Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 27, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

OFF THE BUS....I haven't been impressed with very much of the chatter about Barack Obama's primary victory last night. Hillary didn't give a concession speech? Give me a break. Who cares? Turnout was up? Yes, but it's been an exciting and money-filled campaign and turnout has been up everywhere. Obama won the black vote and lost the white vote? Nothing new there. Obama won young people and Hillary won among the elderly? Again, no surprise.

What's more, none of my views about this race have really changed. I think Hillary is still likely to win the nomination. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I suspect she's also more electable than Obama. And Obama's continued unwillingness to defend progressive policies on explicitly progressive grounds still bothers me.

But that said, enough's enough. I don't like dog whistle racial appeals when Republicans do it, and I don't like it when Bill Clinton does it. (And unlike Hillary's MLK/LBJ remark, which was idiotically mischaracterized, don't even try to pretend that this was an innocent remark. We're not children here.) Yes, Obama has to be able to handle this kind of sewage, and yes, this will almost certainly be forgiven and forgotten among Democrats by November. But it's not November yet, is it? My primary is a week from Tuesday, and I'm not feeling very disposed to reward this kind of behavior. At this point, it's looking a lot more likely that I'm going to vote for Obama.

For more, read Joe Klein and Karen Tumulty and Reed Hundt. I'm on pretty much the same page.

UPDATE: My commenters seem to think this is a grumpy post. Sorry. That wasn't my intent. For the most part I'm pissed, not grumpy, and I've changed the text of the post slightly to clean it up.

Really, I just wanted to make two points. First, I looked through all the exit polls last night and concluded that South Carolina just didn't have a lot new to tell us. The things people are talking about — turnout, youth vote, black vs. white vote, etc. — are all things we've seen in the other primaries too.

Second, despite the fact that I still have some positive things to say about Hillary and some negative things to say about Obama, the dog whistle stuff is revolting and it's pushed me over the edge. I've been slightly pro-Hillary in the past, but now I think I'm slightly pro-Obama.

Kevin Drum 1:54 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (176)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

They won't have to do it much more, they'll just subtly keep the racial undertone going.

In other words, you can't unring a bell. The Clintons have made their bed, they can lie in it.

Posted by: blatherskite on January 27, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

With a Ted Kennedy endorsement coming down the pike, I don't think we have to worry too much about whether Obama is a closet conservative. And his victory speech from last night had a fair bit of Fight-the-Man red meat that sounded straight out of the Edwards playbook. I'm sending in my absentee (NY) ballot for him on Monday.

Posted by: Matthew K on January 27, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Zzzzz. Wake me up when November is here.

Posted by: jrw on January 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

I was pleasantly surprised to see Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama in the NYT.

Question:

Has HRC inspired the next generation the way Obama has, the way JFK did?

The race (no pun intended) for president has to become much more than any "ism" (sexism, racism, etc.)

...time for us to judge folks by the content of their character, not the color of their skin!

(tell that to Bill, aka shrill bill)

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Contrary to conventional wisdom, I suspect she's also more electable than Obama.

It's also contrary to common sense, polls, empirical evidence, and basic thought.

Posted by: Mike on January 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Hear, hear Kevin. Although you were pretty dismissive regarding turnout in your post, and I disagree with you regarding Hillary's general electability, good for you for getting honestly disturbed by Bill Clinton's rhetoric (especially with that Jesse Jackson jibe...what the fuck was that all about?), as I did.

Just filled out my absentee today in the California primary, and it's going for Barack Obama. Good luck to him.

Posted by: Boorring on January 27, 2008 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

My primary is a week from Tuesday, and I'm not feeling very disposed to reward this kind of behavior.

So stand for what you believe, and vote against her!

Posted by: Dave on January 27, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Outrageous post.

"Turnout was up. So what."

So what? So what?? Dude, it almost DOUBLED. Obama alone got more primary votes than No. 1 and No. 2 Republicans, McCain and Huckabee, COMBINED.

In case you forgot, elections are about getting the most people to vote for you. And for every one person Hillary got to vote for her, Obama got more than TWO! The man was a godmotherdamnf*ckin' turnout machine! And he did this running against the greatest Democratic politician that we have know over the past twenty years, and his talented wife.

Helloooo Drum!!! Hellooooo McFly!!!

Posted by: lampwick on January 27, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

obamaw will win it all

Posted by: Grisey on January 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

oops, that should read:

obama will win it all

Posted by: Grisey on January 27, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK


BTD on Jeralyn Merritt's blog seems to suggest that Gore will endorse Obama.

q

Posted by: q on January 27, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you, Kevin, for your honesty. I know that this isn't an easy call for you. But it is the right thing to say and it has to be said. That is all.

Posted by: ikl on January 27, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, don't think for a second that things will be forgiven and forgotten in November. I am not voting for the Clintons in the primaries and I am not voting for them in the General.

I would rather focus on congressional elections and wait out another 4 years under Republican rule than put the Clintons back in office, and I voted for Clinton I twice.

Also, it's not like the Democrats really do anything Progressive when they are in power anyway ... please see 2006 elections and resulting policy shifts. (Don't look too hard, they aren't there).

Despite what she says on the campaign trail, Clinton is a lying snake and as soon as she doesn't have to appease the stinkin' hippies anymore, she's going to tack hard to the right. Verifiably, it's what the Clintons do.

So, no dice. If Hillary gets elected, she's going to ignore progressive politics for EIGHT years, because she will be the automatic nominee in 2012. If I vote for a Republican (or not vote) this year, then I will get another bite at the apple in 2012 to put someone in office who isn't a lying snake.

Bye Bye Hillary. You're going to lose. Progressives like me just won't vote for you. Period. Even if the result is a Republican term.

Posted by: AtumHotep on January 27, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Obama wants a new politics where Democrats and Republicans work together. He wants to work with senators like Mitch McConnell, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins and Jeff Sessions.

Oh, wait. All of these Republican senators are up for re-election. Aren't Democrats supposed to try to defeat Republicans and elect Democrats?

Posted by: Alvord on January 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Turnout was up? So what.

Yeah, this can't be good for the party. I mean, who wants people to be excited about Democrats?

Posted by: The Other Chris on January 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Question about the SC primary turnout:

If a person voted in the Republican primary one week ago (say for McCain), can he, or she, vote again in the Democratic primary this week (for Obama)? In other words, can a person switch parties and vote twice?

Posted by: emmarose on January 27, 2008 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

I mean this in the best possible way, Kevin. But sometimes you sound like my grandpa - nothing's changed, nothing's gonna change ...

What would turnout have to look like to get you excited? And how many of these new voters would have to be young or for Obama?

If you had come up with numbers before the election and then compared them with what we're seeing I'm guessing you'd be doing a better job of holding your opinion accountable to reality.

But I agree it's probably still 55-45 Clinton gets the nomination. Unfortunately

Posted by: Matt on January 27, 2008 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

kevin you need more black friends. There are alot of other things people can do on a Tuesday night than go and vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: jvoe on January 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Obama gave a great speech after winning in Iowa and another one last night after winning SC, but isn't there more to this than making a geat speech?

I won't get to vote until Apr.22.

As of now I plan on voting for Hillary Clinton, and I will still be listening to Chance the Gardener (Obama) to see what else he comes up with in the meantime.

Posted by: * on January 27, 2008 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Emmarose - I read somewhere that the answer is no, you can only vote in one or the other.

Posted by: lampwick on January 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

I have lived and voted Democratic in Clearwater, Florida for many years. Until last night I was on the fence between Obama and Edwards. Kevin, I want the most Progressive administration we can get come Jan. 2009. After last night's victory speech, I am voting for Obama on Tuesday.

Let us all remember: the FL repub legislature voted to put our primary on Jan. 29 - knowing FULL well that it would not be welcomed by the DNC. I would have preferred to wait.

Posted by: Jeff in Clearwater on January 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Man, was that a grumpy post. To think Hillary might be a better candidate; well, I don't think so, but there's an argument to be made there. But to slag turn-out as meaningless -- WTF? Haven't you ever heard of commitment bias? This is, as economists say, a leading indicator. And it's happening again and again so far this election year.

Wake up, Kevin. You're hearing rumblings, but ignoring the possibility of a landslide...for Obama.

Posted by: Kit Stolz on January 27, 2008 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Give it up Drum. Hillary is going down. Muhaha.

Posted by: publius on January 27, 2008 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Turnout was up, so what?

Give me a break. What a pathetically ridiculous observation.

Finally he spits it out. It's not about winning big. That doesn't matter. He's for Billary!!

Yay, South Carolina wrung it out of him!

Posted by: Manfred on January 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

I can’t find the transcript for it, but Monica Crowley (R), gleefullypredicted on the The McLaughlin Group (PBS) Friday night that Obama was going to get some big endorsements early this week. (I guess she meant the Kennedys.) Eleanor Clift (D) really looked surprised.

My question is why would a right-winger know about this in advance and be so happy about it. Something smells.

Posted by: emmarose on January 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Kevin,

What put you in such a sour mood? Why are you so dismissive about everything, even the turnout? This is a heavily Republican state and the Dems outpolled the GOP by 100,000 votes. The GOP suffers from terminal apathy and the only thing that can fire them up is their hatred for Hillary. This is going to be a great year for the Democrats. Enjoy the moment!

Posted by: daveb99 on January 27, 2008 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

I notice all the cynical people line right up with Hillary, and now at least a few of them are grudgingly considering Obama. You don't think Obama will beat McCain? Romney? Come on. He's not progressive? Compare his voting record to both Clinton and Edwards (and stick a fork in Edwards while your at it).

I think natural cynics just don't like a positive message. There's plenty of substance in Obama's policy positions, and they're certainly progressive enough to move this country in the right direction. I really don't want to listen to Hillary for the next four years, nor do I look forward to four more years of extreme partisan divisiveness.

And I agree with others on this board about the turnout. Impressive, and a testament to what Barack can do in the general.

Posted by: tractor on January 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

I have serious doubts that Hillary is more electable than Obama. I realize the polling currently suggests that, but I still think there's a disconnect between hearts and minds right now.

Logic seems to point in favor of Hillary being the better candidate because she has the better campaign machine (and a former president in her corner). But there's one really nagging problem: I live in Santa Monica California (what Chris Matthews calls Bill Clinton's 'spiritual homeland'); all of my friends are progressives/Democrats. I do not know a single person out of scores and scores that I have asked - not one - who likes Hillary. Not one. Some dislike her, some even hate her (though no one ever has a compelling reason for the hatred, aside from personality - a vestige, I presume of the GOP slander machine from her attempt to nationalize health care). But they 'think' she's the most electable.

By comparison, a lot of people I know like or even love Obama. They say he's the only truly inspiring voice in the entire field of candidates (both parties). They like his message and they trust him and his judgment far more than a Clinton (does anybody truly trust the Clintons?). But they just don't 'think' Obama can win.

I fear in Hillary we're setting ourselves up for another John Kerry, an emotionless and uninspiring candidate that won the nomination because everyone bought in early to the group think that his nomination was inevitable.

People don't show up to the polls in big numbers for uninspiring, emotionless candidates like Kerry and Hillary. 2004 was lost in no small part because the Republicans were more successful energizing their base (using gay marriage et. al. to make Evangelicals angry enough to show up at the polls for a reason other than George Bush, and then punch his name in as a reluctant after-thought).

Hillary isn't going to inspire a surge in turn-out among young, progressive, and minority voters. Obama will. Just look at South Carolina.

Unlike the 2004 election, we do have an inspiring alternative. Donate to Obama's campaign. Talk to your friends. Read the upcoming endorsements he's getting from Caroline and Ted Kennedy. We deserve better than extending the 28 year Bush/Clinton duarchy on the presidency/vice-presidency into it's fourth decade.

Posted by: Augustus on January 27, 2008 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Have to agree with Kit. You sound grumpy,Kevin.

My first take this morning, however, was that your posts after Obama's victory in South Carolina are approaching the worst of your ultra-mentholated, cooler-than-thou, OTOH-OTOH self-parody.

I haven't been impressed with very much of the chatter about Barack Obama's primary victory last night. Hillary didn't give a concession speech? Give me a break. Who cares? Turnout was up? So what.

So what? In this turnout lies the future. Lies change. Lies ... oh forget it. It wouldn't impress you.

Worse, you and the other Clinton dead-enders here continue to insist that the Clintons' divisive and ocndescending politics have been "idiotically mischaracterized."

Mischaracterized? Idiotically? Voters in South Carolina disagree. They know condescension and the politics of division when they see it.

In short, it doesn't much matter what Kevin Drum writes about Obama, or what Joan Walsh says, sniffing dismissively on MSNBC that she just doesn't "see it" (meaning the Clinton slap to MLK/Obama that others saw). You're both starting to sound like Villagers.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, I suspect she's also more electable than Obama."

I live in northern Nevada, where Obama beat Clinton by more than 10 points. He also beat her handily in most of the rural parts of the state.

I've personally spoken with Independents and Republicans who say they would vote for Obama. I haven't heard the same about Clinton, and you know very well that at most Clinton might pull a couple of Rebuplicans who are older women, and that's about it.

And Obama proved this past week that he can win in a landslide even after having one of the best political teams in America throw everything they have at him. His approach of "a better politics" worked!

If you're going to against conventional wisdom, you're going to have to explain your position a little better.

Posted by: crazymonk on January 27, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

I dislike many things about the modern Republican Party, but probably first on the list is their willingness to beat up on an underdog and use the racist Southern Strategy to the detriment of African Americans.

As a result, as a 51 year old white man who has witnessed the civil rights struggle practically his entire life, I will have a very hard time voting for Hillary.

I absolutely refuse to vote for a Republican because of their continuing use and endorsement of the Southern Strategy, and I don't think Hillary being the lesser of two evils is sufficient for me to budge on that principle.

Racism is our historical shame, in complete contravention of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. I won't tolerate it.

Posted by: Nick on January 27, 2008 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

O happy day! A transposition allows me to repeat a point. Make that:

Worse, you and the other Clinton dead-enders here continue to insist that the Clintons' divisive and condescending politics have been "idiotically mischaracterized."

Posted by: paxr55 on January 27, 2008 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,
One thing I'd love from you this week is some info on what Californians are hearing in the way of campaign commercials, local news reports, etc., in advance of the primary. Also, are there any local ballot issues that will affect the primary?

Posted by: Robert on January 27, 2008 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, do you have any conservative friends or family? does your experience with them over the last almost two decades not suggest that Hillary is a walking get out the vote machine for the Republicans? Do the turnout numbers not suggest that Obama does the same for Democrats? Do you not get that if more Democrats vote in the general then we win?

