My departure from the Clinton camp will be little noted nor long remembered.

[pampango]

I was excited that this time around we had an excellent woman candidate and an excellent African American candidate. I viewed Hillary as just as smart and committed to our ideals as Bill, but a "softer, gentler", and more appealing, version. Obama was more of an unknown quantity, but seemed to be an intelligent, charismatic breath of fresh air.

I know that Clinton supporters would have us believe that after Obama proved that he could appeal to all voters, including whites and women, in Iowa, he decided to inject race into the campaign. They either think that he didn't realize the risk that he ran of alienating some white majority voters by "going Sharpton" (that he is clueless and doesn't understand the racial dynamics of politics in the US) or, and this was more implied than stated, that Obama somehow, as a Black candidate, couldn't help himself. It was just a "natural" thing for him to do.

Most Clinton supporters will go either of two ways on this regarding the injection of race into the campaign after Iowa. Some would say that Obama did it for reasons outlined above. Others would proudly say that the Clintons did it, it was a brilliant campaign tactic, that is what they are great at, and, most importantly, the Republicans would have done it anyway in the general election, so they are doing our party a service by bringing it into play now.

For those that proclaim the brilliance of the tactic, I do not have a response. Some sincerely believe, on both sides of the aisle, that winning at all costs is how you can power and that is what politics is all about. It is a version of the "might makes right" philosophy. While I may not like it, I will concede that history is replete with examples in which "might" prevailed, so perhaps they are right.

In our personal lives we all draw lines beyond which we will not go in terms of what we will do and not do to achieve our goals. The law provides a line that most adhere to, if for no reason other than ignoring it can prove to be very painful. But most of us, real people not politicians, impose additional standards on ourselves and seek to live by a higher standard than the minimum imposed by society's laws.

As a former coach, I understand playing to win. It is an integral part of competition and always will be. I always emphasized with my players, young boys and a few girls, that you respect the game and the other team, while you do your best to win the game. You win with class and you lose with dignity. Many a good player "rode the pine" from time to time on my teams for not understanding those rules. We could have won more games by not benching the best players (and fewer parents of "All-Stars" would have yelled at me for not playing their future major leaguers), but you live by certain standards.

As I said at the beginning, I believed that Hillary would make a great candidate and president, because she has most of Bill's assets, great intelligence, compassion for the less-well-off, fantastic political skills, etc. And I thought she had a higher standard of political and personal conduct than Bill. (Perhaps I am being a bit sexist to assume that a woman would have such a higher standard, but it is what it is.)

I now believe that I was wrong about that. It saddens me, not just because my excitement for Hillary is gone, but that Obama has been effectively eliminated as a viable candidate in the process. Perhaps Obama would have stumbled and fallen without events unfolding as they have. We will never know (though we can all speculate and some will assume that they know).

What does Obama do now? Part of me wants him to withdraw (lose with dignity), maintain his reputation and live to fight another day, hopefully successfully. The other part of me says don't let them do this to you. You may lose in the end, but fight the good fight. Perhaps their campaign tactics will become apparent to enough people that you may yet succeed.

Am I too soft for DU or national politics? Could be. The Clintons are brilliant campaigners and undoubtedly know they might lose the "softees" vote, but figure they will gain much more from other groups of voters by bringing racial politics to the front of voters' minds. The same can be said of Blacks. The Clintons may antagonize many of them temporarily, but expect them to come back in the fold for the general election.

I'll probably still vote for Hillary in the GE, but it will be with a heavier heart than I would have expected a few months ago.

[IndianaGreen]

1. I hear you, but I don't have any illusions about the Clintons

I voted for Bill twice only to see him piss away an electoral mandate, and throw LGBTs and American workers under the bus.

In many respects Hillary is worse than Bill. Her support of Israel's apartheid, globalization, wars in Iraq and Iran, suppression of civil liberties at home, and establishment of a police state, make her anathema to progressives and civil libertarians.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neutron]

63. Smells like a Hit Diary

The Right wing is dotting them all over the libral blogs.

[Melinda]

66. Project, much? IndianaGreen has been on DU since inception & is well respected...

You, on the other hand.... :shrug:

Welcome to DU and learn to adjust your aim a bit better before firing next time. :hi:

[frogcycle]

2. well put

I just had a conversation with my wife with the TV on but muted. Bill & Hil were on - I just remarked that I am sick to death of seeing them - that I am disgusted by what is going on.

I never was a strong supporter of either HRC or BHO, but was more than willing to be convinced. HRC has convinced me in the opposite direction, and I agree with you that she may have kneecapped BHO in the process.


Long live John Edwards is all I can say, if we don't want four more years of gwb in the person of McCain, or worse yet, mittens.

[DrZeeLit]

15. I agree with this, and I don't even have a t.v. Sick. Of. Them. and here's why

Don't get me wrong, I voted cheerfully for Clinton both times.
I believe, in the long run, he had a successful presidency.
And for the most part (except that part where he's so chummy with gw's father that making pithy observations about the state of the union was nixed) I think he's comported himself well since he's left office.

I have vacillated between all three candidates, although Hillary's stand on Iraq and some other issues where she voted with gw, bothered me. I admit to being stirred to tears when Obama delivered that speech at the Kerry nomination convention. I turned to my husband and said, "you just saw the first African-American president." And I was excited about his early going. Then he made some remarks about heading into Iran and I thought, what's up? I started to look at EVERYONE again, with a more jaundiced eye.

I won't have any trouble voting for the Democratic nominee. I just hope we (the Dems) don't, as usual, self-destruct in the process.

Here's what I mean about my "sickness" at the turn of events. And I do lay the blame on the Clintons. But I lay it differently. Here Hillary had the chance to be the first woman president and what does she do? She fulfills the stereotype. She relies on her husband. Yes, all spouses campaign. But all spouses aren't sent out as "attack dogs" (and that's the metaphor; even with Bill's nickname that would be used). These escalating attacks are not "fun" (as he put it). They are mean-spirited. And they got me thinking of the downside of the Clinton years. All that crap. And I got to thinking that I'd always felt sorry for the Clintons. And here they are throwing the same mud that they endured. But... maybe they are just addicted to the drama?

I don't want more and more years of lawsuits and headlines and DRAMA. I want someone who doesn't have all that baggage.

And if I want a woman, and I am a woman and admit that a woman president is a dream, a big wonderful dream. BUT... not because she's hiding behind her husband. I know. I know. Nepotism.... isn't that the ONLY reason gw is in the White House. Yes. BUT... that just proves the point.

The Clintons have now thrown a bright golden spotlight on themselves, as if they are both running. And Bill can't help himself. He loves the spotlight. Like I said, I don't have television, but I can "see" his excitement to be back in the center of things. AH, the CENTER.... hmmmmm. Can he step aside? Will he step aside?

See? Next to the obvious problems of "who's gonna be in charge" and who let the dogs out.... I'm struggling with a sinking feeling that we are going backwards.

And.. sad day... yes, they've done what they set out to do, sucked Obama into this whole muddy mess that seems to coagulate around their ankles. I wish he hadn't stepped into it because his initial message of healing and his calm deportment were meaningful and invigorated to those, especially the young, who have only known turmoil politics since they've been old enough to follow along on t.v. or in print or at their parent's elbows.

I don't know if I made myself clear.

Where I was once feeling buoyant, I am now feeling sad.
Where I once had hope for a new day, I'm feeling like those little animated calendar pages are whipping off backwards.

She lost me with the non-breakdown in New Hampshire.
All I could think was... ah, back to the old tricks.

And we in the United States are in such DEEP trouble that we cannot afford old ways, old tricks, and old winks/nods/looks the other way.
We are in desperate desperate need of new, innovative, and invigorating ideas.

Yes, I'm sick.
Sick at heart.

[Big Blue Marble]

44. You made yourself poinently painfully clear.

I think you are expressing the sadness that many of us are feeling today.
Just three weeks ago after Iowa and Obama's "Many said this day would never come"
speech, there was a hopefulness in the air that we had turned the page on the
politics of personal destruction. Now we have sunk back in to the muck of past
campaigns. We will soon find out if they still work.

If they do, we will continue to have a failed government which serves the interest
of the few at the expense of the many.

[AmBlue]

50. There's always Edwards.

He's not going anywhere. Maybe you should have another look at him.

He's on the rise in SC!

[GalleryGod]

3. Wonderful, erudite post, Friend. I, however...

Will vote for Obama TWICE this year in New Jersey: once on February 5th and again on Election Day.

[GalleryGod]

4. BTW...SHe's ON Now !!!!

MIKA-licious !!!:evilgrin:

[JI7]

6. what a great pic, i have never seen it before

[glowing]

5. And here in lies the problem with the presidential elections this year..

The media has decided that it would be fun to have white woman (and a Clinton to boot) to spar black man (who until now, has been in the Clinton pocket). And no one is looking at the issues. No one is paying attention to the polls saying McCain beats them. We know they do not have squeeky clean records. We know almost all the dirt on the Clintons (and believe me the repugs will hit it back hard) and now we have this name Rezko associated with Obama (which by the way, I was e-mailed about by some progressive group nearly a year ago when he decided to run--I was just wondering when it would make its rounds here.. or who would bring it up first).

Do you really think that either of these two will be able to go afte Poppa McCain. Hells no. And after the ad I heard running on the radio just now with a ton of generals and etc. endorsing him for President, he's going to walk through FL and pick this up in the GE.

The only person I've heard people willing to vote for over McCain is Edwards... but we all have to be smarter than the MSM team. AND we have to examine the policies.. Clinton and Obama both just dip into his web site and pull out what they like or is popular. Obama doesn't have an idea how to fix the economy. Clinton isn't as bad, but would continue to spin off corporate interests all the while throwing a bit here and there at the rest of the damn fools. (but in all fairness--she'd handle it better than Bush--almost anyone could).

This is not about black, white.. male, female.. this is about us as a nation. Do we want to be the govt or do we want to be enamored by "star", money-power candidates?

Yes, I've thrown my hat into the ring as to who I prefer. But it really upsets me here on DU, progressive blogging, that anyone is playing the race/ gender card. Equality means equality. Unless you prefer me to start discriminating at my job?

[leftynyc]

12. I saw a show this week

I had tivoed it so it could have been one of several during the week although I think it was the Daily Show where a press person admitted that they love conflict. That story will alway sell. I think it was the editor of Newsweek. So, of course, that's the story they are going to build up and beat to death. In a lot of ways, we're being manipulated by the press. John Stewart also showed how the story was that both Romney and Bill Clinton "erupted" at the press - he then showed the clips and frankly, I wouldn't even call it heated in either case - they were just confronting someone on what they were saying - but that wasn't the story. The story was a complete lie in both cases.

[glowing]

36. You are correct... There was a reporter riding along with John that reported

he was bored... There were no misteps... the campaign ran well. His whole family was great.. and the people dig his message.. He inspires people.. How does that sell a lot of news.. Isn't the cat fight more fun.. even though it won't bring us what we need. We desperately need a free press again, does anyone think that will happen with a repug, a Clinton, or a Obama.. no... they need the press.. the press is making their campaigns viable.

[krkaufman]

83. Note that Jon Stewart's editing team had edited OUT the clips ...

... where Clinton looked the most irked and aggressive. (Clinton didn't "flip-out", but he was more aggressive than the clips that Stewart showed -- which I found disappointing.)

[krkaufman]

82. Please do recall the polls that showed John Kerry defeating George Bush.

Polls mean little, especially when the diff is within the margin of error.

If nothing else, Obama is the ONLY remaining Dem. candidate that can say he didn't vote to authorize the Iraq war -- which would put him in stark contrast to "100 Years or more" McCain, and the rest of the pro-war Rethugs. (Both Edwards and Clinton will have to face the "for it before against it" attack, and lose the "better judgement" edge.)

Also remember, two months ago, Hillary Clinton lead Obama by double-digits in polling across the country. I don't think he's the hopeless candidate you're making him out to be.

[Adelante]

7. It was never in Obama's interest to inject race into the campaign

And he was not the one who did, as an honest timeline shows. It was in Clinton's interest to change Obama's image from the candidate for all Americans into the "Black Candidate." They did it. I watched them do it. They decided they could sacrifice the black vote in order to peel off Obama's white vote. Don't reward this vile behavior. Don't vote for her.

I appreciate your thoughtful, even heartrending, OP. I sincerely feel for you. I hadn't supported Hillary Clinton from the beginning, but I never despised her as I now do. I worked on both of Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns and attended his inauguration. I used to long for a return of the Clintons to the White House and now I don't want them anywhere near the place. I'm sick to death of lying liars running our country.

[rodeodance]

68. seems to me it was the Obama surrogates who did the race-bating and only

days after did Obama step up and say that Sen. clintons comments were NOT racial (MLK issue).

[pampango]

74. Believe what you will. I only speak as someone who was as excited

about Hillary as I was Obama. I don't like what I have seen from the Clintons.

Doesn't mean I'm right, but it is what I now believe.

[rodeodance]

77. I do not like what I have seen from either camp over the race issue. Later.

[krkaufman]

84. What you said, WesDem. Agreed. n/t

[Skidmore]

8. I agree with most of what you say, however I would go further

and say that the Clintons totally disgust me now. I was lukewarm before and could have considered voting for her in the GE. Right now my disgust centers on the fact that they were willing to cynically denigrate a loyal constituency of Democratic Party. What group will they be willing to toss overboard next? I don't respect these people anymore at all. For the life of me, I will never understand both the Clintons and Obama did not strike a deal back when and agree that she would run to head the ticket and he was guaranteed a VP place on the ticket. Then Obama would have been able to take up a run later. Instead of savaging this man and the greater community, this would have been smart and forward thinking. Instead we've gotten more of the same old stuff the Clintons descried in the 90s. These are leaders? Hardly.

[rox63]

9. Obama has not been eliminated as a viable candidate

Lots of people intend to support and vote for him, including me.

[BeyondGeography]

10. I see you're from Ohio; looks like the primary will matter there

as will your vote for Obama.

K&R

[pampango]

29. He has my vote. I hope it still matters.

;)

[flpoljunkie]

11. The good people of Iowa, 96% white, gave Obama the nod after getting to thoroughly know him.

Yet the media, who are apparently anxious to make the Clinton's case, keep repeating Obama is the "black candidate,"and somehow seem to forget his appeal with white voters in Iowa, as well as New Hampshire--or worse yet, deliberately neglect to mention this salient fact.

[rox63]

13. Lots of white folks in NH voted for him too

And he came in a close 2nd there. I think NH is about 95% white.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Yes, I mentioned that inside my post.

[frogcycle]

26. not to rain on your parade

but a whole bunch of white Iowans voted for huckleberry, et al

the ones who divvied their votes among the dems were not the mainstream Iowans

not to diminish his performance there; just don't read too much in to it

[CoffeeCat]

89. You are totally incorrect...

How in the world do you know that those in Iowa "who divvied (sic) their votes among dems" are
not the "mainstream Iowans"?

Iowa Democrats showed up in record numbers for the January caucus. Turnout increased 100 percent.

What you are saying is completely false.

Mainstream Iowa Dems showed up for the caucus that day. The stats show that voter turnout increased
among every demographic. The people present at the Iowa caucuses reflect the views of the Democrats
in Iowa, very well.

How could they not? This caucus had the largest pool of Iowans in history!

Obama's victory in Iowa was absolutely stunning. He spent a great deal of time in the state and he ran
a very impressive campaign that was run by volunteers from all ages. Obama criss-crossed the state, meeting
with small groups and doing town-hall meetings. So many got to know him and loved him as they became
aware of his policies.

I was supporting Edwards, but was pulled into the campaign by a friend who asked if I would come to
an Obama house party. I agreed to go, but did not intend to change my mind. The house party was
one of 1,000 Obama house parties that night in Iowa--all occurring simultaneously with Obama on
a conference call. It was pretty cool. I was stunned to meet disenfranchised Republicans, Independents,
Democrats and many who identified themselves as Progressives. It was like a political melting pot!
We all agreed that Bush was out of control and that our democracy was in trouble, and that the war
in Iraq needed to end.

I was impressed with the Obama supporters---kind, respectful and very enthusiastic about their candidate.
As time went on, I learned more about Obama, and that he clearly outlines in his plan that he wants
to reinstate Habeas and do away with the Unitary Executive playground Bush has amassed for himself. Obama
says no to illegal wiretaps and he wants Guantanamo closed. Obama is a Constitutional scholar, teaching
Constitutional Law for a decade at the University of Chicago. His views, policies and ideas--outlined
in his plan for America---reflect the intelligence and passion of a man who clearly understands and
respects our Constitution.

I am one person...one Iowan. However, I saw that campaign up close and personal.

You said "just don't read too much into it". I say....read everything into that win. Iowa is 96 percent
white. We gave Obama the win because he was in our state for weeks, and we got to know him well.

I am hoping that the SC win will give Obama the bounce he needs to get back on track, the track
he was on in Iowa and bring his campaign and his agenda to others in the country--like he did
in my state.

[krkaufman]

85. Yeah, that's been killing me. It's as though Obama winning most of the black vote in SC ...

... somehow negates the reality of all the primaries already completed.

Why doesn't the inverse apply? That Hillary's low showing in the black community in South Carolina shows her campaign is failing with this minority community -- and that her failing to vigorously campaign in the state in the days leading up to the SC primary indicate that her campaign is taking the black vote for granted, come the general election.

[still_one]

16. You are better than I am, because if Hillary wins the nomination I probably won't vote for her

I know the clintons believe that it doesn't matter what they do or say, the liberals or the left have no choice, and will vote for them in the end, but not me

[vssmith]

17. You are better than I am, because if Hillary wins the nomination I probably won't vote for her

I might be with you there. My problem is that I have trouble differentiating between McCain and Clinton. They have voted the same on most issues that matter to me.

[still_one]

18. Unfortunately, that is probably what it will come done to, and each person

will have to do what they feel appropriate

There is no way I will vote for mccain, or for that matter any of the republicans, but it most likely will be my first presidential election, where I won't vote for president

Maybe I will write-in someone

[frogcycle]

28. starting to feel the same way

and I hate it

[neutron]

64. Not a surprise since the right wing is dousing

anti Hillary propaganda all through the blogs.
And MSM is controlled by Corporate Interests and are also
pumping out anti HRC propaganda.
And gullible people like you are swallowing it all.

[pampango]

67. Our brains have been taken over by the MSM and Corporate Interests. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Anyone who does not support Hillary is a tool on the RW, MSM, corporate interests? :banghead:

Are you implying that there is some kind of conspiracy directed at Hillary and Bill? Of all the posts I have seen and even anticipated regarding Hillary, asserting the she is the candidate that the corporations are most afraid of, is ludicrous.

[frogcycle]

88. bullshