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

March 11, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

THE HILLARY FEEDING FRENZY....The online feeding frenzy against Hillary Clinton is driving me crazy. And that's despite the fact that I support Obama and, all things considered, think Hillary should probably withdraw from the race.

More on that later — maybe — but for now I just want to make one comment: the current attempts to tar Hillary as a racist have gone way, way over the top. They're revolting. Back before the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates really did seem to be making a few too many racially charged comments for it to be just a coincidence (though even then some of the accusations were bogus), but after South Carolina it pretty much stopped. I can't say whether it stopped for reasons of politics or reasons of principle, but it stopped.

But the accusations of racism haven't. They've just gotten more ridiculous. Last week a commenter at Daily Kos claimed that the Clinton campaign had concocted an ad that deliberately darkened Obama's face (to make him scarier) and changed the image's aspect ratio (to make his nose broader). They hadn't. After a 60 Minutes appearance, Hillary got slammed for supposedly implying the Obama might be a Muslim. As Eric Boehlert points out, this is patently absurd. Then, a couple of days ago, a legion of bloggers started locking onto the inane meme that talk of Obama as Hillary's VP was like asking him to "ride in the back of the bus." Finally, today, Orlando Patterson, in an apparent attempt to make parody obsolete, writes that when he saw Hillary's "3 am" ad, "I couldn't help but think of D. W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation,' the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society." Hell, even I fell for the racism meme a couple of weeks ago, getting suckered into passing along a Drudge slander about Hillary's campaign supposedly circulating a photo of Obama in "Muslim" garb.

Paul Krugman is right: a large part of the progressive movement seems to have lost its sanity. Hillary's comments about John McCain being commander-in-chief material were indefensible, and there's no question that she's running a very hardnosed campaign. At this point it looks an awful lot like it's only going to get worse, and it's going to get worse even though she has virtually no chance of winning. I wish she'd withdraw gracefully. But that said, she's not the devil and the fever swamp should be left back in the swamp where it belongs. Can we please bring some sanity back to the blogosphere?

Kevin Drum 3:51 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (297)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

You forgot Ferraro's "he's only where he is in this race because he's black." Sorry to get hysterical.

Posted by: RollaMO on March 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

What about that Geraldine Ferarro gem?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-backer.html

Posted by: Cliff Mason on March 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, isn't Krugman like the #2 example of how far-out the Obama Bashers/Hillary Lovers have gotten(Taylor Marsh being #1)? Is he really the person to pass judgment on people being unfair to the Hilldog?

Mike

Posted by: MBunge on March 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Welcome to the Angry Left, Kevin. These people voted for Nader in 2000. Their older brothers and sisters have been showing up at WTO conferences for years peddling their New Age Anarchy. That's the problem with popular political movements: Some of your fellow travelers are likely to be a$$holes.

Posted by: CT on March 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

I think that if you go back and reexamine the supposedly racially-tinged remarks in context, you'll see that there was very little there - esp. compared to the ought-to-be equally repugnant pushing of that narrative by the other side. And if you don't read TheLeftCoaster or TalkLeft you may not be aware that there is a good case for arguing the Obama campaign has been just as hardnosed as the Clinton campaign - they just had the media and most of the liberal sphere nodding instead of jeering.

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

Posted by: rilkefan on March 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Have you considered that the root cause may be the suspicions and distaste at the below the belt tactics of the Clinton campaign, now backed into a corner? For example I happened to watch 60 Minutes, and found Clinton's response, ending in the qualifier, 'as far as I know' cheap but representative of her subtle tactic of sowing doubt. The whole exchange was less about the words said, than the tone, and body language that she telegraphed. That opens the door for doubt about darkening an image/subtly raising racist fears of a black man lurking (appealing to our lizard brain)as being in keeping with past subtle actions. For one, I have been so totally put off by the deviousness (just below the radar) of both Clintons in this campaign, that I will not be able to vote for her should she be the nominee. It would just be more Rovian/Dick Morris politics.

Posted by: Phyl on March 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Kevin - I totally agree.

Posted by: Matilde on March 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'm not going to bash Hillary today. But yes, I agree with you she should withdraw gracefully. She's already lost. Just do the math. Does she want to take the Democratic Party down with her also? It certainly appears so. This is what egomania does to you and what it is doing to Hillary. The perfidy of the Clintons (which progressive journalist Matt Drudge exposed so eloquently) is infinite. If she would only quit now she would still have a shred of decency left, but for the Clintons they are never willing to put the good of others before themselves.

Posted by: Al on March 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

The online whining about Hillary being treated unfairly is driving me crazy.

This is a cycle:
1) Hillary attacks.
2) Push-back on her over-the-top, ridiculous attacks.
3) "Hillary is being treated unfairly! The media hates her! Whaaaaaa!"
Rinse and repeat.

Posted by: Orson on March 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Please, Phyl. I agree that the Clinton campaign has gotten ugly. I voted for Obama myself.

But please, please, please. If it comes down to Clinton vs. McCain, there is still an important difference. If someone runs and ugly campaign, but doesn't promise another 100 years in Iraq, they are still worth voting for.

Posted by: thersites on March 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

For the life of me I cannot see why the Obama fans are calling for Hillary to get out. She is not that far behind, there are some important state primaries coming up where she has a good chance of winning, and there are still several months of press vetting that Obama has to go through.

Kevin, if Obama were in her position, would you be calling for him to drop out? I don't think so.


There seems to be so much mathematical manipulating being done over delegate/popular vote count by the Obama side, and the pre-emptive calling of super delegates to vote for him, and the dissing of Florida going for a re-vote (where Hill has the advantage), and the threatening that Obama voters will not vote this fall unless he is going for President, it seems to me that "the camp doth protest too much".

Let all the people vote.

Posted by: optical weenie on March 11, 2008 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Nope. Sorry, in my opinion it's not over until she withdraws. I'm through giving her the benefit of the doubt, and regretting it later once she tries another tactic. Not this time, at this point in history. Until then, it's nonstop and full-force until she is flooded off. And yes, I am mindful of the Republicans.

Posted by: Boorring on March 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Agree with most of your post (save South Carolina (they were dancing dangerously close with some of their comments there)). But I'd like your take on Ferraro's comments (which is where I thought you were going when you listed the litany of claims). I'm not sure what the objective interpretation of those comments are (just my own personal interpretation), but they seem (at least to me) inappropriate on a multiple-levels.

Posted by: Keith on March 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

I could go on and on about this one.....it isn't that she has been racist it is that she is an insane nacissist who feels she is owed the nomination and represents, to many in the Democratic Party, the type of politics that we would like to see stopped. And since she is trying to place Obama as not even as qualified as McCain, many Democrats again, see that she has not the best interest of the party at hand but only the best interests of herself.

I think there has been an awakening on the left about just how much the Clinton's are an antity to themselves. For me the audacity of suggesting a split ticket when the only way she wins the nomination is if the party elders support their member of the club, was the last straw. She just needs to go away. And why hasn't the press called her on that. "excuse me Mrs. Clinto but with less states won, less popular vote, less delegates and limited prospects out side of Penn, are you suggesting Mr. Obama should consider you as VP"?

And please Kevin, don't quote Krugman on this one. His fever swamp crusade against Obama has been going on for months...

Posted by: PaulE on March 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

You are making me ill with all this talk about "poor Obama" and the hardnosed talk that other politicos are saying. His whinning about all this is crap and he is a total wus if he can not just brush it off. The media has been FAR more hard on HRC than any other candidate out there. They have been extrememly sexist and out right rude but she take it all - like a man!!!

I say that Obama is the one that should get out.

Posted by: abc55 on March 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Why do Obama supporters hate democracy so much?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I agree - let the people vote, let the process unfold. It's too close to call for anyone to leave this race yet, people.

Posted by: Matilde on March 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

This dovetails nicely with Kevin's other post on how many people read blogs. The only reason the blogosphere has lost its mind is that there are more and more of the Great Unwashed. But then, having a more participatory democracy sometimes means having to be embarrassed by your compatriots.

Posted by: matt on March 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Optical Weenie: If Obama had lost 12 of 15 contests, you better believe there would be a loud and collective demand that he bow out of the race.

Posted by: Keith on March 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Fallon just resigned. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran on the horizon. Now who do you think is better running against McCain in November during wartime?

Posted by: ally's gift on March 11, 2008 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary says the Republican nominee is a better candidate for president than the Dem front runner. In a normal party, people like that are driven out. But she'll continue to be a big dem celebrity, win or lose, so you and krugman can chill.

Posted by: jim on March 11, 2008 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Let all the people vote.
Posted by: optical weenie

there you go again.

Posted by: thersites the blackguard on March 11, 2008 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Alot of people are on edge because Barack Obama is vulnerable to subtle racist attacks which have often been used against African-American candidates in the past. Combine that with the Clinton campaign's attempts to win at any cost (swinging pledged delegates now?) and you have a toxic brew. I still suspect there is a certain amount of nutpicking involved in highlighting this, though, as people who were calm to begin with or mellowed after further review are not going to get alot of attention.

Posted by: CA Pol Junkie on March 11, 2008 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Geraldine Ferraro's comments, it appears, get a pass. So, comments by surrogate and former Democratic VP candidate on the one hand, versus random bloggers and Orlando Patterson (who knew he was still alive?), none of whom, AFAIK, are associated with the Obama campaign, on the other. Pay no attention to the first, folks; it's the latter that should concern us.

Jeebus. Given that you appear to prefer, however mildly, Obama, I cannot figure for the life of me what you're going in the tank for, here.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on March 11, 2008 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

She's ripping off her own supporters to boot.

http://tinyurl.com/2axe2r

Kathy Callahan:
"I happily donated $2,000. They had my VISA card on file. Unauthorized donations were made.

In addition, I was actually double charged for an event that I did attend.

Smoking gun: $5,800 is $1,200 over the legal limit.

I would say this in a court of law. I am an honest person...the following statement is true down to the letter:

Matt McQuenney who works in the compliance department at HRC headquarters told me verbatim -"What happened to you with credit card errors is happening to others,. You are not alone. Kathy, I'm trying hard to find out where and who it's coming from. What's going on!""

Read the whole thing at the link. It's despicable. I wonder how many she's screwing like this who are too embarrassed to come forward? McCain isn't the only one breaking campaign finance law. This has got to stop.

Posted by: markg8 on March 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, if Obama were in her position, would you be calling for him to drop out? I

If Hillary had won 14 of the last 17 states, had the lead in popular vote and an insurmountable lead in delegates, the media would have written Obama's obituary long ago.

Posted by: Orson on March 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, the thought that this campaign could get us closer to moving past race has now been demolished. You don't have to put a lot of a particularly toxic substance into the well to poison it for a long time. The Ferraro comments are additive -- and are now starting to make it look like Hillary's "surrogates" wiht her tacit approval (and certainly, lack of strong disapproval) are making explicit appeals to whites to vote based on racial resentment.

If these tactics are successful I think I am not alone in saying that I will be too depressed to write a check or campaign like I did last time around, and I'm not young or African American.

Posted by: Barbara on March 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

legion of bloggers started locking onto the ridiculous meme that talk of Obama as Hillary's VP was like asking him to "ride in the back of the bus."

Bloggers locking on to a ridiculous meme? Surely you jest?

Seriously, the VP offer was an unqualified insult given his front runner status, but it certainly wasn't intentionally racist. I suppose one could argue that since it was an implied reference to Obama's relative youth and inexperience, that some black "men" might take it to imply that Obama was a "boy." However, at what point does the burden of racism fall on the person making the inference and not the person accused of the implication? Normal English conversation is so rife with potential symbolism that virtually any statement can be interpreted to be racist, sexist, agist or some other "ist" by a zealous and creative deconstructionist.

It is getting ridiculous. It also doesn't help Obama, even though I fully realize that the majority of these silly ideas do not originate from within his campaign. Unfortunately, he can't really ask for it to stop, because that would draw even more unwelcome attention to the ridiculousness of some of the charges.

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

Maybe so, maybe not. I think Obama is currently ahead. Clinton should stay in as long as she can afford it. This is a free country after all. I don't think she'll survive to the convention unless Pennsylvania is a HUGE blowout.

Posted by: lobbygow on March 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

kevin: "Hell, even I fell for this a couple of weeks ago, getting suckered into passing along a Drudge slander about Hillary's campaign supposedly circulating a photo of Obama in "Muslim" garb."

Well, guess who's continuing to circulate that particular falsehood in Mississippi? Why, none other than Sen. Obama himself:

"When in the midst of a campaign you decide to throw the kitchen sink at your opponent because you’re behind and your campaign starts leaking photographs of me when I’m traveling overseas wearing the native clothes of those folks to make people afraid, and then you run an ad talking about who’s going to answer the phone at three in the morning, an ad straight out of the Republican playbook, that’s not real change." -- Barack Obama, Jackson, MS (March 10, 2008)

(Emphasis added.)

I would further offer that embarking on a fishing expedition for even the minutest signs of racism within the context of any white candidate's political campaign and personal life -- which has become an absurd obsession for a small but vocal handful of Obama supporters -- is in itself a racist act that is both intellectually fraudulent and emotionally violent.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Amen Kevin.

And it isn't just the nuts online. Yesterday on Hardball Howard Fineman was explaining how the Spitzer mess is all Hillary's fault as well. According to Fineman, because Hillary isn't doing well in the election and will continue to be a senator from NY, Eliot Spitzer felt "blocked in" with no where to go and thus forced to cheat on his wife. I freakin' kid you not.

Posted by: Teresa on March 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

You wrote this post without mentioning the comments by Geraldine Ferraro. Do you expect it to be taken seriously?

I don't think the Clintons are racist myself. I do believe they have demonstrated they are willing to throw race out there in hopes it will reduce votes for Obama.

No, it doesn't prove the Clintons are racists when they use Obama's blackness to wedge off voters, but it certainly does give strong clues about the lengths they'll travel to win this primary.

Posted by: Curt M on March 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Wheat from chaff is the issue, I think. I agree with all your examples, which were pretty strained, but the Ferraro brouhaha does raise some real questions. Ferraro's comments as at least implicitly racist, I would say, & she is both on the Clinton campaign's leadership & finance committees. Now maybe the whole denounce/reject debate & calls for resignations by loose-lipped campaign aides & surrogates is silly to start with, but having played that game (part of the now-famous Kitchen Sink Strategy), I don't think the Clinton campaign should be allowed to leave their response to Ferraro at Wolfson's "disagree[ment]" with what she said. If Power's comments required she be canned, whatever kernels of truth they contained, the Clinton campaign has to react much more forcefully than that.

Posted by: dzd on March 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

You've listed the complaints about Hillary's tactics, but you only refuted some of them.

I'll grant that the face-darkening episode turned out to be false (although given the evidence, it's hard to blame people for being suspicious). And the Orlando Patterson letter was surprisingly content-free from such a serious scholar.

But the South Carolina stuff happened. The Robert Johnson stuff happened (I don't blame them for his statements; I do blame them for not condemning them). The Drudge thing happened (the Clinton campaign never denied it; they just said that it's not divisive to show Obama in the clothing of his "native country"--yes, a top Ohio surrogate really said that on CNN).

There have been endless debates on the "as far as I know" flap. It is possible for somebody to say what she said without wanting to imply anything, but it is exceedingly unlikely that a politician as word-conscious as senator Clinton would have done so in a major interview.

I think the truth is fairly obvious: some of reputed race-baiting has been debunked, but most has not, and there is a troubling pattern here.

Occam's Razor.

Posted by: Ethan on March 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Kevin. This whole thing is really depressing. I can handle being depressed by the Clinton campaign's poor job, because hey, there's somebody else in the party I want to vote for. But I can no longer stand to listen to Hillary's online enemies--not the media, but the commenters on blogs that I used to like--make nasty, overblown charges.

That's not the kind of stuff that makes Hillary supporters change their minds; in fact, it often does the opposite, suggesting to them that Obama supporters are mean-spirited and simplistic. As an Obama supporter myself, I know not all of us are knee-jerk reactionaries who can't stomach the thought that Hillary Clinton might actually care about people and public service, albeit in a way that we don't always agree with.

Posted by: CattyinQueens on March 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you are the definition of a "concern troll".

Posted by: Justin on March 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

Tallying the "popular vote" across a mix of primaries and caucuses is sort of a fool's errand to begin with - how many Iowans do you include in your popular vote totals? - but the numbers I've seen say that Clinton has little chance of winning by that metric either. Even if you include Michigan and Florida. Clinton has only won a single state by 20 points or more (Arkansas), while Obama has won over a dozen blowouts.

In fact, by any metric other than "let's only count primary voters in big blue states not named Illinois or Wisconsin", Hillary has already been eliminated; the only reason she's still in the race is that she can raise $30 million even while running on fumes.

Posted by: Scott Forbes on March 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

As far as the ad with the darkened Obama, I think the issue is far from closed.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/249
My only problem with Hillary is that 20 years of Bush/Clinton is enough, isn't it time for some fresh ideas?

But the main focus needs to be on defeating McBush in Nov., no matter who the nominee is. Let's not lose sight of the real goal.

Posted by: ren246 on March 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

[/putting on my white, clinical lab coat and donning my mathematician's glasses]

WHAT???? How the hell do you figure she's going to do THAT???

I'd love to see the math on that. At present, he leads her by over 600,000 votes. Any lead in the popular vote she *might* receive in PA will be completely eclipsed by all the other states left (in which he beats her by double digits - see Mississippi, for example).

Posted by: chuck on March 11, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Angry Obama supporters are just trying to close the deal before Howard Dean comes up with a solution to Michigan and Florida. The fact that Hillary stays on the offensive just makes Obama's supporters angrier. And for many of them, the fact that she's a tough, shrewd woman makes them angrier still.

Obama probably wouldn't be ahead were it not for the punishment meted out to Florida and Michigan voters. I say find a way to choose and seat the Florida and Michigan delegates and let all the voters decide.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on March 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm....I'm an Obama supporter and while I did read about the various accusations of race-bating mentioned, I pretty much dismissed them out of hand.

In this campaign, Hillary has given people PLENTY of reasons to be angry though:

-Her desire to change the rules after the fact in order to seat the MI and FL delegates.

-Her refusal to agree to a re-do of FL, and silence on the prospect of re-doing MI.

-Her hoping that superdelegates will swing the election her way, overriding the will of the people if need be.

-Her campaign's defense of the "Obama in African garb" photo....not race-bating, but definitely Muslim-bating, why defend it if you had nothing to do with it?

-Her arrogance and condescending attitude in suggesting she'd pick Obama for VP....you're behind on all counts Hill.

-Her campaign's dismissal of all states Obama has won as unimportant.

-Her floating the idea that she might go after Obama's pledged delegates

-Her absolutely ridiculous claim that she and McCain are Commander-in-chief ready, while Obama is not.

-Her claiming her time as First Lady counts as pertinent experience for being Commander-in-chief....she's basically saying she was co-President (actually this is just annoying)

-Her playing the victim card ALL THE FUCKING TIME....Yes Hillary, nothing you do brings this scorn on you...

There's a lot more but you get the idea. So, there's plenty of reasons not to like Hillary but racism isn't one of them.

Posted by: Joe on March 11, 2008 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

"The online whining about Hillary being treated unfairly is driving me crazy."

This is the flipside of being a female candidate. She can play the victim in a way that would be unseemly for a man.

Mike

Posted by: MBunge on March 11, 2008 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

In reality, the darkening thing, is an open question.

Why haven't you updated that post, since there was a fact check of Factcheck?

Even if you thought the "factcheck of factcheck" was wrong, it would have been worthwhile to LINK to it, and then say why it was wrong. Instead, you STOP at the factcheck.org piece.

I wonder why.

Posted by: JC on March 11, 2008 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Can we please bring some sanity back to the blogosphere?

Since when has there been sanity in the blogosphere. I, a blogger myself, have found very interesting debates on the blogs and important information, but there is almost always some idiot who makes a ridiculous statement.

Posted by: Noah on March 11, 2008 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Barbara: "The Ferraro comments are additive ..."

No, they were way over-the-top. Geraldine Ferraro should apologize for offering that tripe.

