Hillary Clinton's Base?

She's officially now running for VEEP.

Or gubner of Arkysaw.

C'mon Ana. THat is so damn unfair...

I think Jim Geraghty at NRO raises a good point:

"Obama carried 91 percent of the African-American vote in North Carolina and 90 percent of the African-American vote in Indiana. No other demographic was anywhere near so lopsided in their support; the closest were non-college whites who split 71-26 for Hillary in North Carolina; 65-35 for Hillary in Indiana...

African-Americans are voting overwhelmingly for a candidate who shares their skin color, but it's being repeatedly suggested that white working-class voters are motivated by racism. Is this the "national conversation on race" that Obama had in mind in his Philly speech? "

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

Maybe she could argue for reinstating the 3/5ths clause. (And she just might find someone at National Review to agree with her.)

HRC ran a race-baiting campaign. Paul Begala called "his" Democratic Party one composed of working class Whites and Latinos. He summarily dismissed Eggheads and African-Americans. Donna Brazilre tok him to task on CNN last night. As an egghead African-American proud to be an arugula eating, wine consuming elitist, I was doubly offended by Begala.

The Clinton campaign made a conscious decision to play one ethnic group against the other. Only she and McCain were qualified to be Commander in Chief. Obama was a "scary" Black man.

I cannot watch James Carville, Lanny Davis, Terry McAuliffe, or Paul Begala without gastrointestinal discomfort.

I am proud to belong to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party where people worry more about economics, health care, education, and
the war then who is wearing a flag lapel pin.

The Superdelegates should have short-circuited Sen Clinton's race-baiting campaign a long time ago. Hillary and Bill have taken a logarithmic drop in stature.

Teresa, I do agree overall with your sentiment, but at the same she really hasn't made a concerted effort to reach out to the African American demographic in the last few weeks. She's also acted as if African Americans would only vote for Obama because he's black, instead of the possibility that he's touting ideals and policies they want. Maybe if she reached out to them more directly instead of talking about her advantage with whites, non-college, over-45 demographics. Even if she did lose them, it wasn't because she ignored them.

BTW, Paul_yes_that_one just jumped the shark and declared that he can't vote for Obama in November because Obama has run...wait for it...the equivalent of the GOP Southern Strategy against the Clintons.

I know that the GOP loves to wallow in self-pitying victimhood, but Hillary supporters do give it the old college try as well.

"Maybe she could argue for reinstating the 3/5ths clause. (And she just might find someone at National Review to agree with her.)"

IS that 3/5th's of Florida, or Michigan?

= DISENFRANCHISEMENT ACCOMPLISHED =

Space: BTW, Paul_yes_that_one just jumped the shark and declared that he can't vote for Obama in November because Obama has run...wait for it...the equivalent of the GOP Southern Strategy against the Clintons.

Oh god I threw up a little in my mouth. Is he serious???

AMC - I hope you remember this snarky tone when words similar to these start coming from the McCain campaign during the general election against Obama.

rmrd0000 :Paul Begala called "his" Democratic Party one composed of working class Whites and Latinos. He summarily dismissed Eggheads and African-Americans. Donna Brazilre tok him to task on CNN last night. As an egghead African-American proud to be an arugula eating, wine consuming elitist, I was doubly offended by Begala.
----------------

That is really unfair. Brazil is the one who suggested that Latino and working class voters should be drummed out of the Democratic party.

As the daughter of working class white Democratic voters, I think that is pretty unfair.

And you're going to end up eating your argula under a McCain administration if you don't realize that the Democratic party can not win in the fall without working class voters.

This is exactly the kind of comment from the Clinton campaign that explains why she now pulls less black votes than George Allen or Bush in their respective races.
If they still don't get it after polling as low as 6% of the black vote, then I don't know what to say.
And Geraghty is right. There is a double standard. Somehow it is bad that African-Americans rally behind the presumptive nominee who happens to be of mixed race but the fact women consistently provide enough votes for Hillary Clinton, who by all accounts has lost the nomination, to stay on is natural and a positive thing.
And of course it has nothing to do with mere gender.
By the way if we compared the number of votes Hillary got on account of being the "first woman president" and the number of votes Barack got on account of being "the first black president", who do you think got the more vote out of identity politics ?
So let's stop being silly and send those things in each other's faces. Identity politics exist but that's not why Hillary or Barack are where they are and implying so is insulting to both those candidates who are tremendous people and to their supporters.

Anyone have the name of the Bozo at Royal Canuckistanian Pinheads, er, Real Clear Politics that was quoted in The Week as saying McCain couldn't possibly get elected in November?

I have an ASSHAT he'll want to microwave before eating.

Those same "racist" Blacks who are voting for Obama have voted for a White guy (Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, ...) in every single election. They have also voted for a White guy against a Black guy in countless elections for city council, state senate, gubernatorial, and congressional races. The first time in this nation's history, after centuries of racial discrimination, there is the possibility before us, that a Black parent can turn to their son or daughter and say, you know, you can be the President of the United States! I for one do not accept a moral equivalence between these Black parents, and those Whites who wouldn't vote for a Black president in pretty much the same spirit as their fathers didn't want Blacks in their pools and theaters, or sitting next to them in a bus.

If Alan Keyes or Shelby Steele, were running, they wouldn't draw this kind of Black vote. Jesse Jackson didn't get 90+ percent of the Black vote when he ran for president. So there are other considerations besides just race which is driving up Obama's AA votes to ridiculous levels. It's not all racism. At least one other factor in the mix has to be the race-baiting by Republicans and the Clinton campaign, especially their vile attempts to link Obama with Farrakhan, which pissed off the Black electorate. Clinton gained the White working class vote by pandering to their racism. No wonder she completely lost the African-American vote.

YMM: she really hasn't made a concerted effort to reach out to the African American demographic in the last few weeks. She's also acted as if African Americans would only vote for Obama because he's black, instead of the possibility that he's touting ideals and policies they want.
--------------

1) There aren't many policy differences between her and Obama so I sincerely doubt that African Americans just overwhelmingly prefer him on the issues. I don't have a problem with them seeing him as a historic candidate the same way some women see Hillary as a Historic candidate. I just don't think the women should be called racist for it.

2) I think she has tried to make some outreach efforts, but they rarely get covered by the media. This story in Time talks about how both campaigns ignored Black voters in Indiana because Obama figured they were already in the can: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1736093,00.html

TeresaKopec wonders about Black voting patterns

Hillary started with 60% of the African- American vote. Barack stated with 20% of the Black vote.

Hillary worked to lose the Black vote. To put this in perspective, GW Bush got 13% of the Black vote in Indiana. Hillary got 8% of the Black vote. What do those numbers say about the HRC campaign?

Let us suppose George Wallace ran and got 8% of the Black vote. Would we be asking why all those Black Democrats were voting
for the other candidate? No, we would be looking at why Wallace's campaign did not appeal to Black voters.

If Black voters have not been "psychotic" before, perhaps it's the candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has the problem, not the African-American community.

Why not look for the pathology in the Clinton campaign first?

