I don't know how anyone thinks Obama will be able to run this country . He hasn't been senator 1 term yet and before that a city councilman . We need experience , either Hillary or God forbid Mccain . Obama says he never was a Muslim , I for one think he was around Muslims most of his life and absorbed their teachings . What about his preacher friend ? The recruits that Bin Laden gets come from the same beginnings . I am not saying that all Muslims are bad , but most hate America and don't trust white people . This is my feeling . Obama is not another JFK , not even close .

To all of you who didn't believe a African American could run the country oh I am sorry becasue when he wins the election many will say it is because of the other race in his genetic makeup, the unseen white which runs in his blood. I imagine this election will produce a large amount of hypocrites.

I remember watching CNN the day Obama entered the race. The pundits all agreed that day... in one year's time, Hillary would "destroy" Barack Obama's ambition to lead the world. From day one, Hillary was inevitable, unbeatable, so all her supporters slept soundly at night.

While the grasshoppers reeled with delight, the ants went to work, survived the winter, and built the most massive political movement in American history. Now all the grasshoppers say they will vote for McCain if the ants succeed. Take some responsibility for your lack of success, you disingenuous fools.

Remember 2004? I do. I was depressed for months, and I didn't even like John Kerry. He lost because he was a "flip-flopper" who was "for the war before he was against the war." As much as I hate the GOP machine, their argument against Kerry made far too much sense. How can someone so indecisive be the leader of the world? Enter Hillary Clinton... John Kerry with a bra. Wake up people.

Vote with a greater sense of what's best for the world. I would love to see a female president, so long as that woman has enough backbone to validate and apologize for her mistakes.

This white, male, blue-collar, rural Pennsylvanian has something to say... unite behind Barack Obama, at least give him a chance, or you will regret it at some point in your life. That I can guarantee.

OBAMA '08... BE A PART OF SOMETHING GREAT.

Obama is not the person to run this country. He is inexperienced,
arrogant and a big phony. Clinton has experience, is very bright
and knowledgeable. She showed that she can answer tough questions. Watch her on the Bill O'Reilly interview. She answered all his questions. Obama couldn't do that. He's too stupid. Besides he's a wimp, no question about it. He actually stinks in more ways than one. His name isn't BO for nothing (Body Odor).

If Obama can't win with working class white voters why should he be the nominee? If he cannot win PA or Ohio why should he be the nominee? If he can't win in Florida, Michigan, California, or the states that really matters what good is he? Why can't he close the deal? The argument that the person who wins the most states is garbage. In November the winner takes all Electoral College heavily favors Clinton. "Super Dems" be smart and choose the hill that is where you will fine a win for the houses.

USA needs urgently someone like Obama to take its main lead. The image of the country is now so affected worldwide that its consequences are being reflected in many areas such as economy, respect for US opinions and so on. The world is looking closely to the actions and attitudes of all main candidates, specially now after a disastrous management by the egocentric cheater Bush.
Certainly Hillary with her dirty tricks to pressure-impose her win is not going to help her in the future. Unfortunately most of US voters are mood motivated people that don´t hav a clue what going on. They are just manipulated by the big shark US media that exactly knows how to implement their influences to these masses. It seems what most US people want is to choose the nastier, cheater person and they wrongly think that such person is more capable to lead the country. They are totally wrong.
USA needs urgently to have a positive image around the world and this image will only be achieved by someone honest, more human, and more conscientious about the issues that matter most.
Manny of you might say "we don´t give a darn about the rest of the world thinks of us, we are just better. Period." This attitude is utterly wrong and if it continues, other economies will take over, leaving US on an eternal crisis.

I have been following Obama and Clinton very closely for months and it appears to me that Obama is keeping his cool and acting like an adult whereas the opposite is true of Clinton, to the point where she is not making me sick just watching her thinking she is pulling one over on us.

Clinton is wrong if she thinks many people are believing half of what she says. She cannot do half of what she says she will do, Obama can do most of what she claims he cannot do, and she has little to no experience in areas that she claims to be a veteran.

Hillary Clinton was in charge of overhauling the health care system in the United States and through her arrogance, failure to bring people together and unwillingness to make any adjustments in her views, the whole thing was botched and millions of dollars later we have nothing to show for it. She is unable to get much done due to her overbearing personality.

Like I said earlier, she makes me sick and I can't wait for Obama to finally win this thing so I do not have to see Hillary's face on the web so much any longer.

Bill Goss
Massachusetts

This is a report based upon a meeting we had within our friends and family about Senator Clinton and Obama.
I will like to share the basic core issue at stake and that help me win our internal debate in favor of Senator Clinton.
Things need to change and that is what this election is all about.

1)Believe it or not this is the only Job application process where you do not have to be a President before.
2)However one of the most difficult job on the planet should not be looked at any differently.
3) Say I want to change a company for various reasons for good of employees, products, environmental issues, community and so on.
Will it help me to know the system or be a new comer?
Will it help me to be successful in order to know right people in the company to make changes that I want?
Would it help me to know other companies and relationships that my current company has or should I begin everything from the scratch?

The answers to these are obvious. Chances are a company would be at risk if you were to bring someone fresh at the top and expect to bring about fundamental changes. It sounds too good to be true and it should be that way. It is taking a huge gamble.

Looking at our country and its size and reach and its Governmental machinery we are talking about millions of people working in this system not just the senators and congress leaders and secretaries and governors.

If I am new wanting to bring some fundamental changes not knowing the system inside out, not knowing key people who are going to be there at least initially. ( If I am a President I cannot get a new senate or congress or governors for my self who would all embrace my policies) I cannot replace the govt structure at my will overnight.

I need to know ins and out more than any one else. Does not mean you know everything but my dear voters experience is a key, familiarity is the key, having nerves like steel is the key.

The rest is really good sound bites. Inspiring yes but with this kind of idealism and having not enough experience is a HUGE GAMBLE THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE WHEN THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH.
Even otherwise the job is too serious.

People are so much fedup with current administration that they would be very happy to get someone that can relate to them.
This is not a guarantee that it would work. (It is almost the other way round)
The challanges are so huge it would not be even start to deliver results end of the 4 years if we have a new comer to the system.
Vito power does only so good. We have been seeing it more often than ever, it is almost autocratic.

We do not want republicans to walk out of Senate or endless fillabusters for bring fundamental changes. We do not want mudslinging which the Reps are so good at.
We can almost derail our system if this new President goes wrong on one of the things or his approach.

My fellow Americans Obama has done a very good job in bring more Americans out to vote but they were already waiting for some to call.

However he is not ready yet. Period.

God please give our people enough wisdom to make this big decision

You and your readers may find Alan Brody's suggestion of a "1789 donation campaign" (in honor of Constitution's adoption date) of interest on www.riehlife.com

The entire headline reads:
Clinton-Obama Spat provokes "1789 contribution campaign," Alan Brody makes call to action after Clintons ignite a political brawl, reflecting on damage to Party and Country, and worrying over how another Clinton presidency might use extraordinary powers Bush has gathered in the White House. Brody calls for 1 million $17.89 donations to Obama (in honor of Constitution's adoption date) to send a message to political attack dogs Republican and Democratic alike: "We want a new politics, and a President who will return to our Government civility, the rule the of law, and the integrity of our Constitution."

I hope your readers might join Alan Brody and myself in this campaign.

Kind regards,
Janet Riehl
www.riehlife.com

If Hillary Wins ....Take to the Hills.
In recent days I have come to see why the Republicans and others detest Hillary so much.
I unfortunately have come to feel the same way. She is the most dishonest person there is. At first I really thought she was doing a good job in the debates and really holding her own, but the more I watched her, I could see the games and underhanded tricks she can play. She has been race-baiting Obama dating back to the Howard University debate. This new race thing is really just a way to get the white southern vote. But you know I believe in people and I hope and trust people will be able see through her. Yes ,she is getting the women's vote because quite frankly a lot of women don't have time to really watch a candidate to see all the dishonestly. Remember the Clinton white house years, according to them this vast right-wing conspiracy was against them, when Obama started getting high rating in the polls, they started whining about the media. In Nevada they are whining, in the debates Obama and Edwards were ganging up on her ....more whining.... they are the King and Queen of whine. Why am I taking to the hills you may ask, well let me explain, like I said earlier during their years in the white house the Republican hated them ( I wonder what did they do to them). After only one primary she upset a great deal of African Americans with her race-baiting tactics, yeah I think Black folks figured that out pretty quickly and except for that little group she is making all these empty promises too, I think it is safe to say that the Clintons are probably not African American will put a lot of faith in. I've heard the comments. Now what if she has this same effect on our enemies in cultures that really don't like women in the first place. You know this attack she is always bragging that she is so ready and experienced for on day one, well guess what? What if she has the same effect on our enemies as she does on the people in America. Our enemies just might take her up on it on our soil. That is the reason why I am taking to the hills, this crazy woman could get us all killed. Oh by the way, I am a woman.

