The Fairy Tale Revisited Part 3

Digby highlighted Bob Somerby's piece about how the race issue is cutting against Obama. I was struck by Somerby's quote of Bob Herbert:

HERBERT (8/2/08): Whatever you think about Barack Obama, he does not want the race issue to be front and center in this campaign. Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain. So I guess we understand Mr. McCain’s motivation [in saying Obama “played the race card.”]

We’ll stay away from definitive judgments about McCain’s motivation. But we agree, whole-heartedly, that race is dangerous for Candidate Obama . . .

It is obvious of course but Somerby and Digby and frankly, all commenters have decided to forget what happened in January 2008 in the Democratic Party, when "everyday the campaign was about race" was GOOD for Obama. As we know, Bill Clinton has not forgotten. On February 14, 2008, I wrote a post titled Turning Obama Into The Black Candidate:

Race baiting and express threats to their office from the co-chair of the Obama campaign [Jesse Jackson, Jr.] is not only incredibly unseemly and divisive, it HURTS Obama. Yes, it hurts Obama by making him the "black candidate." I condemned Bill Clinton for trying to do this after South Carolina with his comparisons of Obama to Jesse Jackson. But now it seems Obama's campaign is fully embracing this approach.

This is ugly stuff, as ugly as I have seen in this campaign. Obama needs to disavow Jackson's actions. Indeed, it seems time for Jackson, Jr. to step down after this. This is truly ugly.

The Obama camp's refusal to distance itself from the likes of Jackson, Jr. and Jim Clyburn is now costing him. When Bob Herbert, Gene Robinson and half the Media, and all the A-List bloggers decided that intimating that Bill and Hillary Clinton were using racist tactics was acceptable, they helped to place the Obama campaign in the predicament it is now in on the race issue. And it need not have happened imo. Clyburn's behavior in particular was utterly unnecessary. I personally believe Obama would have swept South Carolina and the African American vote no matter what. There was no need to tear down Bill and Hillary Clinton to achieve this.

So today, Obama deals with two consequences from the actions of some of his supporters, in the campaign, the Media and on the blogs: First, as Digby puts it:

[I]n this general election, it certainly can only hurt Obama to bring race front and center. He has to play by the Jackie Robinson Rules --- and it's pretty clear that he, if not some of his supporters and surrogates, gets that.
(Emphasis mine.) Second, Obama has also been robbed of the ability to brag on the economic accomplishments of the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Paul Krugman wonders why Obama does not associate himself with the economic accomplishments of the Clinton Administration and why he does not tie McCain to the economic failures of the Bush Administration:

Obama’s big economy speech, last week:

Back in the 1990s, your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000.

“Back in the 90s?” Why not, “When a Democrat was president?” “Over the last several years?” Why not, “under Bush?”

A prominent Democratic Hillary supporter once told me that Obama gives him “post-partisan depression.” Indeed — his apparent unwillingness to take such clear shots is starting to seem bizarre.

At this point, it no longer seems bizarre to me. Obama burned his bridges with the Clinton legacy. The funny thing is that the easy obvious way to rebuild the bridge is staring him in the face, and he will not do it - name Hillary Clinton as his VP. This would help him in so many ways, that the decision is a no brainer. But it seems Obama is intent on burying the Clintons forever, even if it puts his own election in jeopardy.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The "Authentic Liberal" | Bush's Third Term >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    All I get from this (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:37:38 AM EST
    in my own severely limitted and pathetic way is this:  mulling over Clinton's motivations is easier for some to do than mulling over McCain's motivations.

    We seem to have, as good Democrats, definitive ideas about one and not the other.

    In a way, I think it is all true that some chickens are coming home to roost on this issue.  And they will be coming home for a long time.

    It's great to be able to see that.

    But I still don't see a difference between someone who aggressively calls Bill a racist and anyone who implies nasty things about his intentions.

    It all creates the same sort of negativity in the end.

    The net result is a damaged party.

    This is going to be the theme of 2008 (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:39:46 AM EST
    I think Obama can lose this election - his numbers are sliding and if McCain wins this, the question most pollsters are going to ask is everyone's favorite from the primaries, "Did race play a role in your voting decision?"

    When people answer "yes", there will be no follow-up to ask "HOW did it play a role?" and the narrative will be that people who did not vote for Obama are racists.

    So, the Dems won't really learn anything, they will just blame the voters.

    That is what I hear (5.00 / 7) (#123)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    from everyone at work - they don't want 8 years of having everything being looked at for racist intent.

    Most of us agree there is racism in the country.  Most of us also have pretty good radar for fair and unfair charges of it. Charging it unfairly just makes it harder to prove the fair charges.


    Yes, when your only narrative is (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Nike on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    X (Bill Clinton, Hillary, voters in Appalachia, white women, typical white people, working class voters, etc) isn't voting for me, therefore X is a racist, then you don't have any strategy for approaching or getting to common ground with anyone who is not just like you, however you understand that. There is no space for a learning curve if you shut down any way of understanding or appreciating the multiple and complex reasons people want or need to vote for a candidate or a party.

    Obama allowed, probably encouraged, and certainly did not disavow nasty racial politics (from media people like Eugene, Donna, Keith as well as from surrogates like Jackson, Wright, and Clyburn). For me, it is a real leadership issue.


    I think that the key here is.... (4.80 / 20) (#32)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:10:31 AM EST
    not that voters are "racist", rather that they won't want to spend the next four years (as Jim Clyburn would put it) "watching what they say" lest their statement is used for a round of Obama Golf.*

    *Obama golf is the game of taking any word or statement and making it racist.  For instance, the word "goat"

    1. Obama is young.
    2. A young goat is a kid
    3. A male child is referred to as both "kid" and "boy"
    4. "Boy" is a racist term, so anyone who mentions the word "goat" while discussing obama is sending coded messages...

    You're good and (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:29:44 AM EST
    I believe you have nailed this with "Obama golf".

    Obama Golf.... (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    as much as I'd like to take credit for Obama Golf, it was created by a myiq2xu over at Corrente...

    Glimpse into the future (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by OxyCon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    Sometime during the year 2010

    Eugene Robinson: "The Republicans will not vote for President Obama's energy bill because they are racists!"

    Bob Herbert: Senator __ is a racist because he/she (fill in the blank) to President Obama.

    Keith Obamamann: (President Obama's approval rating is only 35%, which can only mean one thing...65% of the country is racist.

    *this is satire. I do not mean to libel the above mentioned tremendous journalists.

    **sounds like a great way to spend the next four years, right?


    I Heard David Gergen (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    say last night that calling Obama "The One" was racist becuase it was a code for "Uppity"  I once had respect for this man.  Now he joins a long and growing list of former analysts truned race baiters.

    Wait... (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by A little night musing on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:02:38 AM EST
    Wasn't it Oprah who started calling him "the one"?

    Oprah using a racist dog-whistle? Who knew? [/snark]


    And who knew the "Obama Girl" (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    was dogwhistling and singing at the same time?

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#108)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:06:55 AM EST
    I was unsuccessfully searching for it.

    I always thought "The One"... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Pol C on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    ...was an allusion to The Matrix to make Obama seem hip.

    HA! Obama Golf (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Roz on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:52:59 AM EST
    What a great parlor game. I can see it taking the nation by storm. It can be a solution to our energy crisis. Forget those tire gauges. Did you know you can save as much energy by staying indoors playing Obama Golf in the dark 3 times a week as you can by drilling off shore.

    A good drinking game, too. Dems can drown their sorrows over a game of Obama Golf in November.

    I'm running off to the patent office right now.


    Aces (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Pol C on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    I'm not one for posting praise when a 5-rating will do, particularly when it means burning a little more of what I know is a hot thread, but "Obama golf" is terrific, whether it's from you or myiq2x-whatever. (No disrepect, m, but I can't see the greater comment thread on the posting page, and your handle isn't the easiest to remember.)

    i don't intent to change my language for (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    any politican. i'll abide by the requested word use here as this the bloggers here's right and i am sure they feel they need to do so at times. but other than that i try and be respectful. but i won't be intimidated and pushed around. the thing is most people feel this way. they are worried about their future and not obama's ongoing issues.

    Purging Bill and Hillary from the party (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    seems to be the primary goal of many of many of Obama's supporters.

