How Obama Learned to Win

KT, thanks for posting.

I read David Mendell's biography. We can see some parts of Obama's character on display now that he mentioned in his book: his tendency to become physically exhausted and his restlessness. An aide told the NYT Obama was "bored" with the primary and itching to move forward to the GE. I think a better term for the aide to have used was "restless".

BTW, the book is a mostly admiring account of Obama's life, Mendell does a good job of exploring Obama's strengths and weaknesses.

I am astonished that more reporters and writers have not come out in outrage at Hillary's very offensive remarks about whites not supporting Barack which in reality she is alluding to racism. I am amazed at how she has been able to divide this country by race and gender with no apparent objections from the thinking public or congressman or reporters, that she has been able to run amuck like a hurricane or tornado and do damage with no one trying to stop it! Barack's message and actions have been one of Uniting, while Hillary's has been one of Division! I am proud of Peggy Noonan's writing who does speak against these racist remarks of Hillary's who is not only tearing the Democatic party apart but also the nation and Joe Conason, Salon, who also writes about the damaging effects of these remarks.

So did Edwards endorse Obama in a way this morning?

I mean he said "the person I voted for I will likely endorse" and went on to say "Obama is almost certain to get the nomination". Sooooo -if Edwards is unwilling to endorse Clinton, believes Obama will eventually get the nomination, and will endorse the person he voted for, doesn't this mean he voted for and will endorse Obama?

Otherwise what are we to make of this - Edwards will endorse Clinton after Obama is the nominee?

bacalove,
I am an Obama supporter, and I was uncomfortable with HRC's remarks, but I can't go so far as to call them racist. It is a true statement that Obama has difficulty carrying the non-college educated white vote. I think that is more of an indictment of that group of people's effort to get information (ie, obama is a muslim cuz i got an email that said so, rev wright as angry black man, etc...) than HRC being racist. At worst, HRC is just continuing to run an identity politics campaign. This is distasteful yes, but not always racist. having said that, i was deeply saddened by her comments and noticed she even sounded uncomfortable saying them.

KT,
I am surprised this article doesnt have the clinton supporters screaming, "i told you he was just a politician!!!" yes, that is the kettle calling out the pot for being (and i hesitate to use this word given all the racist accusations) black but that hasn't stopped the clintons before. thanks for posting this...though if i read one more of these I won't even have to open my copy when it comes today....have a good weekend kt!

Having spent countless hours criticizing the press over providing gossip and other worthless drivel rather than covering what I consider important, I am forced to admit that I was disapponted that this incident didn't merit more space in the article.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0406220247jun22,1,7688140.story

I guess I'm not as high-minded as I'd like to beleive.

Interesting tidbit about Weisskopf.

"If there is any justice in this world, to be a White Sox fan should free a man from any other form of penance." -Bill Veeck (Fmr White Sox Owner)

Paul Dirks:

The only mitigating factor whatsoever in your desire to include that salacious bit in the Obama piece is that Jeri Ryan is involved.

I liked this bit: a former federal judge and Congressman from Chicago, credits Obama with figuring out "how to appeal to different constituencies without being inconsistent."

Man, if there is one thing Hillary hasn't learned how to do it is that. Her transparent and awkward attempts to appeal to various constituencies are cringe-inducing to watch.

The clumsy and contradictory attempts to paint herself as both a super-qualified policy wonk and an anti-elitist, anti-intellectual woman of the people. The hiring of Mark Penn to run her campaign...while running against Colombia-style trade agreements. The "gun-control yesterday, gun-ownership advocacy tomorrow" flip-flopping. Her "reform Wall Street and appoint Greenspan to do it" solution to the financial crisis.

I don't think Hillary will "say or do anything" to get elected. But she sure says a lot of things that don't make any sense in the aggregate.

The only mitigating factor whatsoever....

mitigating? It's downright defining.....

cbh

It's worse than that. I'm betting that if you polled the question of whether Wright is a Muslim, you'd get yesses in the 20s.

Offtopic whoring.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking/2008/05/09/Virtually-Speaking-with-Jimbo-Hoyer

The discussion I had last night with Stirling Newberry was, IMO, particularly interesting. It's long though. And I screwed up my headset in the first minute or so.

Darcy Burner next week.

I am proud of Peggy Noonan's writing who does speak against these racist remarks of Hillary's..

Ah, yes...Peggy Noonan...

PEGGY NOONAN
Broken Glass Democrats
Can their anger overcome Bush's normality?
Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

I was asked this week why the president seems so attractive to the heartland, to what used to be called Middle America. A big question. I found my mind going to this word: normal.

Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help. He'll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?" He's responsible. He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk. Bush ain't that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy. Americans love the guy who ain't that guy.

Someone said to me: But how can you call him normal when he came from such privilege? Indeed he did. But there's nothing lemonade-on-the-porch-overlooking-the-links-at-the-country-club about Mr. Bush. He isn't smooth. He actually has some of the roughness and the resentments of the self-made man. I think the reason for this is Texas. He grew up in a white T-shirt and jeans playing ball in the street with the other kids in the subdivision. Barbara Bush wasn't exactly fancy. They lived like everyone else. She spoke to me once with great nostalgia of her early days in Texas, when she and her husband and young George slept in the same bed in an apartment in Midland. A prostitute lived in the complex. Barbara Bush just thought she was popular. Then they lived in a series of suburban houses.

George W. Bush didn't grow up at Greenwich Country Day with a car and a driver dropping him off, as his father had. Until he went off to boarding school, he thought he was like everyone else. That's a gift, to think you're just like everyone else in America. It can be the making of you.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

Aren't we all proud of Peggy Noonan and her recent thoughts on Hillary Clinton's vile, racist campaign to bring old South African-style Apartheid to every corner of America?

Everyone's raving about Rick Perlstein:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/09/nixonland/

I loved this little exchange:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/notso

I'll have to pick up his book tomorrow.

jayack,
"It's worse than that. I'm betting that if you polled the question of whether Wright is a Muslim, you'd get yesses in the 20s."

That would explain why someone interviewed in WV yesterday still thought Obama was Muslim.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-08-westvirginia_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Any Repug who is praising or condemning HRC has a very passive-aggressive agenda. Here's looking at you Nooner and Charles Krauthammer.