"This is exactly the kind of comment from the Clinton campaign that explains why she now pulls less black votes than George Allen or Bush in their respective races."

Too bad their racist charade wasn't revealed before election day 1992.

MNINJ: The first time in this nation's history, after centuries of racial discrimination, there is the possibility before us, that a Black parent can turn to their son or daughter and say, you know, you can be the President of the United States! I for one do not accept a moral equivalence between these Black parents, and those Whites who wouldn't vote for a Black president in pretty much the same spirit as their fathers didn't want Blacks in their pools and theaters, or sitting next to them in a bus.
------------------------------

So every white person who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist? Wow. That's a pretty broad brush you are using.

I understand why Black voters are supporting Obama and have no problem with that. Why is it though that white women who support Hillary are called racist, bitter, old, etc... by pundits and Obama supporters. Don't you think they would like their daughters to see a woman in the White House?

"...perhaps it's the candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has the problem, not the African-American community..."

WE HAVE A WINNER.

Hillary had a substantial black vote at the beginning of the campaign. She lost that vote. She didnt have to lose that vote, she could have kept it, but there was a cognitive decision to run a campaign that segmented the party (the why cant he get working class blue collar voters? which is code for white). she made choices that backfired and she lost.

rmrd0000 : Hillary worked to lose the Black vote. To put this in perspective, GW Bush got 13% of the Black vote in Indiana. Hillary got 8% of the Black vote. What do those numbers say about the HRC campaign?
------------------

1) That the media unfairly did everything they could to paint Hillary as a racist after years of doing great work on civil rights by running ridiculous stories suggesting the word "fairy tale" is a racist slur?
2) When GWB ran for office there wasn't a viable Black candidate who had a chance of winning the race. Now there is. Just the same way that Mormons voted for Romney by 90%, African Americans will vote for Obama. Or are you suggesting that McCain ran an anti-Mormon campaign and is an anti-Mormon bigot?

TeresaKopec:
No. I am absolutely not saying that every White person voting for Clinton is a racist. Maybe I was not very clear. I'm just saying that SOME were racist. And the key point I make is that the racism of a White person not voting for Obama (if race is the determining factor in the decision) is not the moral equivalent of a Black person voting for Clinton, even if race is a determining factor. Both are cases of racism in the most literal sense. But I just don't see the moral equivalence in the two cases.

And I'd also agree with you that those women who vote for Hillary out of sister solidarity are also doing something that's understandable and not sexist in the same sense as men who wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman.

Are we on the same page now?

Correction:
Change
Black person voting for Clinton

to
Black person voting for Obama

cbhenderson : She didnt have to lose that vote, she could have kept it, but there was a cognitive decision to run a campaign that segmented the party (the why cant he get working class blue collar voters? which is code for white). she made choices that backfired and she lost.
----------------

When McCain lost the Mormon vote 90%-10% to Romney was it because he made a cognitive decision to segment the GOP, or identity politics?

No Democratic President in the past two decades has won more than 40% of the white vote. Bill Clinton didn't win more than 40% of the white vote.

So what's the big deal again?

And where exactly are the superdelegates?

Although I thought she was irrational last night, I'm starting to tip towards the Donna Brazille side of this argument. WHY does it matter WHAT your voters LOOK like?

Again when Bill Clinton was using 90% of the black vote to win and less than 40% of the white vote this didn't seem to be a problem.

BLABBITY BLAB BLAB BLAB.

Here IS the Hipplery history they'll be writing about the Democrat party campaign of 2008:

"If only Blozo had kept his fat yapper shut."

Kids, wouldn't YOU like to be a roach on the wall at the Clixon compound in Cheataqua, after this IS all said and done?

Hillary would have fared better if she had divorced the dumb, narcissistic, microphone mouthing SOB long before she got into the U.S. Senate, never mind the POTUS competition.

And here IS another one for you, libniks: If Obama gets drunk and makes her his VEEP pick, what in the wide world of whitey tighty sports IS they going to do with BJ Boy on the prowl for the remainder of the autumn news fest? Ship him off to Burma to offer mouth-to-mouth to the masses there?

My only regret about this entire DNC circus IS that Johnny Carson didn't survive to see and skewer it, which none of the current mink monologuers have the Hillary balls to do, unfortunately.

Today one Clinton surrogate said that any new super-delegates that come out in the next few days for Obama are less important ones.

Now there are two classes of supers!

MNINJ: Are we on the same page now?

------------------------------

I think so. I do think that a lot of the "racism" stuff has been blown out of proportion though and I think people should be very careful about making those kind of charges. I think the media definately fueled the flames of this thing by parsing every comment out of the Clinton's mouth looking to stir up trouble.

When a white voter claims to oppose Obama based on irrelevant bullcrap like the Wright nonsense, it's not unreasonable to wonder whether that's just a cover for bigotry.

I think Jim Geraghty at NRO raises a good point:

I don't think I have ever read that sentence before.

Stringer: No Democratic President in the past two decades has won more than 40% of the white vote. Bill Clinton didn't win more than 40% of the white vote.

So what's the big deal again?

------------------------
Bill Clinton ran against two people: Perot and Bush 1 who split the white vote.

The Democratic party does not have to win the White Vote, but they have to keep it close in order to win over all. You have to build coalitions to win elections and African-Americans only constitute about 10% of the overall electorate in a general election. That is a great base to build on, but you need Latinos, union folks, women, etc... to get enough votes to overtake the GOP.

theresa,
please quit beating the horse. it is dead, show a little dignity, buck up and move on. alert alert alert...this is going to paint me as a horrible sexist, though i am not. i am a stay at home dad married to a very successful woman who holds no macho american guy apprehensions. BUT, this is why i think we are still a generation away from having a woman president (barring some woman who transends her peers). Women of hillary's age had to "play hardball" to get ahead in this male dominated society. The inability to say, "i lost" or "i was wrong" was a necessary by-product to get ahead. I understand this, I sympathize, but this is not the demeanor it takes to be president (we have one of those now). I think my daughters generation will produce multiple female presidents because of the trail women like hillary have blazed. but they will do so on merit and not be afraid to admit wrong doing or mistakes. They will not be reduced to caricatures for doing so.

she lost that vote. she was polling in the 30% range and dropped to 10%.

I think I can sum up what MNINJ is trying to say here:

Which is the more morally indefensible position: Voting FOR Obama because he's black...or Voting AGAINST Obama because he's black. Note: Voting FOR Clinton because she's white isn't necessarily the same as voting AGAINST Obama because he's black.

"When a white voter claims to oppose Obama based on irrelevant bullcrap like the Wright nonsense, it's not unreasonable to wonder whether that's just a cover for bigotry."

How about when a black voter -- say, oh, like SENATOR OBAMA himself -- doesn't actually like the Rev Wrong radical loon crapola?

Hello?

Anyone homer?

Next!

cbhenderson: please quit beating the horse. it is dead, show a little dignity, buck up and move on.
------------------------

I have no problem with Obama winning. I think Hillary should go into Huckabee phase. But I don't think it is fair for people in the media to continue to paint the Clintons as racists. Bill appointed more AfricanAmerican to judgeships and cabinet positions than any other President. His foundation has done tremendous work in Africa on HIV and poverty.

