's been reaching out to Clinton supporters since before the end of the primaries based on:  "Hey, at least I didn't beat your girl up!  I've always been a perfect gentleman to her."  Not issues based at all.

    And, while not entirely true, he does have a record of saying complimentary and respectful things about Clinton that predate the primaries.  Nothing to do with issues, but emotionally powerful nonetheless.  And it's an opportunity for him created entirely by the Obama campaign.

    The problem with adopting the Republican playbook is that they wrote that book.  


    I am really tired (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:12:50 AM EST
    of always having to come to the defense of clueless Democratic presidential candidates. Looks like we may have another one on our hands.

    But I cannot muster any schadenfreude here against Obama. I want a Democratic president too badly to gloat about his karmic downfall.

    This is not gloating (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:53:16 AM EST
    I have provided a constructive suggestion - name Hillary Clinton as his VP.

    This is not the first time (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:18:28 AM EST
    Obama played the pre-emptive race-card in FL weeks ago.  It just didn't get he same amount of attention then as it is now.  And, in FL Obama was more blatant about it.  He didn't use a non-descript "They" in FL.  He said "They're campaign" which can't be spun to mean charging anyone but McCain.  And, in FL he specifically said "He's black you know...".  So it can't be spun to mean he wasn't talking about race like he tried with the past presidents on dollar bills comment.

    Here is what Obama said in FL

    "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?"

    He would have been OK if he had stopped before throwing in the black part at the end.  Because McCain is going to say he is young and inexperienced.  And, McCain is going to try to tell the voters that his inexperience should scare them.  There is nothing wrong with McCain saying those things either.  They are legitimate issues.  But, I would challenge Obama to find one instance where the McCain campaign has brought up Obama's race or "funny name".  It hasn't happened.

    And, I don't want any examples from Obama supporters where they say McCain's campaign used a "code word" for race or implied race.  Because we all know that Obama supporters never allow anyone to accuse Obama's campaign of "implying" anything.  

    A commenter last night challenged everyone to find a specific quote from Obama where he LITERALLY called McCain a racist or LITERALLY accused McCain (and not the generic they) of race-baiting when discussing the Paris Hilton ad.  

    So, let's all use the same set of standards.

    The quote from FL shows Obama LITERALLY saying that the McCain campaign will try to scare votere by reminding them that he is black.  It is plainly Obama playing the race-card.  there is no way to deny it.

    exactly (5.00 / 10) (#41)
    by nell on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:26:13 AM EST
    and it makes me sick that he does this. thanks for findng that fl quote, the repeated times he has said this makes it clear that it is not just a one time misspeak, but a strategy. how dumb is the obama campaign that they didn't think the repubs would call him on it?

    Not dumb, surprised (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    I firmly believe that the Obama camp expected the media to support him like they did during the primary with Bill & Hillary -- McCain did call him out on his "oh yeah, and he's black" comment after FL & there was a teeny tiny blip in the media that was hastely pushed aside -- Obama thought the same thing would happen again so with confidence & gusto he repeated the sentiment 3 times in MO. To tell the truth I'm shocked myself that the story has gained traction this time.  

    Yep, the political last half of the trip (5.00 / 7) (#180)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:58:33 AM EST
    to Europe, which had nothing to do with "fact-finding" about the Mideast turned the media tide, I think.  This same callout by McCain's camp a couple of weeks ago for this same ploy by Obama got no media traction then.  

    Now, even Roland Martin -- who has downed every flavor of the kewl kids koolaid -- had to say last night on CNN that Obama went once too far with this one.

    But will any of these media hacks and flacks ever apologize to the Clintons for jumping on the Obama bus -- driven by Eugene Robinson and Donna Brazile first, but Roland Martin jumped on at one of the first stops -- to run over them?  Nope.  They're all just innocents in this.


    It was a lose-lose (5.00 / 14) (#37)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:21:34 AM EST
    Once the Obama campaign decided to use this tactic in the primary, it was always destined to be harmful for Democrats.

    If Hillary had won the primary, the Republican narrative would be like "she's ruthless and unprincipled, did you see how she used race-baiting to defeat that nice, inspiring Barack Obama?"

    Instead, since Obama won, he now has to deal with the consequences in the way we're seeing now.  I gotta admit, they're good, these Republicans, standing there with a straight face as they lament how terrible it is that Bill Clinton faced unfair attacks!

    In fact, since the narrative that Bill Clinton race-baited his way through the primary has pretty much already been written, this debate is about the only way he'll ever get vindicated.  So while I still hope Obama wins the election, it's also pretty important to me that the McCain campaign win this particular debate.  Because they have every right to.

    Absolutely! (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:31:29 AM EST
    it's also pretty important to me that the McCain campaign win this particular debate

    This has to be slapped down and slapped down hard.  Otherwise, I'm afraid the divisions that resulted from Bush's actions after 9/11 are going to be exacerbated but on another, more personal level.  I doubt Americans want to see a return to the 60's as far as racial tensions are concerned.

    Makes me wonder about Rev. Wright's influence here.  I really despise the tactics being used by the Obama campaign in this regard.  I'll never forgive the treatment of the Clintons.


    And ironically, McCain is probably... (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:40:32 AM EST
    ...the only Republican who could get away with this he defended Hillary in the past and because conservatives don't like him.

    Who's crying now, Jesse? (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:42:20 AM EST
    Yuck. I knew this was coming. I haven't felt good about this election season since before JJ, Jr.'s comments during the New Hampshire primary when everything became racialized and genderized. The last time I felt hopeful was the Iowa primary before things turned fugly.

