When the Democratic Party put itself in the position of running either a woman or a black man for president, it cast the dice on our country's fate. Clearly the GOP will run a hateful campaign against either, as low and dirty as can be imagined. Whether they open old wounds is not their worry, it is, in fact, their goal. It is the only means by which they can retain the White House. It will be the Democratic Party, not Obama or Clinton, which is to blame if the country proves more prejudiced than those on the Left hoped. That said, I will cast a vote today for Barack Hussein Obama to be the Democratic nominee. I believe he has a better chance of winning the General Election than Clinton. I will support Clinton in the GE if she win's the nomination. Now that I've made my mind up, I'll try to refrain from critical comments about either candidate until the process is decided. I'll turn my attention to defeating McBush and the GOP Media Filth Machine.
Posted by T2 at February 28, 2008 06:16 AMDon't worry, Eriposte.
Obama has a lot of street smarts from his time spent in Indonesia. He didn't just learn how to conduct foreign policy there, ya know.
Let me see. Snorting cocaine and having gay sex in the back of a limo. No flag pin non-patriot. No hand on heart. Picture in ceremonial decapitation garb. Hating whitey with Farrakhan and not even rejecting it afterwards. Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Muslim Christian-hating, Christian-whitey hating.
Yeah, after a weekend of manipulating the press what we need around here is eriposte blaming Obama for playing the race card. That's the kind of insight that'll get to the truth.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 28, 2008 07:31 AM"When the Democratic Party put itself in the position of running either a woman or a black man for president, it cast the dice on our country's fate."
T2, and that is exactly what the problem is. One of the most crucial times in the history of this Country, where defeating the other side is mandatory, we come up with these two people. The Democrats couldn't have come up with two more polarizing candidates. While swiftboatig is now part of the GOP strategy to defeat an opponent, we have just made it incredibly easier for them. I agree that this campaign will be vile and hateful, and Obama is going to find out that a imagined love fest with the GOP is in reality a ticket to hell.
Posted by Judith at February 28, 2008 07:31 AM
I always thought that Edwards was the strongest candidate for the general election, Clinton the weakest.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 28, 2008 07:34 AMYeah, after a weekend of manipulating the press what we need around here is eriposte blaming Obama for playing the race card.
I think it's safe to assume, Bob, that either you didn't read the article that eriposte linked to, or you didn't recognize your part in the race-baiting program the Obama team had planned from the beginning (to great effect, btw). Or, most likely, you did notice your part in the game, but just don't care because you think this is the only way for a Dem to win, or you're like many other bloggers who decided that, for whatever reason, you didn't want Clinton in the White House, and would sign onto any meme you could to prevent it. And maybe you don't realize (but I think you do) that, here, you're continuing the game by attempting to conflate the rightwing media's (expected) racism with the new "Clinton is a racist" meme Obama created with the help of the media, and sadly, the full cooperation and support of blogs like dKos, TPM and Huffpost as well as the obnoxious "enthusiasm" of the roving Obamabots.
You'd better hope that the general public doesn't catch on to the game, because, though it may work on (most) hardcore liberals, regular people aren't so sanguine about being smacked by the PC police, nor do they want to be told that every single thing they say and think about an African American can be construed as racist. This shit's gonna backfire bigtime, and it's going to damage race relations in the long run and could possibly lose the White House in November.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 28, 2008 08:05 AMOkay, so now Hillary lost because Obama cried "wolf," is that it? Give it a rest. Your candidate, Hillary, lost because she's not a good candidate and doesn't know how to run a good race. The people saw her and Obama and they chose Obama, Eriposte. Maybe someday you could post something less bile-filled.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 28, 2008 08:33 AMOkay, so now Hillary lost because Obama cried "wolf," is that it?
Pretty much, yep. Nice to see you've finally gotten it, Brian. And it's between you and your conscience whether it was worth it or not.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 28, 2008 08:40 AMBarack Obama's race brings both opportunity and peril: the opportunity (in the primaries in particular) for attracting African-American voters and the peril of scaring the much more numerous white voters. Obama has been very careful to guard his image that he is a candidate for all voters, not just African-Americans. That's why his campaign has fought any potential innuendo or stereotype vigorously. That's also why Bill Clinton tried to portray Obama as the candidate for African-Americans after South Carolina. After all, Clinton himself won the nomination with a coalition of whites and very strong African-American support. None of this is racism; all of it is political strategy. To pretend that race hasn't played a part in the campaign strategy on both sides is to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 28, 2008 08:48 AMGiving all due respect to Mr. Wilentz; this is a weak aregument and a revision of history. Mr. Wilentz is obviously an extremely bright individual so I am wondering what the motivation for this article was?