I do think of Obama as just another politician, only I mean it as a compliment. The last person I'd want as POTUS is a novice who doesn't know how to work the system and grease the wheels.

My biggest fear about Obama is that he won't forcefully push Dem progressive policies but will compromise too much with Repugs.

I think that many African-Americans listen to Hillary Clinton and her surrogates Bill Clinton, Sean Wilentz, Paul Begala, Paul Krugman and to a lesser extent Ed Rendell and would agree with Ms Noonan that the Clinton did enagae in race-baiting.

Maggie Williams will have to answer some questions regarding her role in the Clinton fiasco in Black media. Clinton supporters Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio, and Sheryl Jackson-Lee of texas may eventually lose their seats because of the perception of the Clinton campaign.

African-Americans would have read the 2004 Noonan article and given GW the 11% support that he got. They would read the article on Hillary and give Sen Clinton the 8% vote that she got. Some may not like the response that Sen Clinton gets from the African-American community, but the words that come from the mouths of Clinton and her surrogates makes the difference. This is not the fault of MSM. Donna Brazile bristled at Paul Begala's words because they struck a nerve. A large segment of the voting Black community agreed with Brazile's response to Begala. Clinton is race-baiting.

Well I take issue with the phrases "race-baiting" and "playing the race card". I find them both to be obnoxious and I am surprised that Democrats in either campaign have used them.

Regardless of what we think about Hillary and Race, I think it's now time for Obama supporters ignore these sorts of comments. Strategically, it's better if we focus on McCain right now.

In fact, we should change the conversation from whether Hillary is racist to whether John McCain is sexist.

McCain is getting his mom to do ads for him on Lifetime and similar stations, trying to go after Hillary's constituency in the wake of her likely loss.

Instead of beating up on Hillary, it's time to remind these voters about McCain's record on women's issues:

1) John McCain opposed equal pay for women
2) A vote for John McCain is a vote to overturn Roe v Wade. IS Justice Stevens going to make it 4 more years?
3) John McCain has supported privatizing social security, which many older women depend on.
4) Since the media seem to be so focused on every personal behavior and association of Obama, it should be pointed out that John McCain left his first wife to marry a younger rich beer heiress who he then called a "c*nt" and a "trollop" in front of several journalists.
5) John McCain, who dated a stripper when he was in the Navy, has publically stated that he thinks the Tailhook investigation went too far.
6) John McCain said the following joke: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

Older white women disappointed in Hillary's victory and tempted to vote McCain need to hear these 6 things.

The media is not going to tell them because they protect their darling.

But we need to do so.

I think it's time to get over Hillary and race.

We have bigger fish to fry now.

Southern Bell,

Don't worry about Obama compromising "too much" with Republicans... if things go well in the GE, both the House and the Senate should have way more Dems than Repubs and he won't have to.

And I'm glad Clinton has finally said what she really feels: that it's the "non-college educated" white vote that really matters. I guess I know what electablilty finally means...

And Obama knows how to work the system enough to get elected, so I have pretty high hopes that he can figure out how to be president.

space

We have major problems discussing issues of race in the US. Some people feel that we should be "beyond race" others feel that we need to really have a serious and detailed discussion on race.

There are different perceptions of some issues by a large enough segment of different ethnic groups that it is hard to ignore the problem.

There is no way to have the conversation without some discomfort. I can say from personal experience that a significant number of African-Americans were turned off by the Clinton campaign. In fact, some said that they would not vote for Sen Clinton for President because of how she ran her campaign.

Like it or not, there is a problem that Sen Clinton as well as her surrogates will have to address. The perception of Sen Clinton has been damaged. should the problem be ignored?

The Democratic Party in general also has a problem. Since Clinton's campaign was seen as race-baiting (I don't have another term for the process), why didn't the party hierarchy or the Superdelegates end this madness earlier?
The question of how valuable African-American votes are to the Democratic Party has now been raised.

Think of this for November. McCain is packaged as a moderate Republican. Hillary has baggage in the Black community. Remember how 20% of African-American voters in Ohio played a part in GW being re-elected? Think of the effect of Black voters staying home or voting for the "moderate" Republican in the general election. It would be a disaster.

Sorry for jumping around, but to me addressing the issue of race head on is long overdue.

May, I ask why terms like race-baiting and race card are so upsetting to you. Do you feel that the race issue during the Primaries has been non-existent?

JJ--

Nixonland is literally the best work of political history I've ever read. I've got Rick on that second life interview show I linked to above on the 29th, and I don't see how I can hold it to an hour. It's witty, fast paced and filled with fascinating details.

And it's not just about Nixon. It's about the time, the Zeitgeist, and how the modern republican party wins elections.

The question of how valuable African-American votes are to the Democratic Party has now been raised.

That's a longstanding issue. Black voters have never had their loyalty rewarded as fully as such loyalty would seem to indicate. That's partly because there is no place else to go, of course. It's like the general progressive support for Obama. There's no place else to go.

As for talk about race in America, do you read Pam Spaulding's blog?

RKA

I agree with you regarding using the sexist argument against McCain in the General Election. Obama is heading in that direction already.

The MSM will also have to addreess pastor Haggee and his rush to Revelations through war in the Middle East as well as the hidden tax records of Cindy McCain.

However, Hillary has opened some wounds within the Democratic Party that will take some time to heal. She has also exposed some of us Democrats with beliefs we didn't know existed within the party. Hopefully she'll bow out after wins in WV and KY. The Obama will begin applying the balm.

jayackroyd

I don't read that particular blog, I will this weekend.

Doggone it more time in front of a computer screen on the weekend.

Gee, Thanks :)

She has a particularly direct and incisive style, not ducking issues. The blog http://www.pamshouseblend.com/
is general political interest and also discusses LGBT issues. But when she writes about race in America, it's the straight stuff.

jayack...i actually met my first "he's a mooslum" person wednesday night. I had a gig and had just finished setting up the p.a. and sat down with a beverage and the paper and the 50 something guy next to me (complete with an "old guys rule" ball cap) said, "y'know he's a mooslum"...i responded.... "wow, this is like being at the zoo, just don't see your type that often"...needless to say he didnt stay to hear me play..mission accomplished

jayackroyd

Now I remember. I read her blog soon after Obama was announcing. She adressed the "was Obama Black enough" pseudo-controversy.