I worry sometimes, from the tone and content of your posts, that you see this election as a chance to make the "fever swamp" eat crow for all the bad things they said and did to Bill and Hillary in the 90s. Whatever else, you need to get over that. They survived through a combination of incrementalism, personal charisma, powerful friends, etc. They also survived by embracing the kinds of tactics that you see them using now, & each time they do, you suggest "well, now they're really starting to piss me off, one more thing like that and..."- Well, how many "one more things" do you need?

I understand your ambivalence towards Obama. I'm annoyed by post-partisan posturing too. I Don't want us to all come together, i just want enough of us to come together to kick some Republican butt and signal a mandate for real progressive no, liberal policies. That's why i caucused for Edwards.

Obama's rhetoric does potentially signal a "mandate to compromise" and that's a big misgiving for me. But,I don't see anything in the Clinton history and the campaign that suggests that they (and surely we seem to be electing a "they" if the campaign is any indication)would, this time, pursue a progressive agenda anywhere that it risked conflict with personal power. I'm a native Arkansan, 42 yrs old, so i've had the Clintons on my personal political radar for a long time, and whatever misgivings i have about Obama's agenda, I have them for Clinton's continued adherence to the agenda she's espousing now. So that's a wash for me, and it seems like it should be for anyone who really remembers the 90s.

Whatever these doubts about Obama, there's certainly some commanding reasons to vote for him: he seems to be a talented legislator, he saw the Iraq war as a 'dumb war" from the start, he's able to successfully appeal to a broad and wide swath of the elctorate, and as you've repaetedly stated, the actual policy daylight between him and Hillary is miniscule. This positions him, in my mind, to be an unusually effective President pursuing unusually good policies. While Hillary may have more experience near the large levers of power in American life, she doesn't actually have as much experience in electoral office as Obama, and i think that makes a largely unheralded difference too.

If you really don't want to reward "dog whistle politics" or voter suppression lawsuits (see Nevada)or tortured interpretations of what it means to "campaign or participate in" a given state's primary (see the Michigan and florida delegate grabs)then i'd argue that you have good odds to roll the dice with Obama, at least as good as the odds that the Clintons won't repeat their tendency to tack right as necessary and that they won't catalyze the opposition in ways that only they can.

Or, you know, if you want to vote for a candidate with a real progressive agenda, and for the first seriuous candidate to talk structural class differences in American life in a couple of decades at least, you could vote Edwards.

Posted by: URK on January 27, 2008 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Obama surrogates suggest that criticism of his inexperience or voting record is "racist". They also suggest that compliments (Joe "Obama is attractive and articulate" Biden and Bob "I like the fact that his family has a Muslim background" Kerry) are also "racist".

If these are the racial eggshells upon which Obama and his supporters expect Americans to tread, he's already lost the nomination

Posted by: JoeCHI on January 27, 2008 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

When this campaign season began, the too-centrist Clinton was the last candidate I intended to vote for. The race for me was between Edwards, Obama and Richardson, in that order. As the primaries have progressed, I've moved into the Clinton camp. Not because Clinton has changed, but because my distrust of Obama has grown. Clinton didn't win me so much as Obama has totally lost me.

1) On examination, his record, advisors and policies indicate he is actually right of center compared to Clinton.

2) He speaks of unity while exploiting generational, racial and gender divisions, resentments and fears.

3) He speaks of the need for a new kind of politics and building trust in political leaders, one corner of his mouth, but in fact relentlessly relies on the same kind of Republican-type character slurs and personal attacks that have turned so many Americans against politics. (Anyone who makes a generalized, unsupported statement like "she will do and say anything to get elected" a major talking point of his campaign is, actually, someone who will do or say anything to get elected. That he uses such a tactic against a member of his own party, is unforgiveable.)

3) He has demonstrated, in his record and in this campaign, no more than the usual lip service commitment to important, too long ignored issues -- of economic justice, family security, the welfare of children and the elderly -- that are important to me and many other women in the Democratic party, and that, for demographic and generational reasons, and because of changes in the structure of our economy, are becoming more important as time goes on.

If he wins the nomination it will be as a divider, not a uniter, in terms of the Democratic party. It will be, like McGovern's nomination, another instance of the party's elite, disdainful of the constituencies that provide the party's strength (in '72 it was labor, in 2008, women) following an elitist, unrealistic "transformational" vision while blinding itself to the realities that are of most concern to the nation.

Posted by: mary on January 27, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: with all due respect, I completely disagree about the turnout thing. By all accounts, Clinton had pretty much sewed up the SC Dem. regulars. So Obama seems to have gone around them, and created an entire parallel Democratic organization, and one that (for instance) does not pay walking-around money, or rely on similar things to get people to the polls. Best I can tell, he also did this in N. Nevada, in Iowa, and elsewhere.

I think that's sort of amazing.

Posted by: hilzoy on January 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

And, in case anyone asks: I have been following this aspect of it, and I have never gotten any sense that Obama's organization would not be completely available to Democrats in future elections, and a lot of the articles I've read suggest that it will be. The article in the LV Sun on which I'm basing what I say about N. Nevada, for instance, says that Obama pretty much reinvigorated the Dem. party in places where it had been absolutely moribund.

Posted by: hilzoy on January 27, 2008 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

I was coming here to comment on Kevin's extremely cynical statement, then I saw lampwick said it much more colorfully than I would have at 2:12.

So let me just repeat:

"In case you forgot, elections are about getting the most people to vote for you. And for every one person Hillary got to vote for her, Obama got more than TWO! The man was a godmotherdamnf*ckin' turnout machine! And he did this running against the greatest Democratic politician that we have know over the past twenty years, and his talented wife."

Posted by: KathyF on January 27, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum, you are so out of it. You say Hillary is more electable than Obama??? WTF! Only in your geezer mind. If you had kids in their late teens, early twenties you would be not talking such nonsense. The world has left you behind, this time it will be young people determining the outcome of this process, not the baldies and grey-hairs. The under 30's have been waiting for this opportunity for a long time.

Posted by: Dilbert on January 27, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

"And Obama's continued unwillingness to defend progressive policies on explicitly progressive grounds doesn't endear him to me."

And Clinton has?

The meme that Obama is to the right of Clinton has become a cliche.

There is very little difference in their policies. The difference is that Obama is attracting legions of young folks into the process and the Clintons (after the last couple weeks I think the plural is proper) are further alienating voters.

Posted by: Chris Brown on January 27, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

and just to join in the chorus, i think it's idiotic of you to sneer at the turnout. Really.

and, i think that if you were a Democrat in South Carolin who put in lost of hours working for Hillary, her lack of even a speech might mean a little more to you.

Regarding both, i think if you weren't pre-disposed towards Hillary you'd feel at least a little differently. you're right that they're much smaller than Bill's "Remember y'all, he's black...not that there's anything wrong with that, just sayin' that's why he won..." dog whisltle.

Posted by: URK on January 27, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, folks, pull in your horns! Did everyone not understand that this was an anti-Hillary post? How obvious do I have to make it? (BTW, for those who don't know this, I work for a 501(c) and am not allowed to explicitly endorse candidates.)

As for turnout, all I meant was that there was no special story in South Carolina. Turnout has been up everywhere for Democrats, which is great news, but South Carolina was just more of the same story. And it's not necessarily related to Obama, either. It's due to the fact that (a) the Democratic race is pretty exciting, (b) it's likely to matter since the primary winner will probably be our next president, and (c) there's been a ton of money in the campaign.

However, I really didn't mean to downplay the importance of turnout, so I've changed the text of the post slightly to make it less dismissive.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on January 27, 2008 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

"And Obama's continued unwillingness to defend progressive policies on explicitly progressive grounds doesn't endear him to me."

And Clinton has?

This whole Obama is to the right of Clinton meme, promoted by the Clinton campaign as a talking point, has become a cliche.

Posted by: Chris Brown on January 27, 2008 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect she's also more electable than Obama

1) If she wasn't less electable before (although I think she was) Hillary has just made herself less electable than Obama by pissing off African-Americans. They don't have to show up for whatever crappy meal the Democrats choose to serve them. The "Jesse Jackson" and "black candidate" remarks were way over the line and will not be forgotten.

2) Women voters don't actually want her to have a co-presidency with Bill, and deploying him as her chief spokesman has made it very clear that this is exactly what they're going to get.

3) By depressing the fervently Democratic youth vote (which nominating Hillary will do), we will be fucked for a generation.

4) Not to mention that she is likely to be downballot poison.

5) Given the DLC origins of her key advisors, and the family history of triangulation, she would obviously govern more conservatively than Obama. If his rhetoric isn't hot enough for you, remember this: Reagan drove Democrats nuts by claiming he was in the tradition of FDR andTruman. Made him more palatable to many, didn't turn him into a liberal in the least.

6) The more people see of her alongside Obama the more they choose Obama. This is why she still has a chance--Super Tuesday's less-exposed voters are less likely to switch--a victory for Hillary is a "victory" for front-loading the primaries. And we'll end up with another candidate with Kerry-like charisma.

Except for all that, though, she's no worse for the party than Obama.

Posted by: calling all toasters on January 27, 2008 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with Mary. Obama supporters were saying last night that the Clintons calling him "young and articulate" was racist. So now any criticism of Obama is apparently playing the race card. As Craig Crawford so bravely pointed out, it is absurd to say that the Clintons were saying racist things. The media were the ones who first played the race card to distract us from their pathetic behavior in New Hampshire. They had no problem implying that NH Dems are racist. They then combed through every statement that the Clintons or Hillary's supporters uttered and twisted what they could to seem racist. They even implied that Bob Johnson was racist because he brought up Obama's admitted drug use. In the past a candidates drug use was commonly brought up - Clinton's trying marijuana, Bush's probable use of cocaine - but it is racist to mention that Obama used cocaine, or "blow" as he likes to call it? Last night the pundits and some Obama supporters were saying that the Clintons' saying Obama was young and articulate was disrespectful to him as a black man and using code words. I happen to think that there might be something to Karl Rove saying Obama is lazy, since he could not be bothered to hold even one substantive meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs, while the House has held many. But I'd better not say that because it would be called racist.
Obama is no saint. His campaign also fanned the fire by putting out a memo complaining about all the racially incorrect things that had been said about him. He then denied it, but came clean in the debate. Funny how that is not discussed. Guess it would be racist to bring it up.

The media swooned over George Bush in 2000 the way they are now gushing about Obama. They hated Gore and twisted things he said to make him seem like a liar, while ignoring the bald-faced lies that came from Bush. A lot of Dems bought their garbage and voted for Nader. The media are up to their old games again and once again Democrats are being sucked in.

Posted by: BernieO on January 27, 2008 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

The reason Kevin can't get excited about Obama's trascending of the Black/White division in America is that his cats already did that, a long time ago.

Posted by: lampwick on January 27, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

OK. Understand that Kevin can't endorse.

But Kev, you can avoid begging the question.

. . . (a) the Democratic race is pretty exciting, (b) it's likely to matter since the primary winner will probably be our next president, and (c) there's been a ton of money in the campaign.

Why is the race exciting? Why is turnout up? Why are Republicans, Independents, and young people engaged in 2008?

Posted by: paxr55 on January 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

"I looked through all the exit polls last night and concluded that South Carolina just didn't have a lot new to tell us."

Must every primary or caucus have some sort of demographic revelation to make it newsworthy? What about the demographics holding up after the Clinton attack machine went full-bore?

Posted by: crazymonk on January 27, 2008 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

If he wins the nomination it will be as a divider, not a uniter, in terms of the Democratic party. It will be, like McGovern's nomination, another instance of the party's elite, disdainful of the constituencies that provide the party's strength (in '72 it was labor, in 2008, women) following an elitist, unrealistic "transformational" vision

Just who the hell were the "elites" voting in Iowa and South Carolina? C'mon, if you think Hillary or Edwards would make a better president then make the case. I suppose your elite opinion matters more than the unwashed masses voting in the primaries. This "electability" bullshit has never served the Democrats well.

And... does anyone with any awareness of American pop culture whatsoever honestly think that a Hillary Clinton presidency would "unite" this country. Gimme a break.

For the record, I think Hillary could win -- but if her supporters and campaign staffers continue with this sore loser tone, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

After hearing about Obama's South Carolina performance, a friend of mine said "why can't he just wait his turn?" As if Hillary were somehow entitled to first crack. She said she'd vote for McCain in the general if Obama was the nominee.

It's that entitlement posturing that will undo every bit of work she's done during her Senate career to rebuild her image after Rush and the usual gang of foaming-at-the-mouth misogynists built their careers on demonizing her (Bill wasn't nearly the target that Hillary was -- she had the audacity to be an ambitious woman, that really pissed the fat impotent white guys off).

I admit I don't like Hillary, but I hate her critics even more. If she's the Democratic nominee I'll vote for her because of the likelihood that one or more SCOTUS will have to be replaced -- I don't want any Republican making that decision. BUT...I hope that Hillary's supporters are prepared to do the same thing if Obama or Edwards (I know, fat chance) wins the Democratic nomination. That would be even worse than voting for Nader in 2000.

I'm voting for Edwards in the NY primary because I want a brokered convention.

I think it would be good for the party. The Dems are on auto-pilot, they need to be shaken up a bit and decide what their vision for the 21st century is. I guess the Republicans have the same problem, only worse.

Congratulations to Obama and we should all be proud of the turnout in South Carolina.

Posted by: lobbygow on January 27, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

What BernieO said. The elites have fallen in love with their new black friend and any attacks against him MUST be racist. I'm not buying it. I'm tired of the 'victimization' tactic, and would hope for a Dem candidate who can win without turning into, as Atrios is fond of calling it, a ' whiny-assed titty baby'. Good for Obama for inspiring young voters. Obviously he will win almost all black votes. Now let's move on - is it possible for Dems to cheer on their candidate without having to join in the Kool Kidz destruction of the other?

Posted by: MaryLou on January 27, 2008 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not buying it. I'm tired of the 'victimization' tactic, and would hope for a Dem candidate who can win without turning into, as Atrios is fond of calling it, a ' whiny-assed titty baby'.

Then Edwards must be your choice?

Posted by: lobbygow on January 27, 2008 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

People need to understand the opportunity that a Barack Obama candidacy has for the Democratic Party. Forget about the candidacies of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and consider what he brings.

The Republican Party has a history of saying that the Democratic Party co-opts the minority vote, and only pays them lip-service. To that end, the Republican Party, in all of its wisdom, has put forth divisive and incendiary candidates that do nothing more than polarize this country further. The point that I am trying to make is that it is the Democratic Party, with the candidacy of Barack Obama, that makes this opportunity possible.