    Like Steve M, I want Obama to win, but it's a complicated feeling because I also want the tactics of racebaiting and sexism to lose. And we can't seem to have both.

    It would be nice (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:40:19 AM EST
    to still be happy about this election, as I was in December.  

    As it is, my love of country is outweighing my desire to see Obama's tactics fail. Not by much though.


    God, it's just brilliant framing (5.00 / 10) (#73)
    by jb64 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:48:23 AM EST
    And The Obama campaign just walked right into it. Using the Clinton's treatment during the primary just reinforces it.

    your post says.... (5.00 / 12) (#78)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:58:52 AM EST
    "So McCain has played the ultimate race card - the Jesse Helms "they" play the "victim" to keep "us" down. "

    I don't really see where McCain has "played" anything.  He rightly pointed out EXACTLY what Obama was doing and has been doing since the start of the primaries.

    If McCain can't even respond to Obama's race-baiting without being accused of "playing the race card" himself, then there is something not right here.

    Spot on. Now, calling out race-baiting (5.00 / 5) (#185)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    when it is race-baiting -- is also race-baiting?

    Somebody must be spiking the koolaid.  This is just nuts.


    "appeal to Clinton supporters" (5.00 / 10) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:58:57 AM EST
    I would not use the word appeal but I would be lying if I said I did not find it a tiny bit satisfying.
    and btw
    every half baked usage of the words race baiting, race card, dog whistle, etc etc gets us farther down this road.
    the only chance Obama had to win was the campaign he was running early on when he was not the black candidate.  those days are long gone.  he is officially the black candidate now.

    not only that (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:03:34 AM EST
    with all these charges of race-baiting and redefintion of words like arrogant to be unuseable, he has become the "affirmative action" candidate as well.

    "Satisfying" (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:15:28 AM EST
    Exactly right.  I'd just add a 'grimly' to that satisfying.  I wish it weren't, but karma's a b*tch.

    and what if the GOP loses (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:00:28 AM EST
    and none of this happens?
    what then?

    you mean kinda of like (5.00 / 18) (#115)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    when the dems took controll of congress in 2006 and all was going to be right with the world again.  Bush would be impeached.  The admin would be held responsible for their actions.  telecoms would NOT BE GIVEN IMMUNITY.    LOL

    Insanity: (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:27:35 AM EST
    doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
            Albert Einstein, (attributed)
            US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

    I know McCain is a weak candidate but (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:01:26 AM EST
    this election will be closer than people think it will be.  It should have been a run away election year for the Democrats but I think Obama is losing a lot of support from many that voted for him and are having second thoughts.

    The only salvation to all of this is if he picks Hilary.

    Maybe he will pick Hilary but Hilary could say to him:

    Sorry Obama thanks but no thanks. You waited too long to decide and you were to wishy washy on picking me and just because you are hurting now and you really need me now I feel you are just using me to cinch your election.   See you in 2012.

    Can you imagine... (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:14:11 AM EST
    if Obama had been smart (for once!) and picked HRC as his VP immediately after she suspended her campaign and they had these past two months of her vigorously campagning by his side?

    What a fool.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:16:50 AM EST
    You can rest assure that if Hilary had been the Dem nominee, she would have immediately picked Obama for VP before campaigning for the GE and that's the main difference between Obama and Hilary on how they would have handled their VP choices.

    I think that Hillary (none / 0) (#110)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:16:55 AM EST
    has told Obama that she will not run with him. I don't know if it came after a request by Obama or if she preempted him by telling him not to ask her, but all signs point to it unless Obama is a complete and total egomaniac. And although I believe he has some serious issues, I think above all he wants to be elected. He's certainly willing to go to great lengths in other ways to win.

    and.... (5.00 / 13) (#84)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:02:05 AM EST
    1. race-bait will become an accepted political tactic

    2. political parties GIVING unearned delegates to candidates will be OK in the future

    3. denying legitimate candidates their votes by roll call at a convention will become standard practice.

    4. Intimidation of rival supporters at caucuses will be normal

    etc, etc, etc

    Those can all be rolled into One: (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    Changing the rules, and manipulating the events to effect the outcome of choice by a few at the top of the party will be acceptable.

    Concluding sentence (5.00 / 10) (#97)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:12:37 AM EST
    of the article:

    Howard Wolfson, who was the communications director of the Clinton campaign, said, "The McCain campaign has obviously been watching our primary very closely and recognized how damaging it had been to be tagged with the charge of race baiting."

    Tell me again what a brilliant campaign Obama ran to beat the "establishment candidate,"  who also happened to be the better qualified and more experienced candidate.

    Dirty tricks and smears were definitely part of Obama's campaign and played a large role in his "victory."

    I Have Been Absolutely Disgusted (5.00 / 9) (#106)
    by Richjo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    with the behavior of the Obama camp over this issue, and even more so with the shameless behavior of the left wing media and blogs that have only inflamed the issue even more. Not only do I find it morally repugnant, but it simply is not good politics. Anyone likely to be swayed towards Obama over episodes like this is more than likely already sold on voting for him lock, stock, and barrel. Those most likely to be swayed by this whole fire storm are more likely to view Obama less favorably because of it.