For some reason, she feel off my blog radar screen. Thanks for reminding me.

The essential point about the key dynamic in liberal Democratic circles with respect to race combined with politics Somerby brilliantly makes is this:

Of course, commissars—of various kinds—are pretty much constantly with us. Once, they took the form of the classic pot-bellied southern sheriff, saying “We know what to do with your kind around heah.” They took the form of the wire-rimmed friend of Mao, helping us think through our re-educations. (The Beatles discussed this variant.) This new commissar seems to understand the rules: He would only reduce the scope of his power if he specified who he was talking about. When he keeps it vague, we’re all put on notice! Please check with me for permission before you try to talk about race.

The "commissar" to whom he refers is Josh Marshall, who made this unfortunate (and indirectly Maoist) statement:

THE COMMISSAR (5/7/08): There's nothing wrong with studying these [electoral] percentages in terms of demography. Nor is there anything wrong with Democratic strategists recognizing that their candidates need to win this or that percentage of white voters to win. But creeping in the shadows of these conversations about how Democrats can no longer manage to win the white vote and are only saved from political oblivion by running up big margins among African-Americans is a little disguised assumption that African-American votes are somehow second-rate.

I don't think there's any getting around that.

Josh, being rational, and knowing how ugly the numbers may be for Obama in terms of a huge cohort of the most contested (between the parties) voters, is perhaps seeking (as a good liberal Democrat) to offset the advice of Time's own Mark Halperin:

Things McCain Can Do to Try to Beat Obama That Clinton Cannot (some already on display):

1. Play the national security card without hesitation.

2. Talk about the Iraq War without apologies or perceived contradiction.

3. Go at Obama unambiguously from the right.

4. Encourage interest groups, bloggers, and right-leaning media to explore Obama’s past.

5. Make an issue of Obama’s acknowledged drug use.

6. Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama.

7. Exploit Michelle Obama’s mistakes and address her controversial remarks with unrestricted censure.

8. Play dirty without alienating his party.

9. Dismiss Obama’s brief national tenure from his own lofty platform of decades in the Senate – there will be no ambiguity about who has more experience as conventionally defined.

10. Use his sterling war record to reinforce his image of patriotism and valor – and contrast it with his opponent’s.

11. Emphasize Barack Hussein Obama’s unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism.

12. Employ third party groups like the NRA to hit Obama on issues that might turn off general election voters. Perhaps an ad such as this will run in Ohio: “So, what do you really know about Barack Obama? Did you know he supports meeting with the head of terrorist states? Do you know he wants to get rid of your right to own a handgun? Do you know he is calling for the repeal of the law preventing gay marriage? Do you know he is for a trillion-dollar tax increase? What do you really know about Barack Obama?”

13. Face an electorate less consumed with “change change change” (the main priority for Democratic voters) and keenly interested in “ready from day one” as an equally important ideal.

14. Link biography (experience/courage) and leadership (straight talk) to a vision animated by detail – accentuating Obama’s relative lack of specificity.

15. Give Obama his first real race against a credible Republican. (Clinton has always asserted that Obama would wilt before a fierce Republican assault.)

16. Confront Obama with a united, focused campaign absent of second-guessing, which hits the same themes and message every day.

Josh might be seeking to counter conventional wisdom that allows McCain to assume a moral high ground that isn't enjoyed by Hillary or Bill Clinton, by making it known that the model counter-tactic to Halperin's "Don't be afraid of accusations of racism" is something along the lines of "Do you really want to go the way of Imus?" I'm making the generous assumption that Josh just isn't involved in proving his own (and the Democratic party's) moral superiority and, more importantly, authority to set the terms of any debate.

Bob Somerby isn't so generous, and it's understandable, because, whatever the reason, those who assert that authority to malign, libel and smear the characters of those who don't have the proper (their) permission to speak about the empirical realities of demographics and the electoral process in America are being political in the most perverse and cynical way that term can be defined. These people say that some speakers are allowed to recite certain statistical information, and that they will let it be known who is to be shunned and condemned after those rules have been transgressed --so the most prudent course of action for non-rule makers/enforcers is to keep silent, and avoid the risk of offending these social disciplinarians.

I wish that I were as eloquent as Somerby:

Does anyone have any idea who or what the commissar means? To which “conversations” he refers? We would guess that he may be referring to the recent conversation between Paul Begala and Donna Brazile. If so, then it’s presumably Begala who has carried the “little disguised assumption” that “African-American votes are somehow second-rate.” We don’t think there’s any getting around that—if that’s who the commissar meant.

Of course, we don’t know if that’s who he means. Wisely, he has chosen not to tell us which “conversations” have broken the rules.

Of course, commissars—of various kinds—are pretty much constantly with us. Once, they took the form of the classic pot-bellied southern sheriff, saying “We know what to do with your kind around heah.” They took the form of the wire-rimmed friend of Mao, helping us think through our re-educations. (The Beatles discussed this variant.) This new commissar seems to understand the rules: He would only reduce the scope of his power if he specified who he was talking about. When he keeps it vague, we’re all put on notice! Please check with me for permission before you try to talk about race.

(And with my Paypal participants.)

Who is the commissar talking about? People! He talks about you.

NO ONE DID IT BETTER:
Please get permission before you speak! No one expressed the notion better than commissar-friendly journo John Judis, in the wake of Bill Clinton’s “Jesse Jackson” reference. For us, this is one of the silliest—and most instructive—sound-bites of this whole campaign:

JUDIS (1/31/08): It would have been fine, of course, for a political scientist or a journalist to make the observation that Hillary Clinton stood little chance in the South Carolina Democratic primary running against a black candidate. And it would have raised no eyebrows if he or she drew comparisons between Barack Obama's win and Jesse Jackson's 1988 victory. But Bill Clinton is a master politician who calibrates the exact effect of his words upon an audience. And as Clinton well knew, linking an opponent to Jackson, as former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms used to do regularly in his campaigns, is a surefire way to stir some white voters up against him.

See? It would have been fine if Judis’ group had said it. When Bill Clinton said it, not so much!

(Shorter Judis: People like me are allowed to discuss this. We’re sorry, but other people are not. If they do, we’ll mind-read their “calibrations.” It’s sad, but it’s really their fault.)