    If he made her his VP he loses a big chunk of his base.

    whos fault is that? (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    Hillarys, right?

    Obama Painted Himslef Into A Corner (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:03:55 AM EST
    Running as a 'new' kind of candidate, he had to divorce himself from the Clinton legacy to pander to the 'change' crowd.  His strength as a candidate hinged largely on winning the anti-clintonites.  To go back now would be to contridict his entire platform. He's on his own now.

    HOHO - he's on his own. (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    It didn't have to be that way.  He chose it.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#144)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    Agreed (none / 0) (#21)
    by A little night musing on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    I just kind of posted the same comment (below), but not as succinct!

    He would not lose any part of his base (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:57:48 AM EST
    by selecting Hillary.  He only gains by selecting her.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:03:13 AM EST
    its not clear how much but he would lose some.  and that is no ones fault but his for doing the hatchet job on the Clintons.

    The amount of Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    he would lose is insignificant to the number of Hillary supporters he'd retain.

    that may be true (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    it may not be true.  I dont think anyone knows.  but he would lose some support.  I think that is absolutely undeniable.  I also think how much Hillary support he would get in a way depends on how  he does it.  if he waits until it is clear it is his only choice to win it will be seen as exactly that, we are not stupid in spite of what the Obamans think, and it wont help him much.

    At this point... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    having the first female VP is still a great accomplishment.  I would hope other HRC supporters like myself would see that.

    Oh, it's not even about first female anymore... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:21:58 AM EST
    I trust Hillary. I want her in that WH.  I can't imagine anyone more qualified.

    I am an avid, some would say rabid, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    Hillary supporter.  at this point it is probably the only way he will get my vote.  Im just passing on what I pick up from the Hillary haters around me.

    But You Made A Great Point (none / 0) (#56)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:28:42 AM EST
    that sooner is better than later.

    I'll agree with that... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    and despite all rational evidence to the contrary, I still have hope she'll be VP.

    I have been saying (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:32:22 AM EST
    that as his numbers drop the likely hood of Hillary being picked as VP goes up.
    he care about one thing more than any other.  winning.
    and he has shown repeatedly he is big enough to  change  his mind if he needs to.

    If he cared about winning (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:34:15 AM EST
    more than anything, he'd have already picked her.  He seems to care about burying the Clintons most of all.

    I think buyring the Clintons may be (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST
    a close second.  but winning is still number one.
    and he has not chosen her yet because everyone was telling him he did not have to.  that he could win without those dirty Clintons.
    reality is beginning to intrude.

    But no one is arguing anymore (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    that Hillary doesn't seal the deal.  If winning was his top priority, frankly it should be, he'd have already picked her.

    I think you are simply (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:48:08 AM EST
    underestimating his arrogance.
    this business with the seal and the world tour, that was not to make us think he was going to win.  it was because THEY think they are going to win.  there is (or has been until recently) there WAS absolutley no doubt in their minds.
    forget measuring the drapes.  he is talking about ripping out the bowling alley and putting a roundball court.
    many of not most of his die hard supporters sincerely can not imagine a world in which he loses. and I think he can not either.
    sadly for them such a cruel world does indeed exist.

    I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    if putting her on the ticket is a sure-fire road to the White House.

    A lot of cruel things were said about her during the Primary, most of it from Obama's campaign and his most ardent supporters in the media.  Rarely did he come to her defense or apologize.

    You don't think the Republicans aren't going to trumpet all of that from the mountaintop if he picks her?  And how would Barack explain his being MIA while the Clintons were trashed again and again?  And now he's running with her?  I suspect most Americans would view that as unseemly and opportunistic.

    The revisiting of every cruel thing said against her (which most women took personally) via Obama and the Media will fracture the Dem Party worse than it is as well as inform (or remind) people about how slimy Obama really was during the Primary.  

    It would also remind people of how strong a candidate Hillary was which will, of course, lead us -- via the Republicans taking us down memory lane -- right back to the DNC RBC meeting.

    I don't think Hillary wants it and certainly not with Obama.  She's willing to wait and work and solidify this new Fighting For You Brand she has and run in 2012 to unseat McCain who WILL be, by that time, Bush III.


    Will be? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    "She's willing to wait and work and solidify this new Fighting For You Brand she has and run in 2012 to unseat McCain who WILL be, by that time, Bush III."

    He already is bush III.


    obama seems more bushIII than mccain (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:04:50 AM EST
    in my opinion...he has spent alot of time letting people know how much he thinks of reagan, etc.  The only acceptable ticket with Clinton and obama on it is with Hillary at the top of the ticket.  Everyday it becomes more painfully obvious obama is not ready to be prez.

    Obama's not a warmonger... (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Pol C on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:40:57 AM EST
    ...but everything about Bush's personality that I find grating is present in Obama a good deal of the time, like the tendency towards self-aggrandizement at the expense of all else, the smug sense of entitlement, and the attitude that everyone who doesn't line up behind him is beneath contempt.

    As a Hillary supporter... (1.50 / 2) (#157)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:45:22 AM EST
    and republican hater, Im not here to defend Obama but to attack McSame.

    really? pakistan comes to mind. (none / 0) (#195)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    100 years in Iraq... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    and "bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" sounds more like bush than anything.

    And at some point, that maybe exactly (none / 0) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:20:11 AM EST
    what happens if it is necessary...thanks for playing.

    Conjecture (none / 0) (#130)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    Whatever... (none / 0) (#137)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:29:20 AM EST
    That was my thought... (1.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    since in your "response" you didnt actually disagree with my post.  And you dont have to thank me for playing the game; I always enjoy winning, which is thanks enough.

    As I said...."whatever" (none / 0) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    Hasnt recess ended yet? (2.66 / 3) (#165)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:55:24 AM EST
    Gee aren't you clever, but just what I would (4.00 / 3) (#167)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:59:51 AM EST
    expect from an "I am here to attack McSame" guy/girl/whatever.  Carry on...



    Whatever... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    He has never made a tough decision before (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by catfish on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    In profiles he talks about "perfection" a lot, as though it's achievable. That was a red flag.

    The veep choice, no matter who he chooses, will piss off a lot of people. He's never been in this position before. Ever.


    I don't think (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:48:40 AM EST
    Obama would *EVER* adopt the notion that his best chance of winning is with Hillary.

    That isn't going to happen.  And I think it's a done deal that she's off the list, hence Prez Clinton's statement yesterday.  


    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:52:49 AM EST
    the Clintons have read the political writing on the wall and are positioning themselves for 2012.  

    I also get the sense there are a lot of people quietly, under-the-radar apologizing to the Clintons and getting back in their good graces.  They've seen the Obama Light at the end of the tunnel and have realized it's a Pres McCain train barreling towards them.



    I dont really disagree (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:54:42 AM EST
    but I think Bill may have been a bit off the reservation with those comments.  he is a very smart guy.  I dont think he wants Hillary associated with this ticket.
    just MO.

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by sj on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    It's CW that all he cares about is winning, but I don't think that's exactly true.  If that's all he cared about, he would have accepted the machinations of the DNC and then promptly selected Hillary as his VP thereby sucking up all her voters.  But he didn't.

    I think he cares more about proving his point than he does about winning.  That's why he's finding it so hard to pivot.  He just can't bring himself to believe that he may have been mistaken.  

    He's so convinced of the rightness of his viewpoint and so oblivious to the concerns of the voters, that I swear, in my minds eye I often see him in a powdered wig, taking a pinch of snuff while Paris riots.

    He wants to win while being right.


    I think he and his (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by tree on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:29:01 PM EST
    campaign have fallen for their own campaign rhetoric, and they can't get up.

    part of me (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:01:17 AM EST
    hopes you are right

    "Big enough to (none / 0) (#124)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:19:07 AM EST
    change his mind" or something else?  Easily caves to pressure?  Or...flip flops....or...

    I was being uncharacteristically (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:25:11 AM EST

    Talking about McSame here? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    Because those descriptions easily fit the republican.

    And, these descriptions also (none / 0) (#192)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:24:49 PM EST
    easily fit the dem.

    Didnt say otherwise... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    my point is that, if youre going to throw around these words you should acknowledge theyre true for both candidates.

    right, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:10:43 AM EST
    because his die hard supporters can threaten clinton supporters with the supreme court, but it doesn't apply to them.....