The same goes for women. The Republican Party tries to reign the female base of the Democratic Party is shrill liberals, and says that a woman can be liberated and not liberal. Point taken. But where, oh where, has the Republican Party been when it comes to recognizing female participation on the national level? Do you honestly think that the Republican Party would seriously consider a female candidate for the Presidency? Ever (I'm serious about that one, do you believe it would ever consider a female Presidential candidate in comparison to a male)? There was talk of Condoleeza Rice becoming a female candidate for the Presidency. But when talk comes to walk, none. Same with Colin Powell, whose race in the Republican Presidential primary would be a liability, sad to say.

The Democratic Party is the only party to provide this country with viable candidates for real progress. They have provided the centrist Hillary Clinton (for good or bad), and the centrist Barack Obama (for good or bad). Whatever the outcome of this nomination, the Dems have provided themselves with the moral authority to speak out for greater opportunities for individuals, rather than pay lip-service and never provide the opportunity that could have been offered.

With that said, a Barack Obama candidacy would bring into the Democratic Party independents and former Republicans into the fold, and that would signal either a radical restructuringo in the GOP, or their decay. I mean, it could be a real blow to the future of the GOP, because Obama is centrist enough to attract Republican voters, and Obama provides the future independent base that would make the Democratic Party (and some progressive ideals) viable and the mainstream of body politic for possibly this generation. You have a political realignment in the Democrat's favor, not the Republican's. His candidacy is a generational candidacy, and the Democratic Party should be thanking itself to its end that it has been provided with a future brought by the "winds of history" yet again. To sum it up: the future is the with the Democratic Party, if they want it to be. It's just a matter of whether they want to finally live in that country. Finally.

Posted by: Boorring on January 27, 2008 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment seems less offensive to me than just deceptive and sad.

Deceptive, because Jesse Jackson wasn't a token candidate, but had a shot at the nomination. He was a fighter, a Howard Dean style Democrat's Democrat and did as much as anyone to pave the way for Obama today. He wasn't a South-Carolina-only vanity candidate.

Sad, because Clinton is so self evidently wrong, too, about the comparison. Obama is different than Jackson. He brings in moderates, conservatives, and the apathetic. Obama's base of support is different and Clinton's characterization is so out of synch with everything we've seen so far.

Posted by: Boronx on January 27, 2008 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Victimization card? Anyone who thinks Obama "plays" this card has not listened to a word that HE has said, not his "surrogates". Billary dismisses Obama's win 'cause, you know, them South Carolinians don't know sh** and voted for Jesse Jackson. Have you heard Obama say anything that repulsive?

Wake up Democratic Clintonites. You are voting to have the Himbo back in the White House. If that happens, the only positive will be that Brittany Spears will get off the front page of grocery store tabloids. But then I'll have gag as I see new reports of Bill's exploits......

Posted by: jvoe on January 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Gov. Sebelius to endorse Obama on Tuesday, per Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic.

Posted by: lampwick on January 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

It's hardly surprising that the Beltway media elites are being hyper-critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Exactly when, pray tell, have they not been? Pardon me, but Joe Klein and Karen Tumulty hardly have their fingers on the pulse of African American voters--I take their opinions on Clinton and Democrats with a grain of salt, no matter what the subject.

As for Bill or Hillary Clinton being too critical or making racial appeals re Obama--give me a break. This is child's play compared to what the Republican attack machine will launch against Obama if he is the nominee. And I guarantee you that every Beltway pundit who is now kvetching about the Clintons will not utter a word of criticism against the Republicans when it happens. They're much more likely to fawn over their brilliance. See any of their writings on Rove if you doubt me.

Posted by: leitrim on January 27, 2008 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

I confess to not understanding what the big deal is about. Bill Clinton was fairly clearly saying that the African American vote was responsible for Obama's win. Isn't that true? Isn't that what all the newspapers are saying today? So what's wrong with that?

Psst, Kevin: I think most people have already figured out that Obama is black.

Posted by: Ralph on January 27, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Poor Kevin:what took you so long? Hillary Clinton would be toxic as a national candidate;uniting a dispirited Republican Party and being a horrific drag on down-ballot races.Notice how many Senators and Governors of swing or Red states have endorsed Obama. I personally find HRC's sense of entitlement to the nomination outrageous;the only person I know of entitled to his next job is the Prince of Wales. Anyway, welcome to Clinton Rehab! We are here to help you!

Posted by: beth on January 27, 2008 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

I'm an Obama supporter, and I don't see any problem with it. It's true, and it serves as a plausible explanation. Why is it offensive to compare likes? Because the likes are characteristic? Are we not allowed to make any Geraldine Ferraro comparisons either?

Posted by: Min Oh on January 27, 2008 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK
This whole Obama is to the right of Clinton meme, promoted by the Clinton campaign ....Chris Brown at 3:24 PM
If you paid attention you would know it was actually expressed Paul Krugman who noticed that Obama was using Republican points to triangulate from the right on Social Security and that his health care plan wasn't as inclusive as that of the others.

More from Krugman:
Barack Obama has unveiled a new line of criticism against Hillary: In speeches he’s started to point to the allegation made in Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta’s Hillary book that the Clintons secretly formulated a 20-year-plan to deliver the presidency first to Bill, and then to Hillary.....
What does this have to do with Social Security? Like the attempt to scare America into privatizing Social Security, the attempt to turn Whitewater, an inconsequential failed land deal, into a major scandal was one of the seminal stories helping to rally progressives around the idea that American politics has to change. Playing into the false story lines in each case is like a red flag. Is it really possible that Obama and his advisers are this out of touch?

And still more:
...the “party of ideas” line came from Moynihan. The weirdness of Obama’s use of the phrase came in the fact that he applied it to the Republican Party of the “last 10 or 15 years,” and suggested that the party of Tom DeLay and George W. Bush — a party that had nothing much to say except tax cuts good, terrorists bad — was “challenging conventional wisdom”.
It’s the same kind of time displacement, but in reverse, that was involved in placing America’s renewed sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship back in the Reagan years, when it didn’t actually happen until the middle of the Clinton years.
I don’t know what’s going on here; but anyway, the fact that Moynihan used the line a long time ago is not helpful to Obama’s case.....

Posted by: Mike on January 27, 2008 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Everybody just chill. SC happened just like everybody thought it would. Obama won big, AA vote was way up as it was expected to be, on Feb 5th, Hillary pounds him in NY, NJ, PA, MA, CA and more and the talking heads will still keep yammering.

I'll vote for whoever wins the nomination, but for all of the "this is it.." soundbites, everybody needs to get a grip.

As for the Kennedy endorsement, big deal. He's a fat drunken slob who should have done time for manslaughter. The fact that he's the aged figurehead of the party is a disgrace. If he wasn't a Kennedy, he would have done 10 years. He was also caught red-handed cheating at Harvard and got thrown out until daddy Kennedy bought him a reprieve. Forgive me if I never quite bought into the populist man- of -the- people line from him. Just a cynic I guess.

As for Carolyn. I'm sorry her life has been filled with so much tragedy, but her father became the eternal symbol of all things good and hopeful after Dallas. Before that, he got us involved in Vietnam, shit all over himself at the Bay of Pigs, and was keeper of an economy that was mediocre at best. Had he lived, he may very well been a one term president and anyone who's even marginally honest will admit that. The Oliver Stone version that he was going to pull the plug on Viet Nam in a month or two but was killed before he got the chance is nonsense.

The whole Kennedy family beautification mantra held by most Dems is just so laughable.

Let's all take a deep breath and see what happens on February 5th. The Obama love-fest may run into an iceberg.

Posted by: Chris on January 27, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Frank Rich was right on the money today

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?ex=1202101200&en=c21344d2fec4eda1&ei=5070

Posted by: Kevin on January 27, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

welcome kevin, its a nice place to be.

Posted by: mestizO on January 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

How many primaries have we had before South Carolina?

With all due respect, doesn't seem like enough for everything to be "obvious" and grumpily dismissed in a know-it-all-fashion at this point.

Posted by: Jimm on January 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton has assembled the best campaign that could have possibly been assembled in 1995.

She doesn't seem to realize this.

Posted by: david in norcal on January 27, 2008 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

How anyone can think Hilbot is "more electable" is absolutely beyond me. How can Kevin or anyone else not see that it's not just Hilbot in the campaign - it's The Clintons(tm)!
And if there's anything in the world that can save the GOP, it's the double-dose of metaphysical steroids The Clintons(tm) will give them!

I mean, I feel bad. She's ok. But the baggage is just too heavy, and his behavior lately reminds us just why that baggage exists. These people are death in the general election. And anyone who pulls that "but we have to be tough!" schtick is living in the past.

Posted by: cazart on January 27, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

I watched the Obama interview on ABCs “This Week” this morning and tried to understand Obama’s explanation of his Ronald Reagan admiration statement. I am sorry, but I could not follow his explanations. Would someone here help me understand Obama’s Reagan position. I heard Obama acknowledging that, yes, he hated Reagan’s policies, but then saying that what he admires was Reagan’s ability to reach across party lines. He explained that some Democrats were fooled by Reagan into voting Republican against their self interest. Was Obama suggesting that this is a trickery he aspires to emulate? Was Obama suggesting that he wants to be, or is, the Ronald Reagan of the Democratic Party, that is, a likeable politician who can fool Republicans to vote Democratic against their self interest?
But, if reaching across party lines in Reagan-like fashion is what Obama meant by his Reagan admiration proclamation, is not today’s explanation of what he meant signaling to Republicans that they would be fools – like the Reagan-Democrats were – to become Obama-Republicans and vote for him? And, if so, is not Obama shooting himself in the foot for the general election in giving out such signals to the Republicans during the Democratic primary fight?

So, does Obama see himself as the new Ronald Reagan, or the new JFK? He can’t be both. JFK did not court Republican votes, and Republicans hated JFK. Moreover, by seeking endorsements from establishment liberals like Kennedy, Leahy, Hart and Kerry is Obama not alienating the potential Republican votes he professes to be in a position to get?

BTW, I hope Kevin will change his mind again before Feb 5. But, what's the dog whistle stuff that Kevin is referring to. I don't get it.

Posted by: Erika S on January 27, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK
....The Republican Party has a history of saying that the Democratic Party co-opts the minority vote, and only pays them lip-service.... Boorring at 3:51 PM

That is wrong on many grounds because the Democratic Party has been the party that supports African-Americans, their rights and aspirations and has policies of economic growth that help the African-American family as well as all others.

Jesse Jackson, whom I voted for twice because he had the chops, ran as a serious African-American candidate. I know he had moments of anger, but I cannot recall that he at any time played the victimhood and race cards like the Obama campaign surrogates have here.

Racism is the core of Republicanism. There will be no Obama Republicans. They will run a more nasty and divisive campaign than you have seen in your lifetime. Some of the things already being said by people whom are anti-Clinton at this juncture are very harsh on Obama .

...Green said to Matthews: "That was the show where you kept using the line, 'Do things go better with Coke?' You weren't raising it to be racial." Matthews responded: "Yeah, you're right. You're right. You caught me there."As Media Matters noted, Matthews began the December 14 edition of Hardball by asking, "Is the Clinton campaign pushing the drug story? When it comes to stopping Obama, do things go better with coke?" Matthews and his guests went on to use the word "cocaine" a total of 10 times during the show....

Victimization card? ....... them South Carolinians don't know sh** and voted for Jesse Jackson........You are voting to have the Himbo back in the White House.....jvoe at 3:59 PM
This is typical of 'bamabot's campaign surrogate's use of the race card. No one, and certainly not Bill Clinton said that South Carolinians don't know shit. He pointed out that Jackson did win South Carolina. It's true. He did. Twice, once in 84 and again in 88. To you that is somehow racist; and, since it's racist, Obama is a victim of Clinton racism.

This is directly from the Rove play book: attack the strength and the Clinton's are known as not being racist. (Is "himbo" supposed to be some variation of sambo, because if it is, your smear is even more disgusting.)

Posted by: Mike on January 27, 2008 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

This is so stupid. Was Clinton saying anything that wasn't true? Obama won because he's black. Black people are fifty percent of the South Carolina electorate and ten percent nationally. A candidate who appeals only to blacks can't win.

Posted by: billybob on January 27, 2008 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Hillary didn't give a concession speech? Give me a break. Who cares?"

Kevin, As I said in an earlier thread, not giving a concession speech, partly to thank your supporters who have worked and voted for you, is a bit rude, don't you think? That's all, just rude. Also, cowardly. No way did Clinton want to compete with Obama's victory speech.

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

After hearing about Obama's South Carolina performance, a friend of mine said "why can't he just wait his turn?"

I've not actually heard it expressed explicitly before, but I have perceived this sentiment before. It's as if the presidency were some kind of service award. Taken alone, "length of service" is a horrible reason for choosing anyone for any job. Isn't that how the Republicans came to nominate Bob Dole?

You always want to hire the person who is best for the job. "Best" can be correlated with "most experienced," (it varies widely), but "experience" is a very different thing from "service." Using the former as a criteria makes some sense. The later, not so much.

Posted by: Dagome on January 27, 2008 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

You know Kevin, I think I see your problem. You've spent too much time reading liberal blogs and not enough time out in the real world.

By now the statement that the Clintons have been running a race-baiting campaign has so thoroughly permeated the pro-Obama blogosphere that people accept it as fact. Out in the real world, people understand that "fairy tale" is not a racist remark, that the MLK/LBJ thing was, as you say, idiotically mischaracterized, that women are voting for Hillary partly because of the idea of a woman president, that blacks are voting for Obama partly because of the idea of a black president, and you know what? All of this is a narrative invented by the media with the help of interested parties.

One of the things the Republicans like to harp on the most is what they view as liberal adherence to "political correctness". The number of flimsy charges of racism being thrown at anyone who doesn't support Obama isn't doing anything to help. I'm a committed Democrat and a student of the history of the civil rights movement. But I deeply resent how easily so many people with a long history of being out there and doing the right thing are being accused of racism by a bunch of folks sitting behind keyboards with no experience of their own. Don't fall into that trap, Kevin. You're one of the few sane voices left.

Posted by: Ralph on January 27, 2008 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

In NM independents and progressive democrats can not stand Hillary...Obama i predict will win NM. I think, nation wide independents and progressive democrats will vote for Obama.cleve

Posted by: cleve on January 27, 2008 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'm glad you are tilting Obama and I hope you stick to it because Hillary really isn't electable.