Certainty is one of this group’s strongest assets! This morning, the commissar “doesn’t think there’s any getting around” the presence of that “disguised assumption.” ...

“There’s nothing wrong with” these discussions, the commissar says. But you might want to check with him first.

Exactly.

You might want to check with the person who speaks for those "offended" victims of "racialized language" before you open your mouth and say what Norah O'Donnell has been saying every primary election evening since the campaign started.

Certain people have become accustomed to being acknowledged in their little communities as the arbiters of good taste or proper etiquette or who is or isn't "being racist" or "playing the race card", and they like this privileged position immensely --plus they clearly see the political opportunities that such an arrangement leaves wide open to them and their kind to take advantage of. It's some on the left's answer to the "moral values" crowd's way of doing political business.

It's simply reprehensible for so-called liberals to engage in such anti-individual, anti-free thought, anti-free expression, anti-reality, authoritarian exercises in social consequences. Some people apparently think that whatever is unfair about this strategy is overwhelmed by the nobility of their cause, and they would be wrong, of course. It's morally wrong, and, I would also argue, politically, suicidally stupid.

In the long term, I believe that the American people will simply not tolerate assuming yet another obedient role in yet another set of rules and hierarchies whose purpose is to better their characters and "society" at the expense of their personal expression. I think that we can all agree that conservatives have been rather successful at exploiting some liberals' tendencies to assume they know what's in "people's best interests". This idiotic "elitist" label derives, however perverted, from some reality, and this tendency, especially with respect to speech codes, is one of them. The more liberals assume the role of "watch what you say" watchdogs, the worse it will be for us. People aren't electing Democrats so that they can have more comprehensive rules governing their own personal lives, thoughts and expressions enforced more thoroughly by smarter people. People want their own problems solved by politics. Americans won't put up with a political party that they perceive to be dominated by the symbolism police, instead of folks who understand and work for their interests --our common interests as Americans.

But in the short term, i.e. this general election campaign, this kind of heightened vocabulary scrutiny in a partisan context is potential suicide for Democrats, and the reason for this can be summed up in one word: Israel.

Once we allow for political posturing on behalf of one group's claims to righteous offense, guess what's going to be fair game in the foreign policy debates for the next few months? It's the reason why realistic policies with respect to the Middle East can't even be discussed in the States: "anti-Semitism". That's why Hillary Clinton's "denounce and reject" remarks were so fraught with danger for the Democratic party should Obama be the nominee. It's not that Hillary was using code for "Black"; she was using code for "anti-Israel", which is code for "anti-Semite", which, in our political environment, is potentially the only charge more potent than "racially insensitive language".

The reason we can't have the kind of realistic, honest discussion about achieving peace is for essentially the same reason we can't have an honest discussion about electoral demographics: people will be tarred by others, and the accusations will be repeated endlessly, and, due to the fact that liberals and Democrats like us have not come to terms with how to talk about uncomfortable, divisive matters, there is currently no defense against such charges, once publicly repeated.

Because of his eminently reasonable and realistic foreign policy goals, Barack Obama will be tarred with the label "anti-Israel"/"anti-Semite" by the same powerful political forces that have put us in this situation, and because we opt to use the Imus model as a political weapon, we have nothing with which to honestly fight back against such charges.

...and so we can't have a productive, problem solving debate of the kind that Haaretz might have, and the Democratic nominee for president is rendered unacceptable to vast swathes of voters and establishment institutions. That's why it's f--king suicide to insist on empowering the mainstream media to be the speech police on our "behalf" about racial or ethnic or religious sensitivities, apart from the moral questions involved in such appointments.

We also lose opportunity after opportunity to come together to solve the problem of race in this country. Maybe some people like that arrangement --not coming together--, but I don't think most Americans do, and I sure don't.

Thanks for reading this, commenters, I appreciate your patience. I just wish that I could write as well as Somerby.

wow, stu...
i need a nap after that epic...:)
actually very good info.

I'm a very poor writer.

Sorry to all for the Bertolucci-esque length of that one...someday I'll learn how to be concise.

Thanks for bearing with me...

Great post Stuart. That's an important point about the links between "commissar" style media in this campaign, and the inevitable criticisms of Obama's Israel policies.

From my own perspective, I would be very happy to have the media take on the role of looking at and criticizing prejudice in politics. But by being so (almost amusingly) vague, and by largely ignoring sexism, they have lost all credibility and, even worse, they are becoming a cliche of clueless politically correct liberals that will be used by Republicans to justify blatant racism and sexism in the GE. And I love political correctness! I want people to be uncomfortable about saying things that are in any way racist or sexist. But much of what's going on in the media - even the non-MSM - is just white men using America's shameful history of racism to excuse their own sexism, and avoid talking about real issues of racism. The same media figures who were so concerned by Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment and Ed Rendell's (out of context) comment about some Pennsylvanians being racist, largely ignored the Supreme Court's decision to effectively allow school segregation, and the horrifying statistics of African-Americans' greater rates of incarceration and incidence of HIV, heart disease, etc.

And I know I may offend some people here, but I feel strongly about this: many of the white men in the media are so desperate to avoid a real conversation about race that they have refused to take an open-minded approach to looking at Obama's problems with lower-income white voters - let's not forget that Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis were all called variations on elitist, and Bill Clinton worked very hard to avoid that label - and instead they will probably end up helping John McCain get elected and bomb millions of non-white people in the middle east.

The simple reason that this "commissar" style attitude on race has become so common in the media is that by being vague they don't have to look at the complex and painful realities of prejudice. It's easier to say that any reference to race from a Clinton supporter is racist, than to - I know, it's a radical idea - actually report on racism in society. And I doubt that these white men who work with very few non-decorative women and non-whites are generally able to identify racism and sexism, especially when it's subtle. They can't rely on their own skilled judgment, because they don't have any in this area. So with sexism, they ignore it. And with racism, they just follow party lines, so Ed Rendell is racist and Jesse Jackson Jr. isn't.

And to be clear, I do think that the Clinton campaign has played the race card at times, just as the Obama campaign has played the gender card at times. I hold both campaigns to very high standards, and frankly both campaigns have done a much better job at meeting those standards than the media has.