    The but, at least he's better than McCain campaign slogan only applies to clinton supporters, not the Obama supporters....


    Don't give him excuses. (none / 0) (#20)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    Hillary is a winning proposition for him.

    on balance, completely (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    IMO it is his only hope of winning.  but if he picked her left blogistan would go up in flames dont kid yourself.

    The Left blogistan is irrelevant. (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM EST
    If it weren't, he wouldn't be on the cusp of choosing Bayh.

    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#49)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:22:53 AM EST
    While their numbers are irrelevant, the huge chunk of cash he can get from them for the general election isn't.  He's trapped himself in servitude to a new "special interest!"

    Um, no... (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    He stands to gain a lot more cash from the Hillary supporters than any he would lose from those disaffected by her.

    I disagree... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:10:21 AM EST
    the Left blogs are too into the McSame mindset to really go against Obama or sit this one out.

    I agree, his base will find excuses for his (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by kimsaw on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    betrayal, they always do. After all he is "The One".

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:17:38 AM EST
    they will excuse anything but Hillary.
    Nunn fine, Hagel fine.  Hillary duck and cover.
    just MO.

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    then we'd be even, wouldn't we?

    Disdain and disappointment for everyone.

    Game. Set. Match.


    IMO there is no way Hillary would go on the (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:51:38 AM EST
    ticket with him -- even if he got down on his knees and begged her.

    I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:56:14 AM EST
    I think she will accept if asked.  I think she's displayed sufficient ability to suppress her ego and her misgivings for the good of the party and the country.  I'm even sure she'll campaign for Obama-Bayh if asked.

    But I don't expect that to be relevant, because I don't expect her to be asked.


    hmm, i think in the end the purgers' power (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    will be diminshed.

    Then, I need to find a new Party... (5.00 / 15) (#4)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:45:08 AM EST
    I liked the Clinton years.  I was the child of a single mother.  My life dramatically improved in those years.  Good times.  Bill Clinton was the first presidential ballot I cast ('96).  I was proud of Hillary Clinton.  She was role model for me.  When she won her Senate bid in '00, I high-fived my sister and remember thinking this woman is going to be our first woman President.  If this Party is intent on burying the Clinton's, I don't fit in.

    I don't fit in either if (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:06:04 AM EST
    ... this Party is intent on burying the Clinton's ...

    we are the party too (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:38:45 AM EST
    dont let them tell you other wise.

    i won't let pelosi, reid, dean, and that woman (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:08:56 PM EST
    named brazile tell me anything. i have lost all trust and any hope they'll ever represent me or the welfare of those i care about at all. the democratic party is bigger than them. THEY ARE NOT THE PARTY, THEY JUST SUFFER FROM THAT ILLUSION.

    BTD: am I a political know nothing - (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    but why are the Clintons so disliked?  What have I missed?  Any powerful person makes enemies - but why are some Dems joining the Republican machine here?  How does this get us a health care plan for instance?

    This am on Morning Joe - again a Clinton bashing half hour (with Harold Ford Jr. making a weak, attenuated effort to stem the utter contempt) - what have I missed?  anyone care to give me a tutorial?

    I for one can't forget Sen. Obama praising Reagan and dissing Clinton - why does he want to stomp the Clinton team?  

    As to my personal stake - I'm still partially living modestly but better than many because of my 401(k) from that presidency.  

    As I mention to my friends who adore Obama - Former President Clinton came from modest means as well - I know - he's white - but there is some credit to be given here.  Frankly, I'm asea.


    you give a major reason that I switched to (5.00 / 9) (#73)
    by kempis on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:43:42 AM EST

    Regarding Herbert, he's lost it. I posted this on another thread, but Herbert sounded like a complete nutcase on "Morning Joe" yesterday, railing against the use of "two phallic images" in the Brittney/Paris ad to subliminally suggest a sexual connection between Barack and those two white women. Clearly, he said, there was no reason to impose images of the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pisa. And he'd be right if that's what the ad did. Unfortunately, Herbert can't distinguish between them and the Victory Tower in Germany--which was what the ad shows, and quite naturally since it uses footage from Obama's "rockstar" performance there.

    It's sad. He's really gone off the deep end. And others are just letting him go.



    It is sad (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    Herbert has been a very good and sane voice on trafficking of women for sex.

    Isn't it Nick Kristoff (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    that's been reporting on sex trafficking?

    I can't believe Herbert said that Spears and Hilton were "phallic images". That's embarrassingly stupid on his part.


    Kristoff (none / 0) (#162)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    reports on sex trafficking like he discovered it all by himself and nobody knew nothin' or did nothin' till St. Nick showed 'em the way.

    Herbert reported on it like there's been an active and engaged feminist movement working against it for decades.  Which there has.


    let's not forget how they behaved. (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    they lost our trust. let's look for new writers and representatives to trust.

    The interesting inclusion (2.00 / 2) (#105)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:06:04 AM EST
    of those phallic symbols in the ad was something the experts here noticed in the first or second viewing.  It did seem odd how the camera, as it panned up the towers (Victory and Pisa) in two or three scenes, appeared to be signaling to the viewer to consider this vertical imagery as it then quickly jumped from frames of O and the two airhead, young white attractive celebs.

    I think in the modern age of sophisticated adverting, where each second and fraction of second counts and where subliminal messaging probably occurs more often than not, it would be naive in the extreme not to suspect the ad's lingering on the towers was intended to do more than just make for interesting touristy scenery.

    Certainly in the age of Rove/Atwater Repub slimy attack politics with the history of race baiting, it would be SOP.

    That said, from a political pov it probably isn't wise for anyone connected with the O campaign to loudly point out the ad's probable appeal to subconscious white racial feelings about Black Men Taking Our White Women.  That would just continue the discussion about race, as Somerby notes correctly, just as the Rs would want it.  

    The ad just doesn't reach the overt level of the Jesse Helms or Harold Ford type of obvious noxious racial dogwhistling that most people could easily see by themselves or with some minimal prodding.  The McCain ad, by itself, is simply insufficient evidence for most folks.  Herbert et al are better off waiting for another curious McCain ad before lashing out against Rs along racial lines.


    there was one tower: the Victory Column (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by kempis on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM EST
    Herbert got it embarrassingly wrong: neither the Washington Monument nor the Leaning Tower of Pisa are in the ad. If they were, that would indeed be suspicious because their inclusion would be gratuitous.

    However, the two shots of the Victory Column are there because Obama gave the big, European address in front of it. That massive, "celebrity politician" event was the focal point of the ad, which mocks the notion that celebrity can be confused with competence.

    Sometimes a tower is just a tower. :)


    So the question is: Why did Obama (5.00 / 6) (#171)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    pick a site in front of a phallic symbol?

    Mr. Herbert, care to analyze for us the psychology of that?  What is Mr. Obama trying to subliminally say, anyway?  Hmmmm?


    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by kempis on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:06:26 PM EST
    I don't know where Herbert (none / 0) (#198)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    got the Washington Monument idea, but clearly (as I stand corrected) re Pisa, that was a confusion with a close-in shot of O in the foreground and in the background a "leaning"-looking tower, with Pisa-like interior "columns within the column" detailing, which as it turns out is the Pisa-like Victory Tower.

    And while it's true that a tower is sometimes just a tower, it's also true in political adverting -- particularly of the Repub variety -- that it's not always just a tower.

    I stand by my assertion that this one was probably meant to have different levels of meaning.  And also that by itself, it's just too slender a tenuous a piece of evidence from which to launch a tirade against McCain based on race-baiting.


    To paraphrase Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    Dems can choose to conduct a public graduate seminar in ad analysis, and point out every questionably racist element in every ad, turning off a third of the electorate in the process, or we can choose to win the election.

    it seems to me the lemmings are nearing the (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    cliff and show no desire to avert disaster.

    too true (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    can't say they weren't warned.

    The Obama as God ads were not too subtle either (none / 0) (#199)
    by Nike on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:33:44 PM EST
    There will be a... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:13:16 AM EST
    female president named Clinton, but not with the first name of Hillary.  And I guarantee you she'll have a (D) at the end of her name.

    Sure (5.00 / 6) (#172)
    by Nadai on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    You just drop in from the future to reassure us?

    Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman ever on a major party Presidential ticket (and then only as VP), ran in 1984.  It is now 2008, and in those 24 years - more than a generation and half my lifetime - not a single woman other than Hillary Clinton has even run a realistic campaign for President.  Not one.

    Then this year, when one finally does run, even the so-called progressives wallow in misogyny to take her down.  And I'm supposed to believe that a female President is in the offing?  Why the he11 should I?


    Your problem, BTD. . . (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:48:20 AM EST
    is that you have a sense of shame.  Politicians don't.

    Obama burned his bridges with the Clinton legacy.

    That may be true for people, but a politician needs to be able to pivot shamelessly.  Obama can and should start campaigning under the Clinton mantle (I know that would piss people off around here, and me to, but this is politics).  If he's unable or unwilling to, while it might make him a "nicer" person in the sense of being willing to lie in the bed he's made for himself it makes him lesser politician.

    As an example of shamelessness I offer McCain's increasing emphasis on off-shore drilling, something he opposed for decades, including the period during which, had it been approved, it would have been producing at least a small addition to the domestic oil supply.

    I don't think that's what he is saying... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    I think he's saying there is miles of footage of Obama telling people how bad those terrible '90's were.  I could be wrong, though.

    Do you think he will? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:58:59 AM EST
    Not sure. . . (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM EST
    but I'm beginning to worry that he doesn't have such shamelessness in him -- which is a complement, in a way, but doesn't auger well for his long-term success as a politician.

    I will say that he has demonstrated complete and total shamelessness on other issues.  FISA, for instance.  He didn't suggest even a fig leaf of logic for his reversal of position.  So there's hope, I guess.

    But at this point I have to think he genuinely dislikes the Clintons and I'm worried that he can't get past his antipathy to patch things up.  I doubt he'll select Clinton as VP, but relations seem to be much, much worse than that.  I realize this is arm chair psychologizing, but this is a blog, after all.


    Never thought I'd read here Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:04:48 AM EST
    FISA vote was a GOOD thing!

    It's not so much (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    that he hates the Clintons, it's that he has to crush them as a political force in order to take over the party and the country.

    it may have started that way (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM EST
    but he hates them now.

    He has the shamelessness (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by standingup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    but is just lacking the good sense to do it, IMO.  Obama has built his candidacy and his identity around being the Clinton alternative.  I'm afraid he genuinely believes half the crap he has put out there.  

    I think you did a good Dr. Phil there (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:31:46 AM EST
    I wouldn't worry (5.00 / 9) (#72)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    A man who fakes a presidential seal when he isn't even the candidate yet doesn't seem to have a problem with a lack of shamelessness.

    no, the supporters and advisors are (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    too sure of themselves and obama is too tone deaf.

    you're right at a normal level (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:06:35 AM EST
    it's perfectly a fine political move to demagog on nafta during the primary and then embrace 90s economic prosperity during a general election.  Fine pivot.  (new near word btw to avoid flip flop.....   Hmmmmm ......  Pivot.  Don't you mean flip flop shamelessly?

    anyway, That would make me snort and guffaw at the new kind of politics used car sell job but it ultimately would not offend me.

    That's just politics.

    This race stuff I can't let go.  But wait?   Is that just politics too?

    I only speak for myself on this.


    "Obama intent on burying the Clintons" (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:49:53 AM EST
    you know
    my mother used to say, "when you ask people to take sides, there is always a chance they wont take yours".

    Your mom's a smart gal n/t (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    My heart is truly broken. (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Shainzona on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    As a lifelong democrat I have always lived my life, my beliefs, my politics based on equality for all.

    I really fear that we have moved back, not forward on the subject of race relations.  I now speak guardedly about anything related to politics (you remember...one of our most important freedoms of speach) because I not only don't want to be called a racist, but because any explanation I might try and give will only bring new calls of racism.

    So sad.  Really.

    And you can blame the post racial (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    prez wannabe and his allies for that.  I refuse to bow to this b.s.  People calling other people racists for the simple reason they won't vote for obama is simply ridiculous; and obviously the world is full of ridiculous people...bob, eugene, jjjr, clyburn, and the list goes on...

    when someone calls you or anyone a (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    name, i recommend they look in a mirror at themselves. at the very least they are very self righteous and in the case of herbert derailed.

    a bigger problem for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:00:52 AM EST
    is the public not only sees him playing the Race Card and Victim Card to avoid substance on the issues - but his former pastor plays the Race Card and Hate Card from the pulpit and his wife is very angry with America.
    The New Yorker's satirical cover fed into those public beliefs - and Obama's reaction to the cover indicated how fragile his campaign really is.

    problem is (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM EST
    that Bill and Hillary are more powerful and popular than ever before ... especially Hillary!  One doesn't get the most votes in Primary History by being intensely unpopular and considered a "racist".

    If the DNC's plan was to bury the Clintons, they failed miserably.  Then again, the DNC doesn't seem to be overflowing with intelligent people these days.

    I trust Obama will choose protecting his fragile ego rather than making the politically mature decision.  And, truly, I don't think Hillary WANTS to work with Obama.  Let him lose and run in 2012 as the odds-on favorite to sweep the Repubs out of the White House.

    this is exactly right. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    like I said when this started.
    we will just see who gets marginalized.

    if Obama loses in November (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:07:09 AM EST
    and doesn't have a strong list of accomplishments during his time in the Senate, we may be looking at him losing in 2010 and being a famous -- but unemployed -- Single Term Senator.

    Unless he can convince Illinois voters to give him another six years to do ... well, whatever it was he did for them.


    I honestly think (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:12:26 AM EST
    He won't even do that.  I can see him resigning in 2009 if he loses, because I just don't see him becoming Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden-  good men who've spent decades working for the welfare of their countrymen-  and having the discipline to be a foot soldier for a liberal cause.

    In addition, this will be the Clintons' party starting on November 5 if Obama loses.  Who else can challenge their leadership?  Everyone else is too old (Carter), too invested elsewhere (Gore), or too discredited (Pelosi, Reid, Obama).  Imagine what it would do to his ego.


    good point (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    and I think you may be onto something.  I have a hard time imagining Obama adjusting to being "just" one out of 99 -- and a Junior Senator at that! -- when he could have been The One.  

    And I don't know if he'll find everything to be the same with regards to people respecting him as they did before or willing to hear him endlessly complain about how Hillary "lost it" for him.

    Being a Senator could be devastating for him ... which DOES say a lot about his ego and his reasons for doing what he does.  And it ain't about his constituents.


    how about a talk show (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    on MSNBC?

    well, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    he does seem to have the bloviating celebrity shtick down pat.

    Hard to imagine how he will respond (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    to losing. Will the other 99 Senators (AKA: SDs) realize they have created a situation where they, too, will need to watch what they say or risk being labeled negatively.

    For how quickly he took the posture of greatness, I don't see him as a good loser.

    I agree, he will resign rather than run for a second Senate term.


    Good loser? (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by sj on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    He's not even a good winner. The very epitome of a sore winner.

    Maybe not. (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:39:17 AM EST
    Remember Nixon?

    Another 'comeback kid?'

    It could happen...he could lose, actually learn his lessons and become a decent Democrat for a second try...with actual, you know, experience...


    Only Republican's come back! (none / 0) (#168)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:00:12 PM EST
    Nope. (none / 0) (#197)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:31:48 PM EST
    Bill Clinton did it in Arkansas. Governor.

    Obama did it once in Illinois.  Lost the race for congress.  Won the race for senate.  And now we'll see if he learned anything.

    Doesn't look like it.


    And they do have plent of teleprompters :) (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:57:45 AM EST
    You're making an excellent argument (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Roz on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:14:04 AM EST
    for why Clinton supporters should vote for McCain. I don't know how realistic the scenario is, but it's fun imagining how many heads would explode in various arenas.

    Correct (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:22:59 AM EST
    I see no indication he wants to be a long-term Senator.  It was a means to an end, and if it fails he will move on to something else.

    Nothing wrong with that - I think it was true of Edwards as well.  But for the DNC to put all its eggs in his basket so quickly is foolhardy.


    It was definitely true of Edwards (none / 0) (#163)
    by Pol C on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    Once he got elected to the Senate in '98, he immediately began positioning himself to be chosen as the VP candidate in 2000. When that didn't work out, he started building towards his Presidential run in 2004. I have friends in the Chapel Hill area, and they were really upset with him as their Senator because he didn't seem to give a damn about the job. I hate to say it, but a lot of the stuff Cheney hit him with about being a lousy representative of NC in their debate was dead-on. I seriously doubt he would have been reelected had he run again for Senator in 2004. He would have deserved to be thrown out by his constituents.

    Illinois Senate (none / 0) (#47)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:20:59 AM EST
    I doubt he would run for reelection in Illinois. It was given to him by a sex scandal of the Rep candidate and then the RNC forcing the state to run Alan Keyes of all people. Elmer Fudd would have been able to beat Alan Keyes!

    the sex scandal (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    had more to do with Axelrod leaking the GOP Candidate's private divorce documents to the major papers than anything else.

    Well, if it works once... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Pol C on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    Obama took out Blair Hull, the favorite to win the Dem nomination for Senator, the same way.

    Not unlike (none / 0) (#147)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    John Edwards?

    I like Bill's interview with ABC (none / 0) (#99)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    especially when he said Hillary is now more than a public servant - she's a political leader.

    yup those who push the clintons out of the way (none / 0) (#186)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    with any excuse folks might take a close look at the republicans' attempts and how the public rejected their bull. same bull, new group!

    Frankly, (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    What the Obama camp  is not clear on is people want change.  They don't want Obama change, they want change of political party.  He has to grab the Democratic Party ID and pound it.  None of the nuanced and complicated language.  All you hear when McCain speaks, is the word "drill".   He needs to get off the oratory and get into the simple staccato of Hillary.  

    Obama does love (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    the sound of his own voice.  I'm not sure if Americans are going to want to be lectured continuously and exhaustively for the next four years, though.  

    Just get off the TV/podium/away from the adoring crowds and fix our problems!


    The judge I clerked for used to say (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    that when he got a brief listing 17 different issues, it was a sure signal that none of them was a winner, or there wouldn't be so many.

    Briefs with 3-4 issues generally had solid bases in support for the arguments a side was making.

    So far the Obama campaign has been much like a freshman survey course of political issues, with an emphasis on keeping moving.  Don't stay on any one subject too long, there's too much to get through.

    If he could stand still and pick just a few (they'd have to be ones that don't annnoy the base, ie, being solid on catering to evangelists doesn't count), he'd have a good chance at capturing the lead on the discussion that's getting through to voters.  (MSM's inane babblings are irrelevant on that point).


    No Democratic legacy for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by A little night musing on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:00:20 AM EST
    Paul Krugman wonders why Obama does not associate himself with the economic accomplishments of the Clinton Administration

    As I commented here,

    "The damage done to Bill Clinton is damage to the Democratic legacy and message. It's another moral obligation of Obama and the party to work far harder than they have to undo it."

    I have a very clear impression that Obama and his campaign want to cut themselves off from this legacy. (And not only the Democratic legacy, but the legacy of progressive activism in this country such as the antiwar movement.)

    He's working for the idea that he is doing something radically new that's never been tried before. All previous efforts were flawed and failed and there is nothing he can learn from them except what not to do.

    He's deliberately cutting his "movement" off at the roots. I don't think that there will be any effort to "undo the damage" because this is not "damage" from his point of view, but part of the plan.

    In other words, as another commenter summarized it, this seems to be a feature and not a bug.

    exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    But Obama didn't act alone. Throughout the primary, the Dem establishment was silent as Obama trashed the Clinton administration. Whatever it took to defeat Hillary....
    It just feeds into the meme that the Dem establishment of elitist Kennedys & Kerrys ran a rockstar Empty Suit for the sole purpose of preventing Hillary Hick being the nominee.
    Ah well, donations I'd normally be sending to the DNC and Dem nominee are now sent to Hillary and local orgs/causes.

    the problem is they tried to trash a rock star. (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    with what? well a senator who hasn't finished even one term with no significant leglistation and who has never held a committee meeting of his one important committee. frankly the dems don't deserve to win and if they do it'll be due to republicans.

    really??? (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:06:02 AM EST
    "[I]n this general election, it certainly can only hurt Obama to bring race front and center. He has to play by the Jackie Robinson Rules --- and it's pretty clear that he, if not some of his supporters and surrogates, gets that."

    Someone really believes this?  That Obama really gets this?  If that is the case, how does he explain his specific "pre-emptive" playing of the race-card in FL where he specifically cited the McCain Campaign and specifically said they will try to scare you by saying....Oh, and did I mention he's black"

    there was no way to claim in his FL speech that he was talking about republicans in general and there is no way to claim in his FL speech that he wasn't talking about race.

    And, there is no example the Obama can cite where McCain has EVER made reference to Obama's race.  And, since the level of proof we always use in judging these things is always, "what did Obama specifically say out of his own mouth", it wouldn't be fair to use inference or implication against McCain, now would it?  Especially since the things they have been trying to use against McCain to infer race-card playing have been as weak as they could be.

    Obama cluster-bombed the field to take down HRC (5.00 / 12) (#26)
    by Ellie on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    But the flaw in that strategy of gratuitously hurling charges of racism (with the resultant gleeful pile-on to take down Bad Monster Lady as the end game) is that it left Obama in a corner surrounded by a sh!tload of unexploded ordnance of his own dropping.

    All the McCain campaign has to do is take aim at one of the bomblets and, boom, off it goes. McCain doesn't even have to close enough to be injured, nor have exact aim.

    If Obama could inflate something as frivolous as computer monitor disparities (planted on Drudge for chrissakes) into weeks-long racial histrionics, he'd better give long thought to weathering a few of those attacks himself, cause they're scheduled to come back around.

    yep, (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:15:41 AM EST
    please, can anyone tell me ANY TIME either before or after that incident that anyone on the left ever considered anything reported by Drudge to be an accurate account of reality?

    Oh, I can (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:36:39 AM EST
    The 'Muslim dress' photo, forwarded to me by my extremely liberal friend, with a note of how 'Rovian' Hillary's tactics were.  It was clearly part of the viral going around.

    I have no gauge for whether the histrionics were greater or lesser than the photo-darkening incident.

    But I do know, or can guess, that Drudge and his ilk were laughing their *sses off that 'progressives' were proving themselves to be exactly the same overreacting, soppy-minded idiots the Republicans had always claimed they were.

    I really, really don't want people who understand no line between 'what I want to believe' and 'facts' to be the ones picking my next president.


    We never learn (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    Obama needs to sit down and study the 2000 election instead of the Reagan era. If Gore hadn't made the decision to distance himself from Bill Clinton, he'd be sitting in the WH and none of us would have been subjected to the attrocities of the Bush admin. Clinton would have and could have delivered Arkansas for Gore.

    Obama studied campaigns (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Roz on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:27:06 AM EST
    but I read somewhere that it was the Bush campaign. Not sure if it was 2000 or 2004 or both. I think you can elements of both Bush campaigns in how he ran his primary.

    2000 - the uniter not divider, Washington outsider schtick

    2004 - Swiftboating


    Bob Herbert, let it be remembered, (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:11:29 AM EST
    was one of the worst race-baiters of the primary .

    The Clinton camp knows what it's doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics.

    I have a lot more time in the morning now that I don't read Bob Herbert anymore.

    Good thing your missed (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    this latest one.

    It's a doozy.

    Race. Race. Race.

    Beat the drum.


    I'm surprised that the Jackie Robinson... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by EL seattle on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    ... analogy has not been applied more to this landmark campaign.  It's important to remember that although there were far too many racists who opposed Jackie Robinson becoming a member of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947, there were many, many baseball fans who welcomed this change.  

    If fans continued to root for their favorite team that year (like the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox or the Detroit Tigers or another team instead of the Dodgers), they probably didn't do so just "because they were racists".  To suggest otherwise would be ridiculous.

    I applied it (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:19:08 AM EST
    All right, we get it, your slugging percentage ... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Ellie on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    ... has been awesome this season. (No, really -- it has.)

    I ususllay don't visit that site anymore... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by EL seattle on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:50:30 AM EST
    ... but in your case I'll make an exception.  (Ah, Feb. 'o7.  Memories of a more innocent time, so full of promise...)