    Obama is not being attacked because he is black. He is being attacked because he is the Democratic nominee for President. (And because he is ahead.) He is not being labeled as arrogant because he doesn't know his place, but because of his youth and inexperience. Are we seriously supposed to believe that if McCain were running against a young, Ivy League educated, first term senator who had never served in the military, but whom was white, that he wouldn't be making these kinds of attacks? When one generation attempts to seize power from another it will always be characterized as arrogant by the older one. Also, Obama is attacked as arrogant because that is a plausible line of attack. He certainly doesn't lack for confidence, and on occasion has been arrogant. (Remember your likable enough Hillary?) We won't see him attacked for being stupid because that would just be ridiculous to claim, not so with the claims of his arrogance.

    Obama and everyone who is interested in his winning should stay away from these issues like the plague. If there is that much danger that Obama could be sunk by race baiting then he is not going to win anyway. The American people are not stupid, and most will be proud to say they were alive and a part of seeing the first African American sworn in as President. What most won't like is being accused of being racist because they might have serious reservations about a man who for all the claims to the contrary is nothing but a typical power hungry politician and a shameless self promoter and opportunist. They will eventually overcome those reservations because Obama's ideas are right for the country, and more of the same won't do. If the Obama people continue to defend him in the extreme and absolute way they are however- where anyone who criticizes him must be a racist, or is race baiting- they risk losing this election. They need to stop trying to shove St. Barack the savior down out throats, and emphasize the issues, not the man. Those stupid enough to have bought that line in the first place are too ignorant to be dissuaded of their illusions anytime soon, so in doing so all they do is risk alienating those whose voters will decide the election.

    I have never understood why Obama... (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:26:35 AM EST
    did not set himself up as the mixed race candidate - instead of casting himself as "black".

    Having someone who symbolizes "unity" (sorry to use that word!) between the races and the world would have been a far better positioning than the road he has taken.

    I would have rather he have acknowledged his Muslim heritage, too.  It would have shown a worldiness that  might have transcended the politics of racism.

    He has only himself to blame.


    #1 Not going to happen... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:18:25 AM EST

    Lurking in the background with told you so (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by fctchekr on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:20:35 AM EST
    Everything many of us have believed is coming true. Through the onslaught of blogger abuse and the blind acceptance despite the continual sightings of trouble, it's been a verbal slug fest, an attack and counter attack.. now I feel vindicated in fighting because I KNEW everything pointed to what Hillary said from the get-go..

    McCain faught back and McCain is not Hillary (5.00 / 13) (#120)
    by nell on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:23:00 AM EST
    When Obama made the remarks in FL a few weeks ago, no one really took notice. It was mentioned here and there, but no one said anything about it even though it was obvious and undeniable that he was accusing McCain of running a racist campaign. But this time when Obama made the remarks, the McCain campaign decided to fight back hard (they also changed leadership in the interim, so that may have something to do with it) so the media could not ignore it. I have not been watching the media coverage for the most part, but of what little I did see, it seemed to me, at least (and others here seem to have a different impression) that they were skeptical of McCain's claims. Regardless, they are covering it and questioning Obama at least.

    McCain is not Hillary Clinton. He may not be the media darling, but the media will never treat him as badly as they treated Hillary Clinton. Never.

    And then I think the problem for Hillary during the campaign is that she couldn't really fight back. The media was incredibly biased against her, so she was already fighting with both hands tied behind her back. And I think when it first happened, the Clinton campaign was caught really off guard, I don't think they believed that Obama would actually do that, frankly, that anyone would actually do that. So even as they tried to clarify and clarify the fairy tale remarks, they didn't come outright and say what was going on (the race card), and even if they had, the media was so excited about this narrative, I don't think it would have mattered...

    When race baiting Eugene Robinson is seen as a credible pundit, what do you do?

    The voters get it (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    even if the media does not.  The media reporting it give the voters a chance to make up their own minds, as McCain said.

    It is not going to help Obama, to say the least.


    some of us said (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    over and over and over during the primary when the Obamans were whining about "attacks" that the real "attacks" were not ever available to Hillary.
    hence, some of the satisfaction I mentioned above.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    I'm sure I posted the same thing during the primaries.

    If Obama's campaign is really dependent on these tactics, then the superdelegates are even dumber than I thought.


    Glad it is getting out there early (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:27:46 AM EST
    Both sides are now on notice to 'not go there'.

    Like that will do any good on either side.  I'm a dreamer.

    Dumb Strategy (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:51:12 AM EST
    I thought the Obama camp made a serious mistake with race baiting in the NC primary. I know they thought they had to destroy the Clinton support in the AA to win. (They would have gotten the support without creating this wedge). Now because of their actions they may have cost themselves and the Democratic Party the GE. The public will tire of the constant reference to race rather than issues. Obama is in danger of alienating a lot of the very independants that he's courting.

    Focus on Independents is key here (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:02:33 AM EST
    In my experience nothing irritates them more than crying wolf about racism. And I do mean nothing.

    if you think what you said (5.00 / 4) (#209)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    I know so many of you are mad at the way Clinton was treated in the primaries (primarily by the media, I might add)

    then you don't understand and haven't read the content of this thread with any comprehension.

    There was NOTHING "primarily by the media" about the way Clinton was treated.  Obama PARTICIPATED in both the sexist treatment of Hillary and the false charges of race-baiting against her.

    If you are talking about what Bill Clinton said when he said "fairytale" ( it didn't happen in NC BTW), there is no way he should have thought it would be taken the "wrong way".  The only reason it was taken the wrong was is because Michelle Obama went out and intentionally twisted what he said out of context.  Donna Brazile did the same.  And, most of the media piled on.

    If you happened to watch FOX News reports on this, they actually played the entire video in context and PROVED there was nothing racist in what Bill said.  But, no one else in the media bothered and the Obama campaign deliberately used it to stoke the resentment in the black community against Hillary.