If I believe this article; Obama staged the following:
-Shaheen wondering out loud if he sold cocaine
-Cuomo shucking and jiving statement
-Johnson "you know what he was doing" comment
-Rangle stupid and dumb comments
I am to believe that Obama staged all these things events?
Not to mention the MLK and "fairy tale" flair ups; which I will admit were taken out of context, however these events played into the narrative.
Lastly, he had the gall to throw in the recent picture that was released. C'mon
Posted by angryman at February 28, 2008 09:29 AMWow, white liberals are really try to piss off every last one of us black people huh?
That analysis was terrible and left out an incredible amount of information and context. I can only conclude that the author and those who agree with him are racists.
you are lucky that Hillary is not going to be the nominee she would never get the black vote back. We know racism when we see it. We live with it every day.
Posted by Jay at February 28, 2008 09:54 AMWilentz, respected historian though he may be, is an ardent Clinton backer. Acting like he has no dog in this fight is laughable.
I'm not saying that makes his argument not worth considering, but let's say this piece was written by Samantha Power, a respected academic who is an Obama adviser and she was taking down Clinton. Somehow, I think there would be some attacking the messenger to weaken the claims, valid or not, but some of the fine bloggers here.
Posted by Mike P at February 28, 2008 09:57 AMWow, white liberals are really try to piss off every last one of us black people huh?
That analysis was terrible and left out an incredible amount of information and context. I can only conclude that the author and those who agree with him are racists.
you are lucky that Hillary is not going to be the nominee, she would never get the black vote back. We know racism when we see it. We live with it every day.
Posted by Jay at February 28, 2008 09:57 AMWe know racism when we see it. We live with it every day.
We women know sexism when we see it. We live with it every day. And yet, we're told to STFU because it's not "our time," or we're too "sensitive" or we're just "looking for something to be mad about." Like I said earlier, Jay, good luck with calling anyone who doesn't agree that Obama's the second coming a racist - that's gonna be a real winner in the GE.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 28, 2008 10:13 AMNah we'll just call the racists racist. When you say that the GOP will ask if he was a drug dealer where's the disagreement?
Posted by Jay at February 28, 2008 10:18 AMBTW, Obama was told that it wasn't his time and to wait his turn so you seem to be confused.
Posted by Jay at February 28, 2008 10:19 AMbefore anyone wets their pants worrying about John "Bush's third term" McCain, Obama just ripped him apart:
Clash on Iraq Could Be McCain-Obama Preview
By Michael D. Shear and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 28, 2008; Page A01
...Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University on Wednesday, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own.
"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, 'Well let me give you some news, Barack, al-Qaeda is in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'Well, first of all, I do know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq; that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets.
"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." The crowd roared its approval. "I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
"So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars."...
I AM IMPRESSED
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 28, 2008 10:28 AMOne correction to the facts in the Wilentz article:
Eric Michael Dyson, of Georgetown U, speaking for the Obama campaign, was the first I saw charging the BRADLEY EFFECT in the New Hampshire Primary.
It was just after Obama lost New Hampshire and Dyson's appearance was in tandem with Jesse Jackson's "no tears for Katrina" charge. I am sure Jackson & Dyson made multiple TV appearances on "tears" and "Bradley" until those charges, especially "Bradley," were picked up by the larger media, including Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post.
But the Bradley effect was a false charge.
There was no evidence of New Hampshire white racists lying to pollsters.
Obama got the percentage of votes the New Hampshire polls had predicted. Obama lost New Hampshire because Clinton got more votes than the polls had predicted for her.
False or not, the tears/Bradley ploy, and later charges that the Clintons are racist, by the Obama campaign worked: African American voters, a larger bloc in the Democratic Primaries than in a General Election, have been voting 80% to 90% for Obama.