    I guess the point that I was trying to make is that those Philidelphia fans who wanted to see Robinson strike out in the 9th inning of a Dodgers-Phillies game weren't all racist because they weren't rooting for Robinson to hit a homer against their home team.  

    Similarly, to call Clinton or Edwards or McCain supporters racist because they aren't changing all of their individual political identities to match those of Obama's supporters is part of what Somerby was talking about yesterday, I think.  


    To the point you were making (none / 0) (#203)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    you were exactly right.  Downplay it/ignore it initially and say we shouldn't be focusing on this (my race) we should be focusing on that (the real issues).  When it comes up again, get mad about it, and fight back, and then say again, we should be focusing on the real issues.  In this way you don't make it about what you think people think about you, instead, you make it about people who think something about you that is wrong - and it's easier to call them on it.

    I'm wondering if Obama could pass (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:11:09 AM EST
    a pop quiz on Robinson's significance to MLB and desegregation.  

    Herbert is a sanctimonious hypocrite (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:39:24 AM EST
    who can't even dare to play this game after the way he trashed Gore back in 2000:

    But Vice President Gore never wins easily. He may have the experience and most of the issues on his side, but he can't keep his superciliousness in check. He just can't do it. So there he was on Tuesday night sighing loudly with disdain, or smiling contemptuously, or smugly, as Governor Bush did the best he could with this answer or that.

    Where the heck does Herbert get off getting hysterical at other reporters giving their view of Obama?   Is the rule this:  anything negative about a black candidate is racist?  How the heck do we get to be post racial if the Obama camp says they can turn anything anyone says into a racial slur.

    Rachel Maddow is another one.  What a freaking sanctimonious hypocrite she has become since hanging out at MSNBC.  Her anti Hillary stance is so over the top, I have come to despise her as much as I do Randi Rhodes.  It's one thing to say you choose so and so over the other because you disagree with policies, issues etc.  But with Maddow, ANY criticism of Obama's demeanor is racist but anything negative about Hillary is putting her on a "feminist" pedestal and is hurting "other" women.  I wish there was a way to let people like Maddow KNOW how many women are feeling about her...and it's not pretty.

    I am so sick of the so called "liberal" pundits who spent months turning the Clintons into racists and beatifying Obama.  They are killing the democratic party and any chance of liberalism surviving.

    close primary (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by souvarine on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:50:35 AM EST
    The primary was very close, to win the primary Obama had to raise Clinton's negatives. Prior to SC none of his attacks were raising Clinton's negatives among Democrats. So Obama had no choice but to use race to tear down Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    If he had not used race he would not be the nominee. His choice has consequences, and may cost him the general election, but his alternative was to lose the primary.

    Your comparison to Gore is very interesting. I've always said that tearing down the last Democratic president would hurt Obama in the general, but I had not made the connection to what I consider Gore's primary mistake in 2000.

    I believe this is true (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Roz on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:33:35 AM EST
    I think it is obvious, and frankly indisputable. Obama used race to tear Clinton down otherwise he would not have prevailed in the primary.

    This strategy should not be rewarded. It's more than "it's just politics." If you think racism and race baiting are morally repugnant, how the heck can you vote for this guy and validate his tactics?


    We were all slandered (5.00 / 13) (#85)
    by goldberry on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:53:14 AM EST
    The race issue, more than any other, is what drove the wedge between the two Democratic factions.  To be called racists by your own party was inexcusable.  I keep trying th figure out what the HELL Dean, Axlerod and Obama were thinking when they allowed that accusation out there to fester.  
    I don't need to defend Bill Clinton.  It may take him a long time to forgive what happened to him and Hillary.  He's got a right to be angry.  SC was ALWAYS going to be Obama's territory.  When Clinton made the remark he did about Jesse Jackson winning SC, he was even understanding about it.  It is identity politics.  If it turned out that a state had 15% more females than males in it, would it be any wonder that Hillary would win it?  No.  That was Bill's point.  So, it was really unnecessary for Obama to murder Bill and Hill's reputation with the African-American community.  By doing so, he completely took the mantle of the Black Candidate.  This after all of his post-racial transcendental schtick.  
    Everything about Obama is psychological warfare. This was a dangerous strategy for him because he has been using it on voters who have had 8+ years of psychological warfare and are attuned to it now.  We knew when they started lobbing missiles at us that they were trying to subdue us.  They have very badly misread their party.  Now, they will pay for it.  
    There will be many of us going to the polls in November with one thought in mind: get back at the b***d who called us racist.  No candidate who does that has our best interests in mind.  All they want is to slash and burn their way to the top.  And that ends on November 4, 2008.  

    And continuing to defame Bill Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#145)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:35:05 AM EST
    here, as well as elsewhere, doesn't help any Dems.  And it's ahistorical.  Chronology -- as I noted the other day in terms of time-stamped comments, too -- matters.

    Clinton's comment comparing Obama's odds of winning in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's wins there was not a comment made "after South Carolina."  It was made on the morning of the primary day.

    So you call it correctly:  It was predictive, not reactive -- i.e., it was the standard political practice of lowering expectations for Senator Clinton with a clear loss coming.  Nothing more than that.  Otherwise, every time that Obama and his camp lowered expectations of how they would do in other states was sexist.


    It was a great post by Somerby (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:54:05 AM EST
    It's true that he didn't mention how the race narrative benefited Obama in the primary (something Obama supporters tried to deny all along - "gee, why would he ever want the campaign to be about race?"), but this was a post about the general election, where the rules are different.

    Indeed, to the extent the successful use of racial tactics in the primary emboldened them to use them in the general, or to the extent that doing so in the primary gave ammunition to the McCain campaign ("they're playing the race card again, just like in the primary"), it's possible the whole strategy may have been helpful in the short term but harmful in the long term.

    Hopefully a lesson has been learned from the whole "dollar bill" debacle.  Lord knows I was so much happier seeing a substantive discussion about energy policy yesterday as opposed to yet another day of bickering about who's a racist.

    Yes Bill Clinton as the effigy of white power and (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Salt on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:55:04 AM EST
    racism used by Obama and Democratic Leaders is exactly why the Party is broken and you are correct it is not just Obama who is held responsible and yes sadly it was not ever necessary and it is why Obama's nomination is not the celebration it could have been.

    Winning ugly matters and it should, this reckless gleeful obviously clumsy use of racial animus as the Party's main political strategy,  Bill Clinton a Dem a two term successful Democratic President as the representative of the oppressive white power status quo responsible for holding people who look like Obama back from achieving their potential because they are simply another skin color, is now doomed for failure, it's just not who we are as a electorate.  When this approach was adopted as the main theme the us (oppressed) against them older rich white peoples as a communication strategy to inflame turnout and move the electorates under represented many fearful angry demographic groups to Obama and increase Party growth well there were other ways this integration could have happened.  

    In any event the short term gains are gone those that would be moved have with time and sunlight the code known. Hopefully the good this is a new political power and force is emerging an honorable one that will support candidates that will work hard and reward good performance in Office, and these ugly cheap divisive rancid tactics that so harm our country move back to the fringe of Politics.

    You write very well (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    and I agree with you.

    But I have to say, punctuation is your friend ;-).


    Well, you forget... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Pol C on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    Bill Clinton, like Lyndon Johnson, is a SOUTHERN WHITE MALE, and we all know what those people are.

    No record to run on (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    By the time McCain finishes with Obama, the only thing he'll have left is "hope, unity and change".

    When did he ever have anything else? (none / 0) (#143)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM EST
    For many who encouraged Obama's candidacy (5.00 / 13) (#115)
    by esmense on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    defeating the Clintons was their primary motivation, not winning the general election. The campaign Obama ran reflected that. Because of that, those Democratic leaders didn't give a second thought to the reality that under-mining, if not outright destroying, the reputation of the only successful, two term Democratic president in half a century would weaken the Democratic brand, and, leave Obama -- who has a resume too slim to make an argument for his own competence -- without the ability to run on his party's only recent record of competence (at a time when faith in the competence of government has been shaken, in a campaign in which the demonstrated incompetence of the opposition party should be one of the Democrats' strongest issues). Many of these short-sighted and self-interested Democrats, of course, just assumed that ANY Dem is destined to win this time around, so they could afford to tear the party apart in the primary season. (This, by the way, was the same assumption made by the McGovernites in '72 -- running against a deeply unpopular president and a deeply unpopular war.)