Race Cards: the stacked deck
One charge levelled against Senator Clinton is that she, principally speaking through surrogates, sought to identify opponent Obama with prevalent negative stereotypes of the African-American male, using his own autobiography to raise his "negatives". A second is that she is "Rovian"--even as her aides and spokespeople sought to tear down Mr. Obama, she aggressively moved to portray herself as a victim of gender discrimination and of accusations of playing "the race card" by a clever candidate who -- in the words of Clinton campaigner Geraldine Ferraro -- is "playing" to his base" of African-Americans.
Many observers find the claim doubly false: 1) Obama merely votes "present" on race and nothing more; 2) his electoral strength has not come from African-Americans, but people of all ethnicities who went to the same kind of schools he did.
Meanwhile, Clinton supporters counter with the claim that Obama started the brouhaha with his defence of the political power of words. This argument, however, seems to quickly dissolve into a primordial notion that he in fact started the racially-tinged feud by entering the presidential sweepstakes in the first place -- his biracial, multi-cultural persona is at fault. He is the race card, not quite Willie Horton, but....
His campaign is faulted for a memo the Huffington Post published. Apparently, individuals in the Obama campaign have been taking note of attacks from the Clinton camp. Indeed, the Clinton campaign spent the week after the Iowa caucus pelting Obama with criticism and attacking the press for not joining in to expose supposed truth of the "fairy tale". Many Clinton supporters complain that it's unfair for the Obama campaign to compile incidents of attacks that cumulatively portray Obama as a coke-dealing, shucking and jiving, angry, Moslem radical (what, no pimp?); yet the quotes cited by Huffington appear to be extensive, accurate, with context provided. Looked at as an ensemble, the mosaic of statements sustain a coherent image, that of a deliberately engaged racial subtext--an attempt at re-branding Obama as Senator Unelectable Negroid Dolittle.
This sleight of hand has bred ubiquitous losers. The public was abused and incited to baseness; immediately the level of discourse degenerated. The Democratic Party, too, suffered, Independents headed for the hills. Even John Edwards gained nothing -- giving ground to the dynamics of a de facto two-person contest. The two majors were injured as well, one limping off with a bullet in the foot. If the race card was played in an effort to shove Obama "off-message", he hardly budged; but he couldn't be heard over the recriminations and insults. Hillary Clinton deftly managed to reinforce the worst of her negatives, confirming her divisive nature and high comfort level with dissembling. Uncontested in Michigan, 44% of Democrats went to the poles this week to reject her candidacy. Now that's motivation!
Daddy's come home and a truce has been called. The presence of Howard Dean was palpable in the love-fest Nevada debate. If Mrs. Clinton appeared to be the pot calling to the kettle, Barack Obama's conciliatory gestures to Mrs. Clinton seemed pro forma and more political than heartfelt, a "likeable enough" dismissal. The battle simmers still. The blogs are clogged with Democrats that vow to never vote for Hillary under any circumstance, preferring "integrity" John McCain.
The talk of the Obama Movement has become hushed. The momentum was stopped. In their own defence, Clinton supporters tend to like to look at fragments of what has been said and done to change the dynamics and marvel at the integrity of each little shard--ignoring when all the truthful fragments are collaged, they clearly manufacture despicable lies that exploit the bogeyman of the American popular imagination. When Obama supporters quote chapter and verse of offensive discourse, the Clintonian pans out the fragment to authenticate the veracity of each snippet, finally determining that it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The polticians and party shepherds prefer to talk the game, to depict the post-Iowa acrimony as a simple attempt by candidate C to "knock" candidate O "off-message". What took a hard blow was that message about "Hope" and "Unity" that was sweeping America. Black men and women joined their white political comrades-in-arms out there in white robes to get lynch the uppity "boy", leaving Hillary Rodham Clinton the one with the winning hand. One has a feeling that she's got a few more cards up her sleaze.

krishnapansie:

yo, bro, read what I wrote. I said Obama supporters are foolish if they think that the issue shouldn't be discussed. Frankly anything that gets the focus on General Election electability is a loss for the Obama campaign.

The old rules don't apply? PLEEEZE. In 2006, which was as Dem a year as there has been since 1974, Harold Ford was torpedoed by an inferior candidate playing to racial fears. The point that all of you Obamaites refuse to understand when you throw around phrases like "new governing majority, and stuff like that" is that the Repugs need something, anything to distract the sheep from the record of the last quarter century, and if the past is any indication, race will do splendidly for them...

If BHO loses 1 in 10 people who would have otherwise considered considered voting Democratic over race, he has to win the rest of that pool with 56% of the vote. You can throw around airy terms, but show me an electoral map where Obama wins?

I understand that Clinton was concerned the media would define her as vaguely racist in her ambition. The way she tried to stop this, however, disgusts me.

Calling someone a "race-baiter," which is essentially what she called Obama, is a heavy charge. To many whites, it's just as serious a charge as "racist." I don't know that the Clintons considered that in their response, but either way, it unfairly tainted Obama, whose campaign has steered clear of the race card at every turn.

I just wish more people would have talked about what HRC really did say about MLK v. LBJ. I thought her comment was very revealing, not for its racial undertones, but because it reveals that she thinks at the end of the day technocrats/beaucrats is the better sort of leadership than that of visionaries who live with integrity in keeping with deeply held core values. MLK was willing to give up his life for the cause and eventually did. LBJ was a machine politician that had to bow to the pressures the civil rights movement put on his administration. He wasn't a visionary, he was a pragmatist that couldn't afford to fight a war on two fronts---at home and at Vietnam.

I would take an MLK over an LBJ any day of the week regardless of the race, gender, or social class. Obama is a visionary. Hilary has limited vision, is a machine politician, and a technocrat who does not live by the courage of her convictions, but sways every which way with every opinion poll and lives by her own bloody will to power. This will to power and to win at any cost was revealed in this incident to her great detriment.

By the way, I am a white, middle aged, middle class, American feminist who wants to see a woman elected president, but not this woman.

Democrats Debate in Las Vegas

Who Won the MSNBC Democratic Debate in Las Vegas?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1548

.

Barack Obama won decisively, and his campaign will pick up a good number of Hillary ex-supporters.

The issue isn't about race and gender, but Clinton's old-style politics vs. Obama's politics of change. The internet, particualrly now with MSM sites being updated in real time, means a story is discovered, written and circulated WIDELY in a matter of hours, not days. 'Citizen journalists' means there's an army of people looking to discover these stories.

The MLK story (imo) was about the implied claim that black politicians weren't capable of being president, but only of starting a grassroots movement. MLK wasn't an elected officeholder, running for President. Obama is. The idea that only Clinton can be president, that Obama isn't capable, is absurd. Her most serious mistake was claiming he was only peddling 'false hope' and 'dreams' - which of course reminded everyone of MLK's I Have a Dream speech. Connect the dots.

New Hampshire's story was first about women feeling sorry for Clinton, but now it's about that last-minute misleading flier her camp mailed out, and the Clinton supporters illegally ejecting Obama volunteers from polling places.

Nevada's story is about Clinton supporters going to court a week before the caucus to block rule changes that everyone agreed to months and months ago.

The old Obama smears claiming he's a radical Muslim who attended a madrassa, which were earlier brushed off as coming from some Republican activists, are getting another look as to their actual source. Same for the "no experience" mantra (which can be disproved by a cursory look at the Illinois Senate and U.S. Senate sites, where it's evident he got a lot of bills passed because of his ability to get bipartisan support).