To state categorically as she did that Sen. Obama is lucky to not be white, and thus imply that he's getting a free pass because he's an African-American male, is patently absurd on its face. It's not unlike those rancid arguments the right-wing continues to offer against affirmative action programs.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 11, 2008 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Kevin, but you're just wrong on this one. The blogosphere is freaking out on this because Hillary appears determined to deeply wound Obama for the general election. All the points you make show how subtly they're accomplishing this. I didn't think the "as far as I know" Muslim comment was anything until I read that she and Obama had been at Christian prayer breakfasts together. You say hardnosed, I say civil war. Sorry, but she's running a dirty campaign considering she has almost no chance of winning. Hysteria well deserved.

Posted by: NHCt on March 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

To Kevin's list, I add the number of people who saw SNL's parody of Hillary's 3AM ad -- framed by a sequence in which "Hillary" admits that she is a liar, a loser, a cheater, and the Republicans' preferred candidate -- as a viciously anti-Obama attack.

Which is not to say that the anti-Hillary list is wrong; I'm just talking about people who, to my eye, are taking a sketch 100% wrong.

Posted by: DonBoy on March 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin has also forgotten about Hillary's comment that Mahatma Gandhi "used to run a gas station in St. Louis" her continued insistence that Obama do cartwheels to disavow Louis Farrakhan, her mimicking of Obama's gospel style of delivery. Yes there is a pattern here and I expect it will continue.

Posted by: Steve Crickmore on March 11, 2008 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

"The fact that Hillary stays on the offensive just makes Obama's supporters angrier. And for many of them, the fact that she's a tough, shrewd woman makes them angrier still."


Tough? Okay. But shrewd? By what possible standard can Hillary Clinton be considered shrewd? Seriously, is there some definition of that word of which I'm unaware? She started her campaign for President 20 points ahead, with every possible advantage anyone could want and with Democratic voters not even willing to look at clearly more qualified candidates like Biden, Dodd or Richardson...yet she's being beaten by a guy who was an Illinois state legislator just a while ago. When has Hillary ever demonstrated any aptitude for shrewdness?

Mike

Posted by: MBunge on March 11, 2008 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Ferraro's remarks were possibly a Kinsley, but they were certainly correct. If Obama wasn't black, he probably wouldn't have been taken seriously as a candidate. From a sheer voting perspective, he wouldn't have won any primaries but Connecticut, Vermont, and Illinois.

He's winning black voters because he's black. He's winning a good chunk of white liberals because they are "caught up" in the fabulous idea of having a black president. Other than that, he doesn't have much.

And even if Hillary wasn't winning the popular vote, she should stay in the race. She's very close, and she's got the better electability argument. The rules don't give the nomination to the person who has more votes or more pledged delegates, but to the person who gets more than half off all delegates. Clinton's got a better case than Obama, and every right to stay in.

Posted by: Cal on March 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Ethan: "The Drudge thing happened (the Clinton campaign never denied it ...)"

That's bullshit.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Yes and no. Obviously people can take things too far, myself included, and that's certainly fair game for criticism. But I think you're lumping too many things together and without sufficient context.

Hillary's campaign DID open the Pandora's box of racism. The fact that they backed off of this negative tactic because it started to hurt them hardly excuses the behavior or exonerates them.

Fair or not our society is pretty consistent in applying the racist label to people based on fairly low thresholds. The 'racist' label is an indelible mark, not a meter - it doesn't go away just because you stopped saying racist things for the moment. This isn't 'Obama supporters' being unfair, that's just the way our PC culture operates for better or worse (often worse).

The blowback Hillary is getting is largely a result of her playing with fire. People working for her campaign have been caught sending out emails accusing Obama of being a Muslim (and resigned), her supporters circulate them (I've gotten several), and she obviously benefits from them. It's the old school 'narrowcasting' - you let your surrogates slime your opponent for you while you pretend to be above the board.

So when Clinton says Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as I know", it's not hard for people to wonder whether she isn't deliberately adding a tiny bit of doubt for her followers. Whether that was her intent is besides the point - Hillary herself made that kind of attack fair game. Remember: in the last debate Hillary herself accused Obama to his face of doing the same thing with regard to Farrakhan's endorsement. 'Reject' wasn't enough for her, so how can she reasonably expect us not to hold her to her own standards?

So let's please not accuse Obama's fans of being unfair for raising questions of intent when Hillary herself did the exact same thing to Obama.

The speculation about whether Hillary's campaign darkened the images of Obama is a little out there, but not especially surprising given the circumstances of her negative campaigning. If they're being objective they should arrive at the conclusion that Hillary's campaign did not. Next?

Now, I can understand why you included a blogger's analogy to D. W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation' because it fits neatly under your thesis. That guy's analogy is patently, laughably absurd as you yourself note.

The problem is that when you lump something that crazy in with other examples, it has a way of trivializing, ridiculing and marginalizing even the more reasonable questions and criticisms of the way Hillary campaigns.

If we were to be as casual in characterizing this post of yours, it wouldn't be hard to lump it in with another one of the Hillary campaign's negative themes: that Obama's supporters are crazy. After all, your post isn't about how people on both sides are being crazy (and they are), but just Obama supporters:

The online feeding frenzy against Hillary Clinton is driving me crazy.

You really could/should have balanced this post out better.

Just because the accusations of racism may be going too far (and I'll agree), it doesn't mean that Hillary doesn't fully deserve to be called on and criticized for running a poisonous, slanderous, and ugly smear campaign against Barack Obama. When you put it in this broader context of her running a fairly negative campaign, combined with the fact that her campaign DID toy with the race card (until they started getting blockback), this current crop of racism accusations becomes a lot more understandable and not nearly as 'crazy' as you suggest.

Posted by: Augustus on March 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK
Barbara: "The Ferraro comments are additive ..."

No, they were way over-the-top. Geraldine Ferraro should apologize for offering that tripe.

I forget where, but I did run across a comment earlier today suggesting that Ferraro's comments weren't so much racist as illustrative of the lack of misogyny Clinton has been facing.
To whit - were Obama a white guy - Clinton would have dropped out well before OH/TX because he'd already have the nomination sewn up.
YMMV

Posted by: kenga on March 11, 2008 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary is tough and strong and will keep fighting. Obama folks are trying to get her out with anything - notice that they never talk issues just this trash talking politic crap. She will win this by staying tough and keeping onward - she will win the popular vote and deserve the delegate vote as well. Obama's camp should stop the simplistic whinning.

Posted by: abc55 on March 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Re: The Photo coming from the Clinton campaign, I've just about had it with people on the left tossing around Drudge based charges!

Does anyone have any proof that Clinton's campaign "leaked" The Photo? Has Drudge produced any evidence? And what is wrong about Obama being photographed in the costume of Somali elders during a visit to Kenya?

Per Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest and Andrys, it was Freepers and their ilk who both downloaded and passed around The Photo. Only Drudge says the Clinton campaign had anything to do with outing the photos, and he was a bit careful in his wording. Well, Drudge and now Obama.

So, short of new proof of Clinton involvement, I think it is wrong to say Clinton or her campaign pushed The Photo. Wrong for Obama, wrong for left blogosphereans.

I am still adamantly a member of the reality-based community and do hope others in the left blogsphere are there still or will soon return.

It is so disappointing to see even our side of the blogosphere being bamboozled by Drudge! Why pass on his lies? Sheesh.

http://andrys1.blogspot.com/2008/02/source-of-obama-photo-from-kenya.html

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/02/todays_rightwin.htm

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/02/because_drudge.htm

From Seeing the Forest: People, you are being played like a violin.

I posted about this photo yesterday [2/24, 2nd link above] because several right-wing blogs were carrying it. Not one said anything about it coming from the Clinton campaign. Today the Drudge Report takes the opportunity to inject the photo to the mainstream and gets a twofer bonus, getting all the Obama supporters to blame the Clinton campaign.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the right wants us divided? Why is it so hard to see that they are working to set us against each other? Come on, people, Hillary Clinton is not your enemy, she is on our side.

These two bloggers are not A-List Big Bloggers, but they did the digging, they have the best record we have so far of where The Photo came from.

Please pass these links on so others can see the reality.

Posted by: jawbone on March 11, 2008 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

The angry responses should stop, because a reasoned, measured response is sure to get through to the Clintons and Mark Penn that their attack campaigning is alienating the party base?

Maybe fever swamp is what's called for here, is what I'm getting at..

Posted by: matt on March 11, 2008 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

You're a temperate soul, Kevin, and I think just as an esthetic matter, emo online behavior affronts you. That's fine. But this feeding frenzy you describe is mostly on Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff.

There are partisans in the water, and what does Clinton do but toss chum to them. Chum and insinuations of chum.

And then she pivots to delusional claims she brokered peace in North Ireland.

There's bound to be a frenzy with campaign behavior like that. For my part, I'm most concerned over her delusional claims to experience, her patronizing manner with a superior rival for the nomination, and the other affronts mentioned above. Far worse, imo, than the online excesses of political junkies.

Posted by: paxr55 on March 11, 2008 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

"the current attempts to tar Hillary as a racist have gone way, way over the top"

You guys do this crap to Republicans all the time. It's only "over the top" when it gets done to a Democrat.

Posted by: am on March 11, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

The only question in my mind is:

Does Hillary herself come up with this shit? Or does her campaign come up with it and she's too stupid to know better.

Either way, she's not threshhold material, any more than is her friend, John McBomb-Bomb-Iran.

Posted by: bob on March 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

and deserve the delegate vote as well.

Classic. Hillary will "deserve" the delegate vote -- as opposed to winning it, I suppose? Remember, Hillary can't fail, she can only be failed.

Posted by: Orson on March 11, 2008 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Re: Patterson's article - the comparison to "Birth of a Nation" is pretty far-fetched - but the advertisement wasn't particularly nice. Clearly what had happened in the world involved bad actions by brown people of the islamic faith, and the american dream family was white. Clearly all this is mild compared to what the republicans could do if Obama gets the nomination, but that doesn't extenuate the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: RS on March 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Hear, hear, Kevin. Six weeks ago either seemed like a wonderful choice. We had an embarrassment of riches, compared to the whackjobs the other side had to choose from.

Everyone should just calm down. Getting hyper-partisan about your candidate is in part a buying-into of the media's earnest desire to make the process more urgent and dramatic than it really is.

Posted by: Jim Pharo on March 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Could it be that computer users are more likely to be Libertarian than Progressive? So, when a corporate Progressive challenges someone with a grassroots, community-organizing background -- maybe computer users would prefer the more libertarian candidate.

Concern-trolling indeed.

Posted by: absent observer on March 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

Hillary is behind by almost 800,000 votes; there is little to no chance that she will garner the majority of votes, or even come close.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on March 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

"In fact, by any metric other than "let's only count primary voters in big blue states not named Illinois or Wisconsin", Hillary has already been eliminated; the only reason she's still in the race is that she can raise $30 million even while running on fumes."


This argument would be easier to accept if there were some sign that *Obama* believed it. If it really is over, for example, then why no movement on a re-vote for Michigan or Florida- in fact why not the magnanimous gesture of seating them as is just to get the issue off the table? I mean, if it really is all over, what's the downside?

Another example - if he really thinks it's over he should be traiing all of his fire on McCain now and ignoring the irrelevant Hillary. But he's not. Why?

Because he knows this thing is NOT over by any meaningful metric.

The popular vote (minus Michigan) is at 48%-47% and even the pledged delegates are only 52%-47%. Her path isn't easy but this thing is far from over by the only metric that SHOULD matter - that being that Democrats in the United States are pretty much split right down the middle.

BTW,I'm leaning towards Obama myself. But still got awhile to decide here in NC.

Posted by: cha on March 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Let the process continue until completion.

I doubt Ms. Clinton will come out ahead but it is possible so there is a need for all "cards" to be played before the "hand" is over.

I`m still hoping my favorite candidate, None of the Above, gets into the race at the last minute.

McBush & Friends must go irrespective.

"...the art of life is more like navigation than warfare..." - Alan Watts

Posted by: daCascadian on March 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

I've found it very amusing that the same people who call for this stuff to end keep posting about it and linking to it. If you want it to disappear, don't keep bringing it up. It's like complaining that there's too much hype about a band by writing a post about the hype surrounding a band. Guess what? If you don't contribute to the frenzy, there's at least one less post.

Posted by: Julene on March 11, 2008 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Ferraro's comments are silly at the very least. They claim that he's getting a pass because he's a black man. It's trivial whining at best, when she should be talking about substantive issues.

But also, it can coincide disastrously with another concept: reverse discrimination. The notion that Barack is essentially being given the press and electoral equivalent of affirmative action. That's just foul. Barack Obama has done the work necessary to win, and never used his race as a bludgeon against his opponents, or racial identity politics as his strategy.

He's a great candidate who just happens to be black, and Ferraro's comments are just deeply disrespectful of that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty on March 11, 2008 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives have been long used to be called "racist" and "anti-women" by liberals so it's like water running off a duck's back when used against us.

But it is delightful to watch such terms being used against Democrats primary voters, who as we all know, are the most virtuous form of life on the planet. Hillary supporter Governor Rendell has essentially called a sizable portion of the Democratic voters in Pennsylvania racists who will not vote for a black man should Obama get the nomination.

With no significant policy differences between them to argue about, the supporters of the two candidates are going to destroy each other up in the 5-6 weeks before Pennsylvania votes with increasingly shrill personal attacks. Because neither Hillary or Obama will concede the race, nor should they since the nomination will not be determined until the convention and the voting of the Superdelegates.

Can't wait for Obama to press Hillary on whether Spitzer's use of prostitutes disqualifies him to remain Governor because it’s a no-win situation for Hillary. She can't say yes, given her standing by Bubba while using Monica as a cigar humidor. And if she says no, then he can mock her by saying why doesn't she ask Eliot to serve as her Vice President and really make it a return to the Clinton Era. (Or would that make Obama "anti-women" for picking on Hillary)

Posted by: Chicounsel on March 11, 2008 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

While I agree that the Hillary-bashing is over the top (even DailyKos has juumped on the bandwagon), she is going to have a real problem if Obama wins the nomination. It would be one thing if she merely questioned Obama's experience, but her praise of McCain will make it very difficult for her to switch course and endorse Obama. Even if she winss the nomination, her criticisms of McCain will be compromised by her praise of him.

I'm afraid she's painted herself in a corner, and handled that whole situation very poorly. That alone brings into question her qualifications for office.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on March 11, 2008 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Blackness is not relevant to this race. So just shut up about his being a black dude.

Posted by: bob on March 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

rofl

Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

Posted by: kenga on March 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

I thought Hillary was a fighter, LBJ and Harry Truman rolled into one, the only candidate to single-handedly beat back the Republican attack machine. But now someone writes a critical diary on DailyKos or an op-ed in The New York Times and suddenly a Kevin Drum, a nearly 50-year old man, is crying like a 3-year old over spilled milk.

Grow a set.

Posted by: Mike on March 11, 2008 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

My 2 cents: Kevin is mostly right. I also prefer Obama, but, yes, I have to agree that the accusation that Clinton is a racist is ridiculous. The drenched up "evidence" is painfully absurd. That's especially true of the totally insane Orlando Patterson op-ed -- read it if you haven't; I half expected him to mention that one of the kids in the ad is wearing pajamas that say "goodnight," and the "nig" appears prominently, so ergo, Clinton's a crypto-racist! This is really loony -- Althouse-loony -- territory, and I can't believe this guy is a sociology professor at a supposedly top university.

That said, however, there are a couple of points that are not as clear cut, like the whole 60 Minutes Moslem thing. I have a lot of respect for Eric Boehlert but my reaction watching 60 Minutes -- on its first run and without any preconceptions -- was one of shock. I looked at my equally disbelieving wife and we had to rewind and watch again because I thought I misunderstood. "I take him on the basis of what he says" and "As far as I know"? What sort of person would add these qualifiers, so that on one hand she's rejecting the rumors and on the other hand allows for the possibility of them being true? Clinton is obviously a smart, media-savvy person. We can simply decide her qualifiers were merely "unfortunate," but why did she utter them in the first place? Sure, the media manufactures a lot of bullshit and Obama supporters, as well as Clinton supporters, can be hysterical at times. But like her endorsement of McCain, Clinton should be held accountable for what she says.

As to Krugman, he's been almost as relentlessly anti-Obama as he's been anti-Bush (although admittedly subtler). He's often right, and I can agree with him that Clinton's healthcare plan is better than Obama's. But I can also see why many Obama liberals no longer trust him to be an objective observer of the primaries, and his attack on them as having lost their sanity will only alienate them further. It does sound too much like the typical thing a mainstream pundit usually says about those dirty bloggers and their readers.

In any case, I hope we keep some of this anger in reserve because the Republicans are coming with all their slime and mud and that's when we'll all need to push back as hard as we can.
____________________________________________

Posted by: Aris on March 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

"He's winning black voters because he's black. He's winning a good chunk of white liberals because they are "caught up" in the fabulous idea of having a black president. Other than that, he doesn't have much."


Hey, Cal! What did you think of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Donovan McNabb not being that good and getting special treatment from the media for being a "black quaterback"?

Mike

Posted by: MBunge on March 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Kevin, for the call for her withdrawal. The last time you Obama guys did this, she whomped him 3 out of 4 states in one day. After she wins PA, I'm sure you'll call for her resignation again. And after she wins FL and MI AGAIN, I'm sure you'll write for her resignation again.

Pretty soon, Obama will have lost a lot of contests. Guess you wanted the NY Giants to give up and run out the clock in the Super Bowl, too? C'mon man!

Posted by: zaine_ridling on March 11, 2008 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Julene: "I've found it very amusing that the same people who call for this stuff to end keep posting about it and linking to it. If you want it to disappear, don't keep bringing it up."

You do have a valid point. However, ignoring it completely also offers its own unique set of political perils. As Sir Winston Churchill once observed, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 11, 2008 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary says McCain's ready to be Commander in Chief but Obama isn't.

If she'd just said it once, then apologized, I might cut her some slack. But she said it several times.

As far as I'm concerned, she's on her own. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist on March 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Count one more agreeing with Kevin here. Most of the stuff tossed at Hillary by the Obama supporters is ridiculously overblown, tin foil hat type gibberish. Sure she is running a hard nosed campaign. well, politics ain't beanbag and she is running behind, so she has to attack. If Obama is a good candidate, then he will figure out how to beat the attacks. if he can't handle them, that will prove that he really isn't ready for the big show.
As far as I'm concerned, if there is a legitimate path to victory for Hillary, she has every right to take the fight all the way to the convention floor. There is nothing racist or narcissistic about that.appealing to super delegates and trying to seat Michigan and Florida are completely legal manuevers that she can take, and if Obama can't figure out how to win the game within the rules, then again maybe he is not ready.
And I say all this as an Obama supporter.

Posted by: stonetools on March 11, 2008 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

My distaste for Clinton has grown to serious loathing. But I mostly agree with you about the concerns about racism. I'm not going to say it's not there. But it's such a loaded charge, I'd want something a good bit more obvious before arguing about it.

That said her other tactics in this campaign have been completely outrageous. She *ought* to step aside gracefully now. She cannot close the pledged delegate gap in any significant way. The popular vote is a very flawed measure of anything -- because it greatly reduces the weight caucus states play in the process. If they had known ahead of time that popular vote was a measure that would matter for deciding who was going to be a nominee, they would likely have opted to hold primaries. And it's not even obvious at this juncture that she's going to win that.

IF she were conducting this campaign with dignity and respect, I'd have no objection to letting her ride out the string to the convention. But she's conducting herself in a way that is damaging to the party as a whole. That's too big a price to pay for her to continue to run a campaign that can only win by having the superdelegates override the will of the people as expressed by the only real measure of that (elected delegates) -- a situation that would guarantee a party torn apart.

I'm really surprised that the big named players in the party haven't tried to put a stop to this thing. Though Pelosi's comments today suggest that she, at least, has recognized the problem and is working hard behind the scenes to get Clinton to knock it off. (Her having to say something in public suggests that Clinton's not exactly listening, though.) This race is almost surreal. The Democrats should have a clear shot at the White House this year and it is as if they are doing their level best to lose it.

Posted by: Maggie on March 11, 2008 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "Hell, even I fell for this a couple of weeks ago, getting suckered into passing along a Drudge slander about Hillary's campaign supposedly circulating a photo of Obama in "Muslim" garb."

Then why haven't you updated that item with a retraction?

