The stuff coming out of the Clinton campaign recently is Rovian and revolting. If it keeps up, it will push me firmly into the Obama camp.

Kevin Drum: All I can say is: from where I sit this looks both deliberate and revolting.

Agreed.

TalkingPointsMemo is all over this sad story. Kevin - why don't you just outsource this one to Josh. I'm impressed with his coverage as I'm personally quite happy to stay out of that briar patch (and hope it just goes away).

For me, the deal-breaker is Bill Clinton saying we should take Johnson "at his word" when BJ says he wasn't talking about drugs. Johnson is a blowhard, that's pretty obvious, as obvious as the fact that Johnson was talking about drugs.
Bill Clinton pretending otherwise is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

It was really hard for them to do it, but the Clinton's have made me lose every bit of respect I ever had for them.

Come on now you folks... was there ever even the remotest of possiblities you would have ever voted for Ms. Clinton. You don't really have to go through all these acrobatics (oh my... I'm so outraged)... to make your point.

Obama is distorting every Clinton question of his ability to be President into a racial remark. I like Obama, but he is not ready for prime time. If Obama can't take the heat from the primaries, how can we expect him to face the Republican slime machine in the fall and survive?

Which is the illusion and which the reality? I'm stumped.

Don't worry, I'm sure the Clintons will clear all this up (after the damage is done).

Another few days of comments like the ones we've seen over the past week and my mind will be firmly made up about who to vote for. And it won't be Hillary.

Kevin, I have to admit I am (pleasantly!) surprised at what you said. But I think one thing we should remember is the MLK incident by Hillary and the "fairy tale" attack by Bill was not the first racially charged remarks they made. Bill was making coded racially charged remarks back in 1992 when he attacked Sister Souljah. So what you have here is a pattern of racial insensitivity which has lasted for well over 16 years. It's great the Clintons are finally being called on it after all this time, but I am disappointed it took so long for everyone to recognize the Clintons for what they are.

what's especially sickening is that Johnson was making an analogy between what the Clintons were doing to promote Civil Rights when they were presumably in their 20s and 30s, while alluding to Obama's activities AS A TEENAGER! were Bill and Hill really active civil rights activists as teenagers? don't think so.

I think that it's a cynical strategy to try to force Obama to start sounding more like Jackson and Sharpton and thereby turn off some of the moderate white voters he's attracting. They want Obama to get pissed off and respond, and then he's the angry black man attacking white racism, instead of the guy moderate whites can vote for to show that we've moved beyond race.

Oh, and the BET guy's attack goes along with Mark Penn's, it's very tricky. In Obama's book he talks about drug use as a teen, but by asking what he was up to as a youth, the implication is to suggest but not say that he was a drug dealer (something that already seems to be injected into the whispering campaign).

Remember, George Bush always maintained deniability during the "McCain had an illegitimate black child" campaign.

I'd hoped Hillary Clinton was better than this. She does have the power to cut it off; she can send word out to her leading supporters and her staff that this kind of tactic is absolutely off-limits.

I have some reservations about Obama and his whole post-partisan kumbaya thing. But the Clintons keep reminding me of why I would want them even less.

When the race started, I was leaning toward Obama, but would have been thrilled with any of the candidates. I'm a woman and would have loved to have seen that barrier fall. But not now that I've seen that HRC is as scheming as any republican. Yes, whoever gets the nomination will face the republican slime machine, but I want *MY* party to be better than that. Under the Clintons, it won't be.

Come on now you folks... was there ever even the remotest of possiblities you would have ever voted for Ms. Clinton.

Yup, and I still will if she gets the Democratic nomination.

I just hope she doesn't.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards badly need an off-the-record meeting to agree on what is (and isn't) out of bounds. Why are we Democrats eating ourselves alive here? No one's ass remains unbitten if this keeps up. No one looks good. It's time for a little more solidarity and a little less ego.

Ha ha. Fat chance. God, I wish Dems weren't such a shoo-in.

Because Republicans don't have a strong single candidate we (and everybody else) assume we're gonna win in November. We should go for a strong win, not limp to the finish in tatters having to spend all our time in office repairing our own party.

As Joe Buck notes, HRC could rein in her supporters if she wanted to. Just as she could have taken a stand against efforts to shut down the special Las Vegas Strip caucuses than ("all up to the courts" as far as she's concerned, she says on MTP). Honestly, how can the latter be tolerable after she denounced the exclusionary effects of caucuses in Iowa AND after the whole caucus plan had been agreed to a long time ago? Because nothing matters to the Clintons other than power.

It is not merely GOP talking points that the Clintons will do and say anything to win. The GOP emphasize this aspect of the Clintons because it RESONATES with voters, and it resonates for GOOD REASON.

About time you "found your voice."

And you haven't even mentioned the shameless voter suppression in Nevada.

Jim:

The big worry though is that many black people might stay at home in November if she is the nominee which could hand OH, FL, and PA to the GOP. It seems to me that the Clintons are trying to win the battle without regard to whether they lose the war. At this point, I have a hard time believing Obama would sign up for VP or even help the Clinton campaign if she is the nominee -- and at the rate she is going, especially if McCain or the Huckster is the GOP nominee, it is going to be harder to get black voters riled up enough to vote against the GOP, even if they do not like Hillary so much.

If these allegations are true, that would be totally nefarious. But this all strikes me as the kind of devious Dr. Evilesque stuff that only goes on in movies or Karl Rove's brain.

And why would she make her campaign look bad to voters that are so important to her in the process?

Just to balance and slightly correct you, objections to statements made by Clinton campaign have come all at once.
For you to correctly decide that these remarks have only begun some search of a similar, earlier period would have to be carefully scanned.
For instance the Cuomo remark made on an Albany NY talk show, seems to be about the campaign in general. But he uses a black street term which usage has seen as especially targeting Obama.
So one question I would ask is the usage of steet terms part of Cuomo's usual style? Or an exceptional deviation. In the first case, if Cuomo often colored his language it would be hard to prove that this instance of such usage was especially targetting Obama. Or is it a one-off usage which would suggest targetting.
Second why would he use a local Albany NY radio station program as a launching pad for such a slur??