People are seeing a trend, and they don't like it.

Rangel and Johnson have both 'clarified' their earlier remarks, and I predict they're going to adopt a very low profile on the presidential race in future. I expect Clinton will have a hard time getting new endorsements from well-known black people, or even persuading them to speak up for her against Obama. She killed her own momentum, and February 5th is rapidly approaching....

Obama has not flaunted the fact that he is the first viable African American candidate to run for president, whereas Hillary seems to relish the fact that she is the first woman to run for President and readily uses this as a trump card when she can't take the heat during the debates and when she's behind in the polls. I'm a female and believe in equal opportunity, having been an Equal Employment Opportunity Program Manager, but I'm offended by Hillary's use of the gender card to sway voters. Voters shouldn't be swayed by the candidate's gender or race, it's all about who has the best vision and ability to get our country back on the right track. We should not be swayed by tears, if that wins the election for Hillary, for the next four years the tears of the people who supported her and of those who didn't could help to end the draught.

We don't need another two-faced President. I don't want to wake up every day for the next four years wondering which face Hillary is going to show me today.

Throughout the campaign, Obama has remained relatively steadfast to his pledge to stay away from dirty politics. This is what is needed in a leader, someone who remains true to himself and the people he represents.

To minhtrieull - vote for Obama. He may not look like you, he is not gay, but he lived in Hawaii which has a diverse population of people from Asia and is a state that embraces gay people. I know, I grew up in Hawaii and knew many gay people.

Chris,
Neither candidate won. Obama may have won the battle, but this could cost him the war. Clinton may then win the nomination and lose the respect and love of the black community. This serves to depress votes, thereby handing the Presidency to the Republicans.

On looking at the latest polls, there seem to be a shift primarily along racial lines. This benefits Obama in South Carolina and some other southern states, however where does he go from there?

The American democracy is, by its very nature, adversarial, and sometimes encourages the very situations it tries to avoid. It pits colleagues against each other thus causing major friction.

When two well-funded minority candidates have equal chances of earning the party's nomination, and making history it only adds to the drama.

It is foolhardy to think that race and gender would not be an issue in this campaign when the front-runners are a woman and an African-American. This is exactly what the Democratic party has dreamt of for years, but they did not want both of them in the same race.

Having said that, because Obama is an African-American, one gets the sense that he needs to be handled with kid's gloves. For example, when Joe Biden said the was 'clean', it was immediately perceived by some as a racist remarks. It was not. At that time Obama correctly stated that it was not a racist comment.When Hillary Clinton spoke about his not having done the spade work, it was not racist. It meant he had not worked for it. Was it a great choice of words? No, but what does it says of us as a people if we have to put our speech on a two seconds delay before it comes out?

Both candidates have been disingenuous on this issue. They and their surrogates kept this going for far too long. It appears that senior party members did some behind the scene straight talking advising both camps to cease and desist. And it couldn't happen soon enough.

While the candidates and their supporters have to discuss race and gender, it should be done in a civilized manner. Gov. Bill Richardson said in an interview on MSNBC, the candidates actually like each other, but the campaign staff hates each other.

If candidates want change and want us to believe that either of them can effect change, they now have the opportunity to prove it.

Chris,
Neither candidate won. Obama may have won the battle, but this could cost him the war. Clinton may then win the nomination and lose the respect and love of the black community. This serves to depress votes, thereby handing the Presidency to the Republicans.

On looking at the latest polls, there seem to be a shift primarily along racial lines. This benefits Obama in South Carolina and some other southern states, however where does he go from there?

The American democracy is, by its very nature, adversarial, and sometimes encourages the very situations it tries to avoid. It pits colleagues against each other.

When two well-funded minority candidates have equal chances of earning the party's nomination, and making history it only adds to the drama.

It is foolhardy to think that race and gender would not be an issue in this campaign when the front-runners are a woman and an African-American. This is exactly what the Democratic party has dreamt of for years, but they did not want both of them in the same race.

Having said that, because Obama is an African-American, one gets the sense that he needs to be handled with kid's gloves. For example, when Joe Biden said the was 'clean', it was immediately perceived by some as a racist remarks. It was not. At that time Obama correctly stated that it was not.When Hillary Clinton spoke about his not having done the spade work, it was not racist. It meant he had not worked for it. Was it a great choice of words? No, but what does it says of us as a people if we have to put our speech on a two seconds delay before it comes out?

Both candidates have been disingenuous on this issue. They and their surrogates kept this going for far too long. It appears that senior party members did some behind the scene straight talking advising both camps to cease and desist. And it couldn't happen soon enough.

While the candidates and their supporters have to discuss race and gender, it should be done in a civilized manner. Gov. Bill Richardson said in an interview on MSNBC, the candidates actually like each other, but the campaign staff hates each other.

If candidates want change and want us to believe that either of them can effect change, they now have the opportunity to prove it.

dvg1, put down that computer, and get to work!
Hillary is hungry, and she must feed!

The spats will help Obama in South Carolina, but will help Clinton over all.

Much (if not all) of Obama's "New Kind" of politics has to do with his race. His claim to be a unifier, or post-partison, doesn't make much sense without the racial aspect. Otherwise, he is a Democrat from a traditional Democratic and notoriously corrupt region who votes solidly in line with the party, does the typical dance before the appropriate special interests ,and who has put forth consistently, if not particularly bold, liberal policy proposals. As to the war, his new kind of politics seems to mostly involve saying "I was right and they were wrong," which doesn't seem to bring much healing or vision for the future.

It's only when viewed as an African-American who is rejecting the stereotype of the Afican-American politician, does he become anything new, and only when seen as someone whose background makes him both white and black, can he be thought of as much a unifier.

then of course, you have to throw in his time in indonesia, and his general multi-cultural identity which gives him an innate sense of policy.

The more that he chooses to, or is forced to respond to these "race" issues, he becomes more of the stereotyped African American politician. To the extent he condemns remarks which aren't by any reasonable definition racist, he seems to be choosing sides, and loses his concilliatory appeal. He also, starts to become less multi-cultural, whatever that means. Of course, if he doesn't criticise them, then he looks weak, and invites a couple weeks of "is he really black," which can't be good.

Either way, he is broght a little bit closer to just being another politician, and as a politician, he doesn't really have much to run on.

Point Obama. The Senator from Illinois clearly won this exchange. HRC was on the defensive and had to shift her message to compensate for her, 42, and Clinton supporters' less than elegant comments. Can anyone tell us what part of her message broke through the clutter the past couple of days? If you are explaining, you are losing.

"Richard Cohen: Obama Is Scary!
by BarbinMD
Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM PST
It only took a few tweaks and voila! Richard Cohen managed to repackage the "Obama is actually a closet black racist who will turn the White House into a black Muslim enclave" smears that are circulating the worst of the right wing hate sites, into a column for today's Washington Post:

Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.

That's right. Barack Obama goes to a church that has a pastor who has a daughter who publishes a magazine that gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. You can understand Cohen's outrage. And apparently that outrage paralyzed him to the point where it took nearly a year after the story was first reported for Cohen to call Obama out on this. Isn't it lucky for all of America that he was able to find the words to express his feelings in time for the heart of the primary season? And kudos to Cohen for being so even-handed. Because he does, three paragraphs in, say that:

It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan.

Well, nothing in his record suggests such a thing, but we can't be too careful, eh, Richard? But really, nice job on stating that "right off."

There is no doubt that Louis Farrahkan has a history of making hateful, anti-Semitic remarks. But Barack Obama is not an associate of Mr. Farrakhan, nor has he ever advocated his views, so for Richard Cohen to attempt to connect the two men in the voter's minds is nothing short of equating Obama with every vicious, racial stereotype out there that is used to generate fear and hatred.

Cohen ends with:

I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle.

No, Cohen doesn't think that for a minute, but he still chose to write this because Obama is "a fog of a man." You know...he's not quite one of us, he might be a Muslim, and I heard that he went to a madrassa. Maybe with Louis Farrakhan. We can't be too careful
"

does that make Both cohen and the washington post propogandists stiring the racial pot? Hmm.