Rose, great post.

The point I would make is that African-American bloggers tend to listen to the words that come from the mouths of the individuals involved. I read Sean Wilenz's piece. I read Krugman's latest column. I heard Bill Clinton on the radio and his subsequent denial of raising the "race card" issue. I saw Paul Begala and his interaction with Donna Brazile.

I formed my own opinion. The Clinton campaign is/has been race-baiting. "Fairy tales" was not a consideration. Ed Rendell mentioned race and sex, therefore I consider him as a lesser or non-card player.

Regarding the sexism issue, Rose has been very helpful in focusing my attention on something that I was missing. Thanks, rose.

The Clinton campaign has to look itself in the face to identify why it is in the current position it finds itself in in the African-American community. This is not the fault of MSM. It is the fault of the campaign itself.

Finally, regarding discussions of race or Israel, there will be no way to get through the discussion without some garbage being tossed out on both sides. It will be a messy process. Someone will be called a racist, a race-pimp, or an anti-Semite

I do agree with RKA that the battle now is for the General Election between Obama and McCain.

Stuart Zechman-

I enjoyed your post about "commissars." I have generally found your posts here to be well reasoned. You also seem to be generally open-minded to opposing opinions, you have even encouraged commenters with opposing views in the past.

Why then were you so dismissive of the comment praising Peggy Noonan's article earlier on this thread? You didn't directly argue against Noonan's recent article, you just dismissed her entirely by quoting one of her articles from 2004. Once (or even often) wrong is a writer always wrong? Cannot a person be right sometimes and wrong other times? Even Joe Klein gets kudos here sometimes. Are you not being a bit of a "commissar" by just dismissing Noonan with an "Ah, yes...Peggy Noonan?"

Thanks for listening. I really do appreciate your reasoned analysis in most of your comments. I was just disappointed this time that you seemed so dismissive just because of who the writer is rather than what the writer had to say on the specific arguement.

Why then were you so dismissive of the comment praising Peggy Noonan's article earlier on this thread?

Peggy Noonan deserves a special place in the Wingnut Hall of Fame. She's won multiple awards for Excellence in Wall Street Journal Wankery, and promises us many similar moments of wonder in the future (for instance, at 5:45 minutes into this Jon Stewart interview). Ergo, we in the blogosphere (with our oft-noted strict adherence to exemplary Confucian codes of behavior) have elevated her to a special class of honorary position seldom attained by other pundits.

Excellent article. It was actually mild (knowing what Chicago politics really is.)

It's also the reason Hillary Clinton was never going to win Indiana, and why Evan Bayh, even the day before the race, was still saying it would be tough and was a virtual tie. There's no way she won that state, even by less than one percentage point, without Operation Chaos. And I see why they had to pass a new voter i.d. law, outlaw nuns from voting and not count college kids with student i.d.s.

Too much of Western Indiana is dependent on Illinois. And far too much of Northwestern Indiana is dependent on Chicago for jobs.

Anyway other major machine politicians in the Democratic Party include: FDR, Harry Truman (who was probably the most craven and ultimately effective example of the Pendergast machine politician) and JFK. So I personally don't see what the big deal is.

Machine politics gave us FDR, Truman and Kennedy. Non-machine politics has given us Nixon, Reagan, Carter and Bush II. I'll take the machine politics thanks anyway.

As for the Clinton race-baiting, we'll drop it, but I'm with others they make that very hard to do. They insist on pushing it at every chance. As others have said from Bill, to Robert Johnson, to Strickland to Rendell to Wolfson to Hillary herself. And then yesterday going on another one of her odd, 10-minute lectures on the white working class voters which only she can win (despite evidence to the contrary in Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Missouri, Colorado, etc., etc.) and Barack's gains in those groups in North Carolina and Indiana it gets to be a bit much. The Clinton campaign should just stop it.

Actually, closer to 5:00 in. She's a dedicated shill.

Good points, rmrd0000. And you're absolutely right that many of the criticisms about the Clinton campaign's use of racism have nothing to do with the MSM. The best argument to prove that in many ways is the sexism that women are perceiving in this campaign: that's barely being covered by the MSM yet many of us are still noticing it. Fortunately many people are capable of noticing prejudice without the MSM badly pointing it out to them...

"The Clinton campaign has to look itself in the face to identify why it is in the current position it finds itself in in the African-American community. This is not the fault of MSM. It is the fault of the campaign itself." - I agree, but of course that doesn't excuse the MSM's bad coverage of racism in this election, and in general. And I think Stuart is right that there are broader implications and dangers to the media's "commissar" style of covering race in this campaign. If they had covered racism better in this campaign, I doubt the election would have been that different in terms of results (the same is definitely not true of sexism) because the Clinton campaign deserved criticism for playing the race card. But by being so vague and illogical in their coverage of racism, the media has damaged their own credibility so greatly in this area that it will be even easier for the Republicans to get away with racism in the GE. They can just point to false accusations of racism - the 3 a.m. ad as Birth of a Nation, for example - and claim that they are also being unfairly criticized. And I'm not saying that they wouldn't do that anyway. It's just that the MSM has made it a lot easier for them to get away with it.

"Regarding the sexism issue, Rose has been very helpful in focusing my attention on something that I was missing. Thanks, rose." - No, thank you. I really appreciate how reasonable and open-minded you are in your commentary - which is very rare on the internet! - and I think our discussions show that overcoming racism and sexism are closely related, contrary to the old "racism helps women, and sexism helps African-Americans" idea (which is based on ignoring the existence of non-white women...). And thanks for showing, through the quality of your own commentary, that the media has been horribly covering racism in this election. I think that during a lot of this campaign I didn't really see that, because racism was being so much more talked about than sexism. I think I just really wanted to believe that more progress was being made in eradicating at least one prejudice. But covering prejudice badly isn't much better than not covering it at all, and we may see in the GE that it's even more damaging.

Rose -- I agree with you about the MSM ignoring the sexism in this race.

One thing that has always struck me is the MSM's focus on race. We have all these exit polls asking about race, why do we NEVER see an exit poll about gender? I'd love to see Norah O'Donnell talking about all the voters who say gender is important to them and that they would never vote for a woman. It would be interesting to see if Hillary improved those percentages or not. My guess is that there are a LOT more people who would not vote for a woman than there are those who would not vote for a Black man.