Question: who benefit more from having these "racist" remarks found? Obama or Clinton

Finally why is Obama's earlier drug use not fit to be discussed? Bill's was and the blogosphere certainly tried to get Bush's drug use aired.
Why then give Obama a free ride? You can be sure the GOP won't hold back. So I think it needs be aired during the primaries

Kevin,

Your analysis fails to make one absolutely key point: in a number of these supposed racial remark it is clearly the Obama campaign that is seizing on them as racial, and trying to play up that aspect.

Certainly the "fairy tale" is one remark whose racial content was a complete and deliberate fabrication. Likewise, Hillary's remarks about MLK and LBJ can hardly be construed as racial, by any sensible reckoning, however poorly they came across (If you don't believe me, look at the original quote from Hillary. Syntactically and in every other way it was a total mess. How could such a garbled mass of verbiage possibly be a carefully, cleverly designed racial appeal?)

I won't pretend to know if the remaining remarks that may have racial content could possibly be enough to constitute a "pattern", or whether Hillary's campaign is seeking to turn the contest racial in nature.

But what's obvious to me is that Obama's campaign is absolutely and deliberately playing this game too, and not trying to extinguish the racially divisive talk. How else explain its clear decision to make a major something out of what is clearly nothing, as they have done in the cases I mentioned?

Why would they do so, at exactly this time? Because, at exactly at this time, the critical SC primary impends.

I know that we're all supposed to look down our noses at the Clinton camp's behavior. But, would anyone complain if the Clinton campaign used similar tactics against a GOP candidate? Perhaps I'm too cycnical or just uneducated, but I don't recall a "golden age" of political discourse in American politics. At the end of the day it may be better to see how Obama responds to this stuff now, as it is sure to show up in the general election.

You guys kill me The media jingles the shiny keys and you all roll over like stupid puppies.This is all just what the r's want you to do.Do you have to show them how well you pee on the floor like a scared little pup.Wake up A Dem will be President for the next 16 years so just sit boy sit.Morons all of you.

A firing squad of two facing each other.

Way to go Dems. Victory! Victory! Just like in 2004.

Two comments. One, my personal reaction and two, a prediction/observation.

Personally, I find this kind of politics soul-crushing. I am a lifelong Dem (I'm 36) precisely because it has been the party championing values of equality. The willingness to betray these principles in a brass-knuckles fight - to me - is evidence about what kind of leadership we should expect in a Clinton administration. The higher principle is their power, then we can worry about ethical principles if they are convenient. The land is full of restlessness and anger at this type of politics, because it leads to the complete failure of real problems getting solved. Thus, I predict the massive turnout of new voters and young voters (who massively break for Obama over Clinton) will simply tune out any general election with Hillary as the nominee. I know I will never vote for her, and I am a hardcore mainstream Democrat. I know lots of others like me whose body language literally slumps when they think of another term of Clinton food fighting.

Now, my observation/prediction. Edwards is still in these debates, and this race stuff is going to be huge tomorrow night. I have a feeling Edwards is going to be the attack dog (and fortunately he will have the benefit of genuine righteousness on his side), and Obama will not take the bait, instead focusing on bread and butter issues. Everybody will be watching for Obama to show a sign of playing the race card, and he is too smart for that. Edwards will be the attack dog on this.

All three candidates are in it to win. This is for every single marble -- whoever wins will get *most* of the people on the other side getting behind them and will most probably be the next President of the United States. It's distasteful to see some of this, but it's not surprising or unexpected -- and we're going to see it all in spades when the general election comes around. The only reason my candidate -- Edwards -- is not playing rough right now is that he's so far behind.

But this is part of the normal rise and fall. There was no way Obama is going to keep that halo on for long, the same as there was no way Clinton was going to keep the "inevitable" crown on for long. I agree that there is a lot of re-evaluating going on.

This process may be going on up to the convention -- which is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm hoping, for my own candidate, that as people re-evaluate Obama, or move away from Clinton for this tactic, that Edwards will get another look as the "real democrat" or the "solid candidate"

Or I can dream of a brokered convention and a draft Gore movement on the fifth ballot......

Let's see, two centrist Democrats, Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum, both of whom favored the invasion of Iraq (that's pretty centrist) are pushing this story which favors Obama, a centrist Democrat who repeats RNC talking points and talks about bipartisanship, and who hails from the Lieberman-Daschle wing of the Democratic party.

Why am I not surprised?

Obama, a centrist Democrat who repeats RNC talking points and talks about bipartisanship, and who hails from the Lieberman-Daschle wing of the Democratic party.

Yeah, and after those lovely Clintons worked so hard to keep Lieberman in the Senate, too.

Remember the Clintons lived in the South a long time and have to know how this comes across. I actually think they wanted to drown out the endorsememnts. Unfortunately for them, the black vote is lost. Johnson only speaks for a tiny percentage of blacks who have money. He was considered a sell-out a long time ago.

This is the sort of race-baiting one would expect from Tom Delay, not a progressive candidate. Civil Rights is an almost sacred liberal achievement, and for the Clinton camp to trash it this way, to use race as a political football -

Well, I am no longer undecided. Thanks, Hillary for making the choice clear!

There are two possibilities --

(a) the otherwise formidable Clintons have a blind spot for race as an issue, and do not realize the actual effect this kind of effort is going to have on Hillary and Obama's relative likeability in the campaign, because they simply cannot believe anyone will really care about some cool white people beating hell out of an uppity blackfella,

OR,

(b) somehow or other, Obama's campaign is doing all this, figuring if Hillary can get a 10 point bounce out of people being outraged at the media being mean to her for her femininity, Obama can get the same kind of bounce from the media being mean to him over his race.

I can't make (b) work; unless Obama has Simon Bar Sinister working for him behind the scenes, there's just no way he could put something like this together. On the other hand, Bill and Hillary are smart, but they're only human. It's possible they really think this is a smart move, because deep down, they cannot believe undecided or independent voters are capable of having as much sympathy for Obama as they clearly have shown for Hillary.

Kinda on this subject, here's a question I'd like to see every candidate have to answer:

Is there any other candidate for President from your party that you would not be comfortable with as your Vice President? If so, who and why? And, is there any other candidate for President from your office whom you would not be comfortable serving as Vice President under? If so, again, who and why?

As I say, I'd like to see ALL of them have to answer that question, but I'd be especially fascinated with Hillary and Obama's responses.

James typed his comment as I was typing mine....

Are you predicting Edwards will be the attack dog against Clinton on Obama's side? That's plausible, it seemed after Iowa that Edwards' strategy was to try to take Clinton down instead of Obama. That puzzled me, because I thought the obvious play was to try to take Obama down so he could be the anti-Clinton candidate.

FWIW, I don't think Edwards touches the race issue at all -- he benefits if Obama and Clinton really go after each other over it. But he's going to be sensitive that he's the "rich white guy" in the race, and a lot of people currently have their hopes on electing the "first woman" or "first black" President. He wants to win more support but has to be careful about attacking peoples' dreams.

Won't vote for Clinton, huh? Yeah, wouldn't want a savvy political operator in the White House. You know, someone canny enough to derail an opponent, someone willing to throw sand in the gears (or eyes) when it means achieving something. Nah, wouldn't want such a person going up against The Right in Congress, would we? If Obama is off message, distracted and falling victim to these tactics what's he going to do as President? Right about now LBJ would be employing so much jujitsu Clinton or Obama either one would be in a painful daze. Politics has been a vicious knife fight for thousands of years. Ignore any politician claiming they'll conduct it otherwise.

PS - It's not just Hillary's camp. Obama was schooled in Chicago politics. He knows how to fight dirty, too.

Anybody here old enough to remember Karl Rove's number one tactic, go after your opponent's strength?

Anybody want to venture a guess what one of the Clintons' greatests strengths is in this race?

Give up? It's the strong support of African-American voters.

Think about this, please.

::doubletake while scanning through comment thread::

Did Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall really support the invasion of Iraq? SERIOUSLY?

gyrfalcon: HRC's greatest strength is the strong support of AA voters?

I need some of what you're smoking!

I have 5 African American women on my staff -- ranging in age from 26 to 55. Admittedly, a small unrepresentative sample. They ALL believe this is race baiting and are very angry about it.

Bill and Hillary are playing a very risky game here -- risky for all dems. What happens in an election against McCain or Romney if African Americans just stay home?

For Bill Clinton to dismiss the most exciting and charismatic African American leader in years as "a fairy tale" is totally unacceptable to African Americans. For Hillary to lecture him on the relative importance of MLK compared to LBJ is also totally unacceptable. To have her suurogates continue the drug-use attack is reprehensible.

Once again, a dem heavyweight is going to have to call a halt to this. Maybe Kennedy. Maybe Gore.
Enough is enough.

I agree with Aerolius and Frankly0. The Obama camp all of a sudden started interpreting racist comments only a day after New Hampshire.

To call the Clintons racist is inane. To think that they would stoop to race-baiting even worse.

I think the Obama camp is trying to get some sympathy vote. IT might work it might not. The press is certainly feeding this fire.

The Obama campaign did in fact prepare a detailed memo under the name of Amaya Smith, South Carolina press secretary for Obama that, according to HuffPo''s Sam Stein:

"... provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press." (Emphasis mine.)

Politics ain't beanbag.

Here's the full quote from Bill Clinton ...
First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go.
He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way.
Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."
Give me a break.
(APPLAUSE)
This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.
video here

It's hard to find any Clinton comment that has not been taken out of context or distorted or even fabricated

It's a shame that Obama wrote as he did, but he did and to ignore this fodder for the Republican smear&fear machine is to go into denial. They need to counter with talk about youthful indiscretions instead of attacking everyone who mentions Obama's statement.

@gyrfalcon at 3:06 PM. It's certainly from the Rove play book.

I've never been a big Hillary Clinton supporter, but I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. I like some things about Barack Obama, but there are other things I don't care for.

But even with this ambivalence, I'm disgusted by what's going on this week. It’s hard for me to tell if this is all deliberate on the Clinton campaign’s side or if it’s just coincidence, but at any rate, they ought to knock it off. Off all the quotes that Steve Benen scored, the one that strikes me as most offensive is Clinton’s "It took a president to get it done." Martin Luther King wasn't a member of Congress or a resident of the White House. He can't take direct credit for the Great Society legislation -- duh. Nonetheless, none of that would have happened without the pressure of the Civil Rights movement and it was stupid to suggest that MLK was a dreamer, but not a doer, especially given that neither Kennedy nor Johnson has an unblemished record on this issue.

I don’t think either of the Clintons are racist, but I think Bill has shown (as with Sister Souljah), he’ll do what it takes to get the job done. As for Hillary, she has a history of her own (baking cookies & having teas anyone?). But she has always been politically tone deaf; she's one of those people who believes she should be judged by what she meant to say and not by the actual words that came out of her mouth.

Whatever is going on, I wish it would stop. Now.

I think it is all part of the game. Maybe Obama sees an opportunity to paint himself as the victim and MSM loves it.

When Clinton visited her Alma Mata and said she was influenced there it was made out as playing the gender question. If a man talks about his military experience shaping or influencing him like McCain does is he playing up the fact he is a male?

MLK needed men in power to bring civil rights to the people. What on earth is wrong with that?

Should Obama get the nomination the Republicans will be all over him with Willi Horton caliber. They have used a southern strategy before and could do it again.

Even now, after all the years Hillary is being judged with all the hate the Republicans poured over the Clintons. Only her likability factor comes up not McCain's or any others. I don't like McCain, I don't trust him.

he was assured personally by Condi Rice

Ha! Well then end of story.

I agree, Tilli. This is all so fucking ridicules I'm ashamed to even be commenting on this thread. And here I thought it was only the Retardicans that were childish...

The Clintons could say, "This is all just silly nonsense." Instead, everything is the equivalent of "We don't think Barack Obama is still beating his wife." And the original quotes are all coming from their side.

Between this and Hillary's attempt to disenfranchise voters in Nevada, I am beginning to wonder if I will vote for her in the General Election. It might be worth it to withstand another Republican administration to finally get it across to the Democratic Establishment that we hate Republican-Lite and corrupt politicians like Hillary and we would sooner vote to punish than vote for someone as corrupt as she is.

If she doesn't stop NOW, I will start thinking Long-Term and vote against her in the General until the New Democrats finally get the message.

Clinton and Obama will end up refocusing the contest as one between race and gender and they realistically will not have much choice. I've leaned more towards Obama and Clinton as an Edwards supporter over the last couple of weeks, but if Clinton gets the nomination, I think a significant number of Obama supporters may stay home for the general and if Obama gets the nomination a significant number of Hillary supporters may do the same.

Seems like yesterday Bill was the First Black President.Now sit boy sit.You people wouldn't know race baiting if it bit you in the arse.

jfm3tx has a "hard time believing Obama would ... help Clinton if she is the nominee". I hope that fear is unfounded, for my first criterion in finally deciding which Democrat to vote for in the Feb 5th primary here in MA is simple: I will not vote for any candidate who does not promise to endorse, support, and help the Democratic nominee in November.

The only thing at stake is my vote in the primary. Maybe it's too small a stake for either Clinton or Obama to care about. But thanks to IA and NH, my vote still counts a tiny bit.

My vote in the general is not at stake. I will vote for the Democrat. But to the extent that one of the Democrats needs my vote to GET to the general, she or he will unequivocally endorse THE Democratic nominee, NOW.

-- TP
-- TP

Kevin stands for a lot of Democrats who appreciate Hillary as a fellow wonk. Now that she's steering her campaign into the waters of identity politics and emotional expressivity, or whatever it was the cry meant, I expect to see some of her fans begin to jump ship.

::doubletake while scanning through comment thread::

Did Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall really support the invasion of Iraq? SERIOUSLY?
Posted by: Doc Nebula

Yes.

(This has been another edition of "Simple Answers to Simple Questions")

Now the thread turns too who will stay home and who won't. Take note Only Republican Patriots stay home if they don't have a horse in the race.It don't matter if it is Obama or Clinton the Dems will get out and vote,Just stop with the Bullsh#t that people will stay home NOT TRUE....

Off all the quotes that Steve Benen scored, the one that strikes me as most offensive is Clinton’s "It took a president to get it done."

Maybe Hillary botched how she put her point. Maybe it was somehow inherently offensive even unbotched, because there was no way such a point could give MLK proper credit however expressed.

But to say it was intended as being racially divisive is a complete fabrication out of nothing.

If anyone repeats "Obama's not ready for prime time" again, I'm going to first vomit and then repeatedly slam my refridgerator door against my head until my eyes explode. Regardless how you feel about these candidates, the "prime time" arguement has been resoundly defeated.

Re: Post-partisanship is dumb, niave

Obama is a politician. This is his spiel. Anyone who suggests this spiel proves he is too "softy" to take on the Right Wingers in Washington needs to get hooked up to the Politics 101 Juvenation Machine. It is Obama's rhetoric that makes him a strong politician. He's the new Teflon because when people throw mud, he'll accuse them of being partisan hacks who want to lie and mame instead of work together to forge real change. It may be a spiel but his rise has PROVEN that it works.

Hillary's fall is proving that her Dark Side of the Force Strategy (gotta fight like Repugs to beat Repugs) is just another spiel and doesn't mean her kung fu is any stronger. Maybe she'll get things done, but make no mistake, the "most effective" presidents in recent memory have been from the Teflon mold and not the gunslinger mold. If anything, this suggests that Hillary's experience, "I know how the Repugs fight and I'll meet them at OK Corral" strategy is the least effective to getting things done in 09.

But either way, voting for or against that spiel is an endorsement of tactics, not "True Belief" since all candidates say what they need to win. Sorry if that's cynical but that's the way things go in politics.

I'll say this another way: Obama ain't no Jimmy Carter or King George Bush I. He ain't a wimp. You might not like his tactics, but he ain't gonna fold 'em when the Repugs come a runnin. Neither will Hillary. So maybe now we can retire the tired claim that Obama ain't strong enough to tackle the Repug machine. Because I'd say there is zero credibility to that claim.

Something I read a few weeks ago from David Corn seems relevant in light of all this. He talked about how the Clinton camp really "despised" Obama:

"When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes." A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible."

===

I'm thinking this attitude has spilled outside the sealed off campaign rooms and into the minds of their supporters.

...Just stop with the Bullsh#t that people will stay home NOT TRUE....

john john, That's up to Hillary and Obama. If they want to turn this thing real UGLY, I just don't see how you can rule that out.

Politics old school: attack you opponent for doing what you are doing. You'll notice it's HRC who continually raises the issue. And many have taken the bait -- see frankly0's comments.

Team Clinton would love, love, love it if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson got involved.

Anyway, I'm sure all will be forgiven by convention time.

KathyF

If you walk around comment threads on several blogs, you'll hear plenty of Obama supporters saying equally awful hate-filled things about Clinton.

And you'll hear supporters of both candidates excoriating Edwards for staying in the race and "spoiling" things for "their" candidate.

Whoever comes out ahead in this is going to have to extend the VP slot of (one of the) others. I don't think Edwards or Clinton would take it frankly (Edwards has been there already, and Clinton would probably rather be a major power in the Senate); but Obama would almost have to be the VP for Clinton or Edwards.

The Johnson people managed to swallow their dislike of the Kennedy people, and vice versa. At least enough to get them elected....

::doubletake while scanning through comment thread::

Did Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall really support the invasion of Iraq? SERIOUSLY?
Posted by: Doc Nebula

I thought Drum equivocated before deciding that no, he could not support the invasion.

Not sure about Marshall.

USA Today/Gallup poll out today:

Clinton 45%
Obama 33%
Edwards 13%

Yeah, Hillary!!

Zmulls: I'm not talking about Clinton supporters on comment threads. Who the hell cares what they think? Certainly not David Corn, who I was quoting. He talked to Clinton insiders. Read the whole thing.

Has anyone actually read the entire Clinton "fairy tale" quote? Based on some of the comments I would think not.

Research 2000 Poll for Nevada, today:

Obama 32%
Hillary 30%
Edwards 27%

Yeah Obama!!

(And yeah, I'm mocking you.)

KathyF

I was only reacting to your last comment, that you felt the attitude has spilled over.

I have no doubt that Clinton insiders, at least some of them, are seething and resentful of Obama. I'd bet there were some Obama insiders who are pretty contemptuous of Clinton.

When the dust settles on this thing, it will be up to the two of them (three, counting Edwards) to start bringing everyone back together...and it will be in their best interests to do so. If Clinton wins, I suspect Obama will be her VP; if Obama wins, he's going to need Clinton's help in the Senate. And if Edwards wins (which is not totally impossible), he's going to need both of them.

Me...I'd like to see Hillary Clinton as the first female Majority Leader in the Senate...

You'll notice it's HRC who continually raises the issue. And many have taken the bait -- see frankly0's comments.

It would be nice if just once you people managed actually to confront the supposedly racial comments I pulled out -- and which the Obama campaign has declared is part of the "pattern" -- and try to explain to us all how any reasonable person could see them as racially divisive.

You could start with the notorious "fairy tale" remark.

And if you can't come up with any account whereby its racially divisive, how about coming up with an explanation of why the Obama campaign has pretended they are divisive which is not itself representative of a purely cynical kind of racially divisive politics itself?

Hillary Clinton was simply stating the obvious in her remarks about MLK and LBJ. She did not diminish Martin Luther King's achievements in any way. No one denies that had there been no civil rights movement, in which Dr.King played a leading role, there would have been no civil rights legislation. But at the same time, it's ridiculous to deny Lyndon Johnson his share of the credit for civil rights. He was the one who rammed the legislation through Congress. No one forced him to do this--not MLK nor anyone else.

In fact, Johnson had a lot to lose politically from supporting civil rights. The night the 1964 act was passed, someone found him lying on his bed depressed. When they asked why, Johnson said "Because I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come." He was right, of course.

The fact that the civil rights movement succeeded does not mean that its success was inevitable. Without politicians like LBJ who were willing to support the legislation, Dr. King's movement would have failed. Neither activists like MLK nor politicians like LBJ were sufficient to end segregation--each group required the other to accomplish this. Both, therefore, deserve the credit. The fact that many blacks want to believe that white people played no role in ending slavery and segregation doesn't make it true. It's infuriating to see history rewritten like this.

USA Today/Gallup Poll New Hampshire January 6, 2008

Obama 41%
Clinton 28%
Edwards 19%

Ahem.

"99 Problems and a Bitch Ain't One" is kind of an odd party song for Mr. Change and Hope to have been playing at his Iowa victory party, though, isn't it?

So which bigotry is worse? The homophobia that was never apologized for from the Obama campaign (Donnie McClurkin "god saved me from my gay demons"), the misogyny? Or the racism?

So far I'd say racial bigotry is the big no-no, with misogyny and homophobia trailing way behind.

While it is true that Bill's statement re- the fairy tale quote has been misused by BO's camp and other people, it is also true that when the defenders use the quote in full, the forget to add the question to which Bill was responding.

He was asked why Penn was wrong on the polls and he went on a tirade against BO endiing up with the fairy tale line. There were also other things he said. Why that response to a questions about a pollster?

It's quite interesting that a former president is doing what Bill is doing right now. I think there is a merit to the argument that they really hate BO maybe cos he is spoiling what they consider to be HRC's rightful nomination. In any case, this is one of the arguments against a wife/husband run for the presidency, cos it turns FPOTUS to a divisive figure within the party. It's a shame cos FPOTUS is supposed to be above the fray.

It was Obama's incredibly smarmy comment envisioning MLK saying "The dream will die. It can't be done," deliberately misconstruing what Clinton had been saying about false hopes--and in the process comparing himself to MLK--that injected race into the exchange.

Clinton was then asked to respond to Obama's comment, and she did so *by correcting his misconstruction*: MLK's dream wasn't a false hope, because there would be a president in office who could make it reality.

That the president at the time happened to be white and the dreamer black is completely irrelevant to her point, as is the fact that one candidate for president now is white and the other black.

Her initial remarks about false hopes may have been dumb, but they weren't about race. Obama brought race into it, not Hillary.

Folks talk about how the economy and healthcare will trump the Iraq debacle during the 2008 Presidential "Race." I predict race will become the dominant theme.

America is a diverse country. Yet the white folks in power still haven't figured out why the disadvantaged resent the status quo.

In a way, fanning the racial divide, just might actually help the Repugnacans.

There. I said it. The election will become about
us versus 'them folk.

'them folk will then be construed as being RACIST.

The screaming has just begun.

Economy? Healthcare? Iraq?

Nope.... RACISM (and thinly veiled Classism) will define this campaign year.

It's going to get ugly.

Attacking Sen Clinton because of her sex rallies support to her. Attacking Sen. Obama because of his race rallies support to him.

I hope no one attacks the hedgefund consultant Edwards because his Southern accent.

XJT, you're a moron for using that crappy 99 problems reference. People like you are part of the problem spewing unfoounded nonsense like that.

In any case, you don't want to go there. You do know that Timbaland organized fund raisers for Hillary. I bet you know some of the lyrics of his songs.

deliberately misconstruing what Clinton had been saying about false hopes

How did he "miscontrue", much less deliberately so, what she said? She said it. And the fact that it was off the cuff is just that much more revealing about her approach to politics, as is her vote for the AUMF, her sponsorship of a "flag-protection amendment", her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, her employment of Mark Penn, her endorsements by Liebercrats like Bob Kerrey and Evan Bayh, et cetera.

All I can say is: from where I sit this looks both deliberate and revolting. Another few days of comments like the ones we've seen over the past week and my mind will be firmly made up about who to vote for. And it won't be Hillary.

Absolutely right. And revolting is right. HRC. Her husband. Their surrogates. Revolting.

A couple of comments--pretty obvious, but since you asked, Kevin:

1. The scattershot nature of the remarks, uttered by a range of named spokesmen (I think they were all men: Johnson and Cuomo, for example) and unnamed advisers, makes it difficult to prove this is a deliberate Clinton strategy. But isn't that how the politics of destruction is designed--namely, insinuation, deniability, backtracking, palaver, surrogates, etc.? Do they think we're stupid? (Don't answer that. No, do.)

2. As for the Obama memo. I've read what purports to be the email, I think from or to O's SC campaign chairwoman. It's a simple recitation of the jibes, important to have a record going forward, as they say. My sense is that Obama would not appear thin-skinned to react forcefully and that he knows exactly what he'll say but may be holding his fire for the right opportunity. My hope as an Edwards supporter is that JE will join this fight, and treat us to a real stemwinder on racism and despicable 21st-century political campaigns.)

3. My guess? Another Clinton campaign miscalculation, too clever by half--that will hurt them badly. Clever by half because they figured they'd ~win~ if Obama rose to the bait and ~win~ votes via insinuation and fear-mongering. What'll happen instead is that they will lose when Obama responds, and they will lose voters, and they will lose their national lead, and they will eventually lose the nomination.

I'm thinking this attitude has spilled outside the sealed off campaign rooms and into the minds of their supporters.

Dunno... it seems like a chicken/egg thing to me, because it seems like campaigns attract roughly similar personality types as staff, volunteers, & supporters, just like any other operations or institutions. IME, the Obama supporters have been [mostly unironic] brave-new-worlders, the Gore hopefuls (including me) were paradigm-shifters-plus-experience, the Edwards cheerleaders occupied a sort of Don Quixote position, and the Clinton people were the know-it-all technocrats. And as is the case more often than we realize, our impressions of the candidates mingle with our responses to their supporters... which I guess makes it no surprise that I eliminated Clinton from consideration early on, then Edwards.

Zmulls: I don't see any way Obama would ever accept a VP position. He's a leader, not a second in command. Nor would she ever offer it to him. Look what happened when Kerry went against his instincts.

And I think the reason Corn wrote the article he did was because of the unusual nature of the Obama-hatred inside the HRC camp.

He was asked why Penn was wrong on the polls and he went on a tirade against BO endiing up with the fairy tale line. There were also other things he said. Why that response to a questions about a pollster?

I think that's called changing the subject.

Ever notice politicians do that, when they have a particular point they want to make? Obviously Bill Clinton thought that Obama was getting a free ride on the war support issue, and he used the occasion to launch the attack.

they are playing the Rove card. They are hitting all of his strengths: The war, youth. inspirational style, and the meme that white people only support him because we feel guilty or need an imaginary black friend.

So, question his blackness, or push him to react so he looks like an angry black man that wouldn't make a good imaginary friend.

Can you play the Rove card on a Black candidate without sounding bigoted, insensitive, condescending, and/or ignorant? Do Democrats really want a candidate that is trying to find that out?

I ain't cutting them any slack.

I'm thinking this attitude has spilled outside the sealed off campaign rooms and into the minds of their supporters.

Bill Richardson said on Olbermann the other night, the candidates like each other, the staffs hate each other. I think that's generally true. Some of McCain's staff from 2000 wound up switching parties, IIRC.

Seems that you all are taken by Obama and his shallowness and his attempt at being a leader. he is no leader and a whimp for letting his camp take these kinds of things so out of proportion it is sickening. I will be in Hilary's side on this one as she seems to be attacked at every jenction and it seems you all keep giving Obama a pass - UNFAIR!!

Why do so many sanctimonious finger waggers think they can tell Bob Johnson that he's playing the race card - especially people who don't know anything about racism and never felt the sting of racist words and actions. Or even at the Clintons who have for all their faults worked hard for economic and racial fairness.

I wish someone had spoken up in 2000 and said Al Gore was doing the heavy lifting in the heat of Vietnam and George W was doing something - we don't know exactly what.

And I think the reason Corn wrote the article he did was because of the unusual nature of the Obama-hatred inside the HRC camp.

Of course, you'd never see the like in the Obama camp towards the Clintons, because, as everyone knows, they are too good for that.

Can you people never put the shoe on the other foot?

The Fairy Tale resides with the Clintons.
--cognitorex--
Bill Clinton nakedly lied to the nation. His national standing was so hemorrhaged that he became quasi toxic in the 2000 election thus single handedly denying Gore his Presidential due. It somehow seems dead wrong that a process has begun, the culmination of which will be to again place this once disgraced man in the White House. We live in the era where stardom supersedes values for the masses, a la American Idol and the "Brittany" effect, but primary voters and the Democratic Party should think long and hard before they offer philandering Bill the first spouse position.
I love Bill and could easily vote for the Clinton him/her or her/him combo but there is a "Fairy Tale" being told in the Clinton electioneering speeches.
The fairy tale is that Hillary can remotely match Mr Obama's ability to affect change in Washington. She/he can claim more experience in the legislative process, etc. but the fact that so many people despise her/him will end up with the legislative process being hallmarked by brutal antagonism. Look for the first ever Republican congressman to perform self immolation rather than give Bill and Hillary passage of any historic legislation. Sadly, they simply have too much negative baggage to approach Mr. Obama's potential for a massive November turn out, or for his potential for systemic change in Washington and his and our hope for some modicum of national healing.