R

u

e

t

h

e

d

a

y

As they say

for the person above. Obama is answering your questions. In real time :)

"Obama knocks Farrakhan

Richard Cohen in the Post made Louis Farrakhan -- a former State Senate constituent of Obama's, and the honoree of a publication by his church -- an issue today, and Obama has a comment out now:

I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.

That's a pretty sharp statement on a subject that can cause a bit of a headache for Obama in his Chicago backyard, but should help settle something that was whispered for months before Cohen wrote it.
"

Ben Smith

r

u

f

u

s

It's hard to believe that it wasn't that long ago when President Clinton was out lambasting Edwards and Obama (without naming them, though) for swift-boating Clinton. Just after Philly, wasn't it?

I'm guessing that Obama wins this one if anyone does, but only becuase he called a truce. As a result, he looks like he's above petty bickering, which goes well with his campaign message.

For Clinton, her weakness is the fact that there isn't a fight that she is willing to walk away from. She could have dropped the issue in her Meet the Press interview, but chose to blame Obama's campaign.

For Obama, his weakness is that he has to constantly be the one to offer the olive branch (especially in this specific campaign). For this specific case it works well, but it may be more difficult over time.

The two weaknesses are dominating the election on the D side right now, but can we get back to some actual issues now? No more discussions of getting choked-up at a diner or the relative importance of talking vs writing bills? Please?

claudialong & vhoomes joked:

'Huckabee: We Need to Change Constitution to Fit "God's Standards" Wow, bhoomes, I thought you were joking...pretty funny btw. but this-- not funny.

This is not new. Check out a funny piece of satire from the December 18 Guardian Unlimited:

Huckabee on the constitution: "It was made to be amended." On separation of church and state: "We need to move the cultural norms to meet God's standards."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/angelia_wilson/2007/12/president_huckabee_hope_and_le.html

But others, those worshipping the Lord in their own corner of the world, know Huckabee is the one. And you can't blame them. For 30 years the Christian right has taught what signs to look for: the keywords (life, family, freedom, faith) and the key value issues (pro-life, social isolation of homosexuals, protection of nation). The litany is written on their hearts. Huckabee speaks of Islamofascism, border fences, constitutional definitions of marriage, fair taxes and unapologetic conservatism. What about America's responsibility to international allies: "Any federal judge who uses some international law as a precedent to make a court decision, ought to be impeached." The constitution: "It was made to be amended." Separation of church and state: "We need to move the cultural norms to meet God's standards." The role of faith in informing power: "I think it is important that the language of Zion is a mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language." Loyalty to political parties: "I spell God, G-O-D not G-O-P." The grassroots recognise him. And, the Christian right elite are learning, if you build him, they will vote.

Both candidates were hurt by this. For Obama, it is a short term blip. He cauterized the wound with his diplomatic call to end this bickering -- very statesman-like.

I think Clinton's loss will be harder to recover from in two ways. First, the african-american community will not soon forget this squabble. There it was a net plus for Obama. But her larger loss is in reversing the sympathy people were starting to feel for her at the last debate before NH. By tacking back to her cold, calculating persona, she won't again earn the voters sympathy when she has another emotional moment. People don't want to see that kind of change. They want authenticity in their candidates, not this Jekyll-Hyde thing.

24-7 war room ,they call it. It would be nice to stick it to the gop spin cycle after this last decade. But that would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it gop.

If you people would have followed your own advice( everything you hated clinton for bush did x5000) we would not be in the mess we are. If only you could be patriots and put the country ahead of a party AND NOT BEEN TRAITORS in the process.

So, the news is now that the Clintons are engaged in "damage control" over their latest doings. Are any of the Clinton fans out there old enough to remember that the news almost daily for 8 years was that the Clintons are now engaged in damage control over their latest doings.

Do you really want more years of the Clintons being engaged in damage control over their latest doings? In their case, the same old same old is even samer and even older!

"I think one unfortunate thing that has developed from this back and forth, is that now, it seems just accusing someone of being racism is enough to convict them of it, regardless of whether they're racist or not or how much their past work may have benefitted the black community. Also, any personal criticism about Obama's past or his experience, no matter how legitimate, is presented by the media as a racist remark.

If you take Hillary's comments about LBJ, there was nothing racist about her speech. If you listen to the speech, she never denigrates MLK Jr. in any way. What she said was that even though community organization and inspirational speeches go a very long way to create change, the law books were only changed when LBJ, as president, got the Civil Rights Act passed through Congress and signed into law in 1964. That's purely a statement of fact, which I don't consider racist at all. He was instrumental in getting the law passed, just as MLK Jr. was instrumental in building ovewhelming public awareness and support for the Civil Rights movement. MLK Jr., though one of the most important central figures, was not the sole person who worked for or helped bring about Civil Rights here in the US.
"

this is not a histroy lesson. This is a presidential race. a presidential race where teh issues and that which unites most, far out weigh's skin color or sex. think about it seriously for a second. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SKIN COLOR AND RACE HERE. In terms or how can be president. Teh gop is suceding, in that regard. Tehy can play their games. As long as my candidate continues being himself, he can't lose. Sabotage all you want gop, clinton included. not only can you not win. you have already lost.

Talking about the media. remember when newspeople spent their lives building credibility. It was their life-blood. Without crediblity you were nothing. The more you informed and were right, the more credbility you got over years.

Old folks. How did we get from the walter cronkites and tom brokaw's dan rather (bush scandel withstanding. let's not rehash the past) to fox news and rush limbugh. Who is responsible from taking news from crediblity to propoganda?

Was it leiwinsky and the gop spin machine? If it was then we are have a great convo today that fits right in. that which does not matter, so the gop can get their way through lie spin propogating crying whining cheating stealing and on and on.

But why must the gop do all this? Why? Because if they don't, they lose. The gop fights the will of teh people. That is why they do this. In a country that was supposed to be run by the people, that is dangerous.

Is choosing party or money over the good of your nation and countrymen still treason? Or do you get to re-write laws teh more you pay your lawyers?

"The media would rather see a fists-flying, bloody preliminary battle than one that is civil and actually addresses the issues. When there is no fight, the media does their best to fan the flames. This whole issue is a case in point. One campaing tries to start a fight (Clinton), another ignores the rhetoric and tries to stay above the fray and point out the obvious (Obama), instigating campaing (Clinton)screams foul when no foul has been portrayed, media takes the bait from instigating campaign (Clinton) and does thier dirty work for them."

clumsypooch

WOW.EXCELLANT ANALYSIS.

i guess the clinton media tried to push her for years. Obama won Iowa and teh MSM felt it had to re-tool and come up with a new stradegy. With the help of their puppet master of course.

i swear. The more I watch the clintons work, the more I see this criminal administration. Who do you think help set teh rules, that allow bush to skate without being held to account?

fear the yale plan.

"Remember many months ago race was used to attack Obama by black activists. He wasn't black enough and didn't cut his political teeth in the traditional civil rights movement.

Posted by: barry | January 15, 2008 03:41 PM
"

so says teh bob johnsons and Al sharptons of the world. Paid propogandists. How is clintons paid propogandists to lie to the elderly differant than Bush's? Same tactics. Same tricks. clinton is teh best republcain out there. is it to late for her to switch parties? Her support is of gop women isn't it, anyway

I'm curious how this is playing out in living rooms and beauty shops and church pews and breakrooms in South Carolina. I sort of suspect this makes Hillary look arrogant and condescending. But I'm not in a barber's chair in Florence, SC, listening to the fellas discussing it.

The Democratic Party has lost. Hillary Clinton has sold her soul to the devil, Karl Rove.

I am lifetime political activist working in campaigns since Jimmy Carter.

I will vote for any Republican before I vote for Hillary Clinton.

There is no difference between her and Bush. Like Bush, she is a troll with a well-known last name and she thinks this counts as experience. She did the exact same thing Bush did to McCain. Send out her flying monkeys to trash Obama.

I am done with The Clintons and will work to help elect a Republican, I don't care if it Hannibal Lecter before I support any Clinton.

She has sold her soul to the devil. And any Democrat that supports her has as well.

I agree with Dan Abrams and Rep. John Lewis on this one.

The public record clearly demonstrates that both of the Clinton's comments were policy-based and substantive. They addressed Obama's Iraq Senate voting record, as well as the important role of an experienced political operative, like Johnson, in affecting change.

The idea that these comments are in any way racist is absurd.

Less clear is why Jesse Jackson Jr. appeared on MSNBC for the Obama campaign and said:

"But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."

I have to agree with Mr. Jackson in one sense, it is indeed all about South Carolina.

And while Obama may benefit from the race card in South Carolina, it will hurt him down the road with Reagan Democrats, Hispanics, and Asians.

The only thing right-thinking people hate more than racism, is when people cry racism where none ever existed.

The Democratic Party has lost. Hillary Clinton has sold her soul to the devil, Karl Rove.

I am lifetime political activist working in campaigns since Jimmy Carter.

I will vote for any Republican before I vote for Hillary Clinton.

There is no difference between her and Bush. Like Bush, she is a troll with a well-known last name and she thinks this counts as experience. She did the exact same thing Bush did to McCain. Send out her flying monkeys to trash Obama.

I am done with The Clintons and will work to help elect a Republican, I don't care if it Hannibal Lecter before I support any Clinton.

She has sold her soul to the devil. And any Democrat that supports her has as well.

john_ccy, go read a transcript of Robert (not Bill) Johnson's comments:

"And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -­ and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book -­ when they have been involved."

According to Johnson, the Clintons were helping the black community, while Barack Obama was off doing drugs, so the black community should support Hillary. That's not just a criticism of Obama's past actions; it's a lie. As a community organizer in Chicago, Obama directly helped the black community. Johnson brought up the drug use as an attempt to smear Obama while lying about both Obama and Hillary's records. You think that's fair?

dgrasso -- oh yes:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

When Willie Geist reported Huckabee's opinion on MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski was almost speechless, and even Joe Scarborough couldn't immediately find much to say beyond calling it "interesting,"

Scarborough finally suggested that while he believes "evangelicals should be able to talk politics ... some might find that statement very troubling, that we're going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible. And that's all I'm going to say."

I think one unfortunate thing that has developed from this back and forth, is that now, it seems just accusing someone of being racism is enough to convict them of it, regardless of whether they're racist or not or how much their past work may have benefitted the black community. Also, any personal criticism about Obama's past or his experience, no matter how legitimate, is presented by the media as a racist remark.

If you take Hillary's comments about LBJ, there was nothing racist about her speech. If you listen to the speech, she never denigrates MLK Jr. in any way. What she said was that even though community organization and inspirational speeches go a very long way to create change, the law books were only changed when LBJ, as president, got the Civil Rights Act passed through Congress and signed into law in 1964. That's purely a statement of fact, which I don't consider racist at all. He was instrumental in getting the law passed, just as MLK Jr. was instrumental in building ovewhelming public awareness and support for the Civil Rights movement. MLK Jr., though one of the most important central figures, was not the sole person who worked for or helped bring about Civil Rights here in the US.

In 1964, there was strong opposition to the Civil Rights Act among key figures in Congress who would have effectively blocked the bill. Since several of these Southern Democrats were within LBJ's own party, it took a considerable amount of political skill, procedural knowledge, and political courage to work against and find ways to side-step the road blocks and get it passed. You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Secondly, I'm not sure how Bill Johnson's criticism about Obama's personal drug use is racist at all. He may be criticizing Obama's past actions and choices, which I feel are definitely legitimate to bring up in an election no matter how much I personally agree with it or not. To me it's more racists to somehow believe that any criticism or issues that are raised about Obama automatically makes the person raising it racist.

Since every other candidate is fair game to having his or her past and experience examined under the public microscope by the media and their opponents, why shouldn't Obama be too? I don't have to personally agree with the conclusions being drawn or evidence being presented, but I think it's fair game for someone to at least bring them up.

rufus - Over on the front page there is a post by Cohn, another of the Clinton hit men, that has this twisted little piece about Obama's church and Louis Farrakhan. Cohn is simply a little pet dog of the Clinton's. They actually come out and accuse the church of being anti-white, ignoring (of course) the fact that the worship team has white memebers and a significant number of the congregation are white. Moreover, they also fail to mention that the sermon referred to holds up Lois Farrakhan, Colin Powell, and Bill Cosby as black men to ought to be honored for their stressing black family and black marriage, avoiding gangs and drugs, working hard in honest jobs, and avoiding extra-marital sex. Of course, this all runs counter to what the white lesbian's want everyone to think of all men, so they distort it and beat it to death. No one can defend the Clinton's and their lesbian and Wall Street allies and what they have done after this without being painted as the same sort of lowlife scum.

I find it fascinating that the media has essentially created this idea of a back and forth rhetoric on race between Clinton and Obama. If you really look at the past events with an objective eye, as the media should be doing, you would see that the racial rhetoric was only comming from the Clintons and not Obama at all. H. Clinton made the comments about LBJ and King, B. Clinton made the comments about Obama and fairy tale, and Bob Johnson in no uncertain terms made a clear insinuation about Barak Obama and past drug use AT A CLINTON CAMPAIGN EVENT!!! All Obama did was point out the obvious, The Clinton comments of the recent past were "unfortunate". So now the media portrays the pointing out of the obvious after numerous deliberate racially insensitive attacks as fanning the flames.

The media would rather see a fists-flying, bloody preliminary battle than one that is civil and actually addresses the issues. When there is no fight, the media does their best to fan the flames. This whole issue is a case in point. One campaing tries to start a fight (Clinton), another ignores the rhetoric and tries to stay above the fray and point out the obvious (Obama), instigating campaing (Clinton)screams foul when no foul has been portrayed, media takes the bait from instigating campaign (Clinton) and does thier dirty work for them.

This is the oldest play in the book and one that Bush employeed very effectively, and now Clinton is following suit.

Pat yourselfs on the back media, rather than objective, well research news, you skim the surface, and do the American public a great disservice.

In my opinion the real loosers in this whole issue are 1) Clinton Campaign for so obviosly and transparently trying to inject race and past drug use into the campaign, and 2) the media, for continuing to do a bad job of digging a little deaper and report the facts.

There is no winners, thanks to the media, if they would have pointed out the truth, that Obama attempted to stay above the fray, and only pointed out the obvious, he would clearly have come out looking better.

Congrats Media, that includes you Chris

Hillary got blasted over the last 48 hrs. This plays right into the Clinton sterotype and, I think, undeserveably so.

Remember many months ago race was used to attack Obama by black activists. He wasn't black enough and didn't cut his political teeth in the traditional civil rights movement.

Ultimately, Obama comes off as the winner. The discussion quickly veered away from the actual point Clinton was trying to make (you can't dream results into existence) into an analysis of her dirty campaigning ways. The Bob Johnson remark reinforces that image.

The truce helps Obama maintain his anti-politics-as-usual theme, but I think he would be better served by moving the conversation back to Clinton's original assertion. The parallel she draws between herself and President Johnson is bunk. The change vs. experience paradigm itself is unfounded. He should ask Hillary to give a breakdown of that "35 years of experience" number she's been tossing around. Surely he could come up with a similarly formidable number using whatever method she used, right? Maybe Michelle has had some impressive jobs he can list?

The fact is that neither candidate has the creditials one wants in a presidential candidate. The Biden, Richardson and Dodd ships have already sailed and run aground. If that means the rest of the race is down to charisma, then Obama has the advantage. Clinton either has to out-inspire him (good luck) or yank him down from his high-minded perch. Somehow, I don't think the truce will last long.

To the extent that his supporters perpetuate a discussion of his race in the belief that it adds to his "message", they are doing him no favors.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | January 15, 2008 03:18 PM

"

Who's his supporters talking about race? Hillary and bill clinon? EXpand please. Since you clinton supporters and gop say this is all Obama's fault because he's black and black people (him specifically,mlk) are being attacked by clinton and the gop? HAHHAHAHA

Typical gop. Refuse to ever admit wrong doing. Instead pick a random target and blame him. the american people rejected that brand of poltiics remember gop? Wait. you still think the gop has a majority. Man are you clowns in for a rude awakening. Racism is dead. Rather than trying to recreate it, let it die gop (and clinton supporters). you show yoru face and you will not win running a racist campaign. the year is 2008. Those days are over.

you better get with the program gop. rush/rove tactics ruined you. you are digging yourselves deeper. Betting on racism or sexism. you should be ashamed. your children and grandchildren are not as blind as you. We respect teh teachigns of MLK. We respect the teachings of the foundinf fathers. Many respect the teachings of teh Christ. As a result teh gop and their sell-out moderate dem's are in for a rude awakening.

the future is now.

I've been listening to black radio for the past three days and the air is filled with black voters who are furious at Clinton and with the entire Democratic leadership. This has opened the flood gates. The Democratic controlled Congress can pass gay rights legislation but they can't get us out of Iraq, a job they were elected to do? And forget the Republican's blocking it excuse, we see that the federal government is still functioning. Shut it down! What we have seen is smoke and mirrors, the lesbians, gays and Wall Street thugs with that tired old hag and their racist message finally coming out. The morally impared of the Democratic leadership have been exposed and no matter what the shrill fools of the Clinton crowd squack, you have now flush the presidency down the toilet. Clinton will fight to the end, smearing anyone, doing absolutrely anything to "win" that worthless nomination. We, on the other hand, will either stay home or vote for anyone else but her, ensuring that she and anyone supporting her looses. What you need to worry about now is your very shakey Democratic majority. There is enough anger right now that it is disappearing. ANd don;t look for some brokered "peace" between Obama and Clinton to put an end to the raw feelings and anger. They wont go away soon. Certainly not before the election.

"The gop still does not understand that division racism terrorism and racism are destroying them. If you don't understand it now, gop, maybe you will after Obama is president"

oops. Extra racism. It should be facsism

I'm not sure how you can call it a truce and then have Rep. Charlie Rangel and John Lewis, both Clinton surrogates, continue to make derogatory comments about it.

Vbhoomes and Drindl: that wasn't actually a real quote from Huckabee, was it? It sounded like you were referencing a real news article.

Candylane: LBJ was hardly a "lame" president. He was elected to office with an incredibly overwhelming majority. I was in my early and mid teens during the Johnson years and can tell you that as inspiring as Dr. King was (I would have marched with him and/or been a "Freedom Rider" if I'd been older; unfortunately, my parents wouldn't let me skip 4th grade), his dream could NOT have become reality without the power of the federal government. I began college in September 1969 in a small town in Maryland, less than 50 miles south of my home in Philadelphia, and was shocked to learn that just a few years earlier there had been "whites only" bathrooms, water fountains, etc. I still remember the disgust I faced in Philadelphia when I'd ride the subways with a black male friend. Not hugging, kissing, or even holding hands-- just talking.

I would suggest you read the following article, which also appeared in the Post today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402079.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter.

Learn a little bit more about history before you comment on it. Please also learn some grammar and spelling.

Oh, and your final comment, about Hillary Clinton-- tasteless and immature. I don't care WHAT your opinion of her is, the way you expressed it is uncalled for. And I would say the same regardless of the identity or political affiliation of the candidate.

An ongoing debate about race at the pre-nomination stage dis-serves Obama, whose candidacy was supposed to transcend race. Even if he were to leverage stronger support in the African-American community into a winning hand for the nomination, it would turn him into "the Black candidate" and render the nomination (and possibly his future Presidential prospects in the next election cycle) worthless. To the extent that his supporters perpetuate a discussion of his race in the belief that it adds to his "message", they are doing him no favors.

Vbhoomes and Drindl: that wasn't actually a real quote from Huckabee, was it? It sounded like you were referencing a real news article.

Candylane: LBJ was hardly a "lame" president. He was elected to office with an incredibly overwhelming majority. I was in my early and mid teens during the Johnson years and can tell you that as inspiring as Dr. King was (I would have marched with him and/or been a "Freedom Rider" if I'd been older; unfortunately, my parents wouldn't let me skip 4th grade), his dream could NOT have become reality without the power of the federal government. I began college in September 1969 in a small town in Maryland, less than 50 miles south of my home in Philadelphia, and was shocked to learn that just a few years earlier there had been "whites only" bathrooms, water fountains, etc. I still remember the disgust I faced in Philadelphia when I'd ride the subways with a black male friend. Not hugging, kissing, or even holding hands-- just talking.

Learn a little bit more about history before you comment on it. Please also learn some grammar and spelling.

Oh, and your final comment, about Hillary Clinton-- tasteless and immature. I don't care WHAT your opinion of her is, the way you expressed it is uncalled for. And I would say the same regardless of the identity or political affiliation of the candidate.

bsimon 01:27 PM

If you remember, she was called one of America's top 50 lawyers. She is a lawyer, after all.

"Your abysmal spelling aside, I'll point out that I'm old enough to have heard this "old rules no longer apply" thing before. Many times before....It was wrong then and you are wrong now.

Posted by: druid73 | January 15, 2008 02:54 PM
""

HAHAHAHAH

I got to give you republcains something don't I? you can't touch my posts. so I sacrafice my ego so you dittoheads don't go run and hide in fear. :)

"Who lost? America. It's clear that we as a nation are not able to discuss race in a rational manner. When the Democrats wind up sinking to pissy spitting matches on race, you know that the topic has too much heat to it. I really think this is political correctness run amok. Nobody can talk about their thoughts unless you carefully stay in the correct language and textual parameters without being labeled or inferred a racist, which makes it difficult to have an honest discussion on the topic. What this becomes is a "whoops" (sometimes followed with a "sorry") and then a "let's just not talk about it" scenario. That is why I had the Obama win as short term - he had the opportunity to take the national discussion to a new stage and didn't. I know the thinking is that it's not the time or place for that, but then again, it never seems to be.

Posted by: dave | January 15, 2008 02:44 PM

"

Now you sound like bill o'reilly propogating dave. do you really think nobody can talk about race. Old racists can't(all races), without getting called out that's for sure. And rightfully so. Racism is wrong. Your precious tom Jefferson told you that no? You support our founding documents no? Or is it like christianity, where the gop merely pays lip service, while tramping on the teachings/laws.

People can talk about race. You can't say what Bill O did. Imus? Clinton? Why? Because it's about race? No. Because it is a racially attack. MLK was of no importance? Really? That's may be like saying George washington had no impact without tom jefferson. Insane.

We can talk about race. In this pirticular case race is not an issue, and should not be one. those that would TRY AND MAKE IT ONE, like dave and others here, show their face. I have a suggestion for people who think they cannot talk about race. DON'T. Because obviously you are far behind the times, old folks.

What does race have to do with the race between edwards hillary and edwards, or the gop in the general? Really? What place does Edwards being white have to play? Any? Only in racists context of running agaisnt a women or Obama. But edwards being white has nothign to do with this race and his cadidatcy, as it shouldn't.

Why clinton with women? She plays that card. She is a republcain so she panders to racism and sexism.

Obama? If Obama was Asian he would have the same influence. Can anyone dispute that? If he was russian, would he have the same influence? Yes. There are far more differances between obama and edwards than race, and if you think not you haven't been paying attention.

Truce. Peace. this post is was to call a truce, here, on this issue. what do we got. I know clinton supporters (and the gop, one in the same) are angry that everything is slipping through your fingers. Take responsiblity as to why. Rather than playing the gop game of lie spin and discredit. We see where that got the gop. done for a generation. do not let clinton and the moderates dem's take the democratic patry down the rabbit hole as well.

If so both parties are done, and we create new ones. Are you ready for that america? I don't think so.

I'm just glad the racists and the gop bush lawyers here show their face. The year is 2008. No wonder the youth is rejecting the clinton and gop way of thinking. Please continue with the racism and attacks at that which does not matter. The gop still does not understand that division racism terrorism and racism are destroying them. If you don't understand it now, gop, maybe you will after Obama is president.

Your all in for a rude awakening. The 08 election will wake up where teh elections since 06, have not. Eventually you will have to join reality. You can't live in those caves liek smurfs forever.

In concept, this argument might have worked for Clinton on some level. We always need both insiders and outsiders pushing for change. But Obama is running to be the first of these by pointing to skills and experience almost exclusively relevant to the second.

It could have worked, but in concept only. As it played out in reality, it hurt Clinton. She clumsily touched a racial third rail, on the eve of MLK Day, and in the process obscured that somewhat over-nuanced message. On top of it Obama got to play the "peacemaker" role (though I agree with mustafa.hirji, that didn't get much attention beyond political junkies).

Overall good for Obama, but mostly inside baseball.

JKrishnamurti write:

"your living in the past, lephrecan. The old rules no longer apply. the year is 2008. I hope the gop DOES use race. It will only accelerate teh gop's downfall. Abotu tiem. Where else do you get rewarded teh worse job you do in the world?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 15, 2008 02:29 PM "

Your abysmal spelling aside, I'll point out that I'm old enough to have heard this "old rules no longer apply" thing before. Many times before....It was wrong then and you are wrong now.

repubs and all the plentiful right wing broadcast hosts/broadcasters are jumping up and down with gleeful schadenfreude, dems risk losing hard-won/returning white voters who are on the fence ... (which would be a shame because the republicans don't give a flip about working families or working/middle class americans of any creed or ethnicity) ... the right wingers at msnbc/faux news/right wing radio will keep this going as long as possible ...."

Keep trumpeting racism gop (clinton included). this is not the 60's. By all means show your face. I can wait until election day. Maybe this one will finally wake you out of yoru fascist slumber, where the last 3 (06, iowa nh). The bigger the enemy, the harder they fall. The racist repbuclains may be big now. they are in for a huge fall, physologically. good. Imagine if Fox rush and hannity were pulled from the air tomorrow. Imagine their sad little old wrinkly faces. Whining and crying, right.

now what if racism and sexism and anti-spiritualism was dead in america. Who loses? HAHHAHAHAHA

The gop is done for a generation (30 years). Enjoy the irrelevance you've earned. don't sabotage the future to much cow folk. to fear the future is to eliminate it. It is not teh 50's (red scare). It's not he 60's (race war). The year is 2008. Stop living four decades in the past and get with the program. Or get left in the past where you belong. Why won't these fascist cow folk just die out like they were supposed to. John wayne and elvis aren't coming back. for all your worship. Tehy died decades ago. As the gop should have

I was joking, but good humor usually has a ring of truth to it. I am with you, this guy scares the hell out of me.

Dick Morris predicted this before it happened. But how predictable is it that a clinton will go negative when challenged?

CC,
Who won: short term Obama. One way to deliver Obama the african-american vote is to denegrate MKL. I think Hillary succeeded in this with her idiotic and poorly timed comments. Obama came out of this looking like the bigger person.

What effect: A much closer race for the Dem nomination since Hillary has lost the benefit of being married to the first "black" president.

Who lost? America. It's clear that we as a nation are not able to discuss race in a rational manner. When the Democrats wind up sinking to pissy spitting matches on race, you know that the topic has too much heat to it. I really think this is political correctness run amok. Nobody can talk about their thoughts unless you carefully stay in the correct language and textual parameters without being labeled or inferred a racist, which makes it difficult to have an honest discussion on the topic. What this becomes is a "whoops" (sometimes followed with a "sorry") and then a "let's just not talk about it" scenario. That is why I had the Obama win as short term - he had the opportunity to take the national discussion to a new stage and didn't. I know the thinking is that it's not the time or place for that, but then again, it never seems to be.

"'She represents "51-49 politics' while Obama represents 'a new working majority' that is inclusive."

Absolutley, platter17

repubs and all the plentiful right wing broadcast hosts/broadcasters are jumping up and down with gleeful schadenfreude, dems risk losing hard-won/returning white voters who are on the fence ... (which would be a shame because the republicans don't give a flip about working families or working/middle class americans of any creed or ethnicity) ... the right wingers at msnbc/faux news/right wing radio will keep this going as long as possible ....

The Squandered Bickering of the Democratic Front-Runners = Schadenfreude for Right Wingers
http://www.buzzzed.blogspot.com/2008/01/squandered-bickering-of-democrat-front.html

repubs and all the plentiful right wing broadcast hosts/broadcasters are jumping up and down with gleeful schadenfreude, dems risk losing hard-won/returning white voters who are on the fence ... (which would be a shame because the republicans don't give a flip about working families or working/middle class americans of any creed or ethnicity) ... the right wingers at msnbc/faux news/right wing radio will keep this going as long as possible ....

The Squandered Bickering of the Democratic Front-Runners = Schadenfreude for Right Wingers
buzzzed.blogspot.com/2008/01/squandered-bickering-of-democrat-front[dot]html

Here's the thing that I don't understand.. as Obama supporters cry foul, do they seriously think that these issues are not going to come up in the General? The fact is the GOP has been race baiting for 40+ years. It has worked well for them. The drug issue will be thoroughly mined, because its a social divide issue.

The fact of the matter is that since 1876, states have elected 3 African-Americans to the US Senate and 2 to be Governors... and four of those five were from 2 states, IL and MA.. there is no evidence to support the concept that Obama can carry the 19+ states that he needs. It isn't as though serious and substantial Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidates have not lost... one need look no further than the last cycle to see that, Michael Steele and Harold Ford were both clearly the superior candidates in their respective races, and both lost narrow races where it could at least be argued that race was the deciding factor.

Posted by: leuchtman | January 15, 2008 01:39 PM
"

your living in the past, lephrecan. The old rules no longer apply. the year is 2008. I hope the gop DOES use race. It will only accelerate teh gop's downfall. Abotu tiem. Where else do you get rewarded teh worse job you do in the world?

Candylane: LBJ was from Texas not Arkansas! I can tell your young and don't now your history.

it's called MAD mutaully assured destruction. The longer this goes on the more both of them become unelectable in November. dems have lost mayors races like this because their primary truns into an identity war.

'Huckabee: We Need to Change Constitution to Fit "God's Standards"

Wow, bhoomes, I thought you were joking...pretty funny btw. but this-- not funny.

I could not care less about her little gaffe's effects on my Boy Obama I am more concerned with the blatant distortion of history. that she thinks an old white guy from Arkansas had more to do with the civil rights movement by signing a piece of paper without the fear of violent reprisal than people who were I don't know lynched, burned, and mutilated, beaten, and attacked by dogs, is just wrong, and even referencing one of our lamest presidents (I'm to young to have been around was he even elected?) If she was going with the presidential thing why not I don't know go with Lincoln? oh wait cant say that cause he is from what mid western state? HRC= poopyface

Who won? Neither. Although Clinton did great damage to herself, as I've said. Obama is to blame in none of this. He had nothign to do with cry-gate :), he was attacked racially. He did well not falling into the gop game.

But I'll take a truce on this issue. Race and gender have no place in this race as it is. there are so many REAL differances that race and gender are moot in this one.

Peace pink and clinton supporters. I know the clintons are not racists. Tell them and their supporters to quite then race baiting and making racial statements. no place for that. clitnon cried and won an election. Ok fine. Is that Obama, or his movement's fault? No, certain women in NH gave her that vicotry for whatever reason they choose. to turn on rae and obama shows two things. Her desperaion. and what she will allow that desperation to do to her. what she will do as a result of being backed in a corner.

But make no mistake. She is choosing herself voter her party and country. how is that differant from the george bush's of the world?

Fear the yale plan

vbhoomes -- Eat my Socks.

Uhmn, she insulted Martin Luther King right before Martin Luther King Holiday and the SC primary. You would have to be a political moran not realize this helps Obama.
Drindl/Claudia: I see your good buddy Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to make women subserviant to men. From now on I expect you to be deferential and subserviant to me and all of my fellow male bloggers. Iron my Shirt.

It's simple.

Clinton wanted a truce because she realized how incredibly damaging her statements have been to her campaign and how her negative campaigning is being taken very badly by the Democratic voters.

Obama accepted a truce because he's continually taken the high road when it comes to negative campaigning and so it's the default choice for him to not get involved in mudslinging.

Plus Obama knows he does positive campaigning better than Clinton so he's of course very happy to keep the campaigns positive. He'll win by leaps and bounds...but don't let Clinton know that.

leuchtman: you are dead-on correct. Obama supporters need to understand that whatever you "think" has been said about Obama so far, It is NOTHING compared to what would be unleashed against him in the general election.

y'all Obama people need to stop whining and face the serious problems your candidate would have in a general election.

I must admit that I am an Obama supporter, but this whole scenario was a net loss for both campaigns.

As some argue, Hillary does her best when she looks human and approachable as she did in New Hampshire. She does her worst when she goes on the attack. This makes her campaign look like it is in trouble not the strong organization that it truly is.

Attacking Obama and his surrogates for her gaff was also not a wise move. While the black vote is clearly with Obama at this point, Hillary is still drawing 30-40% of that vote. I think she and BET's Johnson exacerbated the problem by prolonging and extending this scenario. I would not be surprised if future exit polling in Nevada (not a huge black population center) and South Carolina, shows that Hillary takes an even further hit in this critical constituency.

Obama didn't come out of this unscathed either, but this was not entirely his own doing. Hillary's gaff regarding King/Johnson might simply have been a misstatement, but it did deserve to be challenged. In my mind it points out a fundamental difference in the candidates. Hillary clearly believes that great presidents are effective bureaucratic managers - Obama clearly believes that great presidents are enlightened visionaries. I tend to side with Obama on this arguement. However, the opportunity to engage in that kind of debate was missed when Obama simply called Clinton's statement unfortunate.

This was an exchange that didn't need to have tinges of race, but quickly devolved to that.

Obama missed an opportunity to say that great leaders are visionaries and I am that visionary - he might not have an opportunity like this again before February 5th. While the Clinton's make plenty of mistakes, they rarely make the same mistake twice - and if they do the second time it is largely ignored.

The exchange between Clinton and Obama (or more accurately, their surrogates) is a lose-lose situation. Mark Penn is a poll-driven strategist that could see the flow of black voters streaming from Clinton to Obama and looked for ways to make up for those lost voters. In my opinion, he decided to play the racial-backlash card in hopes of swaying those white voters who are attracted by Obama and what he represents, but whose support is still soft at this point. In my opinion, the older the potential voter, the higher the chance they may drift back to Clinton, not because they like her, but because it is familiar. The only way HRC can hold off Obama is to keep him off-message and always have him on the defensive of tit-for-tat gamesmanship, which the Clinton Machine is 2nd to none.
As stated above,it is a lose-lose. The argument that this is good for Obama because it will "toughen him up" for the general is silly. This "vetting process" only serves to add to the tools the Republicans already have in mid to attack BO. Plus, the NH loss did significant financial and washington establishment endorsement damage. If HRC is successful in muddying the waters enough and ends up winning the nomination, she will be sorely mistaken when expecting the votes in the general from all those Obama supporters whose hopes and dreams she crushed. They will either stay home or like myself vote for McCain. As Pat Buchanan has stated, she will win if it turns into a contest "between the sisterhood and the brotherhood", but this tactical victory will add more baggage to her already high negatives. She represents "51-49 politics" while Obama represents "a new working majority" that is inclusive. When looking at Congress and presidential approval ratings, which candidate can move us forward as a country?

Is it not evident to the American media, public and individuals posting venom in these comment sections that racism is well and alive in the USA? I am sorry, I am a Latin American who lives in a real melting pot and all this was nonsense, absolute nonsense and it deviated from the real issues that matter to you and quite frankly to us!. Who lost? The Democratic party lost. And media people, be careful how you treat MR. Obama...he cannot, should not be treated as a fragile piece of crystal. The United States needs a strong president, the Democratic party needs a strong candidate that will be able to withstand the onslaught of the Republican Party and will be able to respond effectively to the myriad of attacks that are already being prepared and you know what? They will not be about race. Make no mistakes about it. Look what was done to Mr. Kerry. Of course he was no Obama, didn't have his charisma or oratory skills (those, though only get you so far) but he had been around, was experienced, knew the Republicans and was not able to recover from the swift boat debacle.
Listen to the candidates and what they are saying and most importantly what they are not saying and not addressing. There is the key. Media people, put this race thing behind you. Please start acting like journalists and report the facts. Inform the public, don't fan hate and anger which is what you've been doing. If anyone wins from this...it is one of those wins I really wouldn't want. I am sure neither Clinton nor Obama want it either.

I think ultimately this is a push. However, the Clintons did create media attention (albeit negative) to drown out Obama's economic plan that was laid out recently. We haven't heard much about that, have we?

In a sense, I could see this is a win for Obama. For someone who is running as an alternative to the "same old politics" that the Clintons represent, this squabble reinforces that perception.

I suspect that the Clintons know exactly what they're doing, and they're trying to get Obama to stumble. But Hillary's well-paid surrogates in the African-American community aren't helping any.

This same old *#$% by the Clintons has simply made me a stronger ABC (Anyone But Clinton) Democrat. Her whole "let's not insert gender/race into the campaign" but then portray herself as a "boys are picking on me" ruse has gotten old very fast.

The three candidates are so similar on issues that it's a matter of selecting what style of politician you prefer: the beltway insider (Clinton), the us vs. them "fighter" (Edwards), or the idealist who portrays himself as wanting to reach out to all of America (Obama).

I'm backing the idealist. I haven't seen one of those in a while. I believe in the character of Obama and Edwards. I can't say the same about Clinton.

I may be the only one who thinks that they both lost. The "pundits" such as Chris Mathews and Joe Scarborough played these stories over and over again using selected quotations that took HRC and her Bill's comments completely out of context. Sadly, I view what the media and the talkign heads did as race baiting. It hurts HRC among the Afican American population, but it also hurts Obama. White people don't like to be called racist especially when the comments are taken out of context and used as a weapon, as they were in this case. Obama doesn't want this to become an issue any more than Clinton. Further, Obama is not impune to criticism just because he is black. God knows, Hillary has not been given a pass because she is female.

For what it's worth my opinion is that the whole argument over the rather silly questions of whether the Clintons have been racially insensitive, or whether Hillary denigrated the role played by Dr. King is drowning out the real story, which is that the Clintons have gone negative in a rather disturbing fashion since late December/early January, when it appeared that she was in danger of losing both Iowa and New Hampshire.

I happen to think that the answer to both questions is no, but this not account for low blows like repeatedly bringing up Barack's drug use (at least he is honest enough to own up to it, unlike Bill Clinton and George W. Bush); downplaying his record by saying he's just been a "part-time state senator for a few years" (Obama has worked as a public activist and a civil rights attorney for more than 20 years since he got out of college and has served in elected office longer than Hillary); and calling Barak Obama "kid." Barack Obama is the same age as Bill when he ran for president and if Barack Obama called Hillary "girl," I have no doubt for a second that the Clinton folks would saturate the media with accusations of sexism.

So, the Clintons may have "won" because as the media frames the conflict in terms of race, the Clinton's can simply beat the drum that they have an excellent record on race (which is true), while not having to answer to all of their other negative campaign tactics, misrepresentations of their opponent, the repeated personal attacks and insinuations etc. etc.

I would also add that I personally find it rather unbecoming of Bill Clinton to be wielding the ax for Hillary and as a former president and the most prominent elder party statesman by far, I think he should be above trashing one of the Democratic Party's most talented and brightest stars. Leave the hatchet jobs to the Mark Penns of the world.

Here's the thing that I don't understand.. as Obama supporters cry foul, do they seriously think that these issues are not going to come up in the General? The fact is the GOP has been race baiting for 40+ years. It has worked well for them. The drug issue will be thoroughly mined, because its a social divide issue.

The fact of the matter is that since 1876, states have elected 3 African-Americans to the US Senate and 2 to be Governors... and four of those five were from 2 states, IL and MA.. there is no evidence to support the concept that Obama can carry the 19+ states that he needs. It isn't as though serious and substantial Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidates have not lost... one need look no further than the last cycle to see that, Michael Steele and Harold Ford were both clearly the superior candidates in their respective races, and both lost narrow races where it could at least be argued that race was the deciding factor.

If there's any winner, it's likely Obama because he made the initial move to get a truce. It strengthens Obama's perceived credibility when he claims that he can change politics by getting the nastiness out of it. I'm not sure if his move to quell the back and forth got enough coverage for it to have made that effect.

I think the Clinton message about experience probably was lost on most people since the story was dominated by the race issue, and most probably only saw the nastiness that followed. Clinton might get the