    The Obama campaign, its supporters and surrogates and the media did this to Clinton so many times it was almost laughable.  But, not really, because there was nothing amusing about their deliberate campaign tactic.  

    Obama was able to use this tactic to gain 80% - 90% of the black vote in the primaries.  That was the only reason he was able to win.  Go back through the vote totals and analyze what the results would have been if Clinton had even taken 40% of the black vote.  And, prior to Obama's race-card against Clitnon she was doing much better than 40%.

    Well apparently, Obama isn't going to be allowed to get away with it against McCain.  And yes, I feel a sweet satisfaction about that.

    I am just so thoroughly disgusted (5.00 / 5) (#212)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:20:04 AM EST
    by this whole thing that I hardly know where to begin.

    Barack Obama, in spite of his mixed-race heritage, made a conscious decision to identify as a black man, and even wrote a book about his quest for identity that led to that decision.  I did not read the book, but presumably, he explored not only his black roots, but the white ones, as well.  He's seen life from both sides of the racial divide and should, therefore, have the kind of understanding and grasp of the dynamic that he would not pit those two sides against each other.  But he does it all the time, and he does it not in the spirit of coming together or unity or in furtherance of post-racial progress - he does it for pure political gain.

    I think that stinks, frankly.

    The Obama campaign, in the form of multiple surrogates, stirred this racial pot coming out of an unexpected loss in the New Hampshire primary.  Fearing the possibility that the African-American population of South Carolina might choose to put its support behind Hillary Clinton, who was, together with her husband, tremendously popular in the AA community, the Obama surrogates set out to purposely and quite effectively demonize the Clintons by the same kind of parsing and framing we are seeing now.  

    It worked - at least by shifting allegiance away from Clinton, which probably prevented a second loss early in the primary calendar that could have led to a cascade of losses and the end of the Obama campaign.

    Since Obama has the AA vote in the bag, what's the purpose of warning people that McCain will remind people that Obama does not look like he belongs on the paper currency of this country?  Easy: it's to plant the seed in people's minds that McCain - and the rest of the Republican operation - are racists, and people who reject racism should, therefore, vote for Obama.

    The media and a lot of the blogosphere are playing along as if choreographed, but there's perhaps one thing the Obama campaign has not taken into consideration, and that is that people do not like being cast as something they are not, and rather than prove the negative that they are not racists by voting for Obama, many will express their anger at being backhandedly accused of racism by not voting for the person who lodged the not-so-thinly disguised accusation.

    Someone needs to call Obama on his tactics, if only because the effect of those tactics is to damage the discourse on race and set the course of race relations back decades in the process.

    Obama made use of accusations of racism during the (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by jawbone on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM EST
    Dem Primary--I recall commenters saying that it might work for him in the Dem primaries, as charges of racism are one of the very worst things that can be said about a Dem politician. (I was one of them.)

    The accusations were planted among the MCMers who were only too delighted to accuse the Clintons and their supporters of racism or race baiting.

    Also, simply criticizing Obama was "demeaning" to him, somehow, as a black man, and could be lumped in with the racism charge.

    Back then I believe I noted that it would work among many Dems, but it would not necessarily work in the general among the general populace.

    I think that is now coming into play.


    Accusing your target voters of racism is not a good way of getting them to vote for you.

    I cringed when the Obama campaign and Obama himself played that part of the deck of cards. I predicted it was a terrible thing to do to the Democratic Party, and a terrible thing to do to this society, that it would either debase the impact of the charge of racism or increase it overall.

    But Axelrod saw benefits in turning out the highest possible percentage of pro-Obama primary votes. And it worked.

    I think this may come back to haunt him.

    I belly-roll laughed (5.00 / 5) (#218)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    when I saw the bolded text in the post.  Republicans are defending the Clintons about (anything?).  What an absolute hoot.  Tell me now that we aren't living "thru the looking glass".

    And it isn't schnaudenfreude(sp) but it is satisfaction in knowing that maybe, just maybe, we won't be inundated with

    "a noun, a verb, and 'you're a racist if you criticize me'"

    for the rest of the election cycle and maybe for the next 4-8 years.  Because personally, I think this is just as dangerous to accountability as Bush's 9/11 defense for everything he did.

    But still, a Republican defending the Clintons for any reason is just gut-roll funny..

    McCain vs the media (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    That's what this is about.  Go McCain!  (That might be the last time I say that)
    As for Obama, what goes around comes around.  When you say you want to have a conversation about race in the middle of the most important elections of our life time and then proceed to bash your own voters with that "conversation", it shouldn't be surprising that those voters see the term as a weapon used against them.  No one likes to have their character insulted especially when their voting decisions have absolutely nothing to do with race.  
    Obama crossed the line with a lot of voters on this, BTD, and even Hillary on the ticket wouldn't save Obama from a humiliating defeat in November.  I'm not sure they would vote for him if her were Hillary's running mate.  
    Obama smacked people in the face with race and they will get even in November in the voting booth where no one can call them racists and get away with it.  
    I hate to say it, BTD, but I think you and Jeralyn  lack insight into what makes voters tick.  If Obama was really the People's Choice, Hillary wouldn't have won South Dakota and Puerto Rico that last weekend.  It took all of Obama's voter suppression and psychological warfare and RBC skullduggery to barely squeak by.  Voters know the primaries were stolen.  That's why Obama is sinking in the polls.  He started off with only grudging supporters after the primary and now that Hillary is no longer running interference, the electorate can see what we "shrieking bands of paranoid holdouts" have been saying for months: he's not ready.  
    Whatever models worked in the past are not going to be applicable this year.  We are in a new territory and the person who connects to the voters right now is the one who has the best chance of winning.  If you bring Hillary back, she has a fighting chance.  Obama is through.  He came, he peaked, he's over.  