Jim: Bill Richardson thinks everyone likes him.

Will everyone please calm the fuck down. Do you really think the Clintons are stupid enough to push all these racial-sensitivity buttons at once? Just when HRC is starting to recover some momentum?

Go read gyrfalcon on January 14, 2008 at 3:06

Still waiting for someone to come up with an account of how the "fairy tale" remark was intended to be racially divisive!

Crickets are chirping! Give them a rest!

Whenever people get angry with accusations of a racial strategy (I'm not calling it racism, yet) by the Clinton machine, I just have two names that they might remember from 1992: Sister Souljah and Ricky Ray Rector. It isn't like they haven't played these kind of games before (and since Hil takes credit for the Clinton presidency, she must take the good with the bad).

I think it is fair game to question Obama on racism. Look at his policy on illegal aliens, for ex.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/immigration/
"The bill also would provide immigrants who are now contributing, responsible members of society an opportunity to remain in the country and earn citizenship."

Pro-illegals often cite anti-Hispanic racism as the motivation for enforcement of immigration laws, so it is certainly fair to cite anti-white racism as the motivation for rewarding illegals with citizenship. Anti-illegals have the law on their side, so clearly pro-illegals have other motivations, such as anti-white racism. Many blacks, Hispanics, and self-hating white liberals gloat over the future majority-minority America. I vividly recall how Peter Jennings used to report on future demographics with a sadistic smirk on his puss.

How did he "miscontrue", much less deliberately so, what she said?

By suggesting that MLK would have given up if he'd taken her warning about false hopes. That wasn't the sort of thing she had been referring to.

More importantly, it was also a racially loaded example. And by wrapping himself in the cloak of MLK, he attempted to immunize himself from her criticism rather than addressing her point directly.

It was a very clever, and very nasty, bit of business, IMHO.

I'm an Obama supporter and I agree that some of these individual remarks have been blown out of proportion in terms of the notion that they were racially motivated. I also believe that the Clintons are far from being racist people. Now, having said that, I think the following points should be made.

1. It was Hillary and Bill who turned this whole thing negative and nasty back in late December and early January, when it appeared that she might lose both Iowa and New Hampshire. They started trashing Barack Obama's character and his record and they mocked his message in a mean-spirited fashion. Examples include dredging up Barack's kindergarden dream of becoming president and Bill refering to Obama as a kid. In truth Barack Obama is the same age as Bill when he ran for president, and I'm quite sure that if Barack Obama referred Hillary a "girl" her campaing would be swamping the media with accusations of sexism.

2. Numerous Clinton surrogates have used racially charged terms like "shuck and drive" and at least three have made reference to Barack Obama's teen-age drug-use. This is flat-out below-the-belt, Karl Rove-type stuff. If the Clinton people think this is fair game, does this mean that we should dredge up Gennifer Flowers, Monica, Charlie Trie, Wes Hubbel etc. etc.??

Also, in my opinion Barack Obama deserves credit for being honest and open about his past and his attempt to use it as a lesson for young people. This stands in stark contrast to Bill Clinton himself and George W. Bush, both of whom were unable to bring themselves to be honest about their past. Unfortunately, this inability to tell truth was an open for their behaviour while in office.

3. Barack Obama has never accused Hillary or Bill of being racist. He has accused them of being negative.

4. It is unbecoming for Bill Clinton, a former president and the most prominent elder statesman of the party, to play the role of Hillary's hatchet man and for his to trash one of the party's most brightest and most talented stars. If he wants to champion Hillary's record and her agenda, that's fine, but for him to wage the hatchet is extremely uncool. That should be left to Hillary herself or one of the campaign's many ultra-hacks like Terry McAuliffe.

5. The Clintons' attempts to denigrate Obama's experience and his record, by calling him kid, and saying that he's only spent a few years as a "part-time state senator" are low and far from intellectually honest. Barack Obama has spent his entire life working in public service as a community activist, civil rights attorney, and teacher on the South Side of Chicago in some of the most racially segregated and economically depressed neighborhoods in the country. He has also served as an elected official for longer than Hillary.

Ed,

Here's the Wikipedia entry on the Sistah Souljah moment.

Clinton's criticism of Sistah Souljah, and of Jesse Jackson for including her in his Rainbow Coalition, arose out of this quote from her: "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?"

Somehow, when you look at that quote in the full light of day, it just doesn't seem so unworthy of criticism, does it?

More importantly, it was also a racially loaded example.

Utter nonsense. In the same speech, he also referred to John F. Kennedy. Was that "racially loaded"?

Clinton stepped on her own tongue by talking about "false hopes" in a primary campaign when the last thing people want is compromise and half-measures.

Bill's fairy tale answer (and his palaver on the Sharpton show) was typical for him, and I like the guy, or used to: canny politics on the one hand but undisciplined on the other.

As part of the messy rhetorical brew seeping out of the Clinton camp, "fairy tale" is part of the broader Clintonian attack on hope, on inspiration, on charisma and change.

Yes, Bill was describing in his rather long-winded and undisciplined way what he said was Obama's actual record on the war and he declared that O's account of his stance in the Senate on the war was "a fairy tale."

But again, like HRC's emo moment in the diner, the clip most Americans saw was "gimme a break . . . that's the biggest fairy tale . . ."

This links Bill's attack specifically to HRC's patronizing remarks about MLK and LBJ. HRC was deriding the power of stories and courage to change countries. Bill follows with the fairy tale business.

They are attacking Obama's strengths: his antiwar stance and his ability to tell a story, to give a speech. Again, too clever by half.

If Barack Obama isn't ready for prime time, then his wife isn't fit for our morning commute. Michelle Obama -- who must've taken her cue from Tim Russert on yesterday's Meet the Press -- excoriated Bill Clinton for calling her husband's campaign a "fairy tale", when he said absolutely nothing of the sort.