I think the efforts by the media and some Obama supporters to denigrate the Clintons and white voters is wrong and counter productive.

Yes Teresa but they also don't need THAT much more of it.

And Bill Clinton didn't get over 40% (I think he got precisely 40, getting ready to go out of town but will check) in 1996 when he JUST ran against Bob Dole.

The point is the Republican Party will ALWAYS get more of the white vote than the Democratic Party. The Democratic nominee is just not going to get 50% of that vote. Period.

And they're not counting on it to win. They never have.

So you have to adjust your thinking. What they do HAVE to have is the black vote. And that would be the case regardless of whether they were running a black candidate or not.

It's also the reason the Party and the superdelegates are (rightfully) so concerned about the anger Hillary Clinton's started in the black community.

Bill Clinton got 90% of the black vote and won the presidency. John Kerry got 84% and lost the presidency. THAT's why the black vote is so important. And if Hillary and the Party doesn't realize it they're in REAL trouble.

Notice Bill Clinton, for all his odd behavior that we can argue all day is or isn't race baiting is pretty much the ONLY person in her campaign who hasn't discounted or said it's alright that she's getting this low of black support. He knows what I know. 90% of the black vote the Democratic candidate wins the election. Any less they lose.

And again that's been the case for at least 20 years, so don't try to blame it on Obama. That's the party the Democrats set up LONG before he came around. And that's the Party Bill Clinton dominated and loved because, until this year, he was SMART enough to court that vote which always successfully came out for him.

Basically: she's screwed. And she knew how important that particular vote was going in.

teresa,
sorry i missed your point...i agree, i dont think they are racists either. i think they foresaw the difficulty of winning the afro-am vote as the race went on and were somewhat forced by the circumstances to run an identity politics campaign. it was the only path to victory. please accept my apology.

Teresa Kopec:

I think so. I do think that a lot of the "racism" stuff has been blown out of proportion though and I think people should be very careful about making those kind of charges. I think the media definately fueled the flames of this thing by parsing every comment out of the Clinton's mouth looking to stir up trouble.
--------------------------------------
I agree with what you say for some instances. For example I thought that Bill Clinton's fairytale comment was benign and the media blew it out of proportion.
His Jesse Jackson comment in South Carolina was borderline. I don't think that he was being racist. He was though, trying to define Obama as a "Black" candidate, and thereby get some White votes.

And then the bit about Obama having to answer for Farrakhan's "endorsement" and the repeated, relentless "Wright" attacks by Clinton surrogates were definitely meant to define Obama as a Black radical, and scare Whites into voting for Clinton. Clinton herself hardly ever gave up a chance to attack Obama on these two fronts. In her interview with 60 minutes she showed a remarkable lack of class when asked if she believes Obama is a Muslim.

People area saying that Clinton never tried to reach out to Black voters. That's false. She did give it a try by going to Tavis Smiley's State of the Black Union forum where Obama declined to go. And she did apologize for her husband's remarks. But I think that the outreach effort was short-lived. In order to win the lunch-bucket Democrats in Pennsylvania and Ohio, her campaign went full throttle trying to define Obama as the "Black-only" candidate.

Clinton campaign keeps hammering the point that White working class voters have to be won over to win an election. Has a Democrat ever won an election without the Black vote? It must have irritated Blacks that Clinton keeps dismissing them as a constituency, and emphasizing the critical importance of White working class voters, probably assuming that Blacks have little choice but to return to the Democratic fold in the general. No one likes to be taken for granted.

"Now, if only there was a way to make white votes count for more than the black ones..."

Yeah, about that.

As my wife and were watching the returns last night on CNN, we were kinda stunned that there are still people who are arguing that Hillary can still win it. Sen. Obama has more pledged delegates, more state wins, the larger chunk of the popular votes and he'll have more super delegates in his corner in a few days if they keep breaking for him at the pace they have been. If that's not winning, I don't know what is. Given that he's ahead of her by nearly all measures, the argument that he can't carry the white vote, the majority of the population, so the nomination should go to Hillary steps firmly into ugly territory. If Hillary gets the nomination at this point, the Democratic party will basically be telling their black constituents that their votes don't mean as much to the party as white votes. I can't imagine anything more horrible than that. That wouldn't just be a terrible thing for the party but for our country. It would be a confirmation of the worst fears of the African American community: that they really aren't valued and respected by our society.

Here are a few quick "tidbits" from Bill even by major news and reputed political sites and books is viewed as an easy win:

"In the end, Clinton won a victory over Senator Dole. Ross Perot won approximately 8% of the popular vote resulting in Clinton becoming the first two-term president since Woodrow Wilson to win both of his elections with a plurality of popular votes instead of an outright majority. The 1996 national exit poll showed that Reform Party nominee Ross Perot's supporters drew from Clinton and Dole equally. [9] In polls directed at Perot voters as to whom would be a second choice, Clinton consistently held substantial leads. [10]"

Perot did run again in 1996, which most people forget. And he won a significant amount of the vote, 8%. That's a lot.

Also as for Bill's vaunted performance in the South:

"Although he hailed from Arkansas, Clinton carried just four of the eleven states of the American South, tying his 1992 run for the worst performance by a winning Democratic presidential candidate in the region (in terms of states won). Clinton's performance seems to have been part of a broader decline in support for the Democratic Party in the South"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996

bbottle,
you hit it on the head...but what bothers me is that all this implies the voters are racist, that hillary's white voters won't vote for obama in the GE

Alright gotta go. But suffice it to say this: Al Gore received only 36% of the white male vote in 2000 and essentially won the presidency. What does that tell you?

The numbers Obama needs are simply not as high as you think.

And I'm positive Bill Clinton got less than 40% in 1992 and I'm pretty sure his percentage reached only 40% in 1996.

Leaving town, quickly to take someone to the airport. But the point is this notion that Obama getting only 38 or 40% of the white male vote in the general as bad is not true. It would be a huge boon! You could count on a win then.

Now yes, white females you need to a little better with, but still anywhere around 50 or 52 or 54% of those, with just 90 let alone the 92 or 94% of the black vote he would get in the general would do that for you too.

"Bill appointed more AfricanAmerican to judgeships and cabinet positions than any other President."

Bush 43 has appointed the most minority Cabinet members, to date.

BTW: BJ Boy never got above 50% in the total popular vote, twice (i.e., most Americans never voted for and never liked the sorry sack of sleaze). Never mind the white vote. Truth be told, he never attracted the diverse vote.

Lacking Ross Parrot, we never would have heard of the myopic buffoon -- and we may never have suffered Bin Laden's 9-11 (please finally read your long lost 9-11 REPORT, demlix) as his lasting legacy of political selfishness, class warfare, national defense neglect, and international stupidity.

To his credit, Obama offers nothing better, unless you consider appeasement and pandering new ground.

"...vote resulting in Clinton becoming the first two-term president since Woodrow Wilson to win both of his elections with a plurality of popular votes instead of an outright majority..."