    I don't really have anything to add (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by NJDem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:30:16 AM EST
    that hasn't already been said.  But when I read that once again the McCain camp is the one defending the Clintons, I thought about JM's expressed love for ABBA

    Personally, I can never vote GOP--even as a protest vote.  But there are many HRC's supporters who he can/will win over by seemingly having their back.  I have to assume that Obama didn't realized how truly a personal insult it is to be wrongly accused of racism.

    One thing a lot of people forget... (5.00 / 6) (#223)
    by Pol C on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    ... is that there are all of two U.S. politicians who have been targeted by racist campaign tactics since Jesse Helms' penultimate reelection campaign in 1990. One is Harold Ford. The other is John McCain. I don't think he'd be too inclined to take that route himself; the crap Rove threw at him in South Carolina in 2000 about his adopted daughter was clearly quite upsetting to him at the time. As near as I can tell, he hasn't done it.

    Criticizing Obama for being "presumptuous" is criticizing him for hubris, the most dangerous and common failing of any political leader. If we can't criticize him for that, we can't criticize him for anything. If the Obama people can turn Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remarks into a racist trope, they can do it with anything. As I indicated in a post on my blog about Digby, all they're doing is trying to sow the seeds of hatred against Obama's critics.

    I hope the McCain people succeed in ending this reflex to speciously call any attack on Obama racist. Maddow, Digby, and others deserve to have this thrown back in their faces. (Atrios deserves something worse.) It's better to have it thrown back in their faces now than have all this crying wolf explode in everyone's face later on. You have to be judicious in making these criticisms, or you'll have people turning a blind eye to the real thing when the time comes.

    The whole thing is a damn shame (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by joanneleon on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:11:42 AM EST
    It's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved on the dem side.  When the Obama camp started playing with the race card stuff, that's when they really lost me in the primary.  It's a serious accusation, severely offensive to people who are not racists, more serious than they ever realized, I think, and it is now going to backfire on them badly.

    I don't see any way out of this mess now, other than for Obama to come out and say that it was gravely wrong to accuse the Clintons (and their supporters) of racism, and for him to quit using race as an issue in this campaign.  This country has clearly shown that people of all races and colors from all political parties will vote for an African-American man for president, via millions of votes and millions of dollars contributed, so he needs to put the issue to bed and get on with the other critical issues of the day.

    McCain Is Right! (4.66 / 9) (#83)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:01:42 AM EST
    Why is anyone surprised? The Obama campaign did the same thing to the Clintons in the primary.

    In the primary, any challenge to Obama's voting record, experience, or constituency was hysterically, and incorrectly, called racist by the Obama campaign and the media. Don't forget that the whites who didn't vote for Obama were called racists, too.

    Of course, the 90+% of blacks who voted for Obama were allowed to do so without any charges of racism. Same for the lunatic rantings of the crazies from Trinity Church; no racists there!

    Good for McCain for calling it out!

    I'm so glad (3.25 / 4) (#184)
    by rottenart on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:01:19 AM EST
    that so many people here are so gleeful over this. I'm glad that so many of you see Obama setting race-relations back fifty years, made it harder to talk to black friends, etc. I guess being the first black nominee isn't anything to be happy about. As with so many other issues discussed at this site, we've found another where no one is willing to parse words and actions for Obama's side. Some of you are even willing to go so far as to HELP Mccain's campaign dig up more mud to throw. Awesome.

    I know so many of you are mad at the way Clinton was treated in the primaries (primarily by the media, I might add) that you have no inclination to get over it and move on. Fine. But the way you're vilifying this man is shameful. You look for any excuse to denigrate him, undermine his campaign, impugn his character, and just flat out insult him and his supporters. I'd agree that some of the more vociferous backers on other blogs and the like probably don't think before they speak. But this anger is a two way street.

    For every Hillary supporter mad at Barack and his surrogates for inferred misogyny, there's one on Obama's side that sees things differently and is angry because of perceived racism.

    It just seems no one is willing to see the other side. No one is willing to admit that what Bill Clinton said in NC might be taken the wrong way. And if that's not the case, then why were so many people upset by it?

    My point is that it's fine to criticize where it's merited. but I think many comments here have crossed the line into pure maliciousness. And so many people are bound and determined to see events through their own narrow lens, that they use it as justification.

    I'm willing to hear the other side (5.00 / 5) (#193)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    In fact I have heard the other side. No one has satisfactorily explained how calling Obama's claims to have always been against the war a 'fairy tale' is a racist comment.

    Whenever I have asked for (5.00 / 6) (#213)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    an explanation about this, the answer I get is silence.  Probably because there is no answer.  Brazille, Michelle Obama and the media pushed this lie and got away with it.  

    I watched Senator Clinton take on Russert when he tried to play that spin.  She asked him to show the entire clip.  It was clear, it was perfectly clear that Bill Clinton NEVER said or in any way implied a black man running for president was a fairy tale.  It was a blatant LIE.   He said, and I heard it, that Obama's spinning of his views on the war were a fairy tale.  Obama DID SAY at one point that he agreed with the president.  Bill knew it.  Anyone who was up on politics knew it.  

    As well, no one who supported Jesse Jackson's run for president, thought comparing Obama's run to Jesse's was in any way an INSULT.  Of course statisticians will compare them because race is an issue and we all know it.  Just like some day when another woman runs for president she will be compared to Hillary BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH WOMEN.  Just like Clinton was compared to Carter because they were both white male governors from the deep south.  Statistics are based on those things that are in common and those things that are variables.
    If a black woman runs a successful race someday she will be compared to both Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Racist? Sexist?  Both?  Or just statistics and trying to understand the impact of race and/or gender on voters.

    I will forever resent the closed minded, hateful attitude of some of the Obama supporters toward the Clintons and their supporters.


    I didn't say it was racist and neither did Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by rottenart on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:22:29 AM EST
    I said some took it the wrong way. And no one is willing to give that any credence. Obama never mentioned race in his response; he addressed the statement in the proper context.

    The comment was not racist, but the fact that so many people were offended is proof that it was seen the wrong way, and that's when the justification for the "RACE CARD!!!!" stuff comes in. The same with the MLK/Lyndon Johnson remark from Sen. Clinton. It was not meant in a racist way and Obama didn't say that it was, but plenty of people DID. And then he gets blamed for the whole kerfuffle.

    Call it hyper-sensitivity, call it über-PC-ness, whatever. I can't profess to know what it's like to hear these things as a black person. I imagine I'd be hyper-sensitive too. My point, is that so many are willing to draw out the knives as soon as any remark is taken the wrong way, and drive them into Obama. It's ridiculous.

    And, frankly, you can parse all you want, but Obama has not called this latest commercial racist either. That's all been the talking heads (the crappy ones, not the greatest band in the world).


    I Feel Your Pain (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:10:25 AM EST
    There are some that go over the top.  But the events over the last few days tore into old wounds.  If Obama's supporters want the rest of us to "get over it" then they should immediatel cease the absurd rasism charges.  Some of us are sick to death of seeing this used time and time again.  There are many issues that Obama trumps McCain on, energy for example. What not educate us on these issues, rather than beat the 'race' mule all the time?

    I've waited 8 years for this election, and I want to win it in the worst way.  But I don't want to win it like that.


    That Hillary's supporters (5.00 / 4) (#216)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    are primarily angry at the media is not true. We are equally as angry at the DNC and Obama and his campaign. It may be more comfortable for the DNC to believe that the schism is more the fault of the media, however.

    I could be happier about it (5.00 / 4) (#224)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    I guess being the first black nominee isn't anything to be happy about.

    If the first black presumptive nominee were someone who doesn't use race-baiting as a political tactic.

    Karma, it has been pointed out, is a b!tch. You really can't fault people for feeling vindicated that many people are finally catching on to the disgusting tactic that served Obama so well in the primary when he used it against a fellow Democrat and the only two-term former Dem president we've got.

    Personally, I'm glad it's finally backfiring on him. Among the many reasons I don't want a President Obama is that I don't want to live through four years of walking on eggshells and having yet another president who accused every critic of racism, just like Bush accused every critic of not being patriotic.

    McCain actually has inoculation against being called a racist. All he has to say is, "Let me show you a picture of my family."


    Just a quick addendum (none / 0) (#194)
    by rottenart on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:05:51 AM EST
    It's going to be fun to see all the armchair analysts eat their hats when none of their predictions come true.

    "Shattered the chances for the GE"

    "Destroyed the party for the future"

    "The American people simply won't stand for ___"

    I'm getting my popcorn ready.


    We'll see how it shakes out. But my gut (none / 0) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:46:33 AM EST
    feeling (which has been wrong plenty of times before) says that an old white guy screaming "race baiter, race baiter" about a black guy might not be that effective.

    I disagree (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:53:37 AM EST
    When McCain points to the same tactics used by Obama against President Clinton and people remember the Media Driven Firestorm around that, they'll think 'hey, wait a minute.  I DO remember him doing that' and Obama becomes a little less New Politics and little more Do and Say Anything To Win.  In other words, just another politician.

    Which, of course, runs completely counter to his Hope and Change message.  Anything to raise doubts about Obama -- as well as nip in the bud his top tactic for getting people to vote for him --, McCain will do.


    BUT it's true - Obama is race baiting. (5.00 / 12) (#19)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:04:38 AM EST
    He couches many of his statements in terms like "People like me" - even his really stupid comment about "not being like the Presidents on our currency" was framed that way (and no, I do NOT, for one second believe the c%ap his WORM spokesperson said to "explain" what he meant).

    The Obama camapign is using racial fear in their campaign.  And while I know that there are racists out there - not everyone who is against Obama is a racist.

    I'm not a racist (isn't it stupid I even have to say that?) and I will not vote for him simply because he is totally unqualified.


    Alexander Hamilton is the most handsome (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:37:25 AM EST
    And his background is British West Indies. Obama should read the early years of history of this man and realize that his beginnings were a struggle worse than he had. There are only two men on paper money who were not President. Franklin, who was a founding father and Hamilton who was the first Secretary of the Treasury.

    It seems to me... (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:05:46 AM EST
    ... that the last thing Obama would want to do is take a position that allows McCain to attack him for his campaign's treatment of the Clintons. You don't want to make it easy for McCain to appeal to Hillary voters without actually having to make any policy-based shifts.