    These Obama supporters, and the campaign itself, thought they could afford to cut Clinton out of the picture and simply harken back half a century to the hopefulness and energy of the Kennedy era. But, the Kennedy era was a very different time than this, in many ways its very opposite. Despite the fearful prospect of nuclear confrontation with Russia it was the very peak of America's post-war power, prosperity and confidence. The youthful and sophisticated Kennedy reflected and embodied the ambition and confidence of the nation and his time.

    This election, on the other hand, is taking place at a time when the nation's confidence is badly shaken, when many if not most fear we are off track and in decline -- with much worse to come. Charisma, personal charm and vague appeals to hope aren't enough in this enviroment -- demonstrated competence, trustworthiness, track record and toughness (which, by the way, Kennedy could make an argument for along with his charisma and personal appeal, in ways that Obama can't) are required. Running as Kennedy had some upside in the Democratic primary, but offers no real advantage in the general.

    The remembered competence of the Clinton years would have served Hillary well in the general election. And it could have served Obama too if he hadn't spent the primary arguing against the competence of the Clinton years -- if he hadn't chosen the path he did; setting out to destroy the image of a successful Clinton presidency and conflate it with the failed presidency of Bush.

    It's a bad odor that may never fade away (5.00 / 8) (#117)
    by Pol C on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    Obama may think he needs to bury the Clintons forever, because that's almost the entire basis of his appeal to the traditional media--who've been frustrated in their efforts towards that goal for seventeen years now--and the traditional left blogosphere.

    Apart from stubbornness and general egotism, I think one of the main reasons Obama refuses to apologize to Bill Clinton is that it'll open the doors to demoralizing his anti-war supporters. He doesn't want them aware of the truth about Bill's criticisms of him last January. The charges of racism relative to the "fariy tale" statement were so absurd that there had to be a bigger motive behind it. And I think it was this: Bill's "fairy tale" statement made fairly clear that Obama's claims of being the "pure" antiwar candidate were specious, and that Obama's positions on Iraq policy was based on whatever was most expedient at the time. That was a howitzer shell fired at the Obama campaign, and they had to shut him up by any means necessary, or they were going to see the entire campaign derailed. Early on, if Obama didn't have the nearly universal support of hardcore anti-war left, he wouldn't have had a campaign, and Bill's statements threatened to expose his image to one and all as a bunch of baloney. They overreached, but once the door was open on it, they began going to town on Bill, Hillary, and anyone associated with them.

    As far as Digby goes, I've been researching her archives as part of a longer post I'm writing about her "presumpuous" = "racist dog whistle" baloney. (The first part is up here, and the second will be posted sometime tomorrow.) It's like she stuck her fingers in her ears during the entire run-up to South Carolina; it was the hottest issue out there at the time, but you wouldn't know it from what she posted. (Her comments sections during that period have been purged.) Although she did write that it was enjoyable to read that Rahm Emmanuel and Ted Kennedy called up Bill to tell him, and I quote, "STFU."

    I was inclined yesterday to give Obama a second chance after his fine, substantive presentation on energy policy yesterday, but the coverage of Bill's GMA interview brought all the bad feelings and anger back, and I know I'm not the only one. Obama can't wish the damage he and his people caused by smearing Bill away, no matter how much they may want to.

    I really believe people will be talking (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:17:48 AM EST
    about this campaign for years to come, and it may be seen as another watershed moment in the history of race relations - one that marks a regression in our progress that will not soon be reversed.

    The tactics employed by the Obama campaign and by its surrogates, and by op-ed columnists like Herbert and Robinson, not only broke the hearts of people who had long considered themselves the antithesis of racists, it triggered an anger that is still simmering.  Any woman who has been asked if it's "that time of the month" when she has been particularly animated or emotional or angry knows what it's like to have her opinions automatically discounted by the mere suggestion that what she is saying is all about her hormones.  Well, there's a similar feeling when someone's opinions and votes are ascribed to racism, and I can assure you that it is not a good feeling.  It doesn't make me go along, it makes me go away, and with a lot less respect for the person who decided to resort to the lowest of rhetorical tactics just to win.  And even though Obama himself wasn't saying and doing these things, I hold him responsible - he's the guy at the top of that chain and he had the power to refuse to allow it.

    When Barack Obama went into lily-white Iowa and won, there was a surge of hope in this country that was palpable.  People believed that if a black man could win in a state with a miniscule minority population, we must have finally arrived at a place of tolerance and color-blindness that we had been striving to reach for decades.  

    Just imagine the possibilities for where we might be right now had he not panicked and resorted to using the very element that he had already proven he could win without.  Is there any guarantee that he would be the nominee?  No, of course not - but think of the honor that would have accompanied him in defeat - honor that will certainly not be with him if he is victorious in November.  The saddest and most shameful thing is that he gave that away as part of a political strategy.  He betrayed his own brand to do it, and I have to believe that that will haunt him, will hurt his chances to win and will ensure that his presidency is marked by distrust.  And maybe an asterisk.

    I agree. I think of the Election of 1876 (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    and then the end of Reconstruction.  In future, historians may have to refer to that era after the Civil War as "the first Reconstruction" -- as they may have to label recent decades as "the second Reconstruction," and note its end now.  

    Then again, I recently researched and wrote about the election of 1896, and I found the parallels striking in terms of the candidates.  Populist and brilliant orator vs. war hero and candidate of corporate interests.  And guess which one won.


    Well it wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:18:27 PM EST
    the "silver-tongued orator, William Jennings Bryant."

    Cross of Gold sppech or no Cross of Gold speech.

    Time to rent "Inherit The Wind" again!


    Good grief.... (none / 0) (#189)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    typing too fast...where'd that "t" come from?

    Preview is our friend...sigh...

    William Jenning Bryan


    Today (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Lil on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    I believe Obama's going to lose (By tomorrow, I may come around again). Bergen County NJ paper had a story of a local Dem (Clinton supporter) considering McCain. I suspect this is happening all over the place and a wave is building.  Add in the fact that the polls seem too close. Add in the fact that the republicans haven't even heated up yet. The Clinton half of the party is going to go crazy when he does not pick her...yeah today I think he will lose.

    I have felt from the beginning (5.00 / 8) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    that the race issue in the primaries was not primarily intended to influence AA votes, but affluent white liberals and young people.  Black voters in this country are too smart for that.  They were always going to come over to him if it looked like he had a chance, and Iowa showed that he did.

    The race accusations were used for two things-- to shut critics up, and to drive a wedge between the Clintons and sanctimonious white liberals and idealistic young kids.

    Race. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    Remember how shocking the reaction of the AA community was when the OJ verdict was announced?  And how, as a white person, you did not dare even bring it up to AA friends or acquaintences?

    Here we are again.  Only worse off because the divide is bigger and it's personal.  And wrong.

    It's just wrong.

    It's not post anything.

    Oh, wait. (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    It's post unity.

    BTD, Obama's chickens have come.. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by AX10 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    home to roost.  Like it or not, he and his campaign
    are to blame for this.  Millions of people are not going to tolerate race baiting for any reason.
    Also, the only ones with "white guilt" are the
    creative class and the "elite" liberals of San Fransisco and Berkley.

    Discussion of Race at TL (2.75 / 4) (#69)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:39:30 AM EST
    I know Big Tent Democrat is not White, however he is also not black, and as such does not share in the "black experience" and the paranoia that comes with it.  Generally the feeling I get is that this intelligenet online community is very White.  I think it is great when WHite people talk about race and racim, but too many times in this community has there be the said and implied statement that Blacks were just dupped by Obama.  This statement is insulting.  The discussion of reverse racism (as though we as blacks have this huge power over whites) is also disturbing.    That is plane insulting.  To discuss race I believe there needs to be a voice/ moderator that can balance out these comments.  

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    I think it's true that much of the perception of racism or race-baiting on the part of the Clinton campaign came from the bottom up, rather than from the top down.

    However, I think Obama had a very conscious decision as to whether to tamp down that sentiment or to inflame it and profit from the fallout, and they chose the latter.  I recall when Obama supporters ran a Spanish-language ad in Nevada saying "Hillary Clinton doesn't respect our people" and, when asked for a comment, the Obama campaign refused to distance themselves from it one iota!

    I mean, you can take the high road and say "we don't think the Clinton campaign is trying to make this about race, we both want to focus on the issues" or you can take the low road and say "gee, we're disappointed that Hillary would choose to insult MLK like that."  They could have sent a message to their supporters that they didn't want this to be about race, and instead they sent a message that they loved it whenever their supporters would unearth yet another gem of hidden racism.  The reaction may come from the bottom, in some cases, but the overall tone comes from the top.


    To be fair, some blacks weren't the only (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:16:12 AM EST
    ones duped by obama.  obama put himself in this boat and now he needs to row for all he is worth.
    There are no excuses for what he is done.  

    As for race chat on here, I don't think there are any out and out racists here, but people don't need to be scolded every damn day when someone takes exception to what they say.  And I think you will find we already have "race" moderators on this site.

    And one more thing...sorry, but it is plain, not plane.


    Come On, Be Fair (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:36:29 AM EST
    Scolding IS a daily practice around here and not by a long shot is it only about race. In fact, mostly it's not.

    Many times I see people scolding one another for merely having a different point of view.


    If you use this logic... (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    I know Big Tent Democrat is not White, however he is also not black, and as such does not share in the "black experience" and the paranoia that comes with it.

    Then prsumptive nominee Barack Obama would also not share in the 'black experience.'


    Not Something I'm Comfortable Defining, Frankly (none / 0) (#154)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:41:32 AM EST
    Certainly as a white person.

    But also...it's dicey standing outside someone else's life and imagining we can KNOW what his/her experience is.


    It is interesting that you (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:17:55 AM EST

    Generally the feeling I get is that this intelligenet online community is very White.  I think it is great when WHite people talk about race and racim, but too many times in this community has there be the said and implied statement that Blacks were just dupped by Obama.  This statement is insulting.

    I am not white in the way you mean, as you write. to me it is ironic that you think I have not been someone empathetic with the African American experience. I suggest you read what was written about me about this at daily kos. I was often attacked with being obsessed with racism.

    For the record, I do agree with you that it is ridiculous to argue that African Americans were duped by Obama. Really silly stuff.


    Note duped at all (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Roz on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    It was more like a willing suspension of disbelief. And identity politics with a little irrational exuberance mixed in.

    Big Tend Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:49:25 AM EST
    The post was no way an attack on you.  I personally have been to Daily Kos 1 or 2 times in my life.  I find it is too big for interesting, intelligent and moderated discussion, (the same is true for Huffington Post- though I do read some of the articles there).  Also, I think you are empathetic, as 99% of the community here is.  I consider most people at TL allies in the political fights that occur in the real world.

    Appreciate Your Voice (none / 0) (#176)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    and your perspective. You add much to our discourse.

    Trust me, "paranoia" does not come (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:22:04 AM EST
    with the black experience. That may be true for some but it is by no means universal throughout the "black community". As far as I am concerned, the question is not whether blacks were "duped" by Obama. I would credit those of us who have been around long enough to witness more than a few elections, with too much savvy to be "duped" by a 47-year-old. Unless I am mistaken, Obama's adoring fans number in the millions, a majority of whom are not black. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but those A-list blogs and "news" orgs that run non-stop Obamamercials are not black owned. IMO this should not be about who has power over whom. Rather, it should be about a level of mutual respect that would allow us to honestly and openly discuss our differences and misconceptions about those differences -- without this never-ending "gotcha" attitude. Any recommendations on who would qualify to be the voice/moderator to "balance out these comments"?

    Agree and disagree (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:23:42 AM EST
    Hey Sam. I appreciate your perspective.

    I haven't seen much talk that 'blacks were just dupped by Obama' as you say, but I certainly don't believe that to be the case. If such talk is common, it is definitely insulting and also silly.

    But I disagree with you on your point that discussions of reverse racism are insulting because blacks have no power over whites this way. In fact, I believe much of this election season proves the opposite - reverse racism can be an extremely powerful tactic. And it should be abhorred by all. I wish it was. There is no good outcome there IMO.

    It's risky for me to say this, but I've been thinking it for months now:  this election season has taught me that AAs seem to severely underestimate how incredibly hurtful and powerfully divisive it is to call people racist or imply that they are on scant evidence. I've heard a lot of what I would characterize as unwarranted and very hurtful reverse bigotry - JJ Jr's remarks, Clyburn's remarks, and many remarks from Obama supporters towards Clinton or Edwards supporters.

    Anyway, none of this is to say that profound racism does not exist in this society; of course it does. But I have to say that I was unprepared for the degree that AAs and some white liberals would automatically assume/blame/charge white racism for most any criticism of Obama in this day and age. And racism is extremely painful both ways that it can go. No one wants to feel hated or devalued. I think what you're seeing now is possibly the reaction from that pain.

    I appreciate, though, that you and others see it differently.


    Discrimination (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    Obama had no problem in touring SC with a well known gay basher. (McCurkin) When questioned over it, he said that he was willing to listen to all sides. But I didn't see him campaign with anyone from the KKK. He deliberately brought him in to influence the Baptist churches he was campaigning at. Yet when the tables are turned, he's the victim. I don't believe in discrimination or double standards for anyone.

    samtaylor2 - (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:15:14 PM EST
    I'm glad you brought this up.  I don't think a moderator for these discussions can or should happen. However...

    I do agree that statements like "blacks were duped" are as insensitive and potentially hurtful as statements like "Hillary suckered women into voting for her" or something of that nature.  These statements are so vague and reductive they're insulting to anyone's intelligence...beyond being just plain insulting.  We should strive to treat candidates and voters with respect.

    I hope some will take a cue from you and be more sensitive in the future.


    You're here (none / 0) (#107)
    by A little night musing on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    I take it you're Black? You don't actually say. But if so, by contributing your voice you help to create that balance.

    PsstCnere08 why did you rate this comment (none / 0) (#120)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    DO you follow me around and just give me low rating. I would appreciate it if you did not, thank you.

    i highly recommend you concern yourself (none / 0) (#202)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:36:11 PM EST
    with other issues rather than the personal information regarding our bloggers. that is none of your business.

    Problem (2.00 / 2) (#6)
    by bocajeff on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:49:42 AM EST
    The problem is,and BTD had it right very early on, was that the Dem primary was about Demographics more than anything else. White and Latino vs. AA. Working class vs. Latte. In a sense, that's what has always been good and bad about the Dem party - and now it's coming home to roost. I still think Obama's going to win just because the year seems to be set up that way - but when you play with the sword sometimes you die by the sword.

    By the way, for Clinton supporters, pushing the narrative that they did a better job of winning "hard working, white voters" (while true) doesn't help in the Dem party...

    Explain that last line please. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    Why doesn't it help in the Democratic Party?

    Ridiculous ! (none / 0) (#17)
    by democratsSC on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:01:54 AM EST
    I hate when politics get dirty. Bad mouthing one another only makes the bad mouther look bad IMO.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by standingup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:36:52 AM EST
    Comments are not the place to promote your own blog.

    And as to your comment, the concern about looking bad is misplaced.  Politics is and has always been dirty.  That won't stop anymore than we will stop valid criticism of politicians.    


    You should be where McCain is (none / 0) (#190)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:22:57 PM EST
    when you are his age. Please show some respect whether you like the guy or not. He is a presidential candidate in the USA and at least deserves that recognition. Thanks.

    I meant his political grave... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    Race card (none / 0) (#205)
    by Miri on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 07:02:25 PM EST
    Obama used the race card not just to win over African American votes but also the white-guilt liberal votes. It came in very handy for him.

    It helped the media create a narrative for him; "poor Obama, evil racists are picking on him".

    He used it make white voters feel guilty for voting for Hillary.

    Fair isn't Fair (none / 0) (#206)
    by fctchekr on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:01:21 PM EST
    Fair.org blames Obama's race baiting on McCain..

    Media Fall for 'Race Card' Spin
    Outraged press ignores McCain's ties to GOP race-baiting tradition


    FAIR is so off the mark. Obama has ushered in a distrust so deep, it would appear his camp just doesn't get the vibe. And that is: we may watch the extravanganza, but how many will want to  turn it off in November?