What I said.

TeresaKopec seems to forget that this nomination was HRC's to LOSE. She was hailed for YEARS as the INEVITABLE nominee. Apparently OBAMA did not get the memo and proceeded to provide a comprehensive beating in just about every phase of the game. Her arrogance is reflected in her supporters: Carville, Begala et al are angry at the outcome and seem to be in denial about her losing in this campaign.

HRC's campaign provides all who desire to venture into politics a case study as an example of how NOT to run a campaign. She ignored caucuses. She made statements that appeared (and in some cases were) inflammatory. She grossly mismanaged money. She grossly mismanaged her campaign leadership. She used her husband, who overall was more of a hinderance than a help (I am scratching my head to think of a time where a former president did so much to ruin an outstanding legacy in such a short period of time). She used too many of the old guard who seemed to akin to an athlete that stayed in the game too long (the game passed them by). I can go on and on.

As far as AA voters: What TeresaKopec in her anger and argumentative tone doesnt seem to understand is that AA's were not going to VOTE for Obama as a whole because they did not think that he had a chance to win. What she also doesnt seem to understand that even as the campaign progressed, the AA community as a whole was initially CONFLICTED because they struggled between picking an AA candidate that had a chance for the WH and another whose family did so much to support the community. The conflict was real. People did not know what to do.

Then those comments came.....

Whether they were bigoted, racist or discriminatory I cannot say - I, nor anyone else, knows what is inside the hearts of the Clintons. However, the fact that they could be TAKEN that way says a lot. What did Bill actually mean when in response to Obama winning SC he said, (im paraphrasing) "Well, Jesse Jackson won in '88"? What was the point of HRC saying (and im paraphrasing again that "MLK would not have been effective without LBJ"? Again a strong argument can be made that these comments were not intended to be harmful at all. But the fact that they could be TAKEN that way, and WERE taken that way by even some of the most dinstinguished AA leaders says a lot. The Clintons seemed to forget Politics 101 - Do everything to ensure that your base voters are satisfied.

I can go on and on about the misgivings of the Clinton campaign. In fact, a dissertation may come of this in the future because it is fascinating how all of her weaknesses have been demonstrated. Bottom line is that this campaign was hers to lose. She is like the prize fighter that expects his opponent to be intimidated by his very presence, but instead got whupped in every round.

QH: you want to talk about a sack of sleaze?! (from SNL) REALLY?!!

"Her arrogance is reflected in her supporters: Carville, Begala et al are angry at the outcome and seem to be in denial about her losing in this campaign."

How sweet it IS.

"I can go on and on about the misgivings of the Clinton campaign. In fact, a dissertation may come of this in the future..."

I wonder who will play Bill in ABC's Home Movie Of The Weak?

I'm thinking Charlie Sheen.

With Charleze Theron as Hill.

And Rita Rudner as Chelsea.

Carville can play himself, as usual.

brokenbottle: As my wife and were watching the returns last night on CNN, we were kinda stunned that there are still people who are arguing that Hillary can still win it.

Lanny Davis was atrocious, spinning so fast you could hook up wires to him and light up your neighborhood...the CNN panelists looked like they were embarassed for him.

I was flipping between CNN and MSNBC, myself. Pat Buchanan was making the same false electability argument that, in effect, Democratic 'blue collar' voters for Clinton in the primary wouldn't vote Democratic in the general.

...the argument that he can't carry the white vote, the majority of the population, so the nomination should go to Hillary steps firmly into ugly territory.

Tsk, tsk...you're supposed to say 'blue collar' instead of 'white', brokenbottle...sheesh...

But, yeah, that's about right.

TeresaKopec: Just the same way that Mormons voted for Romney by 90%, African Americans will vote for Obama.

By that - ahem - logic, Alan Keyes' various bids for public office should have garnered much more support from the African-American community, instead of his best presidential primary showing of 20% in Utah.

This is why I think Hillary would have a very hard time, even if she were to somehow win. Incorrect information is embedded in the collective narrative. It has also happened to Obama -- just not in the sources people here see.

His Jesse Jackson comment in South Carolina was borderline. I don't think that he was being racist. He was though, trying to define Obama as a "Black" candidate, and thereby get some White votes.

However, it was said the day after the election in the middle of a long series of baiting questions. The whole transcript gives a different perspective when read fairly.

And then the bit about Obama having to answer for Farrakhan's "endorsement" and the repeated, relentless "Wright" attacks by Clinton surrogates were definitely meant to define Obama as a Black radical, and scare Whites into voting for Clinton. Clinton herself hardly ever gave up a chance to attack Obama on these two fronts. In her interview with 60 minutes she showed a remarkable lack of class when asked if she believes Obama is a Muslim.

As I recall the majority of the endless "Wright attacks" were by members of the media. Sean Hannity was running the sermon clips for over a year -- you surely can't define him as a Clinton surrogate. The 60 Minutes interview transcript shows a different perception. The first time Kroft asked her the question, she said no. The second and third times she said no in a different way. The fourth time, she added the "as far as I know." It really didn't show her as saying, yes, I think he might be a Muslim.

If she had won decisively in Indiana and won in North Carolina, I would feel she needed to go on full tilt. Since she didn't, it would be nice if she were to into a "Huckabee campaign" but we need to stop squabbling and begin to look at the way Obama is already being defined. He has a lot of well established negatives. You may say, oh well they wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway, but look at the way St. John's story got fluffed up.

Shu : Then those comments came.....
----------------------
I'm not arguing that Hillary ran a good campaign. Pretty clearly Obama ran a better and smarter one.

The point I am making is that Ana casually -- just for snarky fun -- insinuates that Hillary is a racist this morning by talking about "her base" as if Obama is not also trying to appeal to working class white voters.

It is this kind of nasty, pointless mischief making on the point of the media that I object to. Why is it that all these years went by and no one ever thought that the Clintons were racists, but all of a sudden every breath they take is parsed, cut on the editing floor, etc... to paint that picture? Maybe because the media was determined to run her out of the race from the get go. You could see them dancing on her grave before N.H.

Right. Now, if only there was a way to make white votes count for more than the black ones...

AMC:

How Sullivan-esque of you (that's not a compliment).

You could have said "Now, if only there was a way to make Hillary's votes count for more than Obama's...", but you ran with the implication that her campaign's arguments are all inherently racist--to your discredit.

It's wrong, AMC.
Not quite as grotesque as this:

The Shamelessness Of The Clintons

07 May 2008 07:57 am

A reader reminds me of some basic truths:

My good friend, you're missing the point. You keep waiting, expecting, and predicting that Hillary Clinton is going to give up, throw in the towel, make a concession speech and go back to the Senate. Every time things get worse you make that prediction, and she keeps going. And that is what Bill Clinton really brought to American politics: the total lack of shame, decency, and a sense of the appropriate.

How many times was Bill Clinton pinned to the wall over countless misdeeds, and each time--when any normal human being would turn red, mumble an apology, and slink away--he held his chin up high and went forward. Being grilled on 60 Minutes over his countless affairs? Being sued for sexual harrassment? Being caught in a lie in front of the whole world? Nope, no big deal, business as usual, let's move forward.

Honestly, can you think of ANYTHING that would have caused Bill Clinton to just hang his head in shame and to retire from public life? And if you thought he was bad, there is poll result, delegate count, fundraising statistics, whatever that would cause Hillary Clinton to quit. When this is all over, when Obama or McCain or whomever is elected president, Hillary Clinton will still be standing in front of an almost empty room with a sagging Clinton 2008 banner behind her, still talking in a hoarse but measured voice about legal options and taking her case all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't think I can honestly be accused of missing the sociopathic tendencies of the Clintons. But it's always worth remembering from time to time.

You're going to look back on this cycle (a lot of people will, IMO) with some regret at the general willingness to assign the characteristics of National Socialist Party politics to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, her supporters and the tens of millions of Americans who voted for her.

At least make some valid attempt to apply the same sets of standards of judgment to the actors involved--unless you have irrefutable, empirical evidence of diabolical or malignant intent, in which case please do share with the rest of us proles out here.

If the Clintons are wrong, they're wrong. If they are lying, then they are lying. There's no need to dress them in rhetorical white sheets and hoods to make that point, AMC.

Ok, TeresaKopec...Now I get your point.

I dont know what Wonkette was insinuating........maybe she grace us with her presence and set the record str8.

hillary just moved the goalposts again in a press conference. she dismissed the delegate count and said "i think where i start from is a stronger place for the general election."

Clinton and her supporters can't have it both ways: she can't argue that we need to heed the will of white voters who won't vote for a black person, but that this isn't a racial argument.

She can't argue that he's "unelectable" due to lack of support from these "white working class voters", but that when she discusses his electability, she's not talking about his race.

From the Link:

And Garin brags, specifically and explicitly, about her strength with the white vote, comparing North Carolina's white voters in North Carolina to those in Virginia. (The conversations have always been about these voters, but they're usually referred to as "blue collar" or by some less specifically racial euphemism.)

"We lost the white electorate in Virginia, started even in North Carolina among the white electorate just two weeks ago, and ended [with] a very significant win of 24 points among those voters," he said, acknowledging that among black voters, Clinton "did not do as well as we would want or need."

You may give Ana a hard time over her snark but is responding rather directly to what the campaign said rather explicitly. If you find it offensive, blame Garvin, not AMC.

QH. I agree with you on Carville. He lost me when he called Gov. Richardson Judas.....

stuart: I don't see how you can argue that her recent spin is not based on playing up the racial angle - in her case, playing up white anxiety about voting for a black man.

I just don't see how you can honestly argue that there is no racial tinge to what she's doing recently.

Before everyone yells at me about Obama's black support, the difference is that he doesn't talk about it or play it up. His black support (much of which used to be Hillary's by the way) can't win him the election. His approach is explicitly racially inclusive. It has to be.

Her current approach is explicitly racially exclusive. The difference.

Clinton is reminding me of Ali's last two fights. A great fighter who stayed too long and embarrassed himself in the process....

PaulDirks --

Look carefull at what you posted:

"And Garin brags, specifically and explicitly,"

That is a value judgement on behalf of the writer and an attempt by a partisan to paint Garin in a bad light. What evidence is there that Garin is "bragging" as opposed to just pointing out which groups they did well with. He specifically says about black voters, "we did not do as well as we would want or need."

Does that really sound like she is dismissing black voters?

Do you really think that Axelrod wasn't talking about the "white vote" or the "Catholic vote" or whatever this morning as well? This is the way political operatives discuss campaigns.

Stuart Z- -- I agree with you about Andrew Sullivan. He is positively unhinged and unreadable.

I heard a woman on NPR before the Pennsylvania primary talking about Hillary and Obama. She said, "They are both so great. It is like winning a million dollars and having to decide whether you want it in fifties or hundreds."

I thought, "Right on sister!"

Why can't people simply like Obama better (for whatever reason) without resorting to calling Hillary a racist, a sociopath, evil, etc... Why not say, "I really like her, but Obama makes my heart zing" or vice versa.

It would be a heck of a lot easier to pull the party back together if people thought and talked that way. But calling women "old and bitter" for daring to support Hillary is not a great way to win their loyalty.

TeresaKopec: "But calling women "old and bitter" for daring to support Hillary is not a great way to win their loyalty."

Being called a cultist, an elitist, or a young person who just doesn't understand how the world works don't feel to great either.

BrendanB: Being called a cultist, an elitist, or a young person who just doesn't understand how the world works don't feel to great either.
-----------------------

That was kind of my point. Why not be nice to both of them?

(sigh)

Let's say that the (obviously Shi'a) Sadrists want to run a candidate nationally in Iraq (like for president), so they enter the primary contest.

Now let's say that there's a candidate being run for the same office by the (obviously Sunni) Iraqi Islamic Party, so now there's a big battle for the nomination between the two factions.

Let's further stipulate that the Sunni candidate's surrogates come out with some rationale for their candidacy that involves pointing out the obvious fact that Sadr's guy is totally unelectable in Anbar, and therefore the IIP candidate (theirs) should be the nominee, because their argument is that you can't win the presidency unless you carry a major portion of Anbar province (which happens to be the conventional wisdom going around on roundtables on "Meet the Iraqi Press" every Saturday for the past twenty years).

I would argue that the IIP party line might be wrong, conventional Iraqi Saturday talk show wisdom might be wrong, and that the IIP may simply be lying or trying to misdirect the conversation away from what's really important. But if the Sadrists were to come out saying that the Sunni candidate was an ethnicist for even discussing the electability of the Shi'a candidate in Anbar, and that this totally proved just how evil and diabolical the IIP really was, I would think that there would be something really, really wrong with that argument, and I would criticize the Iraqi political press corps relentlessly for internalizing it.

I would be even further dismayed if the Sadrists (or members of the Iraqi political press corps) continued to imbue the conversation with implicit accusations of ethnicism against the Sunni candidate at exactly the same time that it is a universally acknowledged fact that almost the entirety of Sadr city just voted for the Sadrist candidate, like 92% to 8%, and that the Sadrists actively sought the Shi'a vote, going so far as to actually (politically) threaten local Shi'a politicals in Baghdad if they didn't support Sadr's candidate ("You wouldn't want to be known as the person who prevented Sadr's guy from becoming the first Shi'a president of Iraq, now, would you? Ads could be run about that sort of thing, you know...especially if there was a bunch of money left over from the campaign...").

If there can be discussions about electability, then there should be open discussions about electability involving facts like race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age and political party or ideology or affiliation, without assigning some of those factors as taboo, because one side says so (and they can get a bunch of historically oppressed Shi'a to take partisan sides with them). To set rules about talking about the factors that make tribal politics such a f--king problem in a representative democracy during a campaign is as absurd as it sounds.

The Iraqis probably shouldn't do that in the theoretical scenario I've posited. They probably wouldn't be more likely to solve their ethnic polarization problems if they resorted to that kind of pathetic politics.