CLK, no person counted all the ballots in New Hampshire. Diebold counted 80% of the votes in New Hampshire, the votes that gave the election to Clinton. The hand-counted votes, that is, counted by humans, gave that primary to Obama.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 28, 2008 11:17 AMEvery time Bill Clinton's comment about Jesse Jackson gets mentioned in the media or blogoshphere, everyone gets real stupid about the past. I voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1998 Democratic primary. In Texas. I remember that campaign quite well, so I interpreted his comment quite differently than most casual observers outraged at what he said.
Whether Clinton intended to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate" is debatable, but can we at least agree to put his comment in its proper context? I agree completely with Wilentz's explanation that Clinton was being historically accurate, and I think he failed to flesh out the explanation. Regardless of what many Americans may think about Jesse Jackson today, he was a very popular political figure back then. Clinton was talking about the past and the point flew right over the Obamans' heads.
In 1988 Jesse Jackson was a strong, viable black candidate with crossover appeal. He ran a very good campaign that resonated with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, especially young white college kids like myself. “Keep Hope Alive” sounds remarkably similar to “The Audacity of Hope,” and Obama’s bottom-up unity movement is reminiscent of Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, just on a larger scale. I concede that the comparison is not exact, and today’s Jesse Jackson is perceived differently than the Jesse Jackson of 1988, but to argue that Clinton’s comparison was only about race diminishes both Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama. (I’ve made the Obama-Jackson comparison repeatedly in conversations with friends well before Bill Clinton ever said it, so I guess I’m a race-baiter).
Granted, Jesse had nowhere near the support Obama has today from white male America, but he still won something like twelve primaries and almost 1200 delegates. In fact, he came damn close to winning Texas iirc.
THAT, Gay Vet, is what you get with Obama. THAT is why us liberals are behind Obama. Don't believe the views on Obama as filtered through Hillary supporters. That stuff is bunk. This site has done a grave disservice over the course of the primaries due to that kind of thing, not even a semblance of balance. Obama's the real deal, he's one of us, he's against the war. Can you imagine Hillary taking it to McCain like this? Hell, no. Obama's not attacking, he's laying out the alternative, liberal viewpoint. And Obama will win with it. If you want triangulation, stick with Clinton, not Obama.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 28, 2008 12:38 PMI agree completely with Wilentz's explanation that Clinton was being historically accurate, and I think he failed to flesh out the explanation.
Gee whiz... Bill Clinton was just being historical... so why exactly did he excuse Hillary Clinton's loss by saying Jesse Jackson won there? Is it because he checked the results from previous South Carolina primaries and found one with about the same percentage? Is it because both Jackson and Obama ran competitive campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire before South Carolina (that would be an emphatic "no" for Jackson)? Let's not get obtuse here - Clinton made the comparison because they are both African-American and dominated with the African-American voters. It's not racist for Bill Clinton to try to spin the results as just an African-American candidate appealing to African-American voters, but let's not pretend Clinton was making an obscure and inaccurate historical point for no apparent reason.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 28, 2008 01:03 PMTHAT is why us liberals are behind Obama.
So, not only are people who haven't swallowed Obama's schtick racists, we're not liberals anymore, either. And you wonder why you and your fellow Obamabots piss off so many people, Brian.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 28, 2008 01:19 PMI, too, went looking for historical information as to whether any African American or Woman had won a state Presidential Primary or Caucus before 2008-it occured to me to do this bit of Googling the day before news hit about Bill Clinton's "racist" remark about Jesse Jackson wins in '84 & '88.
I found Jackson's wins, making Obama's wins not the first.
I could not find any wins by a woman-still have not. I checked Shirley Chisolm, Elizabeth Dole, Geraldine Ferraro.
Does anyone else know of any Primary wins by a woman?
Gee whiz... Bill Clinton was just being historical... so why exactly did he excuse Hillary Clinton's loss by saying Jesse Jackson won there?
Because the comparison is the most accurate. It's more accurate than John Edwards, and it's more accurate than Al Sharpton. Read what I wrote again. I was pretty clear that the comparison goes beyond race. Of course race is a factor, but it's not the only factor. Obama's message and grassroots organization are strikingly similar to Jackson's 1988 presidential run. If you could get past your jaded anti-Clitonism, you might interpret his comment more objectively.