RealClear Polictics has a huge (fifty or so)list of poll results of hhead to hheads with Clinton/McCain and Obama/McCain. The results show tht McCain and Clinton are tied. However Obama beats McCain iin thrity seven polls, McCain only beats Obama in fourteen, and the balance are ties.

In addition Clinton's disappprovals are so highh and hhave been constant for so long that shhe has very little potenntial for gainning support. Obama doesn't have thhat handicap. Nor does mcCain. This means that inn a fighht between McCain and Clinton he will be able to persuade undecides or even pro-Clintn voters to go his way, but she will be up against the wall. There are far fewer voters that would consider voting for her than there are for McCain. Obama's situation is more comapable to McCain's: there are undecides and McCain supporters that mighht go for him'
The media is very powerful annd still hates Hillary.
Independents tend to vote for the "Likable" candidate. That means thha thhe independennts will be predisposed forObama or McCAin and predisposed against Hillary.
Obama can draw inn first time voters. Hillary can't. There is no evidence that large noumbers of angry women will stomp out and vote for her. The women-for-Hillary phenomenon is restricted to Deomcrats wqho will vote for whoever the candidate is.

So it doesn't look good at all if she is our nominee. She is toatlly beatable by McCAin. With Obama our chhances are pretty good. With Hillary--well, get ready for hearing from the press abouut how all the independents put him into office because he's such a stand-up straight talkin' guy.

Posted by: wonkie on January 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Man, if the continued devolution of these comment threads is any indication of what you'll find when you get there, the last place I want to be is among the faithful at either a Clinton or an Obama rally.

Posted by: junebug on January 27, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

I'm mailing my absentee ballot for Obama tomorrow morning. I will happily support Clinton over any Republican, but I prefer Obama. I like his thought processes when working through a problem. I recently saw on You Tube a 2002 interview of Obama being asked about the weapons inspectors, who had recently gone back into Iraq, and he just sounded so reasonable, with no obvious political spin to his remarks.

Posted by: anandine on January 27, 2008 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

I know that most of the people here have pointed this out. It isn't that turn-up is higher, it is that it is higher than the the republican side in an almost entirely red state. SC should not have 85,000 more democratic primary votes than the republicans did. Sure, Iowa went for Bush, and thus is technically a red state, but nowhere near the red level of SC. The fact that ruby red states like SC have larger democratic primaries mean there is a chance that republicans will have to waging wars to defend their base states. That's the interesting fact from SC.

Posted by: Scu on January 27, 2008 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, obama is a right winger -- this is the dumbest meme I've ever heard. Oh and apparently Ted Kennedy is also brain-washed, because he just endorsed. I guess Kennedy is also a right winger.

Posted by: Jor on January 27, 2008 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

I have to echo the many people here who are lessed than impressed with Kevin's less than impressedness.

The increase in voters is a key story here. Obama's incredible speech actually said somethings I think are profound about our modern politics.

I'm thinkin' you've got some Boomer Syndrome or something that's pretty mailaisy and unappealing to those of us who want to move on. My Bush hatred is long gone and I've gained, yes, hope for something much, much better than just "Not Bush". Many of us are incredibly inspired by this man and do give a shit, unlike the Boomer Syndromers, I fear.

Posted by: Vaughan on January 27, 2008 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

ZOMG I can't type today, sorry for the above. Don't know what happened.

Posted by: Vaughan on January 27, 2008 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Robert: One thing I'd love from you this week is some info on what Californians are hearing in the way of campaign commercials, local news reports, etc., in advance of the primary. Also, are there any local ballot issues that will affect the primary?

Political commercials are one thing one has to give up while spinning through the regular commercials with TiVo. I sometimes miss them a little, but not enough to watch them.

In California, the presidential and state primaries have been separated, and the initiatives that have qualified are on the presidential ballot. We have a change to term limits (somewhat fewer years, but they can all be served in the same house), separation of community college funding and governance from the K-12 system, and ratification of a bunch of gambling agreements with Indian tribes. Nobody is very worked up about any of them.

Posted by: anandine on January 27, 2008 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK
I don't like dog whistle racial appeals when Republicans do it, and I don't like it when Bill Clinton does it.

Dog whistles? Dog whistles you say? I think we have graduated to tornado warning sirens. Listen to this statement of the Clinton Campaign Co-Chair in the wake of losing in South Carolina.

Obama has done something very clever and we are going to be looking very, very carefully at his tears for Hurricane Katrina victims. We note that Senator Obama never had any tears for the 9/11 victims in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But he had tears for the 9th Ward. We think that as we go to states with a high percentage of White people voting in the primaries, these tears will have to looked at closely.

I suppose that I should explicitly state that I just fabricated the above quote since it’s just possible that some of our comment readers won’t “get it”. But if you think this would be an offensive and divisive statement, then you and I agree on something.

And I swear, somehow the statement has a familiar ring to it.

Posted by: little ole jim on January 27, 2008 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

After watching Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comments, I honestly just think he is a sore loser.

I really think we may be overanalyzing this. Watching Clinton make his remarks after what was clearly an unwelcome question, I was strongly reminded of how Ted Kennedy and his family reacted back in 1980 when Kennedy tried to wrest the nomination away from an incumbent Jimmy Carter. When the Kennedy's started losing primaries in spite of their powerful political machine and their position as the sentimental darlings of the Democratic party, they got sullen and nasty and exposed their petulance for all to see.

Forget triangulation and their vaunted political cunning: I think their recent troubles (particularly Bill's) are missteps brought on by the fact that the Clintons have gotten so used to winning that they really don't know how to lose gracefully. If you look up "hubris" in the dictionary I believe you will find a reference to Bill Clinton.

Posted by: lucienc on January 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

This long drama of who Kevin supports seems strange to me. How can someone who knows so much about politics and the candidates, focusing on politics every day, be undecided at this point and now become "slightly pro-Obama" because of another comment by Bill trying to exploit the race issue? It takes this long for Kevin to realize that the Clintons are not virtuous and are manipulative motivated by their own ambition?

I think Hillary will win, Obama will be the VP nominee, and democrats will pretend all is well again. Maybe Kevin realizes that too and, emotionally, he is not ready to abandom Hillary when he expects the he will need to caress her a few months from now.

Posted by: brian on January 27, 2008 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

DONNA BRAZILE: "....For him to go after Obama using "fairy tale," calling him a "kid," as he did last week, it's an insult. And I tell you, as an African-American, I find his words and his tone to be very depressing." ....BRAZILE: Well, first of all, if Bill Bennett had said some of the things Bill Clinton is saying about Barack Obama, I would have called Bill Bennett out of his name and said that Bill Bennett should shut his mouth because he is not speaking in the right tone.
----------------

Racist undertones, or not?

Posted by: Nick on January 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

I suppose that I should explicitly state that I just fabricated the above quote since it’s just possible that some of our comment readers won’t “get it”.

Even knowing that you fabricated the quote, I have no idea what point you thought you were making by doing so.

Posted by: bobb on January 27, 2008 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

bobb - He's referring to what Jesse Jackson Jr. said about Hillary Clinton after the NH primary. The Obama campaign has been pushing this meme that the Clintons are racist/racebaiters for a while now, and the media has eagerly gobbled it up.

Posted by: Ralph on January 27, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

I think you (as with the rest of the media) have fallen for Obama's strategy hook, line, and sinker. The "fairy tale" and MLK/LBJ comments were not racist by any definition of anything. What has happened is that the Obama campaign, their surrogates, and allies in the MSM have successfully turned this into a situation where any criticism, shortcoming, or failure of Obama and his campaign (regardless of how legitimate) is portrayed as having racial undertones. In addition to the MLK/LBJ and “fairy tale” comments, just look at the media (and blog) reaction of the polling differentials between NH and SC. Obama was up 8 - 12 points going into NH, and lost by 3. This was a swing of 11% - 15%. The entire MSM (and many liberal bloggers) played up the racial angle as whites unwilling to vote for an AA candidate (the "Bradley effect") as the way to explain the disparity. Obama was up in SC by an equally large margin of 10% - 12%, yet won by 28%. So once again, we have a swing of almost 15% from the polling, and it is not news. Every criticism, every shortcoming, and every failure is somehow due to racism. If he gets elected, are we not going to be allowed to comment or criticize his administration? That was essentially the same situation we had with Bush after 9/11 (remember, any critique was unpatriotic), and we know how well that ended! I haven’t voted R in 15 years, but this is getting enough to make me consider changing parties.

Posted by: dagman on January 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

OK, Kevin, so just what exactly do you think Bill Clinton really was saying when he brought up the case of Jesse Jackson? Don't you think that if you can act as if it's meaning is plain as day, and can't even be argued, why don't you at least have the courage to articulate that meaning precisely?

You certainly seem to imply that Clinton simply played the race card. If you're going to make such an extreme claim, don't you think you might be obliged to defend it, rather than simply assert it?

So, since you won't on your own, let's consider what Clinton might have had in mind.

Let's say that Clinton was attempting to communicate that Obama, like Jesse Jackson before him, was a candidate of primary appeal to other African-Americans. Is that by itself an outrageous comment, and if so, why so?

Here's the problem. Certainly it can be said of Jesse Jackson that he has always had as his core constituency other African-Americans. I don't see how one can look at his behavior over the years, his willingness to adopt causes of African-Americans even in exceedingly weak cases. The problem with Obama is that his campaign has done the exact like in the weeks leading up to the SC primary.

I think it is entirely fair for non African-Americans to ask themselves the question, given Jackson's or Obama's basic allegiance to African-Americans, why should we believe that they will represent our own interests fairly and vigorously? Why shouldn't we have a candidate who pays other groups no special favors?

I'd like to see people argue that the problem I've raised with politicians who play identity politics is not a real one. I'd like to see why those who are outside the chosen identity group of the politician don't have every right to feel that they are being in an important way excluded, and that they might look elsewhere for a politician who would attempt to be more even-handed. If you can't make out that argument, and explain why identity politics can never be overdone by a politician, then you have to admit that in the case of some politicians, there's a problem that voters should have some way of thinking about in their decisions, and which other politicians and pundits should have some way of communicating to the voters.

Now, I simply ask, how are you allowed to communicate that sort of deficiency in a minority politician in our society? Essentially every way you try to put it, you are going to be accused of racism or sexism or you-name-it. Now Clinton put it in a way that has certainly turned out to be highly inflammatory.

But how are you allowed to communicate it? That's the problem -- and it's certainly the problem that faced Clinton after the SC primary.

I'm not sure what the right solution is to the problem in communication. But I can see that there weren't any good options in front of Bill Clinton, and it hardly helps when his utterance, as unfortunate as it turns out to have been, is treated to the sort of hysterical reaction he gets from you, Kevin.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

As for the Kennedy endorsement, big deal. He's a fat drunken slob who should have done time for manslaughter.

Bill, is that you?

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

bobb: The quote is the same as the quote by Obama Co-Chair Jesse Jackson the morning after losing in New Hampshire. I substituted Clinton Co-Chair for Jackson, and World Trade Center for Katrina victims.

See Jesse Jackson video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA

What do you think? Was I fair?

Posted by: little ole jim on January 27, 2008 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

No surprises? The magnitude of the Obama win was pretty surprising, in my book. Bill's Clinton's proxy "concession" speech was pretty surprising, too, a preview of what another Clinton WH would entail. After Iowa, Clinton wins in NH and NV inspired the media to celebrate her as "the come-back kid." I wonder how the media will spin Obama's big win??

Another surprising thing is that I may cast my vote for Obama at the Feb 5 caucus rather than for John Edwards, though Edwards has been my man all along. I love what John Edwards has been saying, I love that he has been keeping the progressive agenda front and center. But do I want a brokered convention or a Obama with more strength coming into the convention? That is the current question.

Off topic, I wonder how Hillary Clinton would feel towards Big Bill if his big mouth costs her the Democratic nomination. The marriage vow "for better or worse" could get another severe test.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 27, 2008 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

I think Hillary is still likely to win the nomination. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I suspect she's also more electable than Obama. And Obama's continued unwillingness to defend progressive policies on explicitly progressive grounds still bothers me.

If the nomination was to be solely decided by party insiders, yes. Thankfully it is not, and the facts are that while Obama has beaten Hillary by large margins in a couple of states, Hillary has at best beat Obama out by a few puny points in a couple others. Secondly, you act as though South Carolina has "nothing new to tell us" when in fact it has quite a lot to tell us, when you consider that in pretty much all the states south of Kentucky, black voters make up from 25 - 40+% of the electorate...and the reason these state have typically gone Republican in national elections is because the white voters are overwhelmingly Republican voters. This isn't what I would call "good news" for Hillary, since even if she could repeat her performance in S. Carolina and capture 1/3 of the black vote in every southern primary, she would still lose all of them.

As for Hillary being more "electable" than Obama, that assumes that it's easier to get a candidate who starts out with negatives over 40% over the hump than it is a candidate with negatives in the low 30s or below...in other words, it's not a rational assumption. There is a deep well of enmity for Hillary on the right, they want her to be the nominee because Clinton hatred may be the one and only unifying value the Republicans will be able to muster this time around. Beyond that, a Hillary nomination allows them to not only tap into Hillary resentment on the right, but it also will be used to claim that the Hillary victory "proves" the racism of Democrats (they've already started beating this drum, in spite of the Obama win in SC). They really do not want to run against Obama, because it will strip them of the plausible deniability they've counted on for all these years to mask their racism. If Obama is the nominee, they will not be able to keep a lid on it. You just know that they won't. And then the mask will be off and they'll have that fallout to deal with as well.

As for the "continued unwillingness to defend progressive policies on explicitly progressive grounds", we aren't exactly getting any of that from the Clinton camp, either, and the DLC pedigree there is well-known and of long standing. Which makes me more than willing to take my chances.

Posted by: Jennifer on January 27, 2008 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

"As for the Kennedy endorsement, big deal. He's a fat drunken slob who should have done time for manslaughter. The fact that he's the aged figurehead of the party is a disgrace."

Wow, now they're going after the Kennedys...lol.

Posted by: drosz on January 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

The only reason a woman has a chance as a "viable" presidential candidate in the Democratic party is because she is married to a powerful man with a brand name and a political network.

I don't say that as a criticism of the woman -- I say it as a criticism of the party.

Because the truth is, this campaign, the overwhelming, unrelenting nature of the comments from Obama supporters I've been reading for months now on the blogs, the very personal nature of the attacks against Hillary, the dismissive and patronizing ways Clinton's working class female supporters are characterized, and the desperation of so many establishment Democrats to find an alternative to take the woman out of the race, has illuminated how deeply truly sexist the party still is.

Edwards can blatantly appeal for white male votes by saying he is "the only man who can win in November." And there is not one peep of criticism much less condemnation.

Hillary congratulates the party for fielding a woman, an African American and a man from the Southern working class and there's a firestorm of accusations that she has raised the "divisive" issue of race and gender.

That's not just a double standard, it's a standard that, coldly and clearly revealed, can seriously weaken this party -- a party that, no matter who the nominee is, has no chance of winning on the national level if it doesn't get substantially more votes from women than the other side.

The Republicans understand this, and they will work as they did successfully in 2000 and 2004 to erase the advantage, especially with independent and moderate women, that gave Democrats the White House in 90s.

Whether Hillary wins the nomination or not doesn't matter as much as how she is treated. Whether she is treated with respect, or disdain. (So far, markedly in the Obama camp, disdain is winning.) Because even in a year when the Democrats seem to have the wind at their back, victory will be difficult if too many working class women -- invisible to the media, invisible in the blogosphere, invisible to many in the party's elite -- left feeling dismissed and discouraged, end up being invisible in the voting booth, too.

Posted by: mary on January 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, thanks for the clarification. I am with you on your changing sentiments. My main concern was getting a Dem elected this year. The dog whistle stuff made me think that was not the Clinton's goal and that simply made me mad.

We are all in this together --or are we?

disclaimer: i'm trending towards Obama now

Posted by: david in norcal on January 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

You're mistaken, Mary. Obamamans like myself do not disdain Hillary nor do we hold her gender against her. We simply reject the political tactics that the Clintons have chose to pursue. The Clintonian tactics are all about lying and distorting the opponent's records. The lie about Obama's Reagan statement showed a distinct lack of character on Hillary's part.

Hillary used to be a victim of Republican attacks. In the primary, she is now a victim of her own Machiavellian machinations.

Posted by: Elliott on January 27, 2008 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Ralph, I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous:

By now the statement that the Clintons have been running a race-baiting campaign has so thoroughly permeated the pro-Obama blogosphere that people accept it as fact. Out in the real world, people understand that "fairy tale" is not a racist remark, that the MLK/LBJ thing was, as you say, idiotically mischaracterized, that women are voting for Hillary partly because of the idea of a woman president, that blacks are voting for Obama partly because of the idea of a black president, and you know what? All of this is a narrative invented by the media with the help of interested parties.

The most thoughtful and real-world voters are able to parse the Clintons' words. They may not parse as Thurmond-class racism, but when the Clintons' words are directed primarily at a surging biracial candidate, they necessarily take on a divisive, corrosive, and condescending tinge. And the words take on lives of their own. They're out of the barn now, never to return. Unintended consequences? Sure. Have the Clintons become tone deaf? I believe they have.

You may say, Ralph, that you know exactly what HRC means, or Bill means, when they deploy benign words like experience, ready on Day One, false hopes, doer not dreamer, fairy tale.

Reasonable voters can disagree about the claims on their merits. I for one contest HRC's experience. I for one contest Bill saying that Obama's antiwar stance was a fairy tale. But that's just one voter's pov. I'm not offended. I don't see racism at work. Hype, perhaps.

But what of the young or marginalized? Are they wrong to perceive arrogance or entitlement in the Clintons' core message. Why should Obama have to wait? they might ask. Who's to say my hopes are "false," another might add. Or, another, a little confused about Bill's NH tirade, what are you calling a fairy tale?

These superficially benign talking points, in other words, are fundamentally divisive and off-putting to voters hungry for change. This is no way to win voters eager for leadership.

And then you get the truly reprehensible words and terms and suggestions: wait your turn, kid, shuck and jive, cocaine, Hussein.

The word was, back in 2007, that Hillary was inevitable. No one could beat her. She had the best people, the most money, the most discipline. And they're getting beat. And they did it to themselves.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 27, 2008 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Kd, help, do it. This is Obama's time.

Posted by: John Lydon Theanine on January 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Mary, do you really think Hillary is the best women America has to offer? I don't. I have no idea where Obama came from, but it was hard to see who could be a viable first black president, and now look, we have one.

I'm pretty confident there will be another female candidate for president who will be significantly better than Hillary in the next decade or so. I have no idea where she will come from, but I know shes out there, because I'm surrounded by a number of hard-working, smart, and compassionate women. So I don't doubt she exists.

If there is one thing Obama should teach old school feminists is -- its that its better to have a candidate who grew up taking it all for granted. The 60's is the wrong mind-set to have for today.

Posted by: Jor on January 27, 2008 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary didn't give a concession speech? Give me a break.

The concession speech was delivered by Bill in Independence, MO. After all, this is a co-presidency and he always gets the tough jobs.

Posted by: Pug on January 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that Rove is tacitly supporting Hillary is all we need to know about who his gang fears most.

On another note, how can anyone still be talking about "experience" after almost 8 years of Georgy Peorgy. He never had any, and now we've had too much!

Posted by: Kenji on January 27, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

It is interesting to read comments about the identity politics of the democrats. It really is not a good thing for the country or the party, although it has been good in getting democrats reliable votes. I would never vote for Hillary, probably would not vote for Obama because his extreme liberal views, but I don't look at Obama at all as a black candidate. It is amazing that identity politics has got the democrats to the point where Clinton is using the "black candidate" argument to win (probably successfully) the democrat nomination.

Someone mentioned to me today that she thought Bill Clinton at his core was racist in view of growing up in Arkansas. I doubt that is true. I think politically he is not all anti-black and probably has no bigotry in his heart. But what is it that Clinton did as president or otherwise that makes people think he has such a great record on race issues?

Posted by: brian on January 27, 2008 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

bobb: The quote is the same as the quote by Obama Co-Chair Jesse Jackson the morning after losing in New Hampshire. I substituted Clinton Co-Chair for Jackson, and World Trade Center for Katrina victims.
[...] What do you think? Was I fair?

The original Jesse Jackson statement was about Hillary's famous tears in NH, and he certainly wasn't being fair to suggest that because she hadn't shed any public tears over Katrina the way she did in NH, we can infer a lack of concern on her part about Katrina. Perhaps a kinder analysis would be this one: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_campaign_cochair_questions_hillarys_tears.php concluding that his point was that "Hillary hasn't proven able to show the same level of emotion about the problems facing our country that she did in response to a question about her looks."

It's still hardly a fair point, if that's what you're getting at. But then your point in the fabricated quote is ... what? The quote makes no sense without the context of The Tearful Moment. And substituting 9/11 for Katrina is not an equivalence by any stretch of the imagination, in multiple dimensions.

But setting that aside, are you trying to suggest that Obama shows emotion about ... something ... more than he shows emotion about 9/11, or about terrorism in general???

If you can't make the case with actual quotes, fabricating quotes is unlikely to do what you want.


Posted by: bobb on January 27, 2008 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

AtumHotep..."Progressives like me just won't vote for you. Period. Even if the result is a Republican term."

You're behaving as if stupidity is a virtue.

"Progressive", my ass.

Posted by: Steve-O on January 27, 2008 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

frankly0,

I think you've hit the core of 'white' fear, and exactly what Bill Clinton, in contradistinction to Hillary, was going for in his Jesse Jackson remark. Painting Obama as a 'black' candidate whose real (perhaps secret) interests are closely connected with the black community, produces a moment of doubt, a moment of hesitation, a moment of wanting to run to the 'safe' white candidate in some of us, particularly older Americans. As I've said here before, I'm a 60-year old white female who hears that message clearly in Bill Clinton's remarks. And I refuse to go back to those days. My 21-year old daughter doesn't understand why everyone doesn't support Obama. She's grown up in a different world where race isn't loaded with innuendo and fear. Obama's words certainly invite all people in our society, rich and poor, black and white, Latinos and Asians, Republicans and Democrats, etc., etc. to join with him in this transformative effort. I, for one, am not willing to deny this young man with vision a chance. Obama is the first person to inspire this old lady in a very long time.

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

Jennifer made a great point that I think is worth repeating:

There is a deep well of enmity for Hillary on the right, they want her to be the nominee because Clinton hatred may be the one and only unifying value the Republicans will be able to muster this time around. Beyond that, a Hillary nomination allows them to not only tap into Hillary resentment on the right, but it also will be used to claim that the Hillary victory "proves" the racism of Democrats (they've already started beating this drum, in spite of the Obama win in SC). They really do not want to run against Obama, because it will strip them of the plausible deniability they've counted on for all these years to mask their racism. If Obama is the nominee, they will not be able to keep a lid on it. You just know that they won't. And then the mask will be off and they'll have that fallout to deal with as well.

The last bit I think could go either - playing the race card is going to be a lot harder for Republicans if Obama is the nominee. With a white candidate they can continue the usual criticisms that the Democrats only pay lip service to African-Americans, but don't really deliver (which is certainly arguable, depending on how you measure it). Also, suppression of minority voters will be harder for the press to ignore if the candidate is African-American.

And no matter how you slice it, Obama as the nominee will almost certainly translate into significantly higher turn-out among minority voters, especially African-Americans.

Conversely, it's easier to image, as Jennifer suggests, that Republicans will show up in larger numbers to vote against (Hillary) Clinton than to vote against a candidate just because he happens to be African-American.

Similarly, following Jennifer's comments, I think even a racially charged election where Obama is the nominee will favor Obama: it will drive minority and Democratic voters to the polls in greater numbers than Republicans; Republicans who are resentful of race-card tactics may simply prefer to stay home rather than cast a vote on either side of that argument.

Posted by: Augustus on January 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Bobb

You said: "...he certainly wasn't being fair to suggest that because she hadn't shed any public tears over Katrina the way she did in NH..."

You ought to know that the point was that she DIDN'T shed a single tear in NH. That was complete sexist mediahype. Since I cannot believe that politically aware people missed the videoclip in question the fact that republicans and Obama supporters still talk about her "crying" or her "tears" is to me far more sexist than what you accuse Hillary of.

Posted by: B on January 27, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

But I can see that there weren't any good options in front of Bill Clinton

Well, for any other prospective first spouse than Bill Clinton, perhaps, there would be the option of shutting the fuck up once in a while so as to control the damage caused by his mouth. He also had the option of limiting himself to graciously congratulating Obama while redirecting the conversation toward future races where Hillary is likely to prevail.

You're mistaken, Mary. Obamamans like myself do not disdain Hillary nor do we hold her gender against her. We simply reject the political tactics that the Clintons have chose to pursue.

I think both you and Mary are wrong in that you both assign exclusionary explanations to why Hillary Clinton is so strongly disliked among certain Democratic constituencies. (You speak only for yourself, Elliott, and I have no reason to doubt your representation, but there are many other anti-HRC voters whose positions are based more on pure emotion.) There is misogyny galore directed at HRC, and I'm furious about it and I'm not about to discount it. But she and her husband, who at this point is practically living the parody, also have systematically created much disapprobation among progressives through certain of their own executive, legislative and political actions.

At this point in the Clintons' careers, I'm not sure how anyone credibly untangles the tightly entwined threads of sexism and policy differences. I do know that wholly dismissing one in favor of the other creates a narrative that is far from accurate.

Posted by: shortstop on January 27, 2008 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know about Kevin, but I am looking for a sea change in our nations politics. The country so badly needs another FDR type. Maybe Obama isn't as naturally liberal as FDR was? Personally I think he is less motivated by ideology, and more by carefully thinking things through than we are used to seeing in politicians. In any case I think transformative leaders are only 33% selfmade, the other 67% must come from the supporters. If we can get behind him and give him that 67% of the positive energy to succeed, his odds wil be very good indeed. I personally don't care if he deserves it or not, the country deserves it, and that is good enough for me.

Yes, he said stupid politically motivated things about social security early on. He seems to have learned from it. Learning from ones mistakes, and having the courage to admit them has been sorely lacking in our politics lately.

Posted by: bigTom on January 27, 2008 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Racism is the core of Republicanism. There will be no Obama Republicans. They will run a more nasty and divisive campaign than you have seen in your lifetime.

maybe so, but there will be a lot of Obama swing voters. Others have said it, but I'll repeat: his ability to bring in new votes will help the Democratic candidates for House and Senate more than Hillary will.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on January 27, 2008 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

My 21-year old daughter doesn't understand why everyone doesn't support Obama. She's grown up in a different world where race isn't loaded with innuendo and fear.

And if Obama and his campaign had stuck to that approach, I wouldn't have made the argument I made.

The problem is the Obama campaign went out of its way to stoke racial resentments in African-Americans in SC.

Please explain how doing so is compatible with being in a "different world where race isn't loaded with innuendo and fear."

Posted by: frankly0 on January 27, 2008 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Matthew Marler, Obama mentions his belief that he will be able to bring liberals into Congress on his coat-tails in the Reno Gazette interview. Also, on MSNBC last night, Joe Scarborough kept saying with astonishment that his blackberry was aflood with messages from conservative Republicans saying they were going to vote for Obama. Not that I trust what Joe says...still, it could be true.

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta..."Obama's words certainly invite all people in our society, rich and poor, black and white, Latinos and Asians, Republicans and Democrats, etc., etc. to join with him in this transformative effort. I, for one, am not willing to deny this young man with vision a chance. Obama is the first person to inspire this old lady in a very long time."

And if Obama is the eventual nominee, I will happily join you in voting for him. And I'm curious...if Hillary is the nominee, will you also support her? I'm hoping so.

Posted by: Steve-O on January 27, 2008 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

"The problem is the Obama campaign went out of its way to stoke racial resentments in African-Americans in SC."

ka-CHING!

Posted by: anon on January 27, 2008 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

I do know that wholly dismissing one in favor of the other creates a narrative that is far from accurate.

Indeed, shortstop. There is one heck of a motherlode of dem/progressive angst built up from 7 years of the most egregious misrule in the nations history. All of that energy is now getting directed at two top-of-the-line candidates, either of whom would in all likelihood make an excellent president.

Perspective. Chill.

Posted by: mattski on January 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

"The problem is the Obama campaign went out of its way to stoke racial resentments in African-Americans in SC."

Here our perceptions are simply different. I saw Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton with her MLK/LBJ remarks to a lesser degree, trying to paint Obama as the 'black' candidate in this contest. Obviously, as many have said here before, the last thing that Obama wants is to be seen as the 'black candidate.' It would mean sure defeat for him in the rest of the country.

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I understand why the media keep analyzing the exit polls as though they are gospel, but why are we taking them that way? I guess because it's the only thing we have to go on, but the polls going into the election had Obama up by 9-12 points, His margin was 2-3x that. So why do we think we know ANYTHING about who voted for him? Judging from the crowd at the event that I attended Thursday night (not at all scientific), his voters may well have been older, whiter and a higher % of females than what the exit polls indicated. This is South Carolina, after all. It's one thing to vote for the black candidate with the "foreign-sounding" name, quite another to admit to a pollster that you did.

Posted by: bluewave on January 27, 2008 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta: Obama's words certainly invite all people in our society, rich and poor, black and white, Latinos and Asians, Republicans and Democrats, etc., etc. to join with him in this transformative effort. I, for one, am not willing to deny this young man with vision a chance. Obama is the first person to inspire this old lady in a very long time.

Besides that, Obama is a very smart man. He ranked at or near the top of his class at Harvard law school, and was senior editor of the law review. Hillary isn't exactly stupid, but she has allowed Bill to dominate her campaign, leading to the expectation that he'll dominate her presidency. I think that has been a serious mistake.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on January 27, 2008 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, Himbo is a slur against male sluts. How old are you?

Posted by: jvoe on January 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

"if Hillary is the nominee, will you also support her?"

Steve-O,

I've explained here before that I live in NY, which will strongly go for the Dem candidate, whoever that is, in November. I haven't liked Hillary for years now and 'possibly' wouldn't vote for her in the general (I would vote for no one) but if I were in a state where the race were close then I would definitely campaign for her and vote for her. Obviously she is lightyears ahead of any possible Repub candidate. I haven't come to a firm decision not to vote for her if she is the Dem candidate. I'll continue to watch her campaign and come to a clear decision over the next several months if that indeed becomes the situation.

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

MatthewRmarler

I suggest you go and look at Hillary's academic records again before you them it down in favour of Barack.

Posted by: B on January 27, 2008 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Technically, Bill isn't a himbo. He's not stupid. His moral compass just points at whatever woman is the most attractive and in the room. How can anyone want this person back in the White House? I would have more respect for he and Hillary if they got a divorce after Jennifer Flowers---instead they calculated that his chances at power were better if they stuck it out. Aaaaahhhhh the American Dream....

Posted by: jvoe on January 27, 2008 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta...Obama IS the black candidate in the race just as Hillary IS the woman in the race. Those facts are inescapable.

...the last thing that Obama wants is to be seen as the 'black candidate.' It would mean sure defeat for him in the rest of the country."

Think about that.

Posted by: Steve-O on January 27, 2008 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

bobb: Jackson specifically asked African Americans in South Carolina to consider the fact that Hillary showed no concern for Katrina and many other issues of importance.

What gives? I substituted White people for African Americans in my fabricated quote. You don't find that offensive?

I find it very offensive, I find it a direct racial appeal. Both Jackson's original words and my fabricated words.

Posted by: little ole jim on January 27, 2008 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

You ought to know that the point was that she DIDN'T shed a single tear in NH. That was complete sexist mediahype. Since I cannot believe that politically aware people missed the videoclip in question the fact that republicans and Obama supporters still talk about her "crying" or her "tears" is to me far more sexist than what you accuse Hillary of.

I stand corrected! There were no actual "tears" in NH, as in droplets of water originating from a tear duct and leaving the immediate vicinity of Hillary's eyeball. Watery eyes, perhaps, but not "tears" in the sense of "running down her cheek."

Besides that, what do you think I accused Hillary of? I was writing about something Jesse Jackson Jr said about Hillary, and pointing out that he was being unfair. And *extra* unfair for calling the fluid moistening her eyeballs in NH "tears" when that's only true for the first dictionary definition of the word and there is clearly another definition that requires that the droplets of saline fluid "overflow the eyelids and dampen the face" which DID NOT HAPPEN.

So, my apologies. And BTW, did you know that the on-line dictionary I use lists more definitions for "tears" than it does for the word "is"? Fun facts to know and share.


Posted by: bobb on January 27, 2008 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

There are times in history and in life when it is our duty to stand and fight for what is right. This is one of those times. Our nation and our children deserve our courage to take the harder path, not the easier one most taken.

Ted and Obama should stump together in middle class venues and do a game change move and become the change agent for jobs, heath care, social security and education.

Time for smash mouth, no holds bared and pry away working class moms and dads from the Clinton hegemony. The stakes could not be greater for the Democratic Party and the nation, and the Clintons simply reek of arrogance, deceit and corruption, and have become a major liability to both nation and party.

Posted by: larry on January 27, 2008 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Steve-O,

Well, to be precise, Obama is the biracial candidate in this contest. What I meant by Obama not wanting to be seen as the black candidate should be obvious. He isn't running predominantly on what the interests of the black community are. He is running in the interests of the American people, all races and both genders.

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

jor --

What happened in the 60s has nothing to do with 2008. It is only the Obama camp that seems to think that it does.

The point isn't that women's place in the world hasn't changed over the last 40 years -- the point is that it has, dramatically. But our political culture, our political narratives, our political leadership, haven't kept up -- they ARE, including the narratives coming from, and the culture expressed in, the Obama campaign, still stuck in the 60s.

Frankly, anyone who tells you we can "turn the page" without correcting that problem is not only wrong, they are headed for fall. For them, the past, and perhaps their lack of understanding of it, is a set of blinders that limits their ability to see the realities of the present. It is also an excuse to avoid the work that the present demands.

Women today play absolutely essential roles in our economy, our social and cultural institutions, and, as voters, the Democratic party. In addition to, and as a requirement of, the essential roles they play in their families. They have power -- and that's my point. The party, if it continues to act blinkered, backward and patronizing, continues to fail to recognize, and respect that power, is going to pay a price.

Everything about how women live their lives has changed since the 60s. But the Democratic party hasn't kept up.

As for whether Hillary Clinton is the "best" woman -- that's not the point. The point is that, in this field, for many people she is the best candidate. And we shouldn't let old ideas about women and power, or fear of cultural change, get in the way of recognizing and respecting that.

Posted by: mary on January 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta: Joe Scarborough will say anything. He from right down here where I live. A knee jerk Bush Republican through and through.

The messages he is most probably reveiving are messages from Republicans gloating about having voted for Obama in the South Carolina primary. Open primary, you know.

Posted by: little ole jim on January 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

South Carolina just didn't have a lot new to tell us.

The new part, that you somehow missed, was that Obama crushed Clinton. It was the magnitude of the rout, not that "Hillary won the elderly white vote and Obama won the black vote."

Posted by: Orson on January 27, 2008 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta - I understand that he is running in the interests of the American people, all races and both genders and I believe that. And I'll support him 100% if he wins the nomination because his policy goals are almost identical to mine. At the same time, Hillary's policy goals are the same as Obama's but I hear some Obama supporters saying that they won't support another candidate that might beat him for the nomination. That makes no sense to me.

The goals are the important thing.


Posted by: Steve-O on January 27, 2008 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

I would like to concur with folks who posted above disputing that Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" remark was racist. I voted for Jesse Jackson in the presidential primary in 1988 and I did not see him as the "black candidate" or in any way marginal. Accusing Bill Clinton of being racist for making that remark is "playing the race card".

The only thing the Clinton campaign did that I thought went too far were the remarks Bill Shaheen made questioning whether Barack Obama had ever sold drugs. Of course, Shaheen then resigned over those remarks. I believe there was some speculation about George Bush's use of cocaine during previous presidential elections, including that he or Laura actually was dealing drugs in Texas? Sorry, no link, but do you remember that? I don't believe that was coming from the Democratic presidential campaign though, was it? It seems to me that some Democrats did not see Bush's prior cocaine use in a positive light. I had opportunities to do cocaine when I was in my early teens, but I had enough sense to stay away from it...even in the 70s.

Posted by: Laura on January 27, 2008 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Steve-O, I agree with you. This is an emotional time for Obama and Clinton supporters. I'm sure that when Repubs tear into whichever candidate becomes the nominee, our common instinct will be to defend him/her and vote for him/her no matter who we back in the primaries.

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

As for whether Hillary Clinton is the "best" woman -- that's not the point. The point is that, in this field, for many people she is the best candidate. And we shouldn't let old ideas about women and power, or fear of cultural change, get in the way of recognizing and respecting that.

If a male candidate had voted to authorize Bush's war in Iraq, had supported the surge, had supported threats against Iran, had been a cheerleader for neo-con foreign policy far more often than any Democratic candidate could reasonably expect to get away with (right up until he began his campaign last summer), and in all of this had refused to admit mistakes much less learn from them, I'd be very worried about the kind of president he'd be, also.

Obama being black isn't a point against him or in his favor as far as I'm concerned, and Hillary being a woman isn't a point against her or in favor of her either. I just think she'd be a bad president.

Posted by: bobb on January 27, 2008 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Look,

What Democrats don't seem to realize is that character and integrity matter to some people who might vote for the Democratic candidate. You guys always pick the safe choice (e.g. Kerry), when someone who might shake people out of sleep (e.g. Dean) are buried.

To most non-Democrats, Bill and Hillary seem like phonies, in their marriage and commitments. Competent, really brilliant yeah, but phones. I think she would be fine president, but the calculating nature (yes, likely developed out of necessity) just leaves the independent voters mouth dry. So unless the Republicans nominate the automaton Romney, whoever they put forward will seem more "real" than Hillary. And this will cost them states like WI, MI, IA, OH...states the Democrats really need.

Posted by: jvoe on January 27, 2008 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

bobb: Jackson specifically asked African Americans in South Carolina to consider the fact that Hillary showed no concern for Katrina and many other issues of importance. What gives? I substituted White people for African Americans in my fabricated quote. You don't find that offensive?

He first made an argument that she was not concerned about the victims of Katrina, based on the fact that she had tears (not the kind that overflow the eyelid!) in NH, and not for Katrina. It was a bogus argument, but that's what he started with.

If he were correct, then the conclusion would make sense. If she really didn't care about Katrina victims, then you might reasonably expect that it would be a particularly strong issue in regions with similar demographics.

But the point is that his reasoning was false from the start. He had no evidence that she didn't care about the victims of Katrina, certainly not from her eyes watering up in front of the cameras one time.

You fabricated a quote that doesn't parallel this situation in any reasonable way. If you have a valid point to make, make it with actual quotes. Don't make shit up.

Posted by: bobb on January 27, 2008 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

I had opportunities to do cocaine when I was in my early teens, but I had enough sense to stay away from it...even in the 70s.

Me too. Maybe we should run for office?

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 27, 2008 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

I mostly agree with Kevin on this, only I'd add some more.

Hillary is not more 'electable' because of where people are at the moment. She's more electable because her campaign organization is broader and she knows better how to fight the GOP/msm machine she'll be up against.

A perfect example is Obama's weakness in reaching the Latino communities in key states where that will matter. I predict she'll win states like California handily because of that.

I also agree with Kevin on Bill Clinton's dog-whistle tactics. The campaign was willing to lose SC and a few other states because they knew they could strengthen their case in more states than they'd lose by doing so.

The Clintons deny that. They have to. Their supporters will overlook that, and the majority of voters - unlike online activists - will vote their own interests and ignore the games and the spin. So it only hurts the Clinton reputation among those who weren't likely to vote for them anyway.

Also, like Kevin, I may grudgingly vote for Obama on the slim possibility that he'll be better than average on progressive issues, though to this point, his policy prescriptions look like they were drawn up by Rahm Emanuel, From, the DLC and the Blue Dogs. The Obama 'dogwhistle' isn't about a polarized country, it's a constant reminder that the Rightwing will continue their sill vituperative attacks on Hillary, even were she to walk on water.

That said, I'll note that there are legitimate and fair critiques against Bill, and different but fair ones to be made against Hillary. I have no personal animosity towards either, but I consider both to be average in their accomplishments once they reached the national stage.... and we deserve above average for a change. I'm 55 and have not had an above average nominee in the general election since my first vote in 1972.

Dodd and Richardson and Gravel offered above average records. Kucinich offered the most progressive rhetoric. Edwards offers rhetoric suggesting he - like RFK - has matured to a far more progressive candidate from earlier hardliner positions he'd taken as a legislator.

Yet numerous progressives mouthed support for Dennis while privately acknowledging all the CW about his electibility. Gravel proved disinterested in running a campaign at all. So we were left with Dodd, Richardson and Edwards as the above average choices. All three offered fast track Iraq exit plans. All three displayed additional principled stands on other issues. Yet the timing wasn't right for any of the three, because many progressives were drawn to the precedent-setting narratives of the Hillary and Barack campaigns.

And now we're likely stuck with a choice between the first woman and the first black major party candidate, though neither seems to offer much beyond that happenstance of birth.

Looking at Hillary's record, I see a progressive from the age of 18 till she moved to Arkansas. And her stellar record of that period has never come close to being matched since. Looking at Obama's record, his two major strengths were his correct call about Iraq (which would not have stopped Bush even had he been in the Senate to vote against it) and his great speechifying, which none but Teddy and Mario have matched from 1969 to today.

Okay, so Obama's two positives have gotten folks excited. But anything beyond that is a 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge' guessing game. We're told 'have faith' that there's more progressivism up his sleeve. It's enough to make one wonder and hope, but it's hardly anything to get excited about. It remains guesswork, backed by the arrogance of younger voters asserting that they have the real deal for us all.

And they're just guessing, too.

Where I most differ from Kevin is this: the national Democratic Party abandoned my interests and the interests of most of my family and friends, long ago. I owe them nothing. it's my country, community and family that comes before such a party. And I won't vote for a Clinton even in a close race. I did so in 1992 and have been disappointed by both Bill and Hillary in most of their accomplishments since.

Obama, I might vote for, but not with enthusiasm. I might also write-in John Edwards' name in November because I'm really fed up with settling. Ultimately, I wish the Democratic Party would fade into history and a new major party would be developed in its stead.

I've held my nose and voted for 35 years. No amount of cajoling will ever convince me that there's any gain in doing so after 35 years of evidence that proved - for the most part - that we've lost ground throughout. (The sole exception was during Carter, whose principles and actions provided more pluses than any minuses from his few mistakes).

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on January 27, 2008 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Klein? Joe Klein????? No f**king chance I'd read that maroon. What an idiot!

Posted by: Mauimom on January 27, 2008 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

The new part, that you somehow missed, was that Obama crushed Clinton. It was the magnitude of the rout, not that "Hillary won the elderly white vote and Obama won the black vote."

In fact, of course, Obama crushed Clinton based on one simple fact: in SC 53% of the Democratic voters were African-American, and 81% of them voted for Obama. Do the math, and that means that of the 55% of SC voters who went for Obama, a full 43% of them were African-American. Only 12% of the the 55% were white voters. Both Hillary and Edwards beat Obama amongst white voters by over 10%.