(and, of course, it would be especially wrong to accuse anybody capable of imagining such a scenario as a hopeless, unconscious beneficiary of Sunni privilege under the Saddam regime, and therefore morally unfit to theorize as such, because it would be similarly unproductive)

TeresaKopec: "That was kind of my point. Why not be nice to both of them?"

Sounds good. Let's give it a try.

Stuart, can you just post the cliff notes?

Why can't people simply like Obama better (for whatever reason) without resorting to calling Hillary a racist, a sociopath, evil, etc... Why not say, "I really like her, but Obama makes my heart zing" or vice versa.

Probably for the same reason that people can't simply like Clinton better without resorting to calling Obama a sure loser, a lightweight, an elitist, out of touch, dangerous, weak, a possible closet Muslim, unqualified for the office (or at least less qualified than the Republican), etc.

But calling women "old and bitter" for daring to support Hillary is not a great way to win their loyalty.

Who said that, particularly the "old" part?

ivb:

However, it was said the day after the election in the middle of a long series of baiting questions. The whole transcript gives a different perspective when read fairly.

Yes, it was after the South Carolina primary, so not aimed at changing that outcome, but he was, as I saw it, trying to marginalize Obama as the "Black" candidate in preparation for the upcoming Super Tuesday. I understand, that you might think differently on a matter which is somewhat subjective. I am giving you a reasoned Obama supporter viewpoint.

As I recall the majority of the endless "Wright attacks" were by members of the media. Sean Hannity was running the sermon clips for over a year -- you surely can't define him as a Clinton surrogate.

When Russert ridiculously asked Obama about Farrakhan's "endorsement" of his candidacy, it was Clinton's chance to show some class. Instead, she took the low road and piled on.

Yes the major drumbeaters of the Wright story were the Hannities and the Dobbses. But Clinton surrogates -- not supporters, but surrogates -- were happy to chime in. The most vile was Lanny Davis who first pushed Wright-gate on Huffington Post, and then later in the Wall Street Journal. Ambassador Joe Wilson is another one that comes to mind. I do not think of a second that Wilson or Davis -- both high profile surrogates -- would have carried out this hatchet job without the blessings of the candidate.

The 60 Minutes interview transcript shows a different perception. The first time Kroft asked her the question, she said no. The second and third times she said no in a different way. The fourth time, she added the "as far as I know." It really didn't show her as saying, yes, I think he might be a Muslim.

I saw that interview live. And my take-away was quite different from yours. It seemed to me that she was trying very hard not to be unequivocal in her denial. Again, maybe my view-point is colored by my support for Obama, but then, yours could be similarly tinted.

If she had won decisively in Indiana and won in North Carolina, I would feel she needed to go on full tilt. Since she didn't, it would be nice if she were to into a "Huckabee campaign" but we need to stop squabbling and begin to look at the way Obama is already being defined.

Well, it depends on whether we want Obama to win, no? If we want him to win then we resist others attempts to define him unfavorably. If we don't, then we just keep pointing out how he has all these negatives and wave the white flag at the big bad Republican Machine ready to eat him up.

@stuart....

You make a good point. Fortunately for me, my aggravation with the Hillary campaign doesn't revolve around her using Obama's race as a wedge between him and what we have been refering to politely as blue-collar white voters. My aggravation stems from her using his intelligence and articulateness as a wedge between him and those voters.

The whole "elite" crap and bitterness stems from her willingness to work the lowest common denominator and when transalted into policy actually helps drive our country's collective behavior toward poorly thought out actions.

The gas-tax flap remains another example of the same phenomenon. It wasn't by accident that she refered to economists as "elite"

I find the whole thing infuriating.

FastEddie: Probably for the same reason that people can't simply like Clinton better without resorting to calling Obama a sure loser, a lightweight, an elitist, out of touch, dangerous, weak, a possible closet Muslim, unqualified for the office (or at least less qualified than the Republican), etc.

-------------------
I have never said those things about Obama. As far as the "old" comments, they are endemic on this and other pro-Obama boards and the media. I think Ana or someone posted the Maya Angelou video supporting Hillary and the very first comment on this blog was "Now we know how the aged bird sings..."

TK - I thought both Clinton and Obama have attempted to take the temperature down a notch in the last week. But I was surprised by an exit poll discussed on CNN this morning that showed more Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain in the general if Hillary does not win. I can't find the actual numbers but I think it was around 35%. While I suspect a lot of that is sour grapes talking and the actual number will be far less, that does not speak well of Clinton's supporters, if true.

(Before you ask, the number for Obama supporters was about half - again, easier to be gracious when you're winning.)

MNINJ2 -

If we want him to win then we resist others attempts to define him unfavorably.

My point is that he is already defined among a lot of groups. They may be dismissed as groups that would never vote for Obama in any case, but these narratives have a way of moving into the mainstream. Look at Gore, look at Kerry. It is clear Obama will be the nominee. In that case, I really really want him to win. As I have said many times, all I really care about is the Supreme Court. I think we need to do more than gently resist.

Thank you for responding to my points above. I think the transcripts, which I have read, give a different perspective from what has been repeated over and over -- or even personal memory. BTW, I also support Jerimiah Wright for what he really said (including the Press Club Q&A, which made the press run to the fainting couch) and think that someone - anyone - should have stuffed a handkerchief in Lanny Davis' mouth a long time ago. I suggest that even a candidate can find it more difficult to shut someone up than we think.

Bravo Paul Dirks!!
I tooam i sick and tired for having to apologize for being educated. People drink latte's because they taste good. Wine is good. people bought volvo's because they were boxy but safe. I read, gasp, because i want to make an informed decision. why is all this looked down upon? i have never said, "those bud light swillin, nascar watching, f150 drivin, g.e.d. people"....well ok, i probably did,but i was nice about it :)

wow judging by those typing skills, who would know i am educated...eek

Teresa, from last night on CNN (via HuffPost)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/brazile-and-begala-angril_n_100500.html

BEGALA: My advice to Barack Obama is put the jam on the lower shelf where the little folk can reach it. In other words, talk more about those blue collar, economic populist issues that John Edwards first raised and now Hillary Clinton is raising so effectively. If he can do that, he'll hold this wonderful base built but he needs to reach out now to the white working-class voters and means a different message than he generally talks about. He's got to stop with all the arguments for the Volvo drivin', NPR totebag totin' liberals, he needs to talk to middle class working people.

Donna Brazile, however, wasn't having any of it, and minutes later took the opportunity to dress Begala down (and in front of her boo, Lou Dobbs, to boot!). Begala protested, "We can't win with eggheads and African-Americans." Brazile, on the other hand, seemed to think that unifying the entire Democratic base would be preferable to alienating and insulting large demographic cross-sections of it in order to make blue-collar voters feel sufficiently pandered to. "You've got a hearing problem," Brazile jeered, "I've drank more beers with Joe Sixpack and Jane Sixpack than most white Democrats." She also took issue with Begala's continually referring to the Democratic Party as "my party." "It's our party, Paul."

Teresa, Brazile was talking unifying the party.
Begala talked about "his" party. Brazile talked about our party.