Posted by: Pyre on March 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

She's in the race only because her husband screwed around and he's in the race because he's black. Sicko!
We are a sick country peopled with people with sick beliefs. Par for the course for an empire in decline. Look at Nero or George Bush. More signs--the rich won't pay taxes or serve in the military and our leaders are more interested in screwing around (Spitzer, the unprotected sex god, Mr. Clinton, the safe sex god)than putting their shoulders to the wheel...

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam, where the Indians are still alive and the skies are not cloudy all day.

Posted by: Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers on March 11, 2008 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin - I come here for the evenhanded and cool pacific/Pacific point of view.

But you're wrong about this one. She's run a shitty campaign and now it looks like she doesn't care how much of her shit splashes on the Dem. frontrunner, who is facing enough tough challenges as is, thanks.

It's her campaign's win at any cost/kitchen sink mentality that is pissing people like me off. I started out agnostic, but her campaign has actually made me detest her.

Posted by: on March 11, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

You get what you give, you give what you get. If Hillary couldn't take it, she shouldn't have been dishing it out.

These people are scum. They kick you in the groin and then start crying the minute you say something nasty to them. Fucking pathetic.

Posted by: soullite on March 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Kevin. I normally love reading progressive blogs and am a liberal but I can't stand the vitriol against Clinton and it's making me really really dislike Obama and his surrogates. Note to Surrogates: you will need me in the general, stop acting like self righteous jerks because I'm getting sick of hearing this crap from you.

Posted by: MaryAnne on March 11, 2008 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Krugman trivia: This Sunday I opened the editorial page of the Columbus Dispatch, to find a Krugman column. For the first time ever (as Hillary would say, as far as I know). Now, the Editorial Page Editor is Glenn Sheller, as right-wing a wingnut and it ever fell from a Buckeye tree (see noleftturns.ashbrook.org). So, why suddenly Krugman? Why, he was bashing Obama.

The Republicans are loving this people. We're at each others' throats and the most prominent progressive pundit is spending his column inches to bash the Democratic frontrunner. Does nobody see anything wrong with this?

Posted by: Kanenas on March 11, 2008 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Ha, name me one time Krugman has done other than viciously slander Obama in every single column.

Posted by: MNPundit on March 11, 2008 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Attacks on Hillary, give me a break. She and her surrogates have been on attack since the campaign started (instanced too numberous to name), the daily attacks on Obama by Hillary's friends (Begala, Davis, Estrich, Carville, etc...) go mostly unanswered as Obama doesn't have his people doing this.

As other people have mentioned, what about Ferraro? If it weren't for nutty old Spitzer she would be the lead news story, what a role model for feminists. I'm waiting for a public apology from the Clinton camp, but Hillary doesn't do apology (or acknowledging defeat) well.

Posted by: leo on March 11, 2008 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

"a large part of the progressive movement seems to have lost its sanity"

And this is a surprise?

Posted by: Concerned Netizen on March 11, 2008 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

That Orlando Patterson NYT artical was wrong. But I'd just say there's a reason why she's only getting 10% of the African American vote. There is a palpable anger in the African American community at the Clintons. A lot of people feel they have fed the latino/AA divide and worked to ghettoize Obama's vote and play up the idea that he can not win white voters.

It's become a subtext of nearly all the reporting and the racial breakdowns; while Clinton's near lockdown of the female vote in general and the white female vote over 40 in particular is taken for granted and not labeled as a problem in a general election as Obama's demographic "issues" apparently are a problem.

And then you have people like Ferraro out there making comments, especially in the south and PA and Ohio, were when played sound to a lot of people like Afirmative action complaints. The idea that Obama doesn't DESERVE to be this far and is taking the job from the white lady and he's taken the job from these white men who were clearly FAR more qualified.

There are genuine reasons to be beyond pissed at Hillary Clinton; not the least being the African American vote is supposed to fall in line behind her ticket if she promotes the idea tha Barack Obama will be her VP.

Patterson went to far, but the Clinton's have crossed the line FAR more and it may just be fake out dog whistles to you. But a lot of people are hearing this and are beyond disappointed with the Clintons, they're enraged.

I want her to pull out too, because I think the longer this continues there will be a racial as well as demograpic and gender divide in this party. I think the facts and anectodatal evidence supports this; and going to Pennsylvania will harden this divide. And a joint ticket won't solve the problem.

I genuinely do loathe the Clinton campaign and reading the news daily at points Hillary herself. Maybe it's unhinged and insane in your opinion. But I know I am beyond disgusted with her campaign. I have felt personally hurt by it. I have been astounded at the lack of sustained reporting on this issue or the outrage over her hypocrisy and double talk.

It's not attractive and it's what makes a lot of Clinton voters think Obama supporters are wacked out maybe; but it's how I genuinely feel. Like she's destroying all chances for the general in some kamikaize effort that is beyond my abitlity to fathom. And no one much seems to care since a lot of the blogging and reporting DOES seem to feel like this should be her nomination.

Posted by: Rhoda on March 11, 2008 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

"...a large part of the progressive movement seems to have lost its sanity."

Come on, Mr. Drum. You cite five or six examples of lunacy on the part of "progressives" (I agree that the examples you cite constitute lunacy) and conclude a "large part".

No doubt you could dig up hundreds of examples of progressive lunacy, even thousands if you dig through the venomous blog comments(such as one finds particularly prominent here). But there are millions upon millions upon millions of progressives, and a very small slice are pundits and/or blog denizens. And a miniscule slice are lunatics.

Perhaps you should get out more.

Posted by: Chris Brown on March 11, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

A lot is over the top, but the criticism of Clinton on 60 Minutes has a point. She could have said, "That is false. Obama is a Christian. The right wing is spreading those false rumors." Instead, she hemmed and hawed and seemed (I can't read minds) to be calculating the best answer as she went along. It wasn't a high political crime, but it wasn't her proudest moment either.

Posted by: anoregonreader on March 11, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Obama supporters seriously need to fight back against Clinton's wholly natural political attacks --- but not in the manner in which they are doing.

(and I won't specify the acceptable manner for defending off these attacks.)

**How does eating my cake and having it sound to you?

Posted by: having it both ways on March 11, 2008 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Fuckn' Obamazooids. They flop around like fish screaming about how polarizing and bad for the party Hillary is, when they are the ones pushing this racist crap while building other negative narratives. The truth is, you shitheads are the ones trying to tear this party apart, unless you get your way, of course. What a bunch of childish brats...

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton needs to quit running, simply for the GOOD of the Democratic Party.

If she continues on, I have absolutely no doubt that she will continue in this vein of boosting McCain. That was and will be completely indefensible.

The word traitor comes to mind. I'm rooting for Nancy Pelosi to smack her on the head, SOON.

Posted by: Manfred on March 11, 2008 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

zaine_ridling on March 11, 2008 at 5:12 PM:

And after she wins FL and MI AGAIN..

Y'all need to stop saying that right about now; you're making yourselves look like fools.

Nobody won Michigan, where most of the Dem candidates weren't on the ballot and - contrary to what's being said - there wasn't record-level turnout there, with only around 20% of all registered voters participating...Anything less than having another primary or caucus or, less preferably, doing a 50/50-ish split of the available delegates between Clinton and Obama for no net gain in delegates is just another form of voter disenfranchisement. Clinton only has a slightly stronger claim to Florida, where none of the candidates 'forgot' to take their name off the ballot but agreed not to campaign and understood that the delegates weren't going to be seated.

First you're told your vote was meaningless, then a candidate tries to claim you voted for them...Ridiculous.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

After elmo's comment, I think this thread may have run its course.

Posted by: RollaMO on March 11, 2008 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

If Obama supporters think the stuff coming from Hillary is vicious, just wait until Rove and the Swiftboaters get going. Quit whining that she'll do anything to win. The whole problem with Kerry was that he WOULDN"T do anything to win. They threw him down in the mud over and over and he would not throw one punch. Sorry, but that just won't work. I've watched decades of Dem candidates come and go talking about transcending politics. They end up drowning instead.

I find it real hard to believe that Hillary is any kind of a KKK racist, given her history -- doesn't anyone remember all her work for the CDF, for example? And really, if she were driven solely by a lust for power, with her smarts, which are formidable, she could have gone the Wall St. route or the Republican route and gotten very far on her own. (Think: Condoleeza Rice. Think: Jeanne Kirkpatrick.) Shoot, if Hillary had signed on with the Republicans early in her life, she'd probably already BE president. But strange how she was more interested in assisting with the Watergate prosecutions. And then, working on children's issues and education problems in Arkansas doesn't seem the obvious path to power for a calculating power-maven. Everyone seems to act as if she had no life separate from Bill, no professional existence before First Lady and Senator, and that's just not true. In fact, the underlying assumption is extremely problematic, if you want to throw around accusations.

But what I wnat to know is how is Obama and his supporters going to respond when Rove is sending out massive mailings of Obama in a turban? How are you going to respond when all his henchmen continually drip the middle name Hussein across the networks? Not, I hope, by complaining that it's unfair and the foul Republicans will do anything to win. Because a great swath of the electorate will just snicker in response. And the Senate Republicans will just line up into their filibuster-proof wall and smile.

I also want to know why on earth, after so many defeats, you would want someone in office who won't fight with every ounce he or she has to win?

Posted by: KB on March 11, 2008 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

AND... about fighting for every delegate and superdelegate -- wouldn't it have been better if Al Gore had fought like that for every vote in Florida?

Posted by: KB on March 11, 2008 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hey zaine --
"She whomped him 3 out of 4 states in one day."
Um, a couple more whompings like Texas and she'll start to lose
delegates.

The winner is the one with the most delegates. It's not that hard to follow.


Posted by: Jim Pharo on March 11, 2008 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: poor Hillary? The concern troll label is surely fitting. For an Obama supporter you sure deliver the talking points for Clinton. The fact that Hillary actaully did not win more delegates last week, has lost twice more this week, STILL has not phased the national media campaign to keep her in the race. Good God, she seems to have made it this far on innuendo and republican votes alone. The sooner she steps away the better. Her attacks and insults continue apace. I expect no concession speech tonight, either. But Obabma supporters are sure mean, huh?

Posted by: Sparko on March 11, 2008 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

How are you going to respond when all his henchmen continually drip the middle name Hussein across the networks? Not, I hope, by complaining that it's unfair and the foul Republicans will do anything to win. Because a great swath of the electorate will just snicker in response.

Just curious KB, what do you think is the proper response?

Posted by: antiphone on March 11, 2008 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

The winner is the one with the most delegates.

No, the winner is the one who gets 2025 delegates.

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

I have seen this before. No one except Kevin is allowed to criticize Clinton.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on March 11, 2008 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

I am a formal Hillary supporter. Sent money to her campaign twice, and months later realized that she is unelectable. For weeks after I caucused for Obama in Colorado, I was not happy watching her defeats. I admired her greatly.

But no more. Her response to whether Obama is Muslim left the door open just a smidgen so people just might think that well, maybe, it's true. The VP nonsense is gamesmanship that the Dem party can do without. Saying he's not ready to be commander-in-chief is ridiculous coming from someone who's legislative experience is less than his. And leaving the door open to going after pledged delegates is shameful. It's like ignoring a public vote and actually trying to nullify it.

I don't know about you, Kevin, but to me, this all speaks to character. And hers stinks.

A lefty crazy? No, I'm not. The woman has no shame. She wants it too much and will mow anyone and any principle down to get what she wants.

Posted by: Kim on March 11, 2008 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

Her attacks and insults continue apace.

So does his. How come you guys didn't get made at your boy when he compared her to McFill-in and the old ways of Washington. Why doesn't this count? You guys are no better than lying wingnuts, and should be treated as such...

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

We're sorry Kevin. Hillary is no monster. Maybe a hobgoblin, but definitely no monster!


;-)

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

KB on March 11, 2008 at 5:43 PM:

But what I wnat to know is how is Obama and his supporters going to respond when Rove is sending out massive mailings of Obama in a turban? How are you going to respond when all his henchmen continually drip the middle name Hussein across the networks?

Like that's not happening now, KB. The answer to your question is simple: you firmly push back against it, then rise above it...the assholes will have no problem showing that they are, in fact, assholes...

I also want to know why on earth, after so many defeats, you would want someone in office who won't fight with every ounce he or she has to win?

You mean 'win at all costs', right? Funny...that's how Bush's campaign team approached the '04 and '00 elections. Problem is that these 'winners' tend not to turn that mentality off once they've won the election.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 11, 2008 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

To MNPundit: When did Krugman last not bash Obama? Let's see... yesterday.

Posted by: Steve on March 11, 2008 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Fuckn' Obamazooids. They flop around like fish screaming about how polarizing and bad for the party Hillary is, when they are the ones pushing this racist crap while building other negative narratives. The truth is, you shitheads are the ones trying to tear this party apart, unless you get your way, of course. What a bunch of childish brats...

Posted by: elmo

Well, not everyone can display the cool maturity of a post like this.

Posted by: Jim on March 11, 2008 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

I am one of those who probably would not be considering Obama as a viable candidate for president if he were not African America. Before you blast me for being a racist, let me say that the experience of being black in a racist country, navigating it with the relative grace and dignity that he has give him far greater credibility to me than a white man with his exact background would have.

Posted by: jen flowers on March 11, 2008 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

D. W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation.'

Surprisingly good movie for a silent. I really enjoyed it. Holds up well, even the purty women.

Posted by: Luther on March 11, 2008 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

You know Kevin, back in 1991 I caucused for Clinton (Bill) before caucusing for Clinton was cool. I stood in line for hours to get an autographed copy of Bill's biography, was excited at the fact that I had the chance to shake his hand in 1996 and thought Hillary would someday be a great Presidential choice for our Party. I'm also black and if John Mccain and Hillary Clinton were tied and my vote would decide the next POTUS I would cast my vote for Mccain.

Sorry, but as a black person I feel like I have some idea when people are using race as a wedge and there is no doubt in my mind that that is exactly what HRC and company have been doing. My mother whose affinity for the Clintons was similar to mine feels the same as do others I have spoken to.

HRC will never get my vote for anything and the fact that so many in the Dem. Party have cosigned this stuff is truly disheartening to me and other blacks (and some non-blacks too) that I have spoken to. It is pretty clear from comments by surrogates like Rendell and Ferraro that HRC has written off the black vote and decided to make a play for the "Bubba" vote. That some on the Left are indifferennt to this is more disappointing to me than a 1000 Willie Horton ads.

Posted by: Dresden on March 11, 2008 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Kevin mostly. I didn't even think the SC stuff was racist. The Kos crowd has been especially silly in looking for racist comments under ever rock.

But! The fact is that Obama is held to standard that roughly equates to the fine line that the Clinton campaign has walked right up to a couple times. That is that he is not allowed to attack Clinton forcefully because of his race.

Last night on Anderson Cooper, they had a panel talking about how Obama "smacked down" Clinton on the VP comment. David Gergen said that Obama sounded really "aggressive" and wondered if he had pushed back too hard. Lanny Davis purposefully trotted out the idea that Obama was really "angry" and almost out of control.

There is a subtle line that Obama has been walking all along, and quite successfully. He has supporters of his, and people in the media going around questioning his strength as a candidate, when he knows full well that he can't be too forceful, lest he comes off as the angry black man that is the thing of nightmares for so many people in this country.

So yes, the Kossacks are lame, but the Clinton campaign has also been clumsy.

Posted by: enozinho on March 11, 2008 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

I don't see any of this new crop of charges against Clinton as having any basis in reality.

There is plenty of valid stuff to criticize her for, most importantly the unforgivable path she's taken of repeatedly calling the Republican candidate more qualified than her Democratic opponent. That line you simply do not cross, and she did. She's running a horrendous campaign that casts serious doubt on both her judgment and her experience, but throwing all these charges of racism at her is just ridiculous.

Posted by: shortstop on March 11, 2008 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

I've stopped reading Daily Kos for just this reason. Before Edwards dropped out it was a place of reasonably interesting discussion. Since then it has become Tin Foil City.

Camus

Posted by: on March 11, 2008 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

antiphone: you asked how I thought Obama should respond to the very predictable racist vitriol the Repubs will throw.

Well, I wish I had a light sword I could whip out that would just blaze the right answer into the sky and forge victory on our behalf. I don't.

But I defer to Digby in all her wisdom about fighting innuendo and meme. You can't fight it by complaining about it, that just buys into the basic underlying assumption of all the attacks: that the one attacked is too weak (or too scary or too weird or too foreign -- he or she doesn't know how to stand up and fight like a God-blessed all-American white man would, the kind of gun-toting man who manifested our American destiny.) This is why all of Kerry's protests only made him look weaker and weaker and confirmed that he was in fact a flip-flopper, subtext: limp penis.

You can wish for a new paradigm -- that the gun-toting white man forging manifest destiny wasn't lurking in the American political id -- and I hope soon we'll get there and maybe Obama will help us get there. BUT. We aren't there yet. Not even close.

So somehow Obama has to claim an angle on that for himself. Not the gunfighter, but the smart fighter.

I also agree with Digby that the Repubs will use this racist stuff, but that will mainly appeal to the lizard-brains who would never vote Obama anyway -- the real form of attack will be to "feminize" Obama, which will disturb some waverers. We're already seeing some of that (Maureen Dowd, e.g.) -- we'll see much more. I can just hear our esteemed CA governor talking about the "girly-man" versus McCain the Walking Talking Flying Fighting Stud. We'll hear more about "metro-sexuals."

The only way to fight that is to somehow upend it and/or claim it in a new way. Without being defensive at all. And then ATTACK BACK. "Yes, I put on a turban. My ancestors wore them, and I'm damn proud of them. I wouldn't be here if not for them, and every single American can say the same thing about their own ancestors -- whether they wore turbans or kilts, that's who we are. What I never did, though, was kiss George W. Bush on the cheek. I never wrapped him in a bear hug and served him cake on the same day people were dying in the Superdome."

It's that second part we never seem to get to, we're so busy defending and deflecting and hemming and hawing and explaining and complaining about the unfairness of it all.

Yesterday, in the SF Chron, one of their columnists, a young Obama supporter announced that she went to her acupuncturist nearly in tears and announced that she would not vote for Hillary, she WOULD NOT. I don't know if she stomped her foot or held her breath until she turned blue afterward.

Believe me, that's the kind of stuff that will NOT win elections.

Posted by: KB on March 11, 2008 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Jim: "Well, not everyone can display the cool maturity of a post like this."

Well, I'm often accused of vulgarity and profanity myself, and that's really nothin but a bunch of motherfuckin' bullshit.

;-)

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 11, 2008 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton is fully responsible for the backlash she is receiving. The solution is not for us to stop taking issue with her tactics, but for her to stop using them.

Posted by: bill on March 11, 2008 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

What proves Kevin's point more than anything else is how Obama supporters tolerate no criticism of the man or his positions. You can't have a civilized discussion of the merits of BO anywhere, without being accused of being a reactionary Clintonite (or worse).

What used to separate liberals from "them" is that we used to be able to discuss things with an open mind, and the Clinton supporters I see are usually in that camp. I see plenty of closed minds here on the BO side, which makes me very skeptical of the future of progressive America.

Posted by: welp on March 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

"Candy-gram!"
"Candy-gram for McCaingo!"

Posted by: kenga on March 11, 2008 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

bill: "Clinton is fully responsible for the backlash she is receiving."

That's fair -- but only if you also hold yourself entirely liable when I call you an Obama-shilling moron.

Then hopefully, you'll see exactly why such specious reasoning is the logical equivalent of an M.C. Escher drawing.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 11, 2008 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

* : )

Posted by: mhr on March 11, 2008 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

grape_crush: Politicians who've firmly pushed back and then risen above it all: Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry and gentleman Joe Lieberman conceding to the Repubs in Florida, then our very own CA ex-governor Gray Davis. See a pattern?

Lucky for us the whole world understands the other guys were the assholes.

And yes it's true that Bush in OO and O4 had a win at all costs mentality. And that mentality stayed in play in the White House.

Wouldn't it have been nice if Al Gore had been willing to win at all costs? And then, too, held to that in the White House? Those old men in the Senate might have blinked. We might have a national health care plan. The planet might be cooler. New Orleans might be re-populating. And there's a thing in Iraq that might not be going on.

But shoot, we're not willing to win at all costs, and so ... those other guys keep winning (and killing off the rest of us while stealing all our money.)

It's all just too too bad for the poor and the dead. But at least we honorable souls feel good about ourselves.


Posted by: KB on March 11, 2008 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with bill, just above.