I'd like to see someone like Karen T. examine why one of those issues is considered noteworthy by the MSM, but not the other.

Thanks for the response

I watch MSM mostly MSNBC, BUT I really don't rely on it much for info. MSM can't cover race because there is little racial diversity in the hosts of cable news shows. The hosts direct the discussion. The discussion is stilted.

There are women anchors of two prime time cable news network legal shows, but none that I am aware of hosting cable news covering politics in prime time.

I watch Scarborough in the mornings on TV in my cave man room, balanced by the Tom Joyner Show on the radio in the bedroom. I have been suprisingly impressed by Tiki Barber, a former NY Giant running back, who was guest co-hosting for Willie Geist this week.

Mika B (who gets continuously battered by Scarborough without mounting a forceful defense, in my opinion) was the host today. John Edwards was the guest. Mika B danced around the question of how Sen Clinton's remarks about White working class people should be taken. Edwards gave a short answer that was not informative.

Tiki Barber bluntly asked if Edwards thought that Clinton was saying Obama couldn't be elected because he was Black. Edwards empathically said "No." Edwards based his opinion on personal conversations with Sen Clinton. It provided a different perspective on the NY Senator.

If it was left to Mika B, Edwards would not have been asked a direct question to which he could give a direct answer. Perhaps if White males avoid race questions, we should have more Black male news hosts. Perhaps coming from outside the cocoon of a career in journalism is an aid to Mr Barber.

Mika B came through the MSM, she appears less likely to really try to overpower Scarborough in a discussion. Note the difference when Rachel Maddow is on. Maddow, for lack of a better term p*nked Scarborough. He ran from the Dan Abrams show like a crying, red-bottomed schoolboy.

Perhaps an MSM career is the worst preparation for being able to become a journalist.

Moderately Interested:

Thank you so much for your compliments, it is very much appreciated.

You are correct, my argument against Noonan's article in the comment you reference is ad hominem.

Once (or even often) wrong is a writer always wrong? Cannot a person be right sometimes and wrong other times?

You are, of course, correct. A pundit can be wrong sometimes, and right other times, as can we all. Taken as a simple matter of batting averages, the inconsistencies displayed by mainstream conservative career political editorialists could be read with the frame of reference being solely a particular article, and as such they should always get the chance to bat again. Taken as a more complex matter of these careerists relationships to power, their political goals and the changing currents of public opinion, perhaps one might view a particular column in the context of what larger objectives are served by the current argument, and treat the work with a critical eye accordingly, as in this example from Glen Greenwald, entitled "Peggy Noonan and the rotting pundit class".

...None of which really goes to the accurate point you make about my lack of rebuttal to Noonan's specific contentions, and reliance on ad hominem to make a rhetorical point instead, so I will address her contentions.

Peggy writes:
This is an amazing story. The Democratic Party has a winner. It has a nominee. You know this because he has the most votes and the most elected delegates, and there's no way, mathematically, his opponent can get past him.

No, whatever her profession wants to think, this is not a true statement. This is hyperbole. If she were to say "Hillary doesn't have a good probability of picking up 2025 pledged delegates, and I believe that Barack Obama doesn't have a significant unknown flaw as a candidate which once exposed would cause a majority of superdelegates to switch to Hillary before the convention", then she would be accurate. As such, she starts her piece describing essentially what some people really want to be the case as reality.

It's not a matter of semantics. Surely we can all agree that DNC rules state that superdelegates don't have to be pledged to a candidate until they actually vote, i.e. they're not pledged, and that, without superdelegates' votes, Obama doesn't have the pledged delegates to win the nomination. That means that, if some sordid tale involving Barack Obama being the father of an illegitimate child abandoned decades ago were to surface in the next few remaining months before the convention (as an example, of course), my assumption would be that Clinton would be the nominee, because superdelegates would vote for her in that circumstance. Given the crazy crap that just happened to Eliot Spitzer (of all people), it's not inconceivable that a disqualifying situation might arise (or be fabricated). For better or worse, this means that the only sure way that Obama will be the nominee is if Hillary drops out of the race, something that she's not indicated she will do. Therefore, Noonan is incorrect in her hallelujahs. There is a perfectly mathematical way for Obama to lose --unless Hillary takes Noonan's advice and forfeits, that is.

He's got this thing. And the Democratic Party, after this long and brutal slog, should be dancing in the streets. Party elders should be coming out on the balcony in full array, in full regalia, and telling the crowd, "Habemus nominatum": "We have a nominee." And the crowd below should be cheering, "Viva Obamus! Viva nominatum!"

What? This is incoherent and dishonest. After a divisive and bitter campaign, a full %49 of Democrats who didn't see their candidate elected --kind of like in 2000, you know-- "should be cheering"? Because Peggy Noonan, lifelong conservative Republican, believes herself that liberal Democrats should react as she does?

The Democratic Party can't celebrate the triumph of Barack Obama because the Democratic Party is busy having a breakdown. You could call it a breakdown over the issues of race and gender, but its real source is simply Hillary Clinton. Whose entire campaign at this point is about exploiting race and gender.

I love it.

The Democratic party is breaking down, like the fragile, dope-addicted woman she is in Peggy Noonan's mind. And it's all because of that other woman--that conniving, scheming home-wrecker Hillary Clinton. Don't you feel deliciously bad about yourselves, fellow Democrats? Don't you just want to revel in Peggy's description of you being on the verge of mental collapse? OMG! We're so screwed! It's too bad that we're not the party of manly men like the Republicans. John McCain was a POW, so his party would never be described as having to go to rehab. Peggy's kind can handle conflict. We can't, 'cause we're the Mommy party.

Oh! ...and it's a fact that Hillary Clinton's whole campaign is about exploiting race...and gender, too! That's how Hillary Clinton won the state of Indiana --by getting 641,734 individuals to be exploited...with race (did I mention gender?)! There it is. She just tosses that absurd premise out there, as her profession is allowed to do, and then goes about presenting whatever insinuations she can as facts that cement her "case". There isn't even the attempt that an analyst usually makes in good faith to explore the counter-arguments to the claim, in order to find that they aren't compelling enough to supersede arguments for the theory in question (hers), there's just a bald assertion as fact, as if she had said "the force of gravity causes objects to accelerate toward the earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared". So I guess that, in Peggy's mind, the horrid gas tax "holiday" proposal was a more covert appeal to the racial prejudices of Democratic voters...or would that appeal to the gender biases of voters...how does that work, again, Peggy? How is that exploitation that solely defines the Clinton campaign from now on manifest itself?