How's that jam on the lower shelf taste?
Who used the terms, eggheads, NPR totin', Volvo drivin' to ridicule a groups of voters.

Also read Sean Wilenz's recent piece on HuffPost about how he dismisses a warning Rep Clyburn tried to give Sen Clinton about the sentiments of African-American voters. Clyburn is race-baiting. HRC's campaign in the AA community was pathetic.

Finally, Hillary began losing Black votes in early 2007. Obama had been invited to be the keynote speaker at a Civil rights celebration in SC. Bill strong-armed an invitation to the same celebration for Hillary. State sen robert Ford, an African-American Clinton supporter used threats to push the invitation through the invitation committee.

The activities of the Clinton campaign in SC was carried by Black media and word of mouth. Preachers in SC began leaving the fold because of the arrogance they sensed from the campaign.
MSM did not pick p on the race-baiting meme until late in the game.

Early on, Blacks were responding to actions done by the Clinton campaign, not to MSM.

Thread - Here is a suggestion:

ADMIT THAT EVERYBODY IS TIRED OF THE NAME-CALLING - THEN MOVE ON!

How long are Democrats going to blame other Democrats for this kind of sticks-and-stones nonsense? I have to tell you that if you think that the other Democratic candidate has somehow crossed some kind of 'line' then you are living in a dream world. I live in one of the reddest areas of one of the reddest southern states and I can promise you that the bile that flows through the Republican circles here makes anything said by the opposing Democratic candidate or their surrogates or supporters look like a day at the spa. These people do not use dog whistles and they do not shrink from taking the lowest road possible to convince people of the most specious, scurrilous lies.

So get over yourselves. This dinner-table squabble is almost over and then it will be time for our family to go back outside and face our true opponents - the people that have committed us to war without end, to a dismantling of our treasured national institutions, to a redistribution of the national wealth to those that would prey on the weak and the sick and the vulnerable. It is time to grow up and get to work.

I am Terrapin and I support this message.

My point is that he is already defined among a lot of groups. They may be dismissed as groups that would never vote for Obama in any case, but these narratives have a way of moving into the mainstream. Look at Gore, look at Kerry. It is clear Obama will be the nominee.

I think that Atwater is the patriarch of the Right Wing slime machine, and wrote the user-manual on how to paint a Democrat as a latte-sipping, criminal-loving, America-hating wuss. It seems to me that the media is haunted by Atwater's ghost, and seeks to get their cue on the Democratic nominee from the Right Wing blow-hards. It is now time for excorcism.

The Atwater formula worked on Dukakis, Kerry, and Gore. Bill Clinton, who had much more ammo against him than any of the other three, successfully fought it back. His success can be attributed to his superb spin machine, his charisma, especially on the stump, and a tanking economy. There is no reason to think that Obama cannot duplicate that. The economy is tanking, and we have a war going on that sucks billions of dollars every month from the taxpayer pockets.

So despite the naysayers who point to tied polls and so on, I am bullish on President Obama.

Regarding Rev. Wright, I was quite happy at his interview with Bill Moyers. If that were all, I think he'd have helped Obama. But he became increasingly lunatic in the next two days. He said some things that were reasonable, another few which can be described as kooky conspiracy theories (e.g. "AIDS" thing), and then some others that put his "patriotism" in question. In any country -- certainly in my birth country (Pakistan), and my adopted one -- the "patriotic" political discourse is defined by some boundaries. If you violate those boundaries, you are unpatriotic. What you said is wrong and vile, a priori; so wrong, that you deserve no response but name-calling. This contempt-heaping in lieu of reasoned debate is fertilizer for conspiracy theories, and polarizes society.
I read on Slate.com that about 20% of Black people believe that AIDS virus was invented by the government. Jeremiah Wright was asked about it, and he quoted some book. Everyone piled up on him, but no one bothered to look at that book and tell him why the book is wrong, or the book doesn't say that?

As another example, we can take the theory quite widely believed in Pakistan that Jews were warned of the 9/11 bombing before-hand, and on that day, none of them showed up for work, and no Jew got killed. This vile nonsense is quite easy to rebut. Just point to all the Jewish names in the victims' list, and you're done. Yet for seven years I have never seen anyone do that. People who know this rumor to be false, just make some self-righteous noises and point to the stupidity of those who believe it. Well, the believers just see this non-response as a reaffirmation of their kooky theory.

Ms Cox seems to have conveniently forgotten that 91 %of African Americans voted for Obama. She doesn't see any problem with that. Is that not racially biased voting? She seems to think that if a white politician improves his/her standing among whites somehow there is something wrong that or is racially motivated. However almost all blacks voting for a balck politician is being "liberal" or should we call it "progress". Why are these media "elites" blind to the voting pattern that has been going on in this primary. It is the African American population that has been deliberately biased in their voting. Is that ok? Is that what America is going to be? Each ethnic or racial group voting for the politician of its own color or race. By not having the courage to point the bias in the minority voting the media elites are making to look as if it is ok for the minority to do so. What is right for the majortiy should be right for the minority and vice versa.

Posted by Paul Dirks | May 7, 2008 2:14 PM:

My aggravation stems from her using his intelligence and articulateness as a wedge between him and those voters.

The whole "elite" crap and bitterness stems from her willingness to work the lowest common denominator and when transalted into policy actually helps drive our country's collective behavior toward poorly thought out actions.

The gas-tax flap remains another example of the same phenomenon. It wasn't by accident that she refered to economists as "elite"

I find the whole thing infuriating.

Really well said, Paul Dirks.

Also, I think that I've got to concur with you on these issues.

_Terraopinion , I understand your rationale, but maybe it's good to spell out your grievances now so that by tye convention yu will be ready to support the nominee.

I think, you can be respectful, but point out your differences. If the commentary gets rough, even that adjusts itself, by commentary of the one being roughed up or other participants.

Second this is a blog,it is for opinions if discussion is curtailed here, where do you go?

Similarly on race, if you can't be frank on an anonymous blog, how is it ever going to be possible to have a national discussion on race in public?

I view this as a site to offer personal points of view, not to really direct a national discussion.

_MNINJ2,
13% of the population thinks Obama is a Muslim. 25% think GW is a good President. Elitists live in a scary world.

Posted by stuart_zechman | May 7, 2008 2:00 PM

I would be even further dismayed if the Sadrists (or members of the Iraqi political press corps) continued to imbue the conversation with implicit accusations of ethnicism against the Sunni candidate at exactly the same time that it is a universally acknowledged fact that almost the entirety of Sadr city just voted for the Sadrist candidate, like 92% to 8%, and that the Sadrists actively sought the Shi'a vote, going so far as to actually (politically) threaten local Shi'a politicals in Baghdad if they didn't support Sadr's candidate ("You wouldn't want to be known as the person who prevented Sadr's guy from becoming the first Shi'a president of Iraq, now, would you? Ads could be run about that sort of thing, you know...especially if there was a bunch of money left over from the campaign...").

...by my own standards, I suppose that if I'm going to throw out references like that, I should link to and quote at least one supporting account:

Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri Endorses Hillary Clinton

Black Missouri, February 15, 2008

One black supporter of Clinton, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, said he remains committed to her. “There’s nothing going on right now that would cause me to” change, he said.

He said any suggestion that elected leaders should follow their voters “raises the age old political question. Are we elected to monitor where our constituents are … or are we to use our best judgment to do what’s in the best interests of our constituents.”

In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him “if it comes down to the last day and you’re the only superdelegate? … Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

“I told him I’d think about it,” Cleaver concluded.

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. “Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position” in the future, he added.

> Finally, Hillary began losing Black votes in early 2007. Obama had been invited to be the keynote speaker at a Civil rights celebration in SC. Bill strong-armed an invitation to the same celebration for Hillary. State sen robert Ford, an African-American Clinton supporter used threats to push the invitation through the invitation committee.

Oh, come on. Do you _really_ expect that she'd take a pass on an opportunity like that? In fact, if she had, you could have similarly slammed her for "ignoring the black people."

Oh, and ya know, this whole - "Rep vs. Dem / white vs. black / elite vs. uh, everyone else" crap begins to make me sick. Whatever other label you want to tag yourself with, bucko, you're AMERICAN first. This is _not_ the United States of Black Citizens. Or Eggheads. Or Blue Collar Workers. There is no country for Republicans. Democrats do not have their own nationality. But you're free to renounce your citizenship - I kinda wish QH & Rusty would - buy a boat and sail the high seas, if you wish. Then you can be an island unto yourself.

Until then, let's not forget the big picture: America's future. Who can best direct it? Anybody but McCain...

rmrd_0000

MNINJ2,
13% of the population thinks Obama is a Muslim. 25% think GW is a good President. Elitists live in a scary world.

Obama loses quite a few votes because of this Muslim thing. And it's tricky. It's unbecoming and awkward for him to stand on the stump and say hey guys I am not Muslim, I am Christian. But the campaign HAS to figure out a way to attack this sleaze. Sen. Clinton could have been gracious and unequivocally refuted the rumor in the 60 Minutes interview. Coming from Obama's opponent it would have been an effective rebuttal. But I guess she needed votes.

Sen. Clinton could have been gracious and unequivocally refuted the rumor in the 60 Minutes interview.

Not that old saw again!

(from Media Matters)
Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time. [Emphasis added]

91 %of African Americans voted for Obama. She doesn't see any problem with that. Is that not racially biased voting?

As has been pointed out up thread, neither Alan Keyes or Jesse Jackson can make the same statement. People aren't voting for him because he's black. They're voting for him because he's an excellent candidate AND he's black.

I don't begrudge people the opportunity to favor their own demographic all things being equal. My own demographic (white blogging civil-libertarians) happens to be better represented by Obama than Hillary.

Here's why.

http://phd9.blogspot.com/2008/01/full-text-from-obama-campaign-retelecom.html

Stuart_Zechman:

I see how you read it. This is how I read it:

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

Kroft seems to be more emphatic in his questioning, and AS FAR AS I SEE, Hillary is hedging. "As far as I know", "that's what he says", etc. etc. She is capable of much more forceful refutations like when she was asked about Bill's affairs.

This is obviously an issue that is subjective. I saw that interview live, and I was quite upset at the way she answered it. I am willing to admit that maybe my perception was colored. But I am saying what many other people feel, and no, I am not an idiot.

srj

I will remind you that Blacks have given White politicians 90% of their votes. Deomocrats get 80-90% of the African-American vote. Is that racist?

Gore got the bulk of the African-American vote when he ran against Bill Bradley in the Democratic Presidential Primaries. Gore had an approval rating of 85% in NYC, Bradley's approval was half of that. Bradley lost the NYC Primary. Were racist Blacks supporting Gore?

Did HRC do anything to drive Black voters away from her campaign?

and no, I am not an idiot.

MNINJ2:

Not that anybody said that you were, but no, you're not.

"How many times was Bill Clinton pinned to the wall over countless misdeeds, and each time--when any normal human being would turn red, mumble an apology, and slink away--he held his chin up high and went forward. Being grilled on 60 Minutes over his countless affairs? Being sued for sexual harrassment? Being caught in a lie in front of the whole world? Nope, no big deal, business as usual, let's move forward.

Honestly, can you think of ANYTHING that would have caused Bill Clinton to just hang his head in shame and to retire from public life? And if you thought he was bad, there is poll result, delegate count, fundraising statistics, whatever that would cause Hillary Clinton to quit. When this is all over, when Obama or McCain or whomever is elected president, Hillary Clinton will still be standing in front of an almost empty room with a sagging Clinton 2008 banner behind her, still talking in a hoarse but measured voice about legal options and taking her case all the way to the Supreme Court..."

[..]

I think they cover this at UVM frosh fall semester in HEADCASE 101, eh?

The best and brightest analogy of BJ Boy IS the hayseed Midnight Cowboy character that thinks Mammy and the old ants back on the farm knew what was best for him, and little else mattered -- to include other and more worldly people.

Sadly, where the movie version showed some redemption, Clinton shows none.

"Who can best direct it? Anybody but McCain..."

And so endeth the not-so-inclusive DNC dolt of the day.

Let me help you guys out here, seems as if a lot of non-blacks are trying to figure whats going on in the heads of African-American people, and why so many of them are voting for Obama. (When you ask yourself this question out loud, the simplest answer might also be the correct one.)
Anyhoo, The AA community has, and is, a huge constituency of the democratic party. Now, let us be clear. Our allegiance has been to the democratic PARTY first, AA's are not new in the voting side of the D Party, and have voted, supported, and helped finance every candidate with a D- next to their name. This is not because of the many black democratic candidates with have run for president, (sarcasm), but because the D Party embodies a lot of values that AA's, and Americans for that matter, hold dear.AND, he can actually become president.
J. Jackson never recieved this kind of support, and with good reason. Black people didn't think he'd do a good job. We knew he'd be judged as a black president first, and we didn't want Jesse ruining the opportunity for a future viable candidate. We now know the name name of that viable candidate now, and its Barack Obama.
Let's be real, Obama and Clinton voted the same way, 93.8 of the times in the senate, their differences are quite minimal. Clinton would be catching the same amount of votes from the AA voters, If OBAMA, wasn't running. (Emphasis on Obama, because any other random AA would not receive the same result)
Let's be clear, his policies and ideas are first, his skin color second. Some of you make it sound as if AA democrats are voting against the Democratic ideals, as if Obama is a Republican candidate, but we're voting for him anyways, just because we want to see a black president. (Something some Clinton supporters have vowed to do, unless she's the candidate. Shame on you all.) The bottom line is and always has been, that most AA's want a GOOD Democratic President. If we can get one that's Black too, of course its a huge bonus. Why wouldn't we rally behind him over Clinton, when they're politically mirror images of each other?

As far as the "old" comments, they are endemic on this and other pro-Obama boards and the media.

In the media? Where?

Can you name a single Obama surrogate who's pushed the idea that Clinton voters are "old," or is this limited to random commenters on random internet message boards?