    Effective with whom? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:49:15 AM EST
    What Obama needs is a little bit of that Media Darling magic.

    not to worry (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nell on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:08:17 AM EST
    he still is the darling. ndrea mitchell earned an obama paycheck during her interview with the mccain rep, who was forceful and ruthless in response. the media still loves obama, now te question is whether the repubs can effectively tur that against him.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#104)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:15:30 AM EST
    No surprise there

    Just this morning.... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Moishele on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:18:42 AM EST
    CNN ran the story with no mention of Obama's remarks as to how 'they' will bring up that he doesn't look like the guys on our paper money or coins, and no mention of the Obama campaign's lame excuse that he was referring to the age of those guys when they were elected. They did however spend a few minutes rehashing the John McCain illegitimate black baby rumors from 2000. Sounds like they got their copy of the Obama talking points.

    Disgraceful. Really. (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:28:20 AM EST
    But, you know, I found W's campaign slur against McCain to be so horrific that McCain actually rose a few points in my esteem.  Maybe it will help him again.

    You missed Dobbs on CNN (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:08:48 AM EST
    and he was devastating on this, showing all the dead presidents and others on dollar bills vs. a bill with Obama photoshopped on it. . . .

    And you missed Roland Martin and David Gergen and other Obama fans saying he went too far with this one.  Not as funny as the Dobbs bit but probably more damaging from the pro-Obama pundits.


    Yes, I'll admit to not being particularly (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:55:24 AM EST
    tuned into the thoughts and attitudes of voters in Ohio or Michigan, for example. I just know that even though I really dislike Obama, I find the idea of a Republican attacking him for race baiting silly. Republicans have been champs at that for about 40 years.

    Well (4.63 / 11) (#29)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:15:17 AM EST
    Funny you should mention Michigan.

    I grew up in Detroit and I watched a corrupt black guy win reelection as mayor for about 20 years with race-baiting tactics.

    So yeah, anyone who has been exposed to that particular brand of racial politics is going to understand the paradigm.

    We're not in the Democratic primary any more, where everyone agrees that Republicans are race-baiting dirty tricks specialists.  You and I may not expect anything better from John McCain than the typical Karl Rove/Lee Atwater playbook, but that's not the brand he has with the general public.


    What will Bill do? (none / 0) (#40)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:25:37 AM EST
    The only saving grace here is that it's possible that by hitching his fortunes to Bill Clinton (who'd have thought it) John McCain may piss him off enough to get some serious push back from Bill.

    This takes us back (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:27:22 AM EST
    to the old "KMA" story, which may or may not be true, of course.

    I have a feeling Bill is going to be really, really reluctant to help out Obama on this particular issue.


    I dunno. . . (none / 0) (#50)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    I like to think better of him than that.  Sure, I'd let Obama sink or swim on his own, but Clinton is a Party man.

    And, really, I'm not sure which is more of a redemption for him -- seeing if the idea gets accepted that the allegations of racism were standard Obama campaign fare and therefore not valid, or standing up for Obama in such a way that many people may come to believe that okay, the Republicans may be racists but obviously Clinton never was.

    Frankly, the first course, while it may see some kind of vindication in the press and the readership at the liberal blogs is not going to vindicate him in the eyes of the black community.  Just the opposite, probably.


    Redemption? (5.00 / 13) (#58)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:39:11 AM EST
    IMO, it is not Bill Clinton who needs redemption, it is Jim Clyburn, Jesse Jackson Jr., Donna Brazile and the other who shamelessly smeared the Clintons as racists. Let them worry about redeeming themselves.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:39:34 AM EST
    There are plenty of other issues that Bill Clinton can stand up for Obama on.  If you believe that story, he tends to take this one rather personally.

    I'm perennially amazed by the things that politicians are able to just shrug off, though.  I mean, if you're Hillary Clinton, would you ever have anything to do with John McCain again after he made that "joke" about your daughter?  Pols are strange creatures.


    The black community? Really? (5.00 / 6) (#203)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    Have you looked at the polls?  The majority by far still like the Clintons just fine.  

    This game by Obama is playing white liberal guilt.


    McCain has always been friendly with/toward (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:30:27 AM EST
    both of the Clintons.  Unlike Obama and Friends.  I hope Bill's KMA story was, and still is, true.

    nothing (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by nell on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:33:23 AM EST
    bill will do nothing about this and continue travelling around africa, though he must be smiling inside...at most he may be foced to release a 27 word statement...

    I agree with steve m, obama was wrong and offensive on thi issue and I hope the mccain camp wins this for hillary and bill (and I also have no doubt it would have been used agains hill if she were the nominee even though it was all the o campaigns making...)


    I am glad this site is supporting Obama (none / 0) (#88)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:04:25 AM EST
    I would hate to see the posts if it was not

    Well, to each her own (5.00 / 10) (#99)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:14:00 AM EST
    I am glad this site is honestly discussing the election, the campaigns, and policies. Otherwise, it would probably look like boomantribune or dailykos or huffingtonpost. And those sites are dishonest and vapid to me in their blind alliance to the candidate no matter what.

    The internets are really big and there are plenty of sites to suit all tastes, no?


    In case you missed it (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    You are permantly banned from my threads.

    Do not comment in them ever again. All your further comments will be deleted.


    It would probably look something like (none / 0) (#90)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:15:15 AM EST
    So you perceive no difference between the Right making an argument, and BTD saying "Obama, through his conduct, has opened the door for the Right to make this argument"?  Well, I do.

    You are permanentlty banned (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:26:21 AM EST
    from my threads.

    Do not post again in my threads. All your further comments will be deleted.

    You are free to post in Jeralyn and TChris's threads.

    There will be no firther discussion or replies to riddlandy's comments.