Here's the first place an outsider could see the tensions that have taken hold: on CNN Tuesday night, in the famous Brazile-Begala smackdown.

Right. Two Democratic party insiders have a fight about demographics on television, and Peggy Noonan, racism appeal expert extraordinaire knows exactly what that means. Race and gender! Exploitation! Hillary did it again! Paul Begala said something racially wrong about demographics, and then "Donna Brazile was having none of it", according to Peggy.

Of course, perhaps, in trying to be a little more even-handed, Joan Walsh viewed that exchange with a slight variation:

...even I winced when I heard her [Donna Brazile] suggest on CNN Tuesday night that the party might be able to do without the support of white working-class voters and Latinos who've been skeptical of Obama, because Obama is bringing in new voters.

Mind you, I bring up Walsh's perceptions of this little tempest in a teacup on CNN only to illustrate something that Peggy hasn't apparently thought of, even with all of her expertise on racial politics: that Noonan's conclusions are not inevitable from the evidence she provides. Yet Noonan gives this example of "proof" of her assertion that Hillary's campaign is only about race exploitation first.

In case we didn't get the inescapable conclusion ourselves, Peggy is right there to help the poor dullard reader out:

In case you didn't get what was behind that exchange, Mrs. Clinton spent this week making it clear.In a jaw-dropping interview in USA Today on Thursday, she said, "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As evidence she cited an Associated Press report that, she said, "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

OMG! Did your jaw just drop? To the floor? Are you open-mouthed with shock and dismay, presumably like Peggy Noonan is? Are you reeling around like, like, I don't know, a Democrat who's having a breakdown? It's jaw-dropping that, after that CNN catastrophe, the famous exploiter Clinton would answer the question...er...whatever question that was asked of her (not brought up by her) with...wait for it...an argument using electoral demographics!!!!

I'm so glad that Peggy Noonan was there to tell me how shocked I should be at such an unheard of thing. I'm happy because, for some reason I didn't have the same reaction when I went online and read

Polls: Obama falters with working-class whites
Impression of presidential hopeful among important group is getting worse

Associated Press
updated 11:58 a.m. ET, Sun., May. 4, 2008

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's problem winning votes from working-class whites is showing no sign of going away, and their impression of him is getting worse.

Those are ominous signals as he hopes for strong performances in the coming week in Indiana and North Carolina primaries that would derail the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. Those contests come as his candidacy has been rocked by renewed attention to his volatile former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and by his defeat in last month's Pennsylvania primary.

Now, when I read that AP article, the only possible conclusion that I can reach is that...the Associated Press is out to exploit race and gender to win Hillary's campaign for her! Thanks, Peggy Noonan, for reminding my jaw to drop once again.

White Americans? Hard-working white Americans? "Even Richard Nixon didn't say white," an Obama supporter said, "even with the Southern strategy."

If John McCain said, "I got the white vote, baby!" his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party.

Well, if an Obama supporter believes that Hillary's worse than Nixon, I suppose that puts everything to rest, right there. The idea that Peggy would quote an unnamed Obama supporter on how Clinton's campaign is worse than the Republican strategy post-Civil Rights Act to capitalize on actual white supremacy and antagonisms during the era directly after the forcible Federal military-backed dismantling of Jim Crow in the reconstructed deep South--the Southern Strategy--is truly laughable, if it didn't so closely resemble this tripe from Maureen Dowd:

DOWD (5/7/08): Wandering around Indiana, appearing in neighborhoods and at diners without any advance notice, talking to handfuls of people, Obama strived to seem less lofty and more mortal. Hounded by Hillary, Bill and Rev. Wright, he just looked sort of numb...

In a restaurant in Greenwood on Tuesday, Obama approached an older white guy who waved him off, muttering afterwards to a reporter: “I can’t stand him. He’s a Muslim. He’s not even pro-American as far as I’m concerned.”

As for whether John McCain would have been disqualified for proclaiming "I got the White vote, baby!", I'm sure she's right about that, but John McCain has never (to my knowledge) said such a thing, and neither has Hillary Clinton. I'm sure that if either McCain or Hillary were to put two fingers of their left hands up under their noses, put their right hands in the air in a Sieg Heil salute, and scream "White Power! White Power!" or "Segregation now, segregation forever!", I'm sure that it might disqualify them or anyone else who put on such a revolting display. Of course, all Hillary did was to paraphrase the headline of an AP article, so regardless of what words Peggy puts in her (or McCain's) mouth using a cheap rhetorical trick, she can't be convicted running a campaign purely on the basis of race exploitation solely from that comment. But Peggy sure wants us to think that Hillary said "I got the White vote, baby", so much so that she uses a gimmick like that (does she have editors?).

To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.

"She has unleashed the gates of hell," a longtime party leader told me. "She's saying, 'He's not one of us.'"

She is trying to take Obama down in a new way, but also within a new context. In the past he was just the competitor. She could say, "All's fair." But now he's the competitor who is going to be the nominee of his party. And she is still trying to do him in. And the party is watching.

Again: amazing.

So that's Peggy's whole case. She quotes an unnamed "Obama supporter" who says "worse than Nixon", shrieks and moans for us, puts words in Hillary Clinton's mouth that were never said, and then says "Look! She said 'White'! She used the word 'White' in a sentence! About the election demographics! Race-baiting, pure and simple". If that isn't the definition of railroading somebody, I don't know what is.

The key ingredient is slipped in by Peggy in this lovely gem:

...so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.

See?

Another of those gross, perverted Clintons has to remind us that everyone talked about oral sex for a year in Washington, DC. That's what this is really about--confirming something that Peggy Noonan knew in her heart way before Sen. Clinton badly quoted an AP headline. That's the real point Peggy wants us to understand. This woman, this family, who dragged us all through the mud hasn't the shame to slink off into the night is the premise that underlies Peggy's assertions. If you already thought that the Clintons were bad people, then you were half-way there to Peggy's way of thinking.

Peggy doesn't want you to think about how this might not reasonably be an instance of "race exploitation" (and gender?) by Sen. Clinton. She quotes from the Begala-Brazile tiff on CNN, but doesn't remember to mention this key quote from that exchange:

Brazile:
I'm saying that we need to not divide and polarize the Democratic Party as if the Democratic Party will rely simply on white, blue-collar male -- you insult every black blue-collar Democrat by saying that.

In light of that criticism on CNN by someone that I believe is heard by the Clinton campaign, hear Hillary try not to say "blue collar" or "working class", so as not to imply that "working class" means white, and not black, and not to offend working class African-Americans, (and the sensibilities of superdelegates like Brazile):

[the article] found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.

Its amazing, just amazing what a coincidence it is that she's stumbling around exactly the kind of language issue you'd expect her to stumble around if you were quoting an AP headline, but you didn't want to say "working class" (which sounds "elitist"), and you didn't want to exclude black people from the term "hard working people" that you just unfortunately substituted for "working class".

But in the mind Peggy Noonan, who just can't get over that another "Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by", it signals that Hillary is now going to propose re-introducing segregation in America, because everything must be parsed for its calculating, cold, ruthlessly evil intent--if one hated Hillary Clinton before hearing anything.

Peggy Noonan also knows that hurling accusations of racism or race-baiting against her favorite targets the Clintons is a zero-lose proposition in Beltway Media Star circles. She won't pay any professional or social price for quoting yet another anonymous Democrat (Dick Morris, perhaps?): "She has unleashed the gates of hell," a longtime party leader told [Peggy].

This is because there is no price to be paid in her profession for the kind of shoddy, muckraking, yellow kind of "leaderless, weak, effeminate Democrats" narrative peddling that Peggy Noonan is really paid to do.

The question "Who will tell her, who can make her go?" is really the question "Who will save the Democratic Party in 2008?" It cannot be doubted at this point that real damage is being done to its standard-bearer and to all those who will be on the ticket with him.

It cannot be doubted? Really?
It's a certainty, like the acceleration rate of gravity? It can be measured, proved, demonstrated? It must be "amazing" to live with the certainty of one's speculative pronouncements that Peggy Noonan possesses, although, since she's been about as wrong as anybody could be about the most important issues to Americans for the past eight years, one has to wonder from what miraculous fountain of insight such certainty could be obtained.

It will be amazing if someone doesn't start up that train, someone doesn't get in the cab, someone doesn't shout, "All aboard!" But then it's been an amazing year.

Those weak, effeminate Democrats need a leader...a strong, manly man...a POW war hero who doesn't windsurf, perhaps?

If liberal Democrats don't react to events with the exact wisdom of life-long Reagan-admiring conservative Republican Peggy Noonan, then she will continue to be shocked and amazed. Brava, Peggy.

Moderately Interested:
So that's why I think that her column is logically bankrupt, a miserable piece of anti-Democratic agenda-laden garbage, fit only for the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal Online.

Would you agree at least that my ad hominem argument was shorter?

Sorry, these f--king blockquote tags in this site work as well as their permissions.

Those quotes should be:
White Americans? Hard-working white Americans? "Even Richard Nixon didn't say white," an Obama supporter said, "even with the Southern strategy."

If John McCain said, "I got the white vote, baby!" his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party.

and

DOWD (5/7/08): Wandering around Indiana, appearing in neighborhoods and at diners without any advance notice, talking to handfuls of people, Obama strived to seem less lofty and more mortal. Hounded by Hillary, Bill and Rev. Wright, he just looked sort of numb...

In a restaurant in Greenwood on Tuesday, Obama approached an older white guy who waved him off, muttering afterwards to a reporter: “I can’t stand him. He’s a Muslim. He’s not even pro-American as far as I’m concerned.”

and

To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.

"She has unleashed the gates of hell," a longtime party leader told me. "She's saying, 'He's not one of us.'"

She is trying to take Obama down in a new way, but also within a new context. In the past he was just the competitor. She could say, "All's fair." But now he's the competitor who is going to be the nominee of his party. And she is still trying to do him in. And the party is watching.

Again: amazing.

Sorry about that, folks...probably more corrections to come...

Wow, the use of multiple tags still somehow canceled each other out.

Let me try one more time:

White Americans? Hard-working white Americans? "Even Richard Nixon didn't say white," an Obama supporter said, "even with the Southern strategy." If John McCain said, "I got the white vote, baby!" his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party.

Stuart Zechman-

But the longer response was worth reading. Thanks.

Oh, you're welcome!

Sorry for the formatting, grammar and spelling mistakes.

stuart, I really hope Democrats are smart enough to not fall for Peggy Noonan's race-baiting. She won't be the only person to essentially say, "Hillary is an evil racist, Obama is too weak to make her go away and save us from the evil-doers, so vote for the guy who didn't support MLK day."

I actually watched the Brazile-Begala thing live and they both said some foolish things. Begala didn't give enough weight to Obama's ability to bring in new voters - especially African-Americans - and Brazille shouldn't have bought into the (pro-McCain) MSM idea that working-class whites and hispanics are racists that the Democratic party doesn't need. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, he can probably afford to do as well as Kerry did with working-class whites and win, because of the new voters he can bring in. But he can't do significantly worse than Kerry with these voters and have a realistic chance of winning.

And once you start saying stuff like "She's unleashed the gates of hell," (Morris is a good guess as the source) it is no longer about Hillary Clinton, or the election, or anything real; It's about your own neuroses and problems.

rmrd0000, I actually feel bad for Mika B. She's there basically to be pretty and keep Scarborough from going too extreme - she's playing a sitcom wife role - although she's clearly smart enough to do a lot more. I think she could stand up to Scarborough, but she's probably not supposed to. And she's absurdly biased, which is understandable considering her father, but she should just admit it.

Thanks so much for responding with your thoughts, Rose.

I really hope Democrats are smart enough...

Yes.

Me, too.

In my own view, the political strength of Obama's victory lies in his blunt, bold and academic way of argumentaion positively supported and tactically espoused by his leadership skills- the virtues that have crowned his lead over his counterpart, the candid and resourceful Hillary Clinton.