I'll also point out that the so called "KOS kiddies" are mostly in their 40s and 50s... referred to as 'kiddies' by an entrenched and self-centered Establishment in US politics.

Posted by: leo on March 11, 2008 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

You can't have a civilized discussion of the merits of BO anywhere, without being accused of being a reactionary Clintonite (or worse).

Was that what we were doing? ...having a civilized discussion of the merits of BO...?

I thought we were having a blog writer concern trolling about how other people read too much meaning into Hillary. I haven't heard anyone remark on any of BO --not body odor btw, the other BO --'s merits.

Then, "Obama's camp won't stand up for themselves" while also "I can't believe they're complaining that Hillary might be using underhanded tactics."

Intellectual integrity you can stand behind!

Posted by: absent observer on March 11, 2008 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

What used to separate liberals from "them" is that we used to be able to discuss things with an open mind, and the Clinton supporters I see are usually in that camp.

Fine, that's fair. But it shouldn't surprise that a lot people don't agree with you. I don't buy 99% of the racism charges, and I think they hurt Obama in the end. But honestly, I really do think Clinton is an asshole. A big one.

Posted by: on March 11, 2008 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Wikipedia:

"Fanaticism is an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particulary for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.....while the subject of the fanatic's obession may well be "normal", with only the scale of involvement being abnormally disproportionate."

Posted by: fairandfirm on March 11, 2008 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

I don't share Prof. Patterson's hyperbolic racial reading of the "3 a.m." ad, but having seen it, I can only say that I'm very glad I voted for Obama. I wrestled long and hard over my vote in the primary, and was genuinely torn between what I saw as two appealing candidates. No more: this ad, coupled with Hillary's comment that she and McCain are ready to be C-in-C, but that the jury's out on Obama, really frost me. What the hell is she thinking? Does she actually think that, in the event that she becomes the nominee, this comparison will work in her favor in the fall?
I know the Clintons and their 'brain trust' don't allow for such an eventuality, but what happens if Obama becomes the nominee, what then? How's she going to explain supporting and campaigning for a candidate who's not ready to be C-in-C? Or doesn't she plan to support the party's candidate in the unthinkable event that it isn't her? Can't they see how toxic this whole debate is for the Dem party? "OK, let's pick the one issue where McCain is strongest (perhaps the only one where he's competent), and then attack Obama as being untested, maybe even unqualified, on this score." Maybe it's time for a Dem corollary to Ronald Reagan's 12th Commandment: "Never speak ill of a fellow Republican". I know politics ain't bean-bag, but if the Dems lose in the fall, it will be because we defeated ourselves with tactics like these.
This scorched earth tactic may have been a winner in Texas but I sure hope the rest of the primary voters and superdelegates are paying attention. The message here isn't the one the Clintons think they're sending: that Hillary is tested and competent to assume the reins of power (an argument which, btw, I've always thought was complete and utter BS. Being harassed by the GRWC and having your law firm records from Little Rock pored over ain't the same as thermonuclear war). No, the message is this: we'll do anything it takes to get back to the WH, and we don't really care how we do it, even if it means strengthening the hand of the Rep candidate in the fall. Now she's floating the idea that so-called 'pledged' delegates can switch their vote, too (but only if they're switching from Obama to HRC, no doubt). Oh, yeah, and the self-serving "Dream ticket" scenario: when I hear Bill wax rhapsodic over an Obama/Clinton '08 ticket, I'll pay more attention.
Well, as a Democrat who believes that it's essential for Dems to regain the WH this year, I find this strategy both repellent and dumb. I used to be somewhat impartial between the two, but no more. I hope the party resoundingly rejects these self-serving, me-above-the-party tactics and her. If she wins the nomination, I'll vote for her, but not gladly. I've finally had it with the Clintons.

Posted by: topper on March 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

I think most of the racist charges were blown way out of proportion--the one exception being Clinton's LBJ/MLK thing, that only made sense if Obama were running for the Presidency of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference instead of the POTUS. That said, Geraldine Ferraro seems to be having a very public, race-based meltdown (on the John Gibson Show, of all places. That's where Clinton's crazy aunt has to go to find a sympathetic ear) that the campaign should pull the plug on ASAP.

Posted by: Jim on March 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Drum gets a Brass Pair award for this post. Just when I thought he didn't have it in him.

Posted by: MG on March 11, 2008 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

She whomped him 3 out of 4 states in one day.

And he ended the week--what?--eight delegates up on her (in delegates earned that week), what with his delegate wins in Texas and Wyoming and the extra delegates that turned out to be his when the California count was completed.

I am really looking forward to getting those MI and FL revotes/caucuses done with, so we can lay to rest the silly notion that Obama's delegate lead will be greatly lessened after these contests are complete.

Then the MSM and those HRC supporters who pretend that this is really still a race will have to stop plaintively insisting that HRC has several options open to her, and come right out and advocate for Clinton poaching pledged delegates or superdelegates overturning the spirit of the election.

How badly does she want it? And what is she willing to do to get it? And what meaning does it have if she gets it that way? And what separates that from the Bush administration's ethics-are-useless-it's-only-about-winning ethos?

Posted by: shortstop on March 11, 2008 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Not sure Ferraro defending her original statements and saying "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white" is a great way to stay above the race baiting fray.

Posted by: dwightkschrute on March 11, 2008 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin ... Too bad you and others in the progressive blogoshere didn't actually consider any of this nonsense back a month or so ago.

Some ... not most ... but some Obama supporters have time and time again shown that they are willing to go to any extreme to tar Senator Clinton and anyone remotely associated with her. They put the efforts of Rove, Gingrich et al to shame frankly.

Couple that with the hysterical and completely unsubstantiated assertions that the Clinton campaign has "played the race card" ... and it really does frustrate a lot of people who may not mouth off in the comments section of a blog but do turn out to vote for progressive candidates every election.

Last week at my precinct caucus in Fort Worth, the Obama and Clinton supporters chatted amicably as they waited to sign into their precinct conventions. Most of the folks I talked to liked both candidates and would vote for either in the fall. And more than a few raised the topic of the crazies on dKos and other sites agreeing that those folks made ALL progressives look bad!

Oh ... and at least at our precinct, the 'wingers who showed up were caucusing for Obama. When someone still has a Romney 2008 sign on his lawn, it really is hard to imagine that they're swing voters!

Posted by: Texas Yankee on March 11, 2008 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I wish I had a light sword I could whip out that would just blaze the right answer into the sky and forge victory on our behalf. I don't.

That’s for sure KB. You’re a bit unfocused in your critique, not particularly effective.

Posted by: antiphone on March 11, 2008 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

God, what a bunch of whiners the Obamaniacs are! They were all outraged over the right wing attack machine when it called them unpatriotic, weak on national defense, soft on crime, etc. but they have no compunctions about using the right wing attacks and tactics against Hillary.

The only explanation for me is that they are using her as their personal scapegoat for all the failings of the Democratic party over the last 7 years.

As for the tempest-in-a-teapot de jour: Ms. Ferraro's comments were degrading and dismissive of Mr. Obama's extensive accomplishments which he achieved through his own merits. As a consequence it would seem equitable (in light of Hillary's comments on Ms. Power's comments) for Hillary to ask for Ms. Ferraro's resignation.

Posted by: Dazir on March 11, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Dresden: "Sorry, but as a black person I feel like I have some idea when people are using race as a wedge and there is no doubt in my mind that that is exactly what HRC and company have been doing. My mother whose affinity for the Clintons was similar to mine feels the same as do others I have spoken to."

I'm sorry, too, because you're really being played. Did you ever read the text of that memo from the Obama campaign's press secretary, Amaya Smith, which lays bare the campaign's conscious strategy to play the race card against the Clintons in that state?

I've taken the liberty of posting the memo's text below, since the mainstream Beltway-based media's disinterest implies that it rather enjoys being played on this issue, since it feeds into its collective distaste for the Clintons:
__________________________________________________

Subject: MUST READ: Key S.C. figure takes issue with Clintons

SHUCK AND JIVE
Clinton Supporter Andrew Cuomo, Referring To Obama, Said "You Can't Shuck And Jive At A Press Conference. All Those Moves You Can Make With The Press Don't Work When You're In Someone's Living Room." Clinton-supporting New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the thing that's great about New Hampshire is that you have to go out and meet people rather than "shuck and jive" through press conferences there. Cuomo said of New Hampshire on an Albany radio station: "It's not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can't buy your way into it. You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room." [Newsday, 1/11/08]

MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON
Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising "False Hope" Said That While MLK Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One Who Got Legislation Passed: "It Took A President To Get It Done." Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed. ... .. [Politico, 1/7/08; Video]

Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton introducer: "If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his work and got the republicans to pass all those measures." [HRC, Dover, NH, 1/7/08] AUDIO ATTACHED

NELSON MANDELA
Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. "I have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years. […] I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year and we're still very close. […] But if you said to me, 'You've got one last job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions […] I would pick Hillary.'" [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]

DRUG USE
Clinton's NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said It Would "Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter." Clinton's Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen's Comments And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He "Deeply Regret[s] The Comments." ... .. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. ... .. Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer had issued a statement asserting that "these comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way." And Shaheen himself issued a statement: "I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way." [ABC News, 12/12/07]

Mark Penn, In Trying To Defend His Campaign Over Bill Shaheen's Obama Drug Use Comments, Used The Word "Cocaine," Drawing A Rebuke From Edwards Adviser Joe Trippi. Mark Penn, defending the Clinton campaign in light of Bill Shaheen's comments about Obama's drug use, repeatedly referenced Obama's cocaine use. Edwards adviser Joe Trippi accused Penn of dropping the word
"cocaine" deliberately. Mark Penn said "Well, I think we have made clear that the -- the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the
campaign was in any way raising. And I think that has been made clear. I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator." Joe Trippie
responded and said "I think he just did it again. He just did it again. ... This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said cocaine again." [Politico, 12/13/07; Video]

FAIRY TALE
Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A "Fairy Tale" And Said "It's An Insult... As An African-American" And That His Tone And Words Are "Very Depressing." Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton over his insulting comments of Obama, where he called him a "fairy tale" and said "I could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn't take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It's time that they regroup. Figure out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing. ... I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United States senator." [Politico, 1/8/08]

AMAYA SMITH
South Carolina Press Secretary
Obama for America
803 ***-**** x ***
cell: 803 ***-****

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 11, 2008 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

a large part of the progressive movement seems to have lost its sanity.

So much of what Clinton supporters complain about is specific to the Daily Kos, or for some, the Democratic Underground. These places are not representative of a large part of the progressive movement any more that No Quarter and Taylor Marsh are.

Posted by: antiphone on March 11, 2008 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

Not sure Ferraro defending her original statements and saying "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white" is a great way to stay above the race baiting fray.

No kidding. And Maggie Williams just blamed the Obama camp for playing the race card by complaining about Ferraro's patently racist remarks.

I reiterate that I think the recent events Kevin listed here are unfair criticism of Clinton. But this Ferraro nonsense is outrageous, and Williams should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Clinton needs to step up and deal with this like she means it, not formally disagree with Ferraro and then send Williams out there to fan the flames.

Posted by: shortstop on March 11, 2008 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

God, what a bunch of whiners the Obamaniacs are! They were all outraged over the right wing attack machine when it called them unpatriotic, weak on national defense, soft on crime, etc. but they have no compunctions about using the right wing attacks and tactics against Hillary. etc.

Umm.. ad hominem.. ad hominem.. red herring.. scarecrow... non sequitor... and Yes! red herring...

Is there anything logical you wished to say.

Posted by: absent observer on March 11, 2008 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

I have some questions that I know will drive everyone crazy but here they are: Of the states won by either Obama or Hillary, which states were "blue" states in 2004, which states were "red" and which states could go "blue" in 2008? Regarding the "blue" states, who's ahead at this point Hillary or Obama? Of the states that could go "blue" who's ahead Hillary or Obama? Of the "red" states that we know will not go "blue" who's ahead Hillary or Obama?

Finally, if we only counted the "blue" states that were "blue" in 2004 who would have the lead in votes at this point?

Thanks

Posted by: Noel on March 11, 2008 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

I remember once, a long while back, where Kevin made a post that went something like: if in order to make your argument you need to rely on the comments being made by posters on a blog, you've already lost your case.

I feel the same way here. Arguing that the anti-racist stuff has gone too far by pointing at ridiculous DailyKos diarists is just silly. Come on. Look, there are nutty people on the blogosphere. I think we all knew this going in, right? A serious argument can't be crafted around that fact.

And similarly, nutty blog commentators can't be used legitimately as a smokescreen to obscure the genuinely offensive stuff that is getting said on occasion by high level surrogates in the campaign. Yes, what you said, Kevin, is accurate -- there was an awful series of coincidences leading up to South Carolina, and those have mostly stopped, but the fact that they've stopped and the fact that some obsessed blog readers didn't get that doesn't mitigate what was done. And now that this issue is *legitimately* springing up again (Geraldine Ferraro's "he's attacking me because I'm white and he only got here because he's a black man"), the nutty blog readers shouldn't be the issue.

Posted by: jbryan on March 11, 2008 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

These people are scum. They kick you in the groin and then start crying the minute you say something nasty to them. Fucking pathetic.

Hey, that fits obamaites to a tee.

Posted by: sj on March 11, 2008 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

You're right, Kevin. Hillary Clinton is not a monster...as far as I know.

Posted by: Frank F on March 11, 2008 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Given the Clinton campaign's claim this afternoon that it is OBAMA who is being racist for criticising poor little Geraldine Ferraro ... which sounds an awful lot like a race-based dog whistle to voters in Pennsylvania ... are you willing to reconsider?

It is Hillary Clinton's campaign that is deliberately stirring up all this ugly stuff. They figure that they can win this way. They may be right.

-- Bokonon

Posted by: Bokonon on March 11, 2008 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

"You're right, Kevin. Hillary Clinton is not a monster...as far as I know."

LOL

There's that - there's Ferraro - both bad, but on the other hand some poster at DKos was behaving like a Nazi (oh, wait, did I just trip Godwin's law)?

Last week I kept hearing that, if Obama doesn't like the way Hillary drives, he should get off the sidewalk.

And yet she has to be protected from a DKos commenter?

Now who's soft?

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

On a more serious note, Kevin - it is actually quite odd that you managed to avoid the Ferraro question given the nature of this post?

How do you fit that in your thesis?

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Finally, if we only counted the "blue" states that were "blue" in 2004 who would have the lead in votes at this point?

Since the Democrats lost in 2004, why is this blue state, red state count relevant?

Howard Dean is right about one thing. The Democratic candidate needs to behave as a national candidate, not an electoral college strategist. You can't ignore the electoral college, but if the Democrats play to squeak by on the big blue state margins they will LOSE.

If you don't believe me, look at the track record.

Posted by: lobbygow on March 11, 2008 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

Ferraro:
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Sounds like her version of what Kevin said, actually.

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has no chance of winning the required number of votes for automatic nomination, either.

Shouldn't he withdraw from the race too, then, if that's your standard?

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Posted by: Carolyn Kay on March 11, 2008 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Sparko @ 5:49PM - "But Obama supporters are sure mean, huh?"
No, simply condescending, childishly irritating, seemingly clueless about about how politics actually operate, and, apparently, unable to rationally face any opposition to their candidate. Which does not bode well for the general election should Sen. Obama be nominated.
Out of all the screeds written about how Sen. Clinton's campaign has stooped to such unholy depths (she's completely ruthless, you know) in her no longer justified (he's got more delegates than she, so why doesn't she just, you know, give up?), monomaniacal (the campaign is all about her, her, HER; she only says bad things about Him), and now just plain mean (I mean, he's got more delegates - sorry, used that already) attempt to prevent Sen. Obama from receiving the Democratic nomination that at least 45% of the party wants for him; out of all those, there may be three occasions that have some substance to them. The rest? - mewlings from preadolescents trying to force someone else to agree with them by demonizing their favorite's opponent. Try that in November and see how far it flies.
elmo @ 5:51PM - "No, the winner is the one who gets 2025 delegates." True. And not necessarily on the first ballot, either. Could prove very interesting, no?

Posted by: Doug on March 11, 2008 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Given the Clinton campaign's claim this afternoon that it is OBAMA who is being racist for criticising poor little Geraldine Ferraro ... which sounds an awful lot like a race-based dog whistle to voters in Pennsylvania ... are you willing to reconsider?

It is Hillary Clinton's campaign that is deliberately stirring up all this ugly stuff. They figure that they can win this way. They may be right.

They may be. Williams' comments today are deeply troubling. There is no shortage of white Americans--including white Democrats--who hear "That shrill and hypersensitive black guy is the racist for having the nerve to object to our saying he's winning because of his skin color" and blame the black guy for complaining. No small number of them live in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: shortstop on March 11, 2008 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

This fight between Obama and Clinton Is important, because IMO any democrat beats McCain in '08.

Now think how much it'd suck to vote for a corporate, triangulating, amoral, fear-mongering, Saddam-caused-911 believing, the-biggest-lie-is-the-lie-they'll-believe, lifetime-of-experience-singing-tour-of-Bosnia, Ireland-peace-[non]-maker, Fl-and-MI-are-eligible-after-they-weren't-eligible, crying-for-a-vote, can't-plan-a-campaign-after-Iowa, McCain-is-a-better-President-than-Obama, non-monster as far as I can tell, I mean as far as what she says she is, not a complete monster.

Posted by: absent observer on March 11, 2008 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

Geraldine Ferraro isn't being attacked because she's white. I think there are a lot of white people in this world who haven't been attacked, whether by Barack Obama or anyone else. Geraldine Ferraro is being attacked because she said that Obama wouldn't be here if he were a white man and that he's lucky he's black.

Posted by: jbryan on March 11, 2008 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum as concern troll? Things certainly are getting interesting this campaign season.

Seriously, I think Kevin is honestly missing the point here: this isn't about Clinton *being* racist, it's about her steadfast refusal to explain or otherwise take ownership of the racist tactics and racially-charged comments of her supporters (including the former President Clinton).

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on March 11, 2008 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Since the Democrats lost in 2004, why is this blue state, red state count relevant?"

Apparently one of Hillary's stronger arguments is that Obama won't be able to win Massachusetts. Or something.

Posted by: on March 11, 2008 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

Doug:
"Sparko @ 5:49PM - "But Obama supporters are sure mean, huh?"
No, simply condescending, childishly irritating, seemingly clueless about about how politics actually operate, and, apparently, unable to rationally face any opposition to their candidate."
I'm so confused. I thought this whole thread was about how Hillary supporters don't think the opposition is being friendly enough.

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Seriously, I think Kevin is honestly missing the point here: this isn't about Clinton *being* racist, it's about her steadfast refusal to explain or otherwise take ownership of the racist tactics and racially-charged comments of her supporters (including the former President Clinton).

He does seem to miss that point.

Posted by: antiphone on March 11, 2008 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Carolyn Kay

"Shouldn't he withdraw from the race too, then, if that's your standard?"

No - that's YOUR standard. And it isn't even coherent.

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

I'm an independent who leans Democratic, not a liberal. I came into this race fed up with republicans and relatively neutral towards both Hillary and Obama. I became more willing to read sites that lean Democratic, such as this one and others.

What I began to notice as time went on was Hillary's incredibly wide array of surrogates, including columnists like Paul Krugman, willing to say anything on her behalf and that turned me off of her and them as well.

I'm not gung ho for Obama, I do have questions about his experience. But it was the conduct of the Clinton campaign that put me in his corner.

Krugman, who is being held up in this posting as someone wise, was also someone who claimed falsely that Obama had praised Reagan's record, when he knew that Obama had not done that.

Posted by: Glacier on March 11, 2008 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently one of Hillary's stronger arguments is that Obama won't be able to win Massachusetts. Or something.

I always thought that argument was absurd. Obama will win all the "blue" states, and probably a few "red" ones this time around, regardless of whether Hillary won the primaries in states like New York.

Posted by: Ringo on March 11, 2008 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Ringo
"I always thought that argument was absurd."

You only say that because it's absurd.

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin - what, no Jesse Jackson reference?

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

First, Don, if we could go into the weeds for a bit: I've always been puzzled by your fascination with the SC memo. My sense is that it never made much of an impression on anyone because it was pretty fair and pretty much stuck to the facts. Sure, it had a point of view. But campaigns do need to (1) keep track of attacks and then (2) characterize those attacks for the sake of message discipline. You can be sure that every campaign has material like this on other candidates.

Now. You may not like the Obama camp's characterization in that memo, say, of the "fairytale" remark, quoting Brazile. But Brazile's a superdelegate, and if she has a negative take on a Clinton misstep (and the "fairytale" remark ultimately was ruled a misstep as it took on a life of its own), it would be just plain dumb not to quote her.

OK: as for restoring sanity in the blogosphere, I had this thought:

On NPR recently I heard an interesting report on postgame violence on college campuses. Turns out that lopsided wins and losses produced very little postgame turmoil. The police blotters show it's the close games (either close, last-second defeats OR victories) that produce the violence.

So I'd reason that they're burning sofas in the streets over in the kos diaries and calling Clinton a racist because it's feels like a close game when it should be over! And it's not over only because the other side, the Clinton side, seems like it's cheating in the worst way, intimidating the referees, pretending to be the underdog, illegal plays, and so forth. Reasonable commenters above--at least they seem reasonable to me--describe the cheating better than I can.

I think we'll see everyone calm down once Clinton concedes that she's lost this thing and does the gracious thing and bows out. JMHO.

Posted by: paxr55 on March 11, 2008 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

A typical Kevin Drum observation: he lists three or four substantial examples where Senator Clinton's actions have been outrageous or damaging, he admits that at least one of these - the McCain endorsement - is totally unacceptable. And then he says "but can't we all just get along and find some common ground? Let's come to a happy centrist compromise on this'.

Which is essentially what he said about the Fitzgerald investigation into the Libby treason too.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 11, 2008 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii, it looks like you're an apologist for Hillary and for racism too. The two things are becoming increasing analogous as this campaign drags on.

That's fine and all but don't pretend it is any more than that. I saw Mark Penn on MSNBC insinuating that Obama was a cocaine dealer. I heard Bill's "Jesse Jackson" remarks. And Cuomo's too (Karl Rove would have been proud of that shuck and jive remark to be sure). Oh and don't forget Bob Kerry's "secular madrassa" (whatever that is) remarks and the Clinton's non-denial denials about the picture in Drudge. And of course, I also heard both of Ferraro's comments on Obama as well as what Rendell has been saying about a black candidate in his state.

So sorry Don, the one getting played is you. You now find yourself in what is likely a unique position of defending and explaining away racism. That's you're perogative to be sure but let's call a spade a spade (a phrase we'll no doubt be soon hearing from team Hillary). Because of your support for Hillary you've been put in the sad position of trying to tell black people that the racism they see from the Hillary campaign isn't really racism.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: Dresden on March 11, 2008 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

paxr55, that's so unfair - Hillary has the momentum! Why, only a week ago, Rasmussen had Clinton up 48-43. Now, Obama is up 48-41.

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not gung ho for Obama, I do have questions about his experience. But it was the conduct of the Clinton campaign that put me in his corner.

I could have written this.

Up until a couple of months ago, I said they were both worthy candidates we could feel proud of.

Up until a few weeks ago, I said I'd cheerfully vote for either one of them in the general.

Two weeks ago, I said I'd cheerfully vote for Obama if he got the nomination and would vote for Hillary without grumbling if she did.

Last week, when she put into play her new "repeatedly claim the GOP guy is more qualified than my primary opponent" "strategy," she lost me forever. I no longer can pretend she's worthy of the presidency.

Because I care about the Supreme Court, the war, healthcare, economic insecurity and all the other issues which desperately cry out for a Democratic president, I'll vote for her if she convinces the superdelegates to override the intent of the electorate and violate reasonable people's sense of fair play. But it won't be with enthusiasm, cheer or even a lack of grumbling.

It'll be with an airsick bag and a deep contempt.

Posted by: shortstop on March 11, 2008 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Per everything Dresden said above. I don't actually agree with it, but I think it's one way Obama has an ace in the hole against the Republicans. The Clinton campaign has been saying things that can be interpreted in a bad light if people want to see it that way. I actually think it hurts Obama for his supporters to play it up that much in a democratic primary.

But the Republicans. Man, they are going to spend the whole summer apologizing. Because the lizard brain just has to go there. Hopefully the Obama campaign can just let them shoot themselves in the foot.

Posted by: enozinho on March 11, 2008 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, the genie is out of the bottle. She is now officially a card carrying racist and cannot be redeemed. Live by the race card - die by the race card,

Posted by: aline on March 11, 2008 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop at 8:26pm

Exactly.
Me too.
With a cherry on top.

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

I second that motion...

I supported Gore for 2008.. I supported Edwards for 2008... Then I shopped around... When I saw the conduct of the pro BO people and what they pulled out as racism... I got off the BO bus very quickly.. and have actually found Taylor Marsh to be refreshing and far more informative.

The TPM's, HP, FRDL, DL have fractured what could have been a movement. There is something called restraint.

If you really want some racist comments try this:

"Obama victory will prolong US racial divide - Times
One of Britain’s most influential black figures today accused Barack Obama of cynically exploiting America’s racial divide and gave warning that he could prolong, rather than heal the rift.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, claimed that the Democratic front-runner would ultimately disappoint the African-American community and dismissed the notion that he would be "the harbinger of a post-racial America" if he becomes the country’s first black President."


Ferrar's (sp) comments are quit tame as compared to this.

Posted by: MsComment on March 11, 2008 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK
a large part of the progressive movement seems to have lost its sanity..... Can we please bring some sanity back to the blogosphere? —Kevin Drum 3:51 P
How about some honesty? Why, pray tell, should someone withdraw because of what Obama supporters want? Secondly, according to polling , most Americans think McCain is C-in-C material (...When compared to either Democrat, McCain is rated as the "strongest leader." He easily outpaces both when voters are asked who has the "right experience to be president," beating Obama by 31 points and Clinton by 12....) . That is not an endorsement, just a statement of what people believe. Thirdly, what makes you think the utterly nasty Obama supporters are progressives? They endlessly recite disproved discredited Republican talking points. No progressive would believe or use Republican smear&lie rants.

Here's Eric Boehlert on
The Muslim question

....After parsing Clinton's answer and then conveniently setting aside key sections of it, journalists at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Time, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, among others, declared her response had been wholly deficient. Worse, Clinton's answer simply confirmed that she was running a "slimy," "nasty" contest. It was a "galling" comment; "the sleaziest moment of the campaign."
The only thing sleazy about the episode was the type of journalism being used to concoct a Clinton slur.
When people suggest that the press employs a separate standard for covering Clinton, this is the kind of episode they're talking about. There simply is no other candidate, from either party, who has had their comments, their fragments, dissected so dishonestly the way Clinton's have been.
The fact is, if you look at Clinton's exchange with Kroft in its entirety, which lasted less than one minute, I count eight separate times in which she either plainly denied the false claim that Obama was Muslim, labeled that suggestion to be a smear, or expressed sympathy for Obama having to deal with the Muslim innuendo. Eight times:...

I saw Mark Penn on MSNBC insinuating that Obama was a cocaine dealer.... Dresden at 8:19 PM
Actually, you didn't. Penn never made any such insulation, and the rest of your complaints are also equally off base. Posted by: Mike on March 11, 2008 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton does not kick her dog, as far as I know.

Posted by: dave Buchen on March 11, 2008 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

MsComment
Thank you for sharing those racist comments. Remind me whom you are supporting?

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop: Ditto, ditto, ditto.

Posted by: jbryan on March 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Mike at 8:38
"That is not an endorsement, just a statement of what people believe. "
That's either stupid or mendacious.
Hillary didn't state what "people believe", she stated what SHE believes, and apparently she believes that McCain is CinC material and Obama isn't. If that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Neddy Seagoon on March 11, 2008 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

"That is not an endorsement, just a statement of what people believe. "

Typical Fox News framing. "Some say..."

Posted by: enozinho on March 11, 2008 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

If you really want some racist comments try this:

Actually I don’t see how what you posted is racist MsComment. An unsupported argument by assertion yes, but not racist.

Posted by: antiphone on March 11, 2008 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

For me this is very simple. For a woman with "35 years of experience" she has a run an unbelievably bad campaign. It was hers to lose and she's almost certainly lost it. Now she's decided on a scorched earth "either I'm the democrat to go to the general election or I'll do my damnedest to make sure the other democrat doesn't win" policy. She can go straight to hell at this point as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: vrk on March 11, 2008 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK
it's one way Obama has an ace in the hole against the Republicans.....enozinho at 8:28 PM
Since racism is a core value of Republicans, it isn't.
.... the genie is out of the bottle. She is now officially a card carrying racist and cannot be redeemed. Live by the race card - die by the race card, aline at 8:30 PM
You should read to and learn from someone who knows whereof he speaks about playing the race card

How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton

After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between
Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated,
deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign.....While promoting Obama as a"post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what
historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with importantportions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to stripaway her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educatedwhite liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized thecampaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters,well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and
thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political
pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters...

Typical Fox News framing. "Some say..." enozinho at 8:44 PM
The poll cited had 61% positive on McCain. That's not "some" nor was the remark "some say." Posted by: Mike on March 11, 2008 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Dresden: "Donald from Hawaii, it looks like you're an apologist for Hillary and for racism too. ... So sorry Don, the one getting played is you. You now find yourself in what is likely a unique position of defending and explaining away racism."

You know, I don't have to explain anything of the sort -- nor will I, especially to someone whose mind is clearly closed on the subject.

If you want to insist on parsing others' statements in a manner that allows you to cast aspersions on their motives, just so you can revel in your own self-proclaimed victimhood, then you go right ahead.

But remeber this: You play the victim often enough, and you run a great risk of creating your own self-fulfilling prophesy.

And to repeat what I said further upthread, "embarking on a fishing expedition for even the minutest signs of racism within the context of any white candidate's political campaign and personal life ... is in itself a racist act that is both intellectually fraudulent and emotionally violent."

(Emphasis added.)

And I'll stand on that, Dresden, and bid you Aloha.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 11, 2008 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

And another thing:

Remember when the gov of Pennsylvania said: You know, some white people won't vote for a black candidate.

That is true, but if Clinton had a sense of honor, she would have said something like what Edwards had said: If you are voting for me because I'm white and a man, than I don't want your vote.

Posted by: dave Buchen on March 11, 2008 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I am very disappointed with Orlando Patterson. He has jumped the shark. I say this as a black person. He is usually one of those commentators who doesn't cry racism for something that is non-existant but in this instance he definately has. While I was disappointed with the ad becauuse of its fearmongering there was nothing there to suggest that it was racist. Shame on Orlando Patterson.

Posted by: Micheline on March 11, 2008 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well, not everyone can display the cool maturity of a post like this.

Bitch, please. I'm the only Cool Hand Luke left on this thread...

Well that oughta be easy for a genuine son of a bitch.

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

Since racism is a core value of Republicans

Yes, that's correct.

Posted by: enozinho on March 11, 2008 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

This argument might have had some merit before Geraldine Ferraro's comments today. I hope this post will get an update or a retraction.

Posted by: Steve Simitzis on March 11, 2008 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Via Kos

"And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Posted by: enozinho on March 11, 2008 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

But remeber this: You play the victim often enough, and you run a great risk of creating your own self-fulfilling prophesy.

yes, Hillary, yes. that's a very true statement.

Posted by: e1 on March 11, 2008 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Donald spare me the contortions and the indignation. It is what it is. Clinton and her campaign has been blowing racist dog whistles for months now and there was no one more shocked by it than me. I am not the only person who feels the Clinton camp has been engaged in this garbage so you to simply brush it aside as others playing the "victim" is more telling than you realize.

The Clinton's clearly have a strategy (as their non-reaction to Ferraro's comments demonstrate) to play racial divisions in Pennsylvania in an appeal to working class whites. That all of these participants on a quasi-liberal blog don't get this is mind boggling. If Bush and his surrogates were saying these things people on this blog would be coming out of their skin.

I guess it's not racist when the Clintons do it?

I had a somewhat conservative Republican friend tell me that during this campaign I was going to find out a lot about all of the so-called racially open-minded people who call themselves Dems and liberals. He was right.

Posted by: on March 11, 2008 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, one of my early reasons for leaning towards Obama was the racially tinged commentary from some of my older, Hillary supporting relatives. This obviously had nothing to do with Hillary or her campaign. It just didn't seem like a team I wanted to be on. I've been giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt, assuming I would support her if things shook out that way. This Ferraro mess has done it for me though - not the comments alone (surrogates say crazy things), but the response from her campaign. It rings of every mediocre crybaby that doesn't get into the college of their first choice and looks for someone to blame. This is a campaign that deserves to fail.

Posted by: Christian on March 11, 2008 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

[Deleted Content]

Posted by: LarryM on March 11, 2008 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, Hillary should concede graciously... Just like Al Gore did...

Both have similar programs and both have clay feet. I voted for Hillary, but should Obama win, hell, I'll join his campaign, work on the phones, anything but a republican president.

But if Obama, with the press on his side, can't handle Clinton, how will he succeed against the Republicans?

Posted by: damneddem on March 11, 2008 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK


Have you moronic Obamazooids even considered how this racists rhetoric makes you look? I mean, when the smoke clears and the history is written, what the hell do you think is going to be written about you bunch of overzealous Obama supporters?

Clinton has fought for civil rights her entire life. In appreciation, you cannot wait to take the smallest of phrases out of context to make people believe she's the grand pooba of the KKK.

I thought Obama was running against the politics of old? Maybe he should give some of his supporters a little talking to.

Oh wait! He called you to this action, didn't he..

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin you are wrong about this. Hard nosed politics is one thing. Appealing to lizard brain manipulation is another, and it is absolutely unacceptable.

Posted by: c4logic on March 11, 2008 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

why on earth, after so many defeats, you would want someone in office who won't fight with every ounce he or she has to win?

Win? What does the president "win" exactly?

Politics is not the same thing as governing.

Stubbornness in the face of unfriendly facts is not "leadership." (see Bush, George W.)

Hillary should stick it out as long as she wants. I think Obama can handle anything she dishes out. Nothing has proved fatal so far. If she does manage to knock him out with one of her hail mary efforts, then he probably deserved it.

Posted by: lobbygow on March 11, 2008 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Paul Krugman is wrong, did you actually link a tiny blog entry Kevin?

Posted by: leo on March 11, 2008 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

This is exactly why Hillary supporters will not support Obama (if god forbid) he is the nominee. We will not support any nominee who has systematically led a campaign to paint Hillary Clinton as a racist.

Posted by: Jack on March 11, 2008 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

I was neutral on this race after my guy(s) were the first to go.

I am now so strongly in the Clinton camp, I will have to begrudgingly vote for Obama should he prevail. I detest the Daily Kos type liars and whiners; I have learned to detest Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz for their dishonest radiothon shilling for Obama. I can no longer watch Olbermann since he has joined their despicable camp. Obama is proving to be nothing more than a modern day Elmer Gantry and the progressive left are his flock.

Hillary, do not give up the fight until 2025 delegates is reached, hopefully by your, or the other guy!

Posted by: Newport News Dem on March 11, 2008 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

91% of black voters in MS voted for the black candidate. This is conclusive proof of racism on the part of Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Observer#69 on March 11, 2008 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

But if Obama, with the press on his side, can't handle Clinton, how will he succeed against the Republicans?

This statement is an example of a silly statement gaining legitimacy through having been repeated so many times.

One of the candidates has stayed cool in responding to his opponent's criticisms. The other stages screaming fits that become YouTube entertainment.

One of the candidates, a much less seasoned politician, has built a phenomenal campaign on a combination of new media and traditional grassroots support, and his votes show it. The other, the wife of a two-term president and co-head of a long-established political organization, can't even organize a simple caucus, then whines about the unfairness of asking committed Democrats--supposedly her base--to come out for her.

One of the candidates has weathered what his opponent proudly calls the "kitchen sink" of attacks and has just erased the few delegates his opponent managed to scrape up in three states that were supposed to be wildly favorable to her.

He's always led in delegates and popular vote; now, after the big Clinton attack he supposedly couldn't deal with, he's leading by even more and has regained the top poll spot nationally (not that national polls mean anything--again, see SUSA's state-by-state matchups).

Who can't handle it?

Posted by: shortstop on March 11, 2008 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

just erased the few delegates should have been just erased the few-delegate lead. Apologies.

Posted by: shortstop on March 11, 2008 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

damneddem said:

But if Obama, with the press on his side, can't handle Clinton, how will he succeed against the Republicans?


I dunno, damneddem. I think the press is on their OWN side.

And the Clinton campaign has been playing the press like a fiddle for the last two weeks -- framing the debate Hillary's way, allowing her to create phony little news moments and tempests, letting Clinton's surrogates trash Obama and "raise questions" about his character and record... things that drown out the real campaign, and substitute a media soap opera.

And while doing this, the press continually downplay Obama's responses or portray him as being on the ropes ... asking if he can possibly come back at this point, and wasn't it generous of Hillary Clinton to offer him the VP spot.

And the press has eaten this big stinking heap of fake news and BS and personal attacks up with a spoon, because it makes for great television.

If the press was really in Obama's corner, and biased in his favor, they wouldn't be doing this.

-- Bokonon

Posted by: Bokonon on March 11, 2008 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Huh? Suppose she beats Obama in PA.

Then suppose Obama either screws the pooch by disenfranchising the voters in FL and MI with a nasty credentials fight, or lets them revote -- he loses either way.

I do understand how the OFB would want to frame everything in terms of pledged delegates, but there are plenty of scenarios where the outcome is positive for Hillary, so how is she not in the race?

The premature triumphalism of the Obama forces is really grating -- almost as grating as the smears of racism (in no way equivalent to the toxicity of the C-i-C stuff), or with the outright Hillary hatred and gross misogyny.

Nor is premature triumphalism any better for the party than false accusations of racism or hatred of women. The long race is sucking all the oxygen away from McCain, it's keeping interest and turnout high, and heck, people might even be learning something. What's not to like?

Posted by: lambert strether on March 11, 2008 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

she is an insane nacissist

Ah, yes. How refreshing. The "casual poetry" of Obama's Fan Base. How refreshing to meet such a nice, inclusive group of people!

Posted by: Lambert Strether on March 11, 2008 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Mrs. Clinton should not withdraw, Obama is not entitled to the nomination, he does not have 2025 delegates, it is ridiculous to ask her to withdraw, how arrogant of people to ask that.

Posted by: pat on March 11, 2008 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Obama's constant playing of the race card has turned him into the black candidate. See exit polls from MS please. There is no large cohort of A-A's and liberal college students he can suck in.

Demographics are a stubborn thing. He can no longer win the general election and should drop out now.

Posted by: RalphB on March 11, 2008 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

...can't even organize a simple caucus, then whines about the unfairness of asking committed Democrats--supposedly her base--to come out for her.

Yeah shorty, caucuses are Democratic.

Unless your elderly and can't endure it, or a working joe who can't get off. Or a single mother who can't leave her kids alone. Or a soldier stationed abroad. Or a police officer/fireman on the wrong shift. And so on, and so on...

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

This is a tough issue. Ferrarro is obviously correct. Why should it be viewed as racist to point out something that is true, even if unfortunate? With Obama getting 90% of the black vote (due to understandable, but still racist reasaons), he probably needs to get only about 30 to 40% of the non-black vote to win an overall majority and in some states far less.

The best answer to the racial issue would have been for the first legitimate black presidential candidate to be republican. That obviously has not happened. So I think the democrats and the country will need to take some more racial lumps. Adding to the problem is that he probably will be nominiated and then lose, causing further racial recriminations. It will be important for Obama to handle such a loss without blaming race and then for the Republicans to get on the stick and develop a legitimate black candidate.

He makes a long mistake in crying racism about stuff said by the Clinton folks. He ought to try to stay above it and in some fashion disavow identity politics. I don't expect it, or really even know how he could do it. Sad problem. Most of us don't care about his race, but he is stuck wiht both the benefits and the problems of it.

Posted by: brian on March 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, after a post like this you really owe us some kind of update in light of Geraldine Ferraro's comments. If Ms. Ferraro had just said her initial bit it would've been bad enough - but then going out and saying it again? And now of course Hillary Clinton has had a chance to evaluate Ms. Ferraro's comments and all she was able to muster was disagreement. Nothing more. So, in light of the Ferraro comments and the context of the campaign's history with such comments (let's just restrict our attention to matters before South Carolina if that makes you more comfortable), do you still stick by your claim that "a large part of the progressive movement seems to have lost its sanity"?

I don't appreciate that kind of condescension - I'm not an idiot, my day job involves carefully weighing evidence for and against phenomena. A cool, reasoned, dispassionate reading of Ms. Ferraro's comments should lead anyone to conclude that it is not only factually incorrect, but outrageously racist in precisely the way designed to maximally damage a fellow Democrat (in playing up historical tensions surrounding affirmative action). It's not insane to call out this racism for what it is.

Posted by: reader on March 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

[Deleted Content]

Posted by: LarryM on March 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

Huh? Suppose she beats Obama in PA.

She will. And he will erase all or most of the extra delegates she gets from PA in NC. He still leads.

Then suppose Obama either screws the pooch by disenfranchising the voters in FL and MI with a nasty credentials fight, or lets them revote -- he loses either way.

Given that he's said all along that he'll go along with whatever the DNC decides, the suggestion that he might push FL and MI's disenfranchisement of their own voters all the way to the convention seems rather wild. No, it'll be a revote, and she will gain extra delegates in FL; he'll pretty much tie her in MI. He still leads.

Look, time to face reality. The only way she can win this going forward is by convincing superdelegates to overturn his delegate lead and/or poaching caucus or pledged delegates. I realize many of her supporters are okay with that. But then you should say so, instead of pretending there's any possibility of her making up pledged delegates now.

The long race is sucking all the oxygen away from McCain, it's keeping interest and turnout high, and heck, people might even be learning something. What's not to like?

Actually, it's sucking dollars, time and resources away from fighting McCain and positioning the Democratic party as too divided to beat the GOP. Argue that HRC deserves to fight it out to the last moment if you like, but kindly spare us the ridiculous argument that it's good for the party--or, by extension since we need to win in November, the country.

Posted by: shortstop on March 11, 2008 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

This campaign probably will last at least through June. It's close enough so neither candidate to drop out until all the voting is done.

So there is no point in wishing it to happen, in my view.

And look.. while I didn't care for Ferraro's comments... I think it was silly to demand that she'd resign. People need to chill out a little. Call her on it, but then move on.

Posted by: PE on March 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

Racism permeates this campaign on both sides. Both candidates have played the card. Its just subtle and undercover. Screaming about Geraldine Ferraro isn't going to stop millions of Americans from silently agreeing with her any more than its going to stop millions of African Americans from believing Hillary Clinton is now a member of the Klan. The media keeps fanning this stuff. The Althouse nuttiness, the dark photo accusation, the Hillary didn't make it clear Obama wasn't a Muslim incident, it just goes on and on. The Times didn't have to publish that crackpot Patterson oped but it did. It only served to polorize people more. You cannot play these kinds of games with race without someone getting burned. Its going to end badly, mark my words.

Posted by: aline on March 11, 2008 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

"The 'casual poetry' of Obama's Fan Base."

Happy to be first to suggest Ms Ferraro as the official "company poet" of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Ah, what an inspiration for us all... particularly those young women searching for role models:

Ma Clinton and Auntie Remus-Ferraro, now there walk heros!

Posted by: leo on March 11, 2008 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I can't agree with you on the 60 Minutes. Ms. Clinton planted seeds of uncertainty regarding O'Bama's religion. It was underhanded and intentional. She has been a lawyer for more than 35 years and is well aware of a qualifing phrase at the end of a sentence. Believe, a good lawyer does that sort of thing all the time. While I agree that she would be a good candidate, don't believe for a moment what she didn't wasn't thought out.

Posted by: William Jensen on March 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

I think that Dresden's comments earlier have been prophetic. Hillary has effected the Bubba strategy to "win" the white rural voters of PA, while conceding the black urban voters. But what kind of strategy is that?? How would she ever hope to win the election without black voters? How ironic that Kevin posts a complaint about Hillary's treatment when her surrogate is waaaay out there with a racist construct. Ferraro's statements are code speak we white voters have heard before--Obama is taking the job of a deserving white candidate, and otherwise would not even be close to Hillary. It is a jaw-dropping strategy. Hillary's campaign managers have officially lost their grip on reality. Hillary's staff has already defended Ferraro tonight, and are leaving this tantalizing nugget out there for white voters. UNBELIEVABLE. Kevin, you owe us all an apology. I guess I'll go sip some latte and wait for the final margin of Obama's victory tonight (he has completely vanquished Hillary's Republican majorities in Ohio and Texas now).

Posted by: Sparko on March 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

(Ah, I believe we have a ringer in "Larry." Overplayed your hand there, pal.)

Well, elmo, I would point out that the Clintons have been through the caucus process many times before, so they should know how it's done, and yet the first time they've gone on record with this "It's not fair!" stuff is during this primary season, when they couldn't get it together and Obama's people could. It is freaking embarrassing that she was saying two days before Texas that no one in her campaign got how the system there works--and that's only one example in many. She simply did not plan past Feb. 5.

Look, her ground operation is a shambles, and it all goes to lack of organizing and an archaic top-down shop. As someone correctly pointed out, "Caucuses are undemocratic" is spin for "Oh, damn, we totally blew it."

If you seriously believe the primary system should be reformed, I look forward to hearing what you do between this election and the next to make that happen. Right now, the system we have is the system we have, and the person who figured out how to succeed within it and get people to turn out in extraordinary numbers wins, unless Clinton can convince the supers to give her what she couldn't get herself out in the states.

Do you begin to see why blowing off and mocking small states and trying to leverage a win through only a few big states is a bad idea?

I am totally hogging this thread. Apologies to all and I'll pipe down now.

Posted by: shortstop on March 11, 2008 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

The only way she can win this going forward is by convincing superdelegates to overturn his delegate lead and/or poaching caucus or pledged delegates. I realize many of her supporters are okay with that.

Well, no shit! That's how the process works. But I think you should hang tough, he may win. But so may she...

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

No, PE, I disagree.

It is ENTIRELY appropriate to demand that the Clinton campaign repudiate Ferraro's remarks, or ask that she leave the campaign.

Remember the "monster" comment just three days ago? Remember the Clinton campaign getting the vapors, and trying to dominate the news for days with the shock and outrage that someone in Obama's campaign could SAY such a terrible thing?

The fact that the Clinton people are now shuffling their feet and sneering and thumbing their nose over Ferraro is very telling. This is a deliberate hit job -- and, yeah, it is design to exploit racial divisions in the Democratic party.

And here is the point -- if Obama does not respond forcefully, the Clinton campaign will use this against him, to further their claims that he is weak, inexperienced, can't handle the media, is too nice, etc. The same way they did when they put him on the defensive in Ohio and Texas.

-- Bokonon

Posted by: Bokonon on March 11, 2008 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

The anger in this tread is simply amazing.

Obama supporters, look at the numbers. Hillary is toast. Even if she wins PA she looses NC two weeks later. The delegate count is about the same. PA is a wash. All Obama has to do in PA is stay within hailing distance, maybe 60/40. Any chance Hillary is going to win by 20 points in PA. The vote is already split in Philly.

Start extending your hands to the Clintonistas. We Democrats are going to need their help in the fall. Over the next six weeks reality is going to sink in.

Offer a do over in Michigan. Remember 40% of the electorate came out to vote none of the above. The latest polls show Hillary and Barack tied.

Offer to give Hillary Florida (I don't really think that is good for the party, but it will shut Hillary supporters up.) The way the races are playing out giving Hillary isn't going to matter.

Enough already with feeding the Clinonista crazy. Obama supporters, it is time to be gracious winners.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

What team Hillary doesn't understand is that she cannot be President in 2008 (and after the last 10 days or so, probably ever). It's just not going to happen for her.

The only way she gets the nomination is to get the Supers to overturn the pledged delegates. If she gets the nomination that way there is exactly a zero percent chance she wins in November. Even worse, the Democratic Party as we know it will be dead; we won't win the WH for a generation. The math doesn't work for her no matter how much team Hillary kicks and screams about it. The contest is over and all she's doing is hurting our chances to win in November.

It's not about her anymore she just doesn't know it yet.

Posted by: AJ on March 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

"loses" not "looses."

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 11, 2008 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

Lets get the facts straight people obama is the one that played the race card in SC and again in MS, OBAMA NEEDS TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THE RACE! HE WILL NEVER WIN THE NOMINATION AND GUESS WHAT HILLARY SUPPORTERS WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA, BECAUSE OF THE SLEAZE HE IS AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE TRUST ME MCCAIN WILL WIN IF OBAMA IS THE NOMINEE!!

obama runs the sleaziest and militant style campaign I have ever seen.

The New Republic
Race Man by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008

"After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap bhttp://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
etween Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is."

"While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics."

". A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students"

"Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27104

Posted by: sjl on March 11, 2008 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Right now, the system we have is the system we have...

That's right, see you at the convintion.

Do you begin to see why blowing off and mocking small states and trying to leverage a win through only a few big states is a bad idea?

Yeah, I mock small and big red states all the time. Do you think it is strategically sound to leverage your primary fight on red states while dissing the states that have lost the elections for us the last two cycles?

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

Deja vu...

If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she (Ferraro) said.

Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.

Here's the full context:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."


Posted by: Steve Crickmore on March 11, 2008 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

Enough already with feeding the Clinonista crazy. Obama supporters, it is time to be gracious winners.

Nice try shithead. We all know who started the craziness, and it wasn't us Hillaroids.

The math doesn't work for her no matter how much team Hillary kicks and screams about it.

LOL. Do tell, how does the "math" work for Obama? Tell me, dear fart, how does he get 2025?

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

I read Sean Wilentz's piece "Race Man" in its entirety and I didn't find it a balanced attempt to discover the truth.

Posted by: PE on March 11, 2008 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

When Hillary takes PA, FL & MI again obama is history the SD aren't going to give obama the nominee when he cant carry the most important states. And because their are many states that are racially divided SC, NV, FL, OH, AR, OK, TN, and the fact that obama won't win many Hillary supporters, Latino's McCain will win. And Hillary is RIGHT McCain has passed the threshold of National Security obama has not. He hasn't passed any test to claim the Presidency. Sorry his support of snot nosed punks do not impress me and the media marketing of obama being the second coming has been completely disgusting.

Posted by: SJL on March 11, 2008 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

Elmo: you are a Republican troll. You have been setting off stink bombs here for weeks, and as far as I can tell, must only pretend to support Hillary. You and McCain have some anger issues you can work out at the BBQ.

Posted by: Sparko on March 11, 2008 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

As far as I'm concerned, she's on her own. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

A-fucking-men.

Posted by: Econobuzz on March 11, 2008 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

One sensible thing I read somewhere said that if Hillary is really such an irrelevancy, why isn't Obama concentrating all his resources against McCain? Maybe the Obama people can just persuade McCain to give up, too.

And as for the Hillary supports McCain over Obama brouhaha, I thought the point was, since she's more experienced(in her opinion), she's a better match for McCain in the general.

I slightly prefer HRC, but would be happy to vote for Obama as well.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on March 11, 2008 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

Und wieder, SJL. GOP talking points. I think what frustrates me is, that for the FIRST time in American history, we have a chance to rise above racism and elect a Black president. And we have Hillary and her people working overtime to stop it from happening. Just incredible what some of you have become. What an immensely brave, patient, and wonderful man Obama must be to suffer these indignities and take on bravely the concomitant danger of daring to change hundreds of years of institutional prejudice. It was a hard slog. I do so want to watch him victorious. I do so want this country to embrace what it means to be a multi-ethnic society. And I want us to move away forever from the Ferarro calculus.

Posted by: Sparko on March 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

SJL.. If Hillary does all that, perhaps she will be the nominee. Still, I don't understand why you can't see that there are good Democrats voting for both candidates. I also personally believe that both Clinton and Obama are qualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: PE on March 11, 2008 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Horatio

Obama has to keep playing until the game is over. That doesn't mean the fans can't start celebrating.

It is time for us to start working on beating McCain and every other Republican we can identify. There is too much work to be done on the down ballot races to obsess over Hillary.

By the way, if Obama doesn't win with the lead he possesses, he will have deserved to lose. I will support Hillary in the fall. Not giving Bush a third damn term is too important.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 11, 2008 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

Sparko..

This is also the first time to elect a woman President and I know many women who are deeply disappointed.

That doesn't mean we have to give Clinton the nomination, but I think it's important to understand that a lot of women, especially older women, have been lookng forward to this year as their chance.

Posted by: PE on March 11, 2008 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

KB on March 11, 2008 at 6:43 PM:

Politicians who've firmly pushed back and then risen above it all..

You have any better solution other than to become as bad as your opponent? What exactly would you be willing to do to win, KB?

Wouldn't it have been nice if Al Gore had been willing to win at all costs?

Nope. He wouldn't be one of the Good Guys if he operated that way.

And then, too, held to that in the White House..

If wishes and buts were acorns and nuts, we'd all be happy fat squirrels.

But shoot, we're not willing to win at all costs, and so ... those other guys keep winning..

Like they did in 2006?

It's all just too too bad for the poor and the dead. But at least we honorable souls feel good about ourselves.

I understand the sentiment, but I don't agree with it. Power corrupts people, especially those who are willing to compromise their good ethics even with the best of intentions.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 11, 2008 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Elmo: you are a Republican troll.

Keep working on that meme, Sparko-matic, and see where it gets ya. Just ask Geoffrey at Dog Snot Diaries, or Gunz and Glory, or Mike's America, or Cabe at The Federalist Solution? And the countless other wingnuts who just folded or censored me because they are pussies just like you. I've been around, mother fucker.

I don't give two shits what you think of me. I'm a wingnuts worst nightmare, and have proved it on a regular basis...

http://blindintexas.blogspot.com/

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Elmo just made my GreaseMonkey censor list!! Yayy!!1!One!

For your benefit, here are the other lucky losers:

"mhr", "gregor", "egbert", "Nathan", "ex-liberal", "Marlowe", "Al", "rnc", "Norman Rogers", "TLB", "Hacksaw", "livermoron", "snick", "Alan Vanneman", "Yancey Ward", "Orwell", "pnut", "harry", "Frank J.", "DBL", "bordercrossing", "plunge", "Brian", "minion", "Luther", "daveinboca", "Pat", "majarosh" , "theAmericanist", "The Objective Historian", "elmo"

Speak up if you feel you've been unfairly banned. Oh wait! I can hear what you post. shame. :(

Posted by: absent observer on March 11, 2008 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, shouldn't you update your comments in light of the Ferraro comments?

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

That's apparently the polite society/Limousine Liberal way of calling Obama's supporters "n*gger lovers".

In case you're wondering whether she regretted her comments, it gets worse:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Get it? She's accusing the Obama campaign of pulling the race card for everything. Any time anyone one in any way attacks Obama, the Obama camp responds by pulling the race card and calling people racist. How unhinged is that?

If those words came out of Dick Cheney's mouth Democrats would be screaming to high heaven. Oh, but they came out of a Clinton supporter's mouth, so it's okay... which really goes a long way in exposing Hillary's supporters as being every bit as amoral and ruthless as Bush's supporters: your side can say or do anything to win.

And in the same manner:

"Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist," she said. "I will not be discriminated against because I'm white. If they think they're going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don't know me."

Sound vaguely familiar? It's sounds an awful like a less thinly veiled version of Republican efforts to tap resentment of affirmative action by lower middle class whites. It's great because it absolves the speaker of any responsibility for their words, actions, or plight and instead converts it into scapegoating minorities and/or race politics.

And as Steve Crickmore has pointed out (thank you for sharing Steve!), Ferraro has used very similar, racially charged comments before against Jesse Jackson.

Her comments further undermine what little plausible deniability Bill Clinton had to argue his comments about Jackson winning in South Carolina (to dismiss Obama's win there) were not racially charged.

Will Hillary swiftly "reject" and "condemn" Ferraro's comments? We'll see. But given that we haven't seen any statements from the Clinton camp yet show up online yet, it really smells of a deliberate plan to test the reaction of voters and the media to racially charged attacks before they distance themselves, pro forma.

So apparently race is a perfectly acceptable wedge issue for the Clintons to use... sorry, for the Clinton SURROGATES to use (because I'm sure they'll tell us with innocently blinking eyes that they didn't coordinate any of this, because you know, those naive innocent Clinton folks are too innocent for this type of thing).

Give me a break.

Posted by: Augstus on March 11, 2008 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

PE: while I understand the point of the first woman president, any candidate who has pulled out the knifes and tries to permanently dame his or her opponent is damaged goods. She is doing Limbaugh's work now. It is sad to see. A woman of accomplishment will be the first of her gender to be president very soon. I expect Obama's running mate will be a woman. Hillary was always going to be a polarizing force. I wish she had realized her weakness as a candidate, and not bought the flawed advice of her entourage.

Posted by: Sparko on March 11, 2008 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Permanently "damn" not dame. I am a terrible typist, Mr. Freud. Yow.

Posted by: Sparko on March 11, 2008 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

I think what frustrates me is, that for the FIRST time in American history, we have a chance to rise above racism and elect a Black president. And we have Hillary and her people working overtime to stop it from happening.

So now we are just plain racists for simply supporting Hillary? I'd punch you in the fucking face if you were in front of me. And my boys(some of whom support Obama) would get a few shots in too...

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, I completely agree. Sad to see our side getting fever-swampy.

Posted by: Dan K. on March 11, 2008 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

Geraldine Ferraro: “I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

That’s idiotic. On top of the original racist comment.
And all Hillary can say is that she "does not agree?"
Weak.

Posted by: twc on March 11, 2008 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

absent observer, you crack me up. I've bitch slapped every dickhead on your list, including myself...

Posted by: elmo on March 11, 2008 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary was always going to be a polarizing force. I wish she had realized her weakness as a candidate

LOL. The only think weak is your pansy ass rhetoric. Why are you so afraid to take this thing to the convention? Does the Democratic process scare the shit out of you?

Posted by: on March 11, 2008 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'm just waiting for someone to call her a whore cuz every other insult has been used up. Who cares if it's not fair, she's just a woman.

Posted by: Pete on March 11, 2008 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

(unidentified): "Donald spare me the contortions and the indignation. It is what it is. Clinton and her campaign has been blowing racist dog whistles for months now and there was no one more shocked by it than me."

Yeah, I just bet you're "shocked."

You are a coward who can't even bring himself to provide an ID. Well, you'll have the fuckin' vapors when you read my response.

You're but one of a loud little obnoxious handful of Obama supporters, who somehow feel entitled to freely toss accusations of racism at those who disagree with you, like some department store Santa throwing pieces of candy at children watching a Christmas parade.

Well, you and your cohorts ought to take a good long look in the mirror. With your rancid, hyper-partisan -- and yes, patently racist -- attitudes, you will deserve exactly what you get, and what's coming to you.

You are working so very hard to marginalize yourselves within the greater fabric of American society, as indicated by the vote in Mississippi today, and you don't even realize it.

No doubt you will probably succeed, and then proceed to blame everyone else when people have become so alienated from your movement that they no longer want to listen to your complaints about getting screwed, even when those complaints are justified.

You best understand this: To the majority of white Americans, false and / or overblown accusations of racism, especially when done for political purposes, are no better the bona fide racism offered by the KKK's Imperial Wizard and his white citizens' councils.

You might well win this particular battle in the trenches. But in so doing, you will have forever forfeited the political high ground. You're willingly casting aside a century and a half's worth of moral authority, and doing so in a shockingly casual manner, on behalf of a smooth-talking, self-absorbed narcissist.

Shame on you.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 12, 2008 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

I can't think it helps matters, absent observer, but agree that elmo is one of the very worst.

I miss Norman, in his most recent incarnation.

But the prospect of never hearing from elmo again -- well

Posted by: paxr55 on March 12, 2008 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Wow. And to think I once voted for Geraldine Ferraro. Has she really harbored these kinds of racist resentments all along?

This sure looks like the Clintons are trying to goad Obama into an "angry black man" reaction.

Posted by: Hyde on March 12, 2008 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

"I can't think it helps matters, absent observer," . . .

My apologies. I meant, I can't think it (meaning my opinion) matters . . .

I thought your list was spot on.

elmo was possessed. I should have seen it much earlier. It must have been the red fur and the goggle eyes.

Posted by: paxr55 on March 12, 2008 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Just about every half way conscious political animal who opposes W. Bush policies is frustrated and aggressive over the events of the past seven years. Hostility is revealed during the inevitable disagreements among competing solutions that the nominating race represents. I hope our hostility continues to build and becomes a mass of discontent that gives the next Democratic president a landslide victory, yet becomes even more powerful after the inauguration and leads to withdrawal from Iraq and forces a real change in the nation's priorities.

Posted by: Brojo on March 12, 2008 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop: "Well, elmo, I would point out that the Clintons have been through the caucus process many times before, so they should know how it's done, and yet the first time they've gone on record with this "It's not fair!" stuff is during this primary season, when they couldn't get it together and Obama's people could. ... She simply did not plan past Feb. 5."

You're absolutely right. And when you're right, you're right.

Mrs. Clinton entered the race with a strategy befitting one who was unnecessarily and undeservedly overconfident. The Obama campaign deserves all the credit in the world for basically out-campaigning her at nearly every turn.

That being said, she doesn't deserve the accusations of racism now being freely leveled at her by Obama supporters. Neither she nor her husband are racist in any common sense of that term, and a tremendous disservice and wrong are being done to both of them.

As it stands, the Obama campaign is going to soon find itself having to repair a lot of bridges they've burned with members of their own party, and convince many of us that it is indeed much more than its own candidate's vanity project.

John McCain is no George W. Bush; he's an attractive candidate to many Americans. So the Obama campaign better not find itself in the same position as Clinton did after Feb. 5. They need to develop a good second act with substance, because absent that, the old man will take Barack to school.

I've got to go to work, slinging drinks. Take care.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 12, 2008 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK

Check out Howard Fineman on Olbermann. Holy Crap!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23572232#23582781

Posted by: Mike in Texas on March 12, 2008 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

can't think it helps matters, absent observer, but agree that elmo is one of the very worst.

Shit, you haven't seen nothing yet, wait till the wingnuts get here. However, by then you'll be thanking your lucky stars I'm here to hold them off. But don't worry, I'll remember to pick you up out of the corner...

Posted by: elmo on March 12, 2008 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

http://tinyurl.com/2axe2r

Kathy Callahan:
"I happily donated $2,000. They had my VISA card on file. Unauthorized donations were made.

In addition, I was actually double charged for an event that I did attend.

Smoking gun: $5,800 is $1,200 over the legal limit.

I would say this in a court of law. I am an honest person...the following statement is true down to the letter:

Matt McQuenney who works in the compliance department at HRC headquarters told me verbatim -"What happened to you with credit card errors is happening to others,. You are not alone. Kathy, I'm trying hard to find out where and who it's coming from. What's going on!""

Read the whole thing at the link. It's despicable. I wonder how many she's screwing like this who are too embarrassed to come forward? McCain isn't the only one breaking campaign finance law. This has got to stop.


This woman is a fraud. There is no Kathy Callahan licensed to practice psychotherapy in NJ or NY. I checked out all her information at opensecrets...you must list your employer or none as well as your occupation when you donate to a candidate. While the hospitals do exist she can't possibly work there if she is not licensed. My best guess is this was a credit card scam. STOP PERPETUATING THIS OUTRIGHT LIE...DO THE RESEARCH...you can find if a person is licensed to work in a state by searching in the state's databanks as I did in NJ and NY.

Posted by: navyvet48 on March 12, 2008 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

Um, what about the subtle meme emanating from the Clinton campaign that there's something sinister, unnatural or foolish about Obama supporters' enthusiasm--what are they implying, exactly? That no rational person could willingly choose to strongly support an African American candidate for President?

Posted by: Varecia on March 12, 2008 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii: "...As it stands, the Obama campaign is going to soon find itself having to repair a lot of bridges they've burned with members of their own party, and convince many of us that it is indeed much more than its own candidate's vanity project..."

And the Clintons are SO free of vanity and ego!

Posted by: Varecia on March 12, 2008 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

what are they implying, exactly? That no rational person could willingly choose to strongly support an African American candidate for President?

Implying? Are you kidding me? We are flat out calling you Obamazooids freak ass fucking loons. This isn't a bugs bunny cartoon, shit for brains, it's fucking real life.

I feel like I'm living in a soup opera debating you facade makers...

Posted by: elmo on March 12, 2008 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

Donald: it was I who made the comments without the name attached. I hadn't realized that my name wasn't included until now. Trust me there was no intent to hide; I meant what I said then and I still do.

The shame you speak of is your own. I am no race baiter and as I stated before I was, until a couple fo months ago one of the Clinton's biggest supporter (since 1990) but a racist campaign is a racist campaign and Hillary is running a racist campaign. As I said, if this were Bush/Cheney doing this garbage this board would be lit up with indignation about the Repubs and their "Southern Strategy".

It's pretty clear Hillary let the Ferraro comments hang out there in the exact same way that McCain has not disavowed Hagee and in the same repugnent way that Repubs always apologized or explained away Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond while at the same time reaping the benefits of their support. Hillary is doing the same thing with Ferraro.

The Clintons are clearly calculating that the black vote is a lost cause and are more than willing to play on white working class resentments in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

As a short term political strategy it will probably work but just because they hang out with Vernon Jordan doesn't change what they're up to and if you explain it away then you're just as complicit.

Posted by: Dresden on March 12, 2008 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

Dresden, I agree. This is play for the racist vote in rural Pennsylvania. It is base racist politics. It reminds me of Strom Thurman, Jesse Helms style politics. It is clear that Clinton knows that she is loosing and she will do ANYTHING to change the dynamics.

Posted by: marinko on March 12, 2008 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

Varecia said:

"Um, what about the subtle meme emanating from the Clinton campaign that there's something sinister, unnatural or foolish about Obama supporters' enthusiasm--what are they implying, exactly? That no rational person could willingly choose to strongly support an African American candidate for President?"


I believe that they are talking about the circus-like atmosphere of many of the Obama rallies. Perhaps they are talking about the fact that Obama is garnering about 91% of the black vote. Which implies, rightly or wrongly, that many blacks are voting for him because he is half black.

But I could be wrong.

Posted by: mollycoddle on March 12, 2008 at 6:35 AM | PERMALINK

Dresden: "I am no race baiter ..."

Oh, really? Then how would you characterize your bullshit comment that you personally "saw Mark Penn on MSNBC insinuating that Obama was a cocaine dealer" -- an event that never occurred?

You obviously have a great big chip on your shoulder, perhaps justifiably, regarding issues of race in these United States. I'm not black, so I can't say with any degree of authority that I can truly relate to or empathize with the black experience in America, because there's no way a white man can walk in a black man's shoes and claim to have been there.

That being said, I deeply resent your implication that I'm soft on racism or am an apologist for it, simply because I take issue with those who so casually level such a loaded charge against Hillary and Bill Clinton for immediate political purposes.

I'm about as left-wing as they come without donning a Mao cap and jacket and waving a little red book. Further, because I had been the acting Executive Director of the local Democratic Party, I helped plan and organize a fundraiser for then-Sen.-elect Obama in Dec. 2004, when he and his family were in Honolulu visiting his maternal grandmother after the '04 elections. I've met the man personally (can you say the same?), and was both an admirer and supporter -- the operative word here being "was."

Not any more. You've all come about as close to alienating me as you can without my formally renouncing the Obama campaign and turning my back upon the candidate for the duration.

I've already said it now twice in various forms on this thread, and I'll say it one final time before I sign off: The conscious decision by a non-white person to knowingly and deliberately level an unfounded charge of racism against a white person, is in itself a racist act that is both intellectually fraudulent and emotionally violent.

The fact that as of this moment the Obama campaign and its supporters (such as yourself) have said nary a word one about GOP Rep. Steve King's vile series of comments, and are instead focusing their efforts on attempting to cower Democrats like me into silence, while simultaneously seeking to humiliate a political has-been like Geraldine Ferraro, tells me all I need to know regarding their motives.

I will never support or rationalize racism in any way, shape or form. I don't care whether it comes from Democrat or Republican, and / or from black, white or that census checkbox marked "Other." And if the Obama campaign continues to consciously play the race card in this reckless manner, and engage in the politics of personal destruction by recycling long-since-discredited GOP canards about the Clintons, I cannot in good conscience reward such appalling and disgusting behavior with my vote in November.

(And I say that with a conscious realization that Mrs. Clinton is unlikely to garner the nomination, and Sen. Obama will be carrying my party's banner in the fall.)

And yes, sad to say, it's now come to that. And no, I don't feel the least bit responsible for that having come to pass. And to be brutally frank, your candidate doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell this November, without the active support and real votes of such disaffected Democrats like me.

You really think I'm going to be terribly inclined to work for a candidate whose campaign supporters previously saw fit to label me a racist? How on God's green earth would he -- or even you, for that matter -- ever have the chutzpah to ask for my support and vote after that?

Perhaps you are arrogant enough to believe that Democrats like me will have no choice in the matter, that we really have nowhere else to go. Well, that would be extraordinarily foolish and shortsighted on your part, because we don't have to go anywhere. We can always just stay home.

So, as this primary season nears its close, you and your cohorts best chew on that potential prospect -- before you continue running your mouths and leveling bogus charges of racism against other Democrats, and spewing your bile to smear and slander two longtime Democratic leaders who still command both the respect and the admiration of millions of blue-collar, working-class Americans.

Aloha.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 12, 2008 at 7:09 AM | PERMALINK

"I wish she'd withdraw gracefully."

That she has not done so reflects lingering, legitimate doubts about Obama as the nominee. He cannot win big states, he does not appeal to blue collars, Hispanics, Roman Catholics, he is overly dependent on groups who tend not to show up in November,...

I just want to win, and like 50% of the rest of the Democratic Party, I am skeptical that Obama is the best we can do.

Posted by: bob h on March 12, 2008 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINK

I agree, Donald, that it is past time to tone down both the racial and sexual divides between the two campaigns. It's one thing to repudiate Geraldine Ferraro's comments, it's another thing to try to create an issue of it.

Both sides I believe need to start thinking of the larger goal. That doesn't mean that they have to step down and get stepped on, but that does mean that we have to respect each other.

As far as Rep. King's remarks goes.. to me he was getting into Rush Limbaugh territory and I don't see the point sometimes constantly responding to the remarks of people who are purposely pushing buttons.

Posted by: PE on March 12, 2008 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

One thing for sure. Obama's empty charges of racism against the Clinton's have divided this country and the Democratic party..

You might count the Hillary supports as being unnecessary to the party because so many are older and women.

The party wants all those young people who support Obama. Funny thing but I have not seen much loyalty to the party coming from Obama or his supporters.. and there is plenty of data around to support it.

I also think that the blog movement has done great damage to itself.. but it is better to know the true nature of some of these blogs like TPM and HP that parade themselves as a sort of alternative press..

I find the following comments for the Times of London very interesting.

"One of Britain’s most influential black figures today accused Barack Obama of cynically exploiting America’s racial divide and gave warning that he could prolong, rather than heal the rift.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, claimed that the Democratic front-runner would ultimately disappoint the African-American community and dismissed the notion that he would be "the harbinger of a post-racial America" if he becomes the country’s first black President. "

Posted by: Mscomment on March 12, 2008 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with Donald from Hawaii. Look, there are two ways to look at this race thing.

1) As the Obama campaign and the media have suggested: a series of quotes that indicate that the Hillary campaign is seeking the racist vote (never noting that this is the freaking Democratic primary, which most racists have left, and that being racist, either in fact or perception, will be a huge detriment in the Dem primary; see, e.g., Hillary's enormous drop in African-American support).

2) A series of out-of-context quotes, mostly from non-affiliated nobodies, that are being cravenly denounced and pushed forth into the media by the Obama campaign, in a totally below-the-belt attempt to paint Hillary as a racist.

Given the evidence (the Obama memo, which successfully painted Hillary as a racist around the time of NH and sealed a huge win in SC; the quick and loud jumping on of the Drudge Report claim that a Hillary "staffer" had "circulated" a photo of Obama in Somalian dress, and the recent references to this by Obama in MS, after he knew it had been debunked, and Hillary had explicitly denied that her campaign had pushed it; the pushing of various other debunked stories, etc.) I find #2 to be more persuasive.

At the very least, it is clear that the Obama campaign is trying to paint Hillary as racist (whether they believe that or not is a matter of interpretation, I guess). Why else do they keep pushing forward quotes from anonymous nobodies? I mean, regardless of what you think of Ferraro's quotes (and I guess I think they're like this big racial Rorschach test; my own view on racism is always to look at intent, and I don't see that here, but I certainly understand how people could see it the other way), why the hell should anyone care? How is she in any way a Hillary "surrogate"?

I mean, I see and hear prominent Obama supporters saying stupid shit all the time (and please don't point me to Powers; there is an obvious difference between a supporter and a paid campaign worker-- I guarantee you that if someone of Powers's stature on the HRC had made the Ferraro remarks, she would have been fired), but that never gets pushed into being a primetime story. Why is it that selected soundbites of Hillary supporters (again, not paid campaign workers) keep getting played up to support this cockamamie "Hillary is a racist" crap?

Certainly, the media hostility towards the Clintons is part of the problem (see, e.g., Margaret Carlson or Maureen Dowd or Howard Fineman, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum). But part of the problem is also that the Obama campaign is pushing this shit. It is seizing the maximum political gains from painting Hillary as a racist (a meme that they arguably started with their memo) by denouncing, as loudly as possible, any statement or soundbite that could possibly be interpreted as racist by a Hillary supporter, and spoonfeeding the media that stuff.

It is disgusting and it needs to stop.

Posted by: RedSox04 on March 12, 2008 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

[Deleted Content]

Posted by: LarryM on March 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

[Deleted Content]

Posted by: LarryM on March 12, 2008 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Sanity? C'mon, this is the internet. Don't spoilt the fun.

Posted by: PureGuesswork on March 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

I am totally hogging this thread. Apologies to all and I'll pipe down now.

Needless to say, shortstop, your commentary is first-rate; no apologies necessary.

True of false:

Since before the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign has floated the notion that Barack Obama is a marginal black candidate.

Posted by: Lucy on March 12, 2008 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Argh. True or false.

Posted by: Lucy on March 12, 2008 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii: You are working so very hard to marginalize yourselves within the greater fabric of American society, as indicated by the vote in Mississippi today, and you don't even realize it.

This attempt to use Mississippi to prove your point is really, really out of line, Donald.

You know the history of this state.

You know what happened there when James Meredith tried to register at the university.

You know what happened there when civil rights workers tried to register black voters.

You know what happened to Emmett Till.

You know--or should know--that it remains one of the most politically racially divided states in the union even today.

I don't mind you trying to make the point that there are a lot of white people who don't take kindly to accusations of racism and will push back hard (indeed, though you may disagree, I think Ferraro's comments, particularly her follow-up comments, were directed specifically at those people as a tactical move).

But to use a state with that kind of brutal and even deadly racial history as some sort of "proof" of that--particularly when you know Obama has trounced Clinton in a number of overwhelmingly white states (including Wyoming four days ago) and is likely to perform similarly in heavily white states like Oregon--that's a sleazy argument, Donald.

It's too bad for all that Mississippi came along at this point in the primary schedule. I suspect the "Obama only attracts black voters and white people won't vote for him" line will make a big appearance prior to Pennsylvania (where the demographics will somewhat support it), and the media with its 5-minute memory will go along.

But I really didn't think you'd be helping them--at least, not in this way.

Posted by: shortstop on March 12, 2008 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

[Deleted Content]

Posted by: LarryM on March 12, 2008 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Posted by: Jay on March 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Lucy, I'll bite.

False.

True that they've been trying to promote the idea that he was a marginal candidate. But they were also pushing that idea with Edwards. Woopty-doo.

Your turn. True or false: The media began to highlight the alleged "racism" of the Hillary campaign around the same time that the Obama campaign began to circulate its memo and otherwise push the point that various sound bites from Clinton supporters, mostly unaffiliated with the Clinton campaign, showed that the Hillary campaign was engaging in racist politics.

True or false: The alleged "racism" of Hillary supporters has been highlighted by the Obama campaign and the media when Hillary has had momentum and/or right before primaries in heavily black primary states.

True or false: Hillary Clinton would have to be monumentally stupid, in addition to being completely craven and evil (which you Obama supporters have already shown you believe), to think that a master plan involving having surrogates utter racist remarks right before primaries in heavily black primary states would have any chance of success.

True or false: Hillary Clinton has lost a ton of support as a result of her alleged "racism", and Obama has gained significant support.

It's the political equivalent of "follow the money". Follow the votes, stupids. Hillary loses whenever her alleged racism is brought up. Why exactly would Hillary do this?

On the other hand, Obama gains whenever Hillary's alleged racism is brought up. And we know that the Obama campaign has been pushing this theme.

Posted by: RedSox04 on March 12, 2008 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Donald is "slime"? Really? His posts seem well reasoned, well argued, and balanced. LarryM, your posts on the other hand seem poorly reasoned, kneejerk, and emotional. Also, it seems clear that you've never experienced racism, judging by how emotional you're getting here based on comments that at worst are half-baked, but which don't evince any real malignant intent.

Dollars to donuts says you're a white male, 20-35, from a wealthy family and in a cushy office job. You have a visceral hatred of Clinton, based on media coverage of her from the 1990s and the belief that she "will do anything to win". You like the fact that Obama "transcends race" while espousing a "reasonable" pro-market point of view. You've probably called yourself an Independent in the past, and almost certainly you've voted Republican. Perhaps even for Bush in 2000, assuming you were old enough at that point.

In other words, you're very clearly a caricature of an Indie Obama supporter. So you might excuse the grownups in the room when they discount your opinion.

Posted by: Permalink on March 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Get lost, Larry. I don't play with guys like you.

Posted by: shortstop on March 12, 2008 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Say hello to President McCain. You whiny-ass Obama and Clinton partisans can go fuck yourselves. Do you think you're the first starry-eyed new voters the two-party system has fucked?

Fuck you, seriously.

Posted by: jesus on March 12, 2008 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

permalink,

You got almost all of that wrong (and you would know that if you've been reading my posts. I won't waste my time detailing which few fact you got right, and what you got wrong (I certainly didn't vote for the war criminal Bush), but I would remind you that I'm not even much of an Obama fan; as I said, he is merely the lesser of three evils.

But I did want to comment briefly on your Clinton "media narrative" comment. In fact, I believe nothing I read in the media, and the fact that the media was pushing the "Clinton would do anything to win" narrative (combined with the fact that the narrative was being pushed by wackos on the right) actually made me resistant to believing it. But you know what they say about a stopped clock, it's right twice a day; even someone like me predisposed to reject that narrative was eventually forced by events to accept it. She quite clearly will do anything to win. The same was true of her husband.

As for logic and reasoning, I'm more than capable of it when I'm so inclined. I'm not, now, so inclined; as I said to shortstop, I think that the time for that has passed. People still on the Clinton bandwagon (at least those invested enough to post here) at this point are immune to reason, so why bother. And by immune to reason, I don't mean that they are incapable of reason; I've seen posts by Clinton supporters that mimic the form of a reasoned argument (though they tend to be based on absurd assuptions), but they are clearly immune to having their opinion changed by reasoned discourse). All of the Clinton supporters subject to reason have abandoned the campaign in the last week.

Parenthetically, I know that Clinton supporters will argue that the same analysis applies to Obama supporters. In a sense they may even be correct - but, in my case anyway, only in the sense that no amount of logic will convince me to support a monster like Clinton, despite any logical reasons proffered for doing so. Be that as it may, at this point, at least among those who are invested enough in politics to be posting here, people on both sides aren't going to be persuaded to change their minds. Which is why, ultimately, I think that the purpose of such boards is trash talking and invective. There are places I go on the internet for reasoned discussions - you would not recognize me in those places - but this isn't one of them.

Posted by: LarryM on March 12, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Redsox04,

I said "marginal black candidate". The Clinton campaign characterized Edwards as a marginal candidate? Really? And I thought it was due to media blackout.

I don't think the Clintons are racist, just very cynical. On re-reading the Amaya Smith memo that Donald so helpfully posted above I was struck by how uremarkable it is. There's not an item on that list that I didn't raise an eyebrow over before reading the spin, although a few of the remarks were too ambiguous to be objectionable (the "fairy tale" comment in particular seems to have been way overblown).

Your point about the stupidity of a racist strategy is disingenuous. The tactic of making equivocal remarks to create unease about the viability of a candidate can be pretty effective, and indeed at this point, it's all Hillary's got. She has to convince upcoming voters and superdelegates that Obama is a greater risk than she despite the fact that he's winning, and by now there's a clear pattern of suggestion from the Clinton campaign that Obama is too racially marginal, ethereal, "naive", and unsettling to deserve the nomination on the merits.

I was a Clinton apologist for years because of the right's attacks, and although an Obama supporter from the start, and despite the arrogance of her inevitability strategy, I felt pretty amenable to Hillary until her repellent campaign kicked into gear. I'll still vote for her, but I don't like her: she doesn't act well.

Posted by: Lucy on March 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

a case could be made for not offending the delegate feelings of Clintonoids

Okay, that's the funniest homophone error I've seen in a while...

And Lucy, I meant to say thanks earlier for your kind compliment.

Posted by: shortstop on March 12, 2008 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop,

Shortstop,

Hah, yes, my bad.

But I'm kind of surprised Kevin deleted that particular comment. I didn't think that one was so bad. My other ones, okay, but it does seem to me that a consistent application of that sensibility would leave these threads sort of barren.

And it does leave my one undeleted comment sort of devoid of context.

And I do, honestly think that some people need to reevaluate the purpose of blog comment threads. On a blog like this with mass readership, you just aren't going to get anything like true reasoned discourse. Sorry, but I think my comments, for better or worse, really are more true to the essence of what blog comment threads are, at least on mass readership blogs. If threads don't exist for readers to vent, what purpose, really, do they serve? No offense to the "reasonable" commenters of all political persuasions here, but do any of you actually think you are persuading anybody of anything, and doing much more than repeating the spin of the various candidates? I mean, I'm no better myself, just IMO more honest about it.

Posted by: LarryM on March 12, 2008 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Donald,

I usually agree with what you say, but on this point I think you're wrong.

I remember attending a conference at U Penn where we were trying to shame pharmaceuticals into changing their stance on compulsory licensing of HIV drugs-- A protester stood up and demanded, "Are you Ready to stand up for Gay Rights?!!" To whom our panel representative shouted down, "NO. This is about human rights! Gay or straight has nothing to do with this. Go away if you're being divisive."

When Obama went to South Carolina, he had just won upset victories (or tied the front-runner) in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. He was a first-rate candidate and was pushing an Everyman agenda. Then comes South Carolina, and Bill Clinton compares him to Jesse Jackson -- a man who has little in common with Obama's campaign. Jesse Jackson is focused 100% on representing the black community, and he was never more than a marginal player on the national stage. Why then is Bill Clinton saying Obama's like Jesse Jackson? I don't know. There's no logical correlation. So, (amateur psychologist that I am) I figure he's appealing to my emotional preconscious.

Then Geraldine Ferraro says he's only there because he's black -- a statement which is a strong counter to affirmative action, but which emotionally fills the majority audience with the sensation that someone is eating our lunch. And Ferraro didn't say it by accident. When confronted, she said, "you're just confronting me because I'm white", which is an illogical retort, but one that again focuses on the emotional injustice committed by those people who getting ahead at my expense. Logically, most people will say they are glad to sacrifice for someone else's benefit, but emotionally most of us are immature and would kill to get what we deserve.

And that emotion is what the Hillary camp is playing on. "You deserve to have what belongs to you. How could you let this black , this man who's enjoying all the success that should have been yours."

I hope I'm not getting too personal, but from your writings I get the impression you may be better off than most people. I come from a former aristocratic, slave-owning family. But there is a real, hostile undercurrent against affirmative action.

You stated that you'd consider me a racist for seeing things in this manner. --that I'm reading racist motives where there are none.

Look. Obama loses the campaign if we make his campaign about Race. Middle class housewives and Blue Collar Joe's need only a little doubt about voting for a Negro before they'll say, "oh, I guess I'd feel safer voting for the woman." That's why Obama never made it about race. That's why Hillary makes it about race.

Check the record again to see who's starting the race-baiting.

And the idea that me posting on an obscure blog about Obama and racism is going to change middle-America... we'll I can SHOUT AS LOUD AS I CAN and it won't affect the average voter at all. So, i think this is a safe place to speak openly. (Whereas, if I were on Meet The Press, I wouldn't mention the R word.)

Posted by: absent observer on March 12, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

I see various comments about Bill Clinton's racist comments in SC or the Clintons infusing the race issue. Actually IT WAS THE MEDIA who brought race into this democratic campaign and it occured in New Hampshire. When Clinton won, despite the polls, the media began saying (literally in some cases) that it was "closet racism" when in fact entry and exit poll #'s for Obama were identical (same percentage who said they were going to vote for Obama DID vote for Obama). There has yet to be an apology made to the people of New Hampshire. But the Obama supporters conveniently "forget" that the supposedly "high road" Obama ran THE most racist campaign South Carolina has seen in over 50 years. It was TIM RUSSERT who held in his hand at the S.C. MSNBC debate 4 pages of racist comments and actions that Obama and his campaign had done while in that state. Russert also ran a long clip of Hillary's speech about Martin Luther King and asked Obama where, in that speech, did she disrespect ML King? Obama said there was no disrespect. Why then did Obama not "reject and renounce" all the lies and racist actions and statements that his own campaign was propigating in South Carolina as verified by Tim Russert? Obama said absolutely NOTHING - he never once rejected or renounced it.

Posted by: LKT on March 12, 2008 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, Geraldine, a non-White male would never have been given the chance to lose 48 states as you did.

Yeah, forget the over-the-top shit about race. There's enough facts to concentrate on.


**Let's listen to a Goldwater Girl diminish the role of MLK and "dream politics". Not only did her mentor vote against the Civil Rights Act, she herself canvassed poor neighborhoods in Chicago looking for "Democratic voter fraud".

**NY State Attorney General and Clinton supporter Andrew Cuomo said of the primaries: "It's not a TV-crazed race...You can't shuck and jive at a news conference; you can't just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you, saying 'answer the question"...most progressives would be outraged.

**Karl Rove penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he referred to Obama as "lazy" and said he now displayed the same traits he did "playing pickup basketball at Harvard", as if he knows anything about Obama's days at Harvard. But, never mind, he DID manage to work in the stereotypes "lazy" and "basketball" in, showing he is willing to give Clinton supporters like Cuomo a run for their money. No references to fried chicken or watermelon...yet.

**Then there was Clinton endorser, former Sen. Bob Kerrey, who said, "I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. I’ve watched the blogs try to say that you can’t trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa".

Never minds that "the blogs" never said any such a thing, only the rightwingnuts such as Limbaugh and Hannity. And never mind that it is only wingnuts, and Clinton supporters, that make a point of saying "Hussein" whenever they can work it into the conversation. Never mind that Obama never attended a madrassa of any kind, secular or fundamentalist. Most progressives would be outraged...but not the Clinton Joan of Arc brigade.

**Billy Shaheen, the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire, suggested that not only did Obama tried drugs as a teen (oh Lawdy!), but the Republicans will probably accuse him of selling them. No, that's the Clinton campaign supporters accusing him of being the pusher man. Hillary v. Superfly.

**Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and big Clinton supporter (Bill & Hill used to summer with him on his island), stood on a stage while the Queen Bee Hill sat behind him, while he called Obama "a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’". Then he said, the Clintons were "involved in black issues (while) Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book"...(*wink, wink* *nudge, nudge*).

And Hillary didn't think this slander was over the edge. She sat there smiling, and even later refused to condemn these cheap ass comments.

**Clinton staffers in Iowa were let go after sending out releases stating Obama was a closet Muslim, and stating, "it's Al-Qaeda's plan to take down the U.S. from the inside".

**On the Today show Hillary said Obama hadn't done the necessary "spadework" needed to be as experienced as she, a comment she drew heat from as being insensitive after she had previously said it during an earlier Meet The Press interview. No learning curve...or specific intent.

**A Clinton advisor told the Guardian UK that, “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.” Notice a pattern here? Or does the feminist Get-Out-Of-Jail free card relieve one of all decency?

**Bill Clinton continually referred to Obama as "a kid" until an outraged Donna Brazille (who hasn't endorsed anyone) smacked him down, noting that Obama is older now than Bill Clinton was in 1992.

**E-mails flooded South Carolina alleging that Obama is Muslim while questioning his patriotism, based on an included photograph in which he does not have his hand over his heart as the national anthem is being played. Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich campaign officers on the ground in South Carolina said this was being done by subterranean swiftboaters working on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

**The Clinton campaign circulated a photo of Obama in tribal gear, towards what end one may ask. By Any Means Necessary.

Columnist Bob Herbert viewed all this carnage, and believing the Clintons were losing their collective mind, observed:

The Clintons, especially, have seemed baffled by the winds of change. They mounted a peculiar argument against Senator Obama, acknowledging that voters wanted change but insisting that you can’t achieve change by doing things differently.

**Recently on the Dan Abrahms Show on MSNBC, they showed Hillary being outraged that foreign Middle eastern governments are buying up our debt at Citigroup and other banks who are now selling over 10+ billions of debt accrued because of the mortgage defaults. She said this shouldn't be allowed till we find out much more about who is involved in these deals.

Dan Abrams called it the #1 Lie of the Week, saying if she really wanted to know more about it, all she had to do was turn around and ask her campaign head, Mark Penn, who was sitting behind her, whose firm represents the United Arab Emirates and other countries that have purchased the debt.

This makes Penn 3 for 3. His firm represented Blackwater and currently represents Countrywide Financial, now being investigated by the government for fraud, thanks to their targeting low income borrowers.

Let's just stick to the facts, shall we

Posted by: filmex on March 12, 2008 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

As the great civil rights leader from Scrubs, Turq, once said,

"Racist? Oh, there's definitely a pattern."

Posted by: absent observer on March 12, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Ferraro is a smokescreen. Clinton has shot herself in the foot and slit her throat in the past few days. If she were to get the nomination somehow, she would be DOA. With her CIC threshold comments, foreign experience and Ferraro defense she triangulates herself perfectly for her own take down. In November, make no mistake, her foreign "experience" would be called delusional, not exaggerated. If she ruins Obama, Mc Cain would champion him, he would depict her as ruthless and morally bankrupt, his campaign would invoke everything that Obama stood for, she wrapped herself so tightly around Mc Cain these last couple of days when he bites her in the neck, she won't be able to turn and pivot as fast as she would need to. The election is going to be about Obama, the question is will he be playing himself or will Mc Cain be playing him?

Posted by: B on March 12, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy:

You're missing the point. I said that Hillary was making the case that Obama was a marginal candidate. I explicitly removed the "black" because I don't think it's true. I was an Edwards guy back then, and as I recall it, the real arguments were about Edwards being marginal. At that point, Hillary was running an entirely positive campaign, and Obama was the one pushing the negatives (mostly on Edwards, some on Hillary). So while I can see your claim that Hillary was trying to argue that Obama was a marginal candidate, I really don't see the race thing at all.

As far as I'm aware, the first mentions of race began to occur in South Carolina. While you may find nothing remarkable in the memo prepared by the Obama campaign, the real remarkable fact is that it exists. The Obama campaign was clearly pushing the idea that Hillary was racist at that point, AND IT WORKED. Hillary's support among black voters reversed almost overnight, Obama's support among black voters became rock solid, and Hillary began to have to spend valuable time and energy defending herself against these charges, something from which she's arguably not recovered.

But the larger point here is that to call these isolated incidents, most of which were from non-affiliated persons, a pattern of racism, when you've literally got millions or even billions of different soundbites from prominent Clinton supporters and all you can find is 6-7 examples of at best arguably racist stuff (and as is clear from this forum even that is highly highly controversial), is what is truly disingenuous. You're going to take that extremely specious evidence and call Hillary a racist now?

I call bullshit.

What is truly noxious is that the Obama campaign decided to go down this road, smearing 2 people who as Donald puts it, have a long record of being decidedly not racist and working towards equality in this country.

Posted by: RedSox04 on March 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Donald:

I don't care if you held Dr. King in your arms as he took his last breath, if you are cosigning this racist garbage for the Clintons then you are no better than Geraldine and the rest.

Your psychological analysis of me is as astute as your political analysis which isn't saying much. Contrary to what you may believe I do not spend my time yelling racism from the rooftops which is good because it would no doubt make my wife (who is white) my Best Man (who is white) all of my college roomates (who were white), the guys I play poker with every week (all of whom are white) quite uncomfortable I am sure. No the reason I call Hillary's campaign racist is because it is. As a white liberal you seem to feel you have a better understanding of what constitues racism than I do or the numerous blacks I've spoken to on the issue.

How paternalistic of you.

You spend who knows how many words trying to explain away how Hillary's campaign (culminating with Ferraro's comments) has become increasingly racist. The problem some white liberals (presumably like you and Ferraro and Bill and Hillary) seem to have is that black support is fine as long as it conforms to the dictates of white liberals. When the blacks go and get all uppity by not supporting the leader the white establishment has selected for them or in Barack's case not "waiting his turn" we get racist comments like Ferraro's and people like you bending over backwards to rationalize it away.

Like I keep saying, if this was Bush/Cheney pulling this stuff you and Kevin and everyone else would be railing against it and the repugnant Rovian politics at work here. And you'd be right but since it's the Clintons you decide it is acceptable. Sad. It's like you want to rewrite the history but I remember when Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack. It was in direct response to the Clinton's race-baiting in SC. Maybe Sen Kennedy was imagining it too? And Rep Jim Clyburn too?

Or maybe we are all just imagining it. Fortunately, Donald, we have white liberals like you who can explain it to all us ignorant black folks.

Donald in an attempt to show how "down" you are all you end up doing as showing how condescending and out of touch you are. As a white liberal you seem to feel you've earned some sort of pass on this stuff because you mean well or whatever or because you don't use the "N" word. You haven't earned any such pass and when you play along it is no better (and no different) than when Trent Lott does it. In fact it's worse. See, I expect this junk from Repub. King of Iowa or from Rep. Kingston of Georgia or from right wing talk show hosts but not from a self described left-winger and

This campaign has opened a lot of black people's eyes about our "friends" in the Democratic Party.

Ferraro basically called Obama's supporters a bunch of "N*gger Lovers" and you and others on Hillary's team don't even see the problem with it.

And your committment to the cause of the Party is no better than mine Donald. I have been a paid staffer for Senator Wellstone, Mayor Willie Brown, Mayor Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley, the AFL-CIO, CTA, UTLA and SEIU among others. So trust me I am not moved or impressed by your time working for the local Dem Party in Hawaii though I'm sure Sen Inouye appreciates it.

So you can take your vote and go home if you want, Donald. It won't change the racist nature of Geraldine's remarks or Hillary enabling of them by letting them stand. It won't change Bill in SC or Andrew Cuomo or Bob Kerrey or Bill Shaheen or Bob Johnson or Mark Penn or the condsension of Hillary's MLK/LBJ remark.

So leave if you want Donald, somehow we'll try to win Hawaii without you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SDHxaYhqAo&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Posted by: Dresden on March 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK
the Clinton campaign has floated the notion that Barack Obama is a marginal black candidate. Lucy at 9:42 AM
Actually, the campaign theme has been that he is the less experienced candidate, whereas she has her own experience and that of a former president to drawn upon. As Biden once commented, "I think he's right, That is his strongest foreign policy credential". Your statement "marginal black candidate is a fabricated smear of your own devising.
....she doesn't act well.... Lucy at 11:58 AM
Certainly, not as well as Obama when you compare Rhetoric vs reality:

...One of the points I have made repeatedly in my analysis of Sen. Obama's☼ record is that he has a tendency to say and promise lofty things when he runs for election but act in a way that is quite different or much more conventional - when the reality of politics overwhelms the promise of rhetoric. I have provided a few examples in the past - Iraq, Patriot Act, Lobbyists and Special Interests, Death Penalty, Healthcare and Taking Tough Stands in general.....to me, this is one of the reasons why his rhetoric is unimpressive, especially given his frequent appeals to bipartisanship and civility, because his actions often render the rhetoric moot....

Posted by: Mike on March 12, 2008 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK
..... Bill Clinton compares him to Jesse Jackson -- a man who has little in common with Obama's campaign..... Check the record again to see who's starting the race-baiting..... absent observerat 12:49 PM
Rather selective. Clinton merely pointed out that Jackson also won SC which he did. In fact, he won 40% of the primary vote. It's true that Jackson has nothing in common with the Obama campaign: Jackson is and was a liberal. Obama is Republican-lite. In SC, the Obama began playing the race victim card with a vengeance , as you still are.

"How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton"

....The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized thecampaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters,well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a
vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and
thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political
pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters...

....Let's just stick to the facts, shall we.... filmex at 12:58 PM
That would be astonishing coming from you and your constant smears, lies, name-calling and general whining. Bob Herbert deliberately distorted a Clinton quote and then castigated her for his distortion. That is the MO of the American media and the Obama campaign: smear, lie, distort, truncate, and condemn. It's shameful. Who do you think you're kidding? American capitalists are happy and eager to sell off assets to foreigners. That, and government subsidies, are their best means of saving their butts after all the disastrous results from their greed. Dan Abrams, like Olberman, is a MSNBC hacks who act like they have been working for the Obama campaign. They will shift to the NBC candidate, McCain as soon as possible. For all the nasty attacks you personally launch, you always display the bully's whining.
..... the racist nature of Geraldine's remarks or Hillary enabling of them by letting them stand..... Dresden at 4:18 PM
Ferraro has stepped down so that is another untrue whine. Posted by: Mike on March 12, 2008 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK
.... don't quote Krugman on this one. His fever swamp crusade against Obama has been going on for months... PaulE at 4:13 PM
Let's see: here's a Krugman blog column, and here, just for comparison, is an op-ed from Andrew Sullivan in a Murdock newspaper. So we have one policy based column and one an insane, foaming-at-mouth rant. Sorry, chum, but the creature from the fever swamp is yours, all yours; and you can have him. Posted by: Mike on March 12, 2008 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

I have been a paid staffer for Senator Wellstone, Mayor Willie Brown, Mayor Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley, the AFL-CIO, CTA, UTLA and SEIU among others.

Lookie here, Dresden wants a cookie. Save your self praise for your "I love me wall", waffle boy. I don't care how much rice paper with pretty writing you have on your wall. You're a fanatic newcomer not unlike a 15yr old premature ejaculator...

Posted by: elmo on March 12, 2008 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

RedSox04, you are missing the point. I explicitly said that I think the Clintons are not so much racists as cynical politicians. Bill Clinton made that appalling special appearance for the execution of Ricky Ray Rector during his presidential campaign, for example, and the Clintons and their surrogates have made equivocal statements alluding to Obama's race (or possible secret Muslim allegiance) of the kind that gives them plausible deniability.

It's hilarious you would think that memo was responsible for alienating black voters. Like I said, I thought the "fairy tale" quip was innocuous (if itself a fairy tale). Hillary's MLK gaffe was quite impolitic, but I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Many African-Americans were understandably infuriated, however. But the only way to interpret Bill's Jesse comment, as far as I'm concerned, was as an attempt to marginalize Obama as a black candidate: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." Jackson and Obama are completely different kinds of politicians. However, they are indeed both black. What on earth was the point of the comparison if not to discount Obama's candidacy? And that was but one of many such incidents, as filmex catalogued above.

I don't think it's personal, but as politics I find this sort of thing wrong and distasteful.

When I spoke with my African-Am friends a year ago, they were uniformly skeptical that Obama could ever be elected. I'm guessing his win in Iowa, and the revelation that yes, whites would vote for him, in tandem with the Clintons' tone-deaf and corrosive remarks (with or without a memo), and of course the fact that he is an exciting and promising candidate, accounts for Obama's strong support among blacks.

Posted by: Lucy on March 12, 2008 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

not so much racists!?!

Tisk, tisk, Lucy.

I don't think it's personal, but as politics I find this sort of thing wrong and distasteful.

Well, if can't handle the "distasteful" politics you've made up in your head, how can you possibly handle the bird turds the wingnuts are stocking up on?

Posted by: elmo on March 12, 2008 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Memo to Obama fans
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/clintons_knack_for_latinos.html
you are playing with fire,the traditional democrats are clintonites.Keep that up and we are turning California Red.

Posted by: Jose M Rivera on March 12, 2008 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

You know, elmo, you're right. That sentence should have read:

not racists, but cynical politicians

Good catch.

Posted by: Lucy on March 13, 2008 at 8:30 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