    This subthread is closed.


    Ahhhhh (none / 0) (#159)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:48:22 AM EST
    Now that was the sarcastic humor I needed before heading off to work. It's hard to tell at times whether Dems root for themselves to lose so they can play the martyr role. Woe is me, we'll never win. If we do win, it won't matter nothing will change.

    Maybe it would make a good crossover college course with the dual discipline of political science and psychology. "How to Survive an Election Year: Self Imposed Depression and the Democratic Party."


    You won't see comments like that in my posts (none / 0) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:51:46 AM EST
    ever again. Watch your step.

    Might I add... (none / 0) (#117)
    by wasabi on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    Ferret out the career cronies placed in the Justice Department and other agencies by "overzealous" hiring managers.

    Why do you want to SERVE George W. Bush?

    personally (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:26:06 AM EST
    I would like to serve Bush on a large platter.  with an apple in him mouth.
    the point we are making is that we think Obama is Bush 2 and we would not be that distraught to see him lose and try again with a real democrat.

    The post is absurd (none / 0) (#142)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:33:30 AM EST
    but not as absurd as the idea that having Clinton on the ticket would "fix" this. I'm not balking at having Clinton on the ticket, but I just don't see how it would affect this issue.

    If you have nothing of substance to add (none / 0) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 09:50:20 AM EST
    I would appreciate your not participating in this thread.

    Cannondaddy said it all (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    It's quite absurd.  McCain gets eviscerated for making a 'racist' ad, which was not racist in any form.  The attacks are carbon copies of the race-baiting used during the Democratic primary contests.  And now, McCain is the race baiter?  This is a losing strategy, IMO.  The "post racial" candidate should just keep race out of it.

    Wall Street (none / 0) (#190)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    is one of Obama's biggest contributors.

    Lots Of Red Meat (none / 0) (#211)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:19:34 AM EST
    But I do not think that Obama's calling race card on Clinton, precluded him from (or his surrogates) from calling the race card this time against McCain.

    The attack was designed, in part, to invite Obama to call the race card, and the attack was done so well that the McCain camp could easily call BS.

    I am with digby on this one. Obama's cannot call the race card. It is quicksand for him.

    The Obama campaign won't make that mistake again, I'm sure. And I'm sure many people are happy to know that race will be off the table and McCain can dogwhistle his way in to office without any push back from anyone. Excellent work.


     Mum's the word on the racism thing. Nothing more will be said on the subject. It doesn't exist in this campaign. But the good news is that we do have permission to push back on the "Democrats are fags" stuff, which apparently has just been noticed by the members of the press....


    "Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they're using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign, and those are the issues he'll continue to talk about."


    BTD (none / 0) (#226)
    by liberalone on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    BTD, I do not understand your post, primarily because I do not believe that Obama was calling McCain a racist.  The exact quote was:

    "Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

    Yes, it references race.  Yes, it references the reality that racial politics are alive and well.

    If you are saying that he cannot mention that some will attempt to use race to suggest they should not vote for him, you are wrong.  IMHO, acknowledging the realities of race in America is not the same as calling someone racist.

    I am simply not understanding this inability to discuss race or gender without feeling that someone is calling one a sexist or a racist.

    Hillary Clinton as VP (none / 0) (#227)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    David Gergen agrees with you that Clinton as VP would be a good choice.

    He said so yesterday on CNN. I am practically salivating at the idea of Hil being Obama's attack dog.

    I think it's time to tune out, since no one actually thinks it will happen and I am likely to be dissappointed.

    This one I agree with you on (none / 0) (#228)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:50:50 AM EST
    The Clintons are not racist in any way. That was a complete farce.

    I don't think McCain is either, but I KNOW he and his ilk are ready to take advantage of existing racism in America to gain the presidency.

    Attacking McCain, and actually Clinton for racism is a sort of reverse surrogateism. Obama cannot attack to country for it's racism without seeming unpatriotic or mean (attacking common Americans), so he attacks his opponents- i.e., those who are the beneficiaries of people who won't vote for him because of their racism.

    Will it work? I don't know. His particular comments are inviting people to get past their fears. It's McCain's hyperventilating outrage that is making it more.

    McCain a Racist? (none / 0) (#229)
    by conundrum on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    Today is the first I have seen of the material contained in an editorial on Capitol Hill Blue, written by Doug Thompson, a former Republican chief of staff--meaning I don't have verification of what he writes.

    Thompson writes:

    "As a Capitol Hill chief of staff, I often drank at Bullfeathers and was invited to join the throng at McCain's table one evening. A few minutes listening to the racism, bigotry and homophobia of the Arizona Congressman told me all I needed to know."

    Thompson's editorial gives specific examples.  Read the entire article at http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/10086.

    Racism (none / 0) (#230)
    by Amaliada on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 06:22:48 PM EST
    Sometimes it is in the eyes of the ones feeling the pain.  I did not feel the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad was about celebrities who have little or no talent/experience (actually both women have been called accomplished singers, not my type of music so I wouldn't know) and therefore a comparison could be made against Obama as a candidate with little or no talent or experience.

    What I do know of both Ms. Spears and Ms. Hilton is that both are known for being loose women.  We first learned about Ms. Hilton when a video of her having sex with a boyfriend was released on the Internet and there were lots and lots of photos of Ms. Spears in various stages of undress also on the Internet.  So to me, it seemed more that a statement was being made (ala Harold Ford and the Tennessee Senate race) about Senator Obama and these women was sexual in nature and that, in these United States, is racial.