Posted by William at February 28, 2008 01:28 PMBut why would Clinton even make the comparison? There are huge differences between Jackson's campaign and Obama's: just look at the results from Iowa and New Hampshire to see for yourself:
Iowa caucus, 1988
Dick Gephardt 31.3%
Paul Simon 26.7%
Michael Dukakis 22.2%
Jesse Jackson 8.8%
New Hampshire primary, 1988
Michael Dukakis 36.4%
Dick Gephardt 20.3%
Paul Simon 17.4%
Jesse Jackson 8.0%
Jesse Jackson simply did not have broad appeal, even in 1988. He attracted primarily African-American support and had no real shot at the nomination. It is only natural that the Clinton campaign would want to put Obama in that box, but the box doesn't fit since Obama had already demonstrated strong support among white voters.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 28, 2008 01:38 PM"Wow, white liberals are really try to piss off every last one of us black people huh?
you are lucky that Hillary is not going to be the nominee she would never get the black vote back. "
Oooooh - you're so scary. we white liberals are so very afraid of your threats.
Grow up.
Posted by at February 28, 2008 01:39 PMJesse Jackson simply did not have broad appeal, even in 1988. He attracted primarily African-American support and had no real shot at the nomination.
This white guy liberal voted for him, along with a lot of other white guy liberals I went to school with in red state Texas. Given that Jesse won eleven or twelve states and about 1200 delegates, I reject your characterization that he lacked broad appeal. He almost won Texas.
Clinton's comparison is historically valid. It's not perfect, but Jackson's candidacy in the 80's is similar to Obama's current run as I've already explained. (Or are we supposed to pretend race doesn't matter?)
The problem isn't with Clinton, it's with the cynical mindset of the historically ignorant Obama voters who think Jesse Jackson was a fringe figure and, therefore, an insult to their candidate.
There is no Barack Obama without Jesse Jackson.
Posted by William at February 28, 2008 01:51 PMBut why would Clinton even make the comparison? There are huge differences between Jackson's campaign and Obama's: just look at the results from Iowa and New Hampshire to see for yourself
You're asking me to climb into Bill Clinton's head. I can't do that, nor can anyone else. I have no idea why he chose to answer an inflammatory question from an asshole reporter in the manner he did. Nevertheless, the pundits and bloggers on the liberal web couldn't trip over themselves fast enough to accuse Bill Clinton of "playing the race card."
It's possible that they're right, but I think it's equally possible that I'm right. What bugs me so much isn't just the fact that they jumped to the conclusion they did but that smart people became so stupid about recent history so fast. In all that coverage not one high profile liberal blogger remembered "Keep Hope Alive" or the Rainbow Coalition. You'd think that maybe, just maybe, someone would think back to twenty years ago. Jeesh, I'm not that old, am I?
Posted by William at February 28, 2008 02:08 PMTHAT, Gay Vet, is what you get with Obama.
Uh, that's what I can get from any leftie blog, too. It's not hard to say, is it? He's gotta be laughing at how easy it was to get folks like you on board; I'm sure he's been studying just what words are going to suck people in. And that's good. But trying to make something "transcendent" about it is just silly hero-worship. You go for it, though, if that's what you need in a candidate. And like I said, I'm going to vote for whichever Dem gets the nom. But just so you know, I may prefer Taco Bell over McCain's shit sandwich, but that doesn't make my burrito a gourmet meal, especially when I coulda had the lobster, and I sure as hell won't buy the stupid stuffed dog to hang from my rear-view. I also reserve the right to point and laugh at anyone who does, cos, man, in another year, that little pooch is gonna be in the back of the closet, like all the other gimmicks you fell for that turned out to be not as "transcendent" as you thought.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 28, 2008 02:17 PMThis white guy liberal voted for him, along with a lot of other white guy liberals I went to school with in red state Texas.
Oh, well if you voted for him then that makes all the difference! White college liberals aren't a very big portion of the electorate - just ask Howard Dean.
Given that Jesse won eleven or twelve states and about 1200 delegates, I reject your characterization that he lacked broad appeal. He almost won Texas.
African-American voters represent a sizable portion of Democratic convention delegates. Jesse Jackson won heavily African-American southern states. Dukakis had more than twice the delegates. BTW, Jackson lost Texas 32.8%-24.5%, not exactly "almost".
Clinton's comparison is historically valid. It's not perfect, but Jackson's candidacy in the 80's is similar to Obama's current run as I've already explained. (Or are we supposed to pretend race doesn't matter?)
Again, why did he even make the deeply flawed comparison? It's because race does indeed matter and Clinton wanted to frame Obama's candidacy. I can't blame him for trying; I can't blame Obama for calling him on it.
The problem isn't with Clinton, it's with the cynical mindset of the historically ignorant Obama voters who think Jesse Jackson was a fringe figure and, therefore, an insult to their candidate.
There's alot of space between "fringe" (your word, not mine) and "broad support". 30% of the convention delegates is not broad support. Don't make me show you the 1988 vs 2008 results from Nebraska and Idaho. You really ought to compare the 1988 primary results against 2008's before you call anyone historically ignorant. Hint: search for "Democratic Primary Preview" here at TheLeftCoaster.
There is no Barack Obama without Jesse Jackson.
Actually, Obama has to be careful not to look like another Jesse Jackson because he wants more support from white voters.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 28, 2008 02:22 PMWait, the traditional line for Clinton supporters is that Clinton is tough and able to play hardball with the GOP, or foreign leaders..., but Obama is naive and a deer in the headlights and inexperienced and not apparently battle tested or tough enough?
yet according to this post and the New REpublic Obama and his campaign are actually sly and crafty and realist and deviously conniving and willing to land low blows to achieve their objective?
Will the real Machiavellian candidate please stand up?
Posted by leftymn at February 28, 2008 03:09 PMWill the real Machiavellian candidate please stand up?
I get the feeling we haven't really seen him, yet, just glimpses that the faithful keep ignoring. When we do, I have no doubt, it's gonna be too late to do anything about it.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 28, 2008 03:23 PMI love how white liberals like Eriposte and Wilentz have the nerve to state that black people don't know when they're being offended, and depend on the media and Barack Obama to tell them so.
Of course, if these white liberals actually talked to black people on a regular basis, they'd find that, yes Virginia, black folks were getting pissed at the Clinton statements without any help from the Obama campaign.
But, that's what happened when black folks leave the plantation, I guess.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at February 28, 2008 04:23 PMI agree completely. Clinton's response has been anemic...and overly cautious. Had she immediately fought back on the merits, she might have created a backlash. But she always seemed to tiptoeing on political correctness...oblivious to the damage that was being done to her campaign. If she is supposed to be the figher, why wasn't she fighting back? After years of supporting the party and raising money, Clinton should have been indignant at this outrageous treatment by her own party...She should have gone on the warpath and demanded that her party renounce these tactics. And she should have demanded her party back her up on the gender trashing as well. I really wonder why she did not fight back with fury? It has damaged her image. My gut tells me she refused to be her authentic self and trust her emotions. Instead, she bought in to the conventional wisdom and dozens of advisers and consultants...She needs and needed to trust herself and not tolerate abuse.
Posted by lily15 at February 28, 2008 04:56 PMCoyote, smile, pussycat.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 28, 2008 11:28 PMI now have the feeling that Clinton will prevail. It is way to late in the campaign for all this garbage to be coming out about Obama. He has somethings he really would rather not talk about. If he wins I will defend him to the end, but I think Clinton has nerves and passion forged in very hard times. I just sent Senator Clinton another donation. Can't beat the David Geffens or the Oprahs or Obama's other big money backers, and he comes with strings attached as well. So I say let them contest the nomination and see who plays dirty politics. I was a Chicago resident and Obama is not a nice or even fair competer. That why some many so called progressive blogs are censoring pro-Hillary comments and supressing questions about Obama. It's going to get nasty and I think that is actually a good thing for Democrats. The delegate rules and primary scheduling bull may finally wake them up.
Posted by jeter at February 29, 2008 12:39 AMJeter, don't bet on Clinton. Latest polls out of Texas show Obama taking the state.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 29, 2008 01:09 AMThe Fort Worth Convention Center was filled to capacity, last night, with people who came to hear Obama. I went there with friends and stood in line for an hour-and-a-half to get in the front door. It was a wonderfully diverse crowd that made me proud to be a Democrat. Obama spoke well--clearly and without rancor--setting a lucid agenda for change that bears no relation to the petty charges of "mania" that we have heard, ad nauseum, from Hillary's partisans. 10,000 Texans expressed their solid support for Obama.
Frankly, the time for rancor is closing within the party as the moment of truth approaches. The endorsement for change is compelling here in Texas. It is not going to be a vote to reproduce political results we have seen before. That's how I see it.
Posted by Copeland at February 29, 2008 07:21 PM