This cynical line of campaigning is just so wrong on so many levels, I'm just stunned and disappointed that a candidate who touts himself as above this sort of crap has instead proved himself all too willing to dive face into it.

And speaking of slime, Tim Russert should be ashamed of himself (not that he has ever embarrassed easily, but still ...) for playing yesterday that out-of-context quote from Bill Clinton, coming in on "Give me a break!", and then talking over Hillary's protestations.

That's like playing a soundbite with the subject's opening line being "However" or "Nevertheless". It's patently dishonest journalism, and stands as yet another piece of evidence demonstrating why we need a top-to-bottom reform and disinfecting of our corporate-owned-and-shilling American media. As for Russert, well, he's once again proved himself to be nothing but a tired media whore in dire need of a new set of kneepads.

Just vote Edwards, mon ami.

Still waiting for someone to come up with an account of how the "fairy tale" remark was intended to be racially divisive!

No idea, but as a caucasian I'm obviously not sensitized to such things, which is of course not saying that they don't exist. But it was snotty & condescending at best even from where I sit, which is IME pretty much characteristic of the Clinton camp from Bill & Hillary down to lowly blog commenters.

Rassmussen Reports, Jan. 14: "among white voters, Clinton leads 41% to 27%. Among African-American voters, Obama leads 66% to 16%"

But again, like HRC's emo moment in the diner, the clip most Americans saw was "gimme a break . . . that's the biggest fairy tale . . ." This links Bill's attack specifically to HRC's patronizing remarks about MLK and LBJ. HRC was deriding the power of stories and courage to change countries. Bill follows with the fairy tale business.

Love the creativity, but can't quite follow the logic.

Let me guess: you're an Obama supporter? Is that the sort of thinking you do that makes Obama seem like just the best damn thing?

Kevin, Why wait another couple of days? I agree that some quotes have been taken out of context (e.g., the fairy tale comment), but as I posted right after NH, the Clintons (no sense in just treating Hillary as a single candidate anymore) have clearly set about injecting negative racial stereotypes into the campaign for political advantage. It started back with Bill Shaheen, continued through the MLK-Johnson bit, and "choked voice" episode, and has only escalated since. For those who are o.k. with this, fine...it's all just hardball politics. But for me, the Clintons' campaign crossed the line, and I've reached the point where I simply won't vote for Hillary even in the general election. Sad, because until recently I thought any of the three Democratic front-runners would make fine presidents. I've also voted Democratic for 20+ years, but we all have to vote our conscience.

If Obama cannot withstand this kind of thing NOW, in a Democratic primary, he has no chance whatsoever in November. I mean, you think the GOP will just magically refrain from race-baiting?

Face it: Obama is unviable, untested, unvetted, and unelectable.

Yes, it is disgusting and amateurish.

"Another few days of comments like the ones we've seen over the past week and my mind will be firmly made up about who to vote for. And it won't be Hillary."

Way to go Kevin, fight the good fight. The racial politics of this campaign again has me realizing just how transformational Obama's candidacy is, and how tired I mentally feel just thinking of another eight years of a Clinton in the White House.

There was an interesting article in the Washington Times about the strained relationship between the civil-rights "old guard" and the candidacy of Barack Obama: how, though he is indebted to the struggle from that era, he is not beholden to them. These are people that courageously fought against racism in the past, but have built quite a nice house for themselves since, and see Barack Obama as a threat to their influence (I commend Jesse Jackson, Jr. for his help in the Obama campaign).

Nevertheless, it is not just the positions of the various candidates that has me supporting Barack Obama's candidacy. Andrew Sullivan wrote, what I regard, as one of the most potent and forceful essays in recent times regarding the benefits of an Obama presidency: he said, in effect, that electing Obama would be tantamount to leaving all that baby-boomer mess, with its grudges and battles regarding Vietnam and the other social battles, finally behind. It would be like a breath of fresh air, politically, and metaphorically. What I hear from Hillary Clinton, and what I see from the Republican side, is more of the same. She is campaigning just how one would expect her to campaign, as well as how Bill would campaign as well. Barack Obama is taking the hits because he is trying to actually take the higher moral ground, and keep this campaign on the merits. Unfortunately, with these side comments such as "shuck and jive", as well as various other statements that seem carefully placed, the response from Obama has him risking falling into a ridiculous and Rovian political battle.

I'll say this much more, Kevin. There was a point in Obama's campaign where he was down twenty points, and the temptation was great for him to go negative. Any other time, we would have expected a politician to do so. Even I was hoping he would go negative in order to differentiate himself and Clinton. But what did he do? He criticized her on the MERITS, and did not play with the political mud-slinging. Now how many times have we seen that? Too often, we suspect that the real motivation behind a politician's endeavors to high office involve power and influence. The use of negative campaigning, at that point in Obama's campaign, could have proven him to be just another politician. But he didn't. He actually forced his people to keep it positive, defying even my wishes for him to "get tough" with Hillary. And we were way off track, and were wrong.

Contrast that with Hillary Clinton. It's been said, but if her name was Hillary Jones, would we be persuaded to give her the big shot. You can try to be clever and mention that with Obama being black, but you'd be off target. Look at his actions while he was in Chicago. Look at his previous statements over issues like Iraq that career politicians (Edwards, Clinton, etc) ended up tangling themselves in knots with in order to be politically solvent. And, yeah, listen to the man talk. He is a practical politician, who "errs" on the side of bipartisanship. We have this one moment to potentially transform this country this upcoming November, and to pass that torch to the new generation (yeah, I know how it sounds, and I mean it). I, for one, want to live in that country where such an opportunity is more recognizable for ever. I'm tired of the same old battles, and the same old guard. It's time to take this country ahead, and I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton is not the answer. From what I know of him so far, it's Barack Obama.

I will simply say that there is a lot of very superficial analysis here and I also find most all of this overblown, But here is my question, how do we analyze this when the speaker is black?

Give me a break, Noogs