Thing is, if you project the same proportions into other states, and make appropriate adjustments for the actual number of white and African-American voters in those states, Clinton rides to an easy win in the good majority of them.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 27, 2008 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

jvoe --

Every politician is calculating. Including Obama. They couldn't get elected if they weren't.

When Obama made his first run for office in Illinois and used legal challenges to knock every single one of the other candidates, including a well respected community leader who had long held the seat, off the ballot so he would run unopposed, was that calculating? Damn right.

Is he playing this campaign just as hardball as the Clinton's -- if not even more so? Definitely.

The biggest difference between the two campaigns is that the Hillary Clinton, while legitimately challenging his experience, his campaign statements, and his vote record, has never portrayed or attacked Obama negatively as someone who "lacks integrity and experience." While Obama, often extremely blatantly and to her face, most often without supporting facts and behind her back, attacks Clinton this way routinely.

In my book, that makes him the one who "lacks character and integrity." And, it makes her the one who, except for the one occasion in South Carolina when she lost her cool and mentioned Lesko, most often displays real class.

Posted by: mary on January 27, 2008 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum: I haven't been impressed with very much of the chatter about Barack Obama's primary victory last night.

Change the cat litter.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 27, 2008 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Mary - that's exactly my impression as well.

I'm also worried that the republican media machine is just waiting, hoping Obama wins, to tear him apart. If the next US president is a republican I'll completely give up on the country.

Posted by: B on January 27, 2008 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Hillary Clinton, while legitimately challenging his experience, his campaign statements, and his vote record, has never portrayed or attacked Obama negatively as someone who "lacks integrity and experience."

Mary,

Please. I believe I heard Hillary vociferously accusing Obama of having worked for a 'slumlord' in Chicago during the last debate. The whole 'false hope' meme is basically an attack on his integrity, as are reminders of his teenage drug use.

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta --

As I said, except for the one mention of Lesko, which was a mistake and was a response to HIS attack on her integrity, she has not attacked him personally, or attacked his character.

"False hope" was a challenge to his campaign sloganeering, not a personal attack. Fair game in any campaign.

She has never even mentioned, much less attacked him, for his teenage drug use. If you want to challenge Johnson's character because he did, then do so. But I think it was pretty obvious that that was a thoughtless supporter acting like a jerk, not a coordinated part of the campaign.

Posted by: mary on January 27, 2008 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Mary,

Well, then, there was Hillary's claim that Obama didn't 'really' oppose the Iraq War because of his Senate voting record on it. That would just be an attack on the 'truth,' I guess. Here's what Durbin had to say about that:

""I've really been troubled by the development over the last several days and weeks, where the Clinton campaign is question barrack Obama's sincerity in his opposition to the war," Durbin said at the onset of the call. "His position on the war in Iraq has never changed, never.
He has consistently opposed he war, he has support for material goods for the troops in the field, but he has continued to vote for a timetable to bring those troops home."

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

Reading this thread caused me to suddenly realize that democrats/liberals totally buy into the notion that blacks are voting for Obama just because he is black. Kevin says the Obama landslide is S.C. reveals nothing new. The premise of that, and most of the comments here, is that of course blacks will vote for a black candidate. That may be true, but for democrats to readily accept that proposition for about 15 to 20% of democratic voters is surprising. I remember a few months ago serious democrats were saying that Hillary was going to beat Obama among blacks.

In any event, Hillary will get the nomination by whatever means necessary and that, the inteesting part will be if obama accepts the vp nomination. I think yes, then all the democrat/liberal world will be happy again.

Posted by: brian on January 27, 2008 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

'While Obama, often extremely blatantly and to her face, most often without supporting facts and behind her back, attacks Clinton this way routinely.'

I guess I'm just plain biased because I can't remember any Obama attacks questioning Clinton's "integrity or experience." Can you provide a few? He has often said that Clinton's accusations are 'untruthful,' as in the Iraq War charge, and to that extent it's an accusation of lack of integrity. But beyond that?

Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Mary--

Yep, politicians are calculating.

Hillary and Bill have backed this stupid Iraq war from the start. Why? 'Cause it has made us safer? Cause she was afraid she would get outflanked to the right in her New York senate bid?

No I think their calculation had more to do with her being president.

So ~4000 Americans, and tens of thousand Iraqis, and billions of dollars later, she's the antiwar candidate?

Nice calculation. Nice candidate.

Posted by: jvoe on January 27, 2008 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

I voted for Hillary wice and Bill twice (hometown Buffalo, NY). I used to defend them and I have seen them speak numerous times since my wife and then 10 year old daughter caught the Clinton-Gore Bust Tour in Wisconsin at midnight in a small town.

I have had the Saul of Tarsus conversion. I still hate The Roberts Supreme Court, still am a progressive, liberal, registered member of the Democratic Party (since 1972 and I am closing in on 60).

But I believe the Clinton's are the worst thing that happened to us Democratic Party Members (sorry, but the Republican Noise Machine's dropping of the "IC" on Democratic Party has driven me to only use it), second only to The Nixon/Reagan?Ferret-Newt rise.

If Bill would have even treated Lewinsky with respect (the Dress incident is just Bad Manners, besides being porno-like), Gore would be finsihing up his second term and maybe we would have some reason to think Hillary would actually deserve to be president.

It is sad and people like me will show up in Hillary's negatives soon. I wish that I kept a You-Tube record of my presence giving both Clinton's standing ovations, and I wish I could unseal my secret ballot so you can see that I am a real person, not an Obamanaut or Troll or Politico. I know nobody who has a political job and nobody who has a blog and we vote Democratic Party or Working Families.....

Posted by: tjproudamerican on January 27, 2008 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

glad you're on the same page as Joe Klein, KD. He's one of my big heros too.

Clinton will win. Obama won last night because...oh wait, I'm not allowed to say why. See you on Feb. 6

Posted by: seven on January 27, 2008 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Seems some people are saying that Bill Clinton's mention of Jesse Jackon's victories in SC caucuses were "racist" or "dog whistle" or a form of racism and that has tipped some toward supporting Barack Obama.

Are some of us in the reality-based community being snookered by the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media)? A commenter at TPM Election Central says that the video clip of Bill Clinton's reply to a reporter's question left off the first part of the question, making Clinton's mention of Jesse Jackson seem completely gratuitous.

D.Campbell wrote on January 27, 2008 5:17 PM:
I am outraged by this story. I saw the ORGINAL clip of the reporters question. He FIRST asked Bill whether Obama could win as a black candidate…then added the second part of the question. The media CUT the first part, then accused Bill of injecting ‘race’ (with Jesse Jackson) into this response. These tactics are increasingly alarming to me and show that the media is not only deliberately trying to “spin” again Bill Clinton, they are stealing the election from the American people. People need to stand up to this — it is WRONG!

Now, the MCM truncated comments by Hillary Clinton about JFK, MLK, LBJ and the 1964 Civil Right legislation and created the impression Hillary had denigrated MLK's role. Which was totally inaccurate given her entire statement.

It's obvious by now that the MCM will truncate, snip and switch, use magic ellipses to create a quote which serves their purposes for their narrative. This campaign Hillary is their target (the managed to effectively sideline Edwards early on); last time it was John Kerry who couldn't catch a break from the MCM; and from '98-2000 they assaulted Al Gore with lies, misstatements and exaggerations.

Have we learned nothing?

I do not trust quotes from even the NYTimes concerning Hillary or Bill--they were quite taken with using only the most damning truncated version of Hillary's MLK statement.

I have looked for video of the complete Bill Clinton exchange and have not found it. I understand others are also searching for it.

Perhaps we ought not trust the MCM to present some candidates in a complete and accurate light and, well, verify. It's not as if the MCM was a paragon of objectivity and truth telling during the run up to the Iraq Invasion....

I for one am waiting to see just what our oh so objective MCMers have done here.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_on_bills_jesse_jackson_reference_former_president_looks_at_campaign_through_a_different_lense.php

Also, Kevin, if you think Frank Rich is one of the good guys you should do some reading at DailyHowler.com.

Posted by: jawbone on January 27, 2008 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

Someone Wrote:
I mean this in the best possible way, Kevin. But sometimes you sound like my grandpa - nothing's changed, nothing's gonna change ...

Someone else Wrote:
Kevin Drum, you are so out of it. You say Hillary is more electable than Obama??? WTF! Only in your geezer mind. If you had kids in their late teens, early twenties you would be not talking such nonsense. The world has left you behind, this time it will be young people determining the outcome of this process, not the baldies and grey-hairs. The under 30's have been waiting for this opportunity for a long time.

-

Now this really makes me angry. This is clearly the dog whistle politics of stuffing our senior citizens into shoe boxes, and burying them under dusty memorabilia in one’s musty basements. Its time for grandmas and grandpas to stand up and kill the young!

For this reason, I’ve voting for Kevin Drum in the upcoming primary. Our seniors can hardly breathe while crammed in shoe boxes, even if you poke holes in them…


Posted by: troll_bait on January 27, 2008 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

""The problem is the Obama campaign went out of its way to stoke racial resentments in African-Americans in SC."

Here our perceptions are simply different. I saw Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton with her MLK/LBJ remarks to a lesser degree, trying to paint Obama as the 'black' candidate in this contest. Obviously, as many have said here before, the last thing that Obama wants is to be seen as the 'black candidate.' It would mean sure defeat for him in the rest of the country." Posted by: nepeta on January 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM

And herein has lain the problem between you and I previously in how we see this matter. You took what you perceived to be true and declared it as true, not that it was one possible interpretation to be considered along with others and probability weighted accordingly, just as you should do with everyone which is the approach I am using with *ALL* the candidates and have been all along. You want to argue that this is possibly what the Clintons are doing I would be fine with your approach but the problem I have seen from you and too many other Obama supporters both online and more directly from the campaign is this presumption of selling the Clinton media frame and especially the anti-Hillary one as a cold blooded say anything do anything amoral woman politician riding her husband's fame to glory as her only way to the top (to put it politely). I watched with increasing irritation as the Obama campaign ran with the racial rooted "Bradley effect" media frame for his loss under the radar so to speak while officially not being racially motivated, and then I think while his original hope was to use it limitedly and sparingly the media frame instead acted as accelerant until everything the Clintons are saying now that could possibly be twisted into a racial slur being presumed guilty until proven innocent, and quite frankly I find that degree of intensity and zeal disturbing, especially when aimed at the most successful Democratic Presidency since the 60s whatever you may think of the Clintons at the moment.

The problem I have with too many of your opinions/analyses is that you treat such assumptions too easily and quickly as proven fact and that anyone that does not share that presumption with you is somehow blind or shilling for another other side. I find this exceptionally common in the Obama camp, and I find it more than a little troubling about what it says about his campaign that they do to this well far too easily and often while declaring that they are the ones treated so and with the vilest of means. I agree with frankly0 on January 27, 2008 at 8:52 PM regarding the significance of the demographics in SC versus the rest of the States and the degree by which the Obama blowout is influenced by it. Keep in mind white people aren't the only other ethnic groups that find certain types of appeals to AA politics disturbing like Hispanics and Nevada did not show Obama was strong there. Now, if he can add that minority to his column then I think he has a much better chance both now and in the general, but I still see signs of exploitable fissures here that the race card the Obama camp has been playing in my view along with the media gleefully running with that tactic/meme and combining it with the ever popular "Clintons lie about everything so we are free to make it be meant however we want it to be" media meme and until I see how he does with more diverse crowds that he cannot appeal to anywhere near as extensively in person speaking as he has to date I am going to have serious reservations on these grounds.

If Obama is so charismatic that he can capture so many why then has he had such a hard time to date (SC is important and a major boost to him but given his looses in NH and Nevada in particular and Clinton getting over 50% in Michigan instead of the strongly lobbied for undecideds shows she has strengths too in other demographics than SC, which is one of the extreme demographic breakdowns of all the States so using it for baseline purposes gives it too much weight in my estimation). I don't take my views from what the talking heads are telling me, I never have. I filter them and what they say others are saying about each other against full originating source contexts wherever possible and everything I was ever exposed to about politics in all its forms since I was a very young child, and it is on those grounds that I make my views upon, not what is the flavour of the day opinion whatever it may be. I like Obama, I just think he is the most vulnerable even with his gifted speaking and inspirational aspects and too many of his supporters are betting that this cannot be overcome by any campaign the GOP runs against him, something I am far less sanguine about.

So you see, while I respect your feelings on this matter, and know I am being an annoying contrarian about all of this, I really do see things as I see them. The one unreserved joy I am having from this primary season so far is the clear disproportionate turnout on each side, that gives me more optimism than I have had in a very long time with American voters actually being sensible for a change instead of going with the GOP pipe dreams that turn into crack nightmares for everyone except the most powerful/elite/wealthy and not just within your own nation either alas, the price you pay for being a hyperpower, if now a fading one. So I am afraid I suspect I will continue to play this role for a while yet, at least you can take comfort in that my opinion doesn't count and that the only influence of any kind I am having on this election is at this blog, for I have chosen not to comment on it to date at any other American blog and next to no Canadian ones including none on my own, and even them only a handful of times in toto. However, contexts and chronology counts, and whatever else the Clinton camp/campaign are not the ones who made wholesale use of the race card first, that was the Obama camp with an assist from the MSM after NH, especially between the Fairy Tale portrayal (which was far more distorting of the original context than the Clinton's distortion of the Regan comment, to the extent that they did since in that comment there are two paragraphs and he only talks Reagan in the first one, the second is GWB and Clinton and there is where he credited the GOP as the party of ideas and given racial charging to the meaning to boot where the Reagan thing had no equivalent within it) and the way the MLK/JFK comment was taken. Indeed, that was where I saw this become a significant card/factor in the campaign, and alas Obama's campaign took advantage of it, the question remains what the price if any will be paid for it.

Posted by: Scotian on January 27, 2008 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Count me among those who think Bill's Jesse Jackson remark reflects sour grapes more than a conscious attempt to play the race card-at least I hope that's what it was.

Hillary's been a strong #2 in this race for me-but with her attacks about Obama's Reagan comments and her suggesting that he's not solidly pro-choice, she's falling further back. I respect her intelligence enough to not think that she really believes that Obama is a closet Republican or wobbly on choice, but the fact that she's willing to pretend to believe those things turns me off.

As to the question above about what Bill could POSSIBLY have said in response instead of what he did say-he could have very easily have said what 99% of losing campaigns say after a primary-"we congratulate Candidate X on their win, we look forward to carrying our positive message of blah blah blah into the rest of the country." Cliche, but gets the job done, and you move on without pissing off potential voters.

I thought he was largely a good president, but I'd really rather see him far off stage at this point so he can give Hillary a chance to be 100% her own candidate.

Posted by: Chris on January 27, 2008 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Scotian,

I'm simply too tired to read your long comment and answer intelligently tonight. I do, however, look forward to reading it carefully tomorrow and answering you. Look here tomorrow please.

Posted by: nepeta on January 28, 2008 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Scotian,

OK, I've read your first paragraph and am getting a bit out of sorts with you, so here it is tonight, despite tiredness...

"You took what you perceived to be true and declared it as true, not that it was one possible interpretation to be considered along with others and probability weighted accordingly, ..."

Here is what I wrote to FranklyO as you correctly quoted:

"Here our perceptions are simply different."

Does this imply that I am stating my perception to be true? No!!! The word 'perception' implies individual variability. I may 'perceive' something as being beautiful or true or large and you may 'perceive' the opposite. Definition:

"to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: I perceive a note of sarcasm in your voice. This is a nice idea but I perceive difficulties in putting it into practice"

Your 2nd paragraph: You are free to have your own perceptions of this contest and the variables. I'm not participating in the electability argument in general because it's not my prime motivation in supporting Obama.

Your 3rd paragraph: "If Obama is so charismatic that he can capture so many why then has he had such a hard time to date (SC is important and a major boost to him but given his looses in NH and Nevada in particular and Clinton getting over 50% in Michigan instead of the strongly lobbied for undecideds shows she has strengths too in other demographics than SC"

Such a hard time? I would say that an Iowa win, a very close race in NH, a delegate win in NV, and Obama's not even being on the ballot in MI (Clinton was the only candidate (plus Kucinich?) to have her name on the MI ballot) isn't having a terribly hard time. But we should learn a great deal more after Super Tuesday. I'm not overly optimistic, thinking I know America only too well, but perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised and for that surprise I will be enormously grateful and change my overall view of this country accordingly.

Your last paragraph: Pretty much the same answer as to your third. I'm not able to stay above the fray and get intellectually entangled in making my selection of primary candidate based on electability. As I've said on another thread here, I haven't liked Hillary for years for many different reasons. My lack of support for her was every bit as strong before any of the race issues, MLK/LBJ controversy, etc., etc. came to be the topics of conversation. In fact, I feel rather strongly that either Obama or Clinton 'could' win in November. But of those two candidates, I'm inspired by Obama more than I have been by any other candidate since JFK. I'm grateful for the Obama endorsements of Caroline Kennedy and tomorrow, Ted Kennedy. Also that of Sen. Leahy. These are the real liberals of the Dem Party. Perhaps you could argue with them instead of me about electability issues and perceptions.

Posted by: nepeta on January 28, 2008 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Is it just me, or do others find it strange that the "new vision, new politics" guy is getting support from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry? Probably just me.

Sorry, I'll just sit down, forget about it, and shut up. That is, until Murtha throws his support BO's way. Then I will resume thinking about it.

Posted by: Terry Ott on January 28, 2008 at 3:21 AM | PERMALINK

For me the problem with Bill Clinton is this: In a slightly clever but still obvious way, Clinton's two administrations have been placed in the same dirty basket as those of Dubya. If I were Bill Clinton, I would be mighty pissed, and I wouldn't take this kind of crap lying down, not from anyone, and certainly not from a junior senator who wasn't even doing anything on the national level during Clinton's two administrations. Obama might as well be comparing Clinton to Hitler. So Bill Clinton has pride and he has a temper. I'm shocked ! If it were me, I would have found an opportunity to punch Obama in the nose. As far as Ted Kennedy is concerned, I think he doth protest too much, when it comes to being offended by someone else's personal behavior and the impact it might have on the party.

Posted by: rbe1 on January 28, 2008 at 4:26 AM | PERMALINK

No, Bill Clinton's administration should NOT be lumped in with Dubya's. Dubya's is the worst, most corrupt I can recall EVER.

However, Bill did sign NAFTA. Bill did give a huge tax break to the rich (larger than Dubya's).

He did balance the budget, which was great.

But Hillary voting for Iraq-- that can't be forgotten. That was bad judgment whatever experience she claims to have.

If *I* knew it was absurd (having read about Dubya and how he wouldn't let a "two bit dictator" (Saddam) sit on that much oil.... and if *I* read how Saddam probably said he had WMDs so other countries in the region would not mess with him.... why couldn't she get it? I thought she was so smart.

I like how Obama is conducting his campaign (esp. vs. what the Clinton's are doing). I DO wish he'd get specific with "change"-- flesh it out.

As of this second, I'm for Edwards, who has said what he will do about change.

but I seem to be the only person posting who is for him! lol ...

Posted by: Clem on January 28, 2008 at 7:15 AM | PERMALINK

I worry that ultrasensitivity to dog whistles is primarily a Dem trait and won't fly in the general election. For example, on MSNBC the other night, a black SC congressman said that referring to Obama as 'young' was disrespectful and out of bounds. If the general election against McCain is fought on this turf, we will be in Iraq for 100 years.

Posted by: dml on January 28, 2008 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

The tone of much of what you've said--everyone does it; the Republicans are worse, and Obama had better be able to take this in the general election; sure, he gives a great speech, but what's this kumbiya stuff worth anyway--shows that you have terminally lowered expectations. Get over it. The Clintons did a lot of good things in the 1990s; the Republicans were and are anticonstitutional zealots; thanks to Bill and Hill for standing up to them. But it's not the 1990s anymore. And recent days are a reminder of what we always knew about the Clintons: They are deeply selfish people, and it's always all about them. Move on. Trust the force.

Posted by: Matt on January 28, 2008 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

Is it just me, or do others find it strange that the "new vision, new politics" guy is getting support from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry? Probably just me.

Not just you. I think we can safely put the "new politics" theme to rest.

Posted by: Dawn on January 28, 2008 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

I've been on the fence about Edwards, Clinton and Obama. Partly, I've decided that as a Texas voter, the race will probably be over by the time I vote.

I was initially very disappointed, even disgusted with Bill Clinton's remarks. I thought they were indeed 'dog whistle' comments.

But his point is about the importance of SC primaries. He won SC in 1992 and 1996 handily, as did Gore in 2000. True, he could have pointed to Edwards' SC victory there in 2004, but he was practically a favorite son, being from NC. I wished Bill had at least compared the situation to 2004 as well as '88 and '84, but I'm not sure it's clearly the racist remark it appears to be.

Whether it is actually racism or not, Hillary could have a significant problem if she does win the nomination because she and Bill could have lost Democratic support with these kinds of remarks.

Posted by: tx bubbaI on January 28, 2008 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Scotian's musings lo these past weeks (fewer gratuitous clauses, and more paragraph breaks, please, Scosh?), are just that. Musings not moored much to reality. There are loose asssertions about the Obama camp's motives. No citations. All put out there with the gloss of high-minded, it-pains-me-to-impart-this-wisdom-to-you pompous, patronizing bull hokey-dink.

This tack, incidentally, goes hand-in-glove with HRC's outlandish claim, some years back, that she's a Rohrschach test. Just a random inkblot, no more, no less.

And pity the hapless slob who happens to think she is FOS. Or this or that. Or any of the countless things any of us have said here or elsewhere. She's just an inkblot, and anything and everything anyone has to say about her or her run for the highest office of the land is a statment only about us. Not about her. She's random and unknowable.

This is nonsense of the highest order.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 28, 2008 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

billybob - You said Obama only appeals to black voters. That's not true. He got a fairly healthy amount of white votes in South Carolina. And how do you explain Iowa?

By the way, Obama IS half-white, so there should be no reason why he shouldn't appeal to both whites AND blacks...

Posted by: CatLover on January 28, 2008 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

I am not a child but neither am I a dog. I don't hear the whistle. Didn't EVERYONE make a big deal in NH about the female vote for HRC?

Good chance that we will be getting a "first" next year for president...that means the country is making progress. I think everyone wants to see that progress especially from a representative from their camp.

But "firsts" aren't the only motivation. I almost voted for Hillary based on her experience, gravitas and power-chickiness but voted for Obama instead. Because he is right that change comes from the people. His message re-enfranchises and, brother, the US needs that!

Posted by: clevergirl on January 28, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Why is it "racist" to say the obvious, i.e. that Obama gets a large share of the black vote?

Posted by: John Petty on January 28, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Scotian's musings lo these past weeks (fewer gratuitous clauses, and more paragraph breaks, please, Scosh?), are just that. Musings not moored much to reality. There are loose asssertions about the Obama camp's motives. No citations. All put out there with the gloss of high-minded, it-pains-me-to-impart-this-wisdom-to-you pompous, patronizing bull hokey-dink.

This tack, incidentally, goes hand-in-glove with HRC's outlandish claim, some years back, that she's a Rohrschach test. Just a random inkblot, no more, no less.

And pity the hapless slob who happens to think she is FOS. Or this or that. Or any of the countless things any of us have said here or elsewhere. She's just an inkblot, and anything and everything anyone has to say about her or her run for the highest office of the land is a statment only about us. Not about her. She's random and unknowable.

This is nonsense of the highest order."
Posted by: paxr55 on January 28, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Perhaps, but one of the things I like best about this blog's comment section is that once you commit something to publish here you cannot later go back and edit/delete it when you are wrong. So I am quite comfortable leaving my "musings" just as everyone else does and we will see in November which one of us better assessed what is coming and how well it is dealt with. And as for your comment about lack of links, given that I have generally been talking about MY perceptions and not those of others this is a surprise? I do not know how to create hyperlinks to my perceptual filters for you, next time provide a better basis for being so dismissive why don't you. I also when I cite what someone has said that I am taking issue with here always reproduced the full context and not taken things out of context, but I guess that doesn't matter/count. I don't care if you dismiss me and my thoughts, what I do mind is your arrogant dismissal based on inapplicable grounds just because you don't like what I am saying, and I suspect there are others lurking here that would share that assessment.

So you can take your "nonsense of the highest order" and look in the mirror, because it is at least as if not more applicable to what you just said to me than what I have been writing no matter how much you may disagree with it. BTW, you complain about assertions about the Obama camp's approach/strategy, I find that exceptionally hilarious coming from someone that does the exact same thing with the Clinton camp throughout the threads here, physician heal thyself before healing others, ok? My point has always been about the Obama camp is that they are playing equally hard ball and fast and loose with quotes as the Clintons, not that one side is innocent and the other is guilty, but perhaps you are too blinded by your own partisanship to recognize this. I think Obama is far less solid a guarantee for November victory than you and other of his supporters and say so, and for that I have been snarked at (exception nepata who has although I disagree with what is said been fairly decent in actually trying to address my concerns instead of what you have been doing paxr55), branded as a partisan despite not being able to be so and now personally attacked by paxr55. If you don't like what I say and yet do not want to deal with the content, then don't respond to it, real simple there, what you shouldn't be doing is employing the personal attacks, something I thought Obama and his supporters were supposedly disinterested in practicing with their new politics approach. Practice what you preach or be called the hypocrite that you are when you don't, it is that simple.

Posted by: Scotian on January 28, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

I've looked at the You Tube video of the comment by Clinton re: Obama and Jesse Jackson and read over at TPM Jesse Jackson’s comments on the video and I’m sorry, I just don't see what people are complaining about [and I speak as someone who is a Democrat and lives in NYC, has not voted for Hillary Clinton in either of her senate races and will not vote for her [or Obama] in the New York primary] - if this is what you mean when you say that Clinton is playing dog whistle politics and calling Obama the black candidate and raising the race card, then Obama and his supporters are not yet ready for prime time; the rethugnants will walk all over him and them in the general. Deal with it and get ready for the real battle; if you'll excuse the analogy, what's going on now is like the blitzkrieg in 1940 and the Eastern Front is still to come. Let me assure you that the rethugnants are getting ready for the Eastern Front right now and Obama, if he is the candidate, had better be prepared for the atrocities they are going to commit. My real question, and what holds me back from supporting Obama is: what is he going to do when the rethugnants decide they are not going to play nice. I have seen no evidence that Obama knows how to stick the knife into the rethugnants. Until then he will not get my vote.

Posted by: derek on January 28, 2008 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Scosh, if I may call you that, affectionately,

Yes, and I'll say it plainly: I do not much appreciate the oracular, maundering style of your posts. Just as a visual-tracking and time-expended matter, your posts are not worth the slog. But that's me. Otherwise, I like you just fine, just as others do.

As for substantive political matters, I don't mind that you support another candidate and enjoy the give-and-take. But I'd prefer if you advocated for HC more honestly, without imputing motives (or what's your other fave charge, projection?) to those who question the wisdom of an HC candidacy.

Hillary is not an inkblot ("I'm a Rorschach test." Hillary Clinton, The Unique Voice of Hillary Rodham Clinton edited by Claire G. Osborne, Avon Books, 1997) onto whom we project our deepest neurotic and unwanted feelings.

And it's dishonest of her, and dishonest of her supporters, to castigate those of us who say, hey, I reject dynastic politics, I detest DLC politics, I hated her vote for the war, and on Iran, to authorize Bush, etc., ad nauseam.

For HC advocates to respond to honest political differences by suggesting that these proceed from unanalyzed, misogynistic, dark places is, well, nonsense of some order.

As for your puzzling jibe about my hypocricy and having to look in a mirror, I don't know what to say. If you want to make that case, fine. I'll look for it.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 28, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Scotian,

But...but...you didn't respond to my late-night response! That's OK. I'll throw one more thing out to you. You say you are:

"branded as a partisan despite not being able to be so."

I'm not sure you're not able to be a partisan. In the recent French election I was rooting for Segolene Royal like crazy and closely watched the election campaign in the news. Sure enough, I couldn't vote in the French election but that didn't keep me from getting involved and having a favorite.

Posted by: nepeta on January 28, 2008 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm thinkin' you've got some Boomer Syndrome"

For the record Barack Obama is a baby boomer.
How did those last two boomer presidents work out for you? Can't wait until we can elect some latch key, slacker Gen Xer president. It is too bad we are totally outnumbered by the loathsome boomers and their narcissistic kids.

Posted by: Boomers and Gen Y are the suck on January 29, 2008 at 4:47 AM | PERMALINK

I watched the Bill Clinton comment about Jesse Jackson. Race Baiting? Race Card? Are you kidding me? I didn't see it. You guys are making a lot out of nothing. Wow. No wonder we have had Bush for two terms. This is now the party of villige idiots.

Posted by: Geoff on January 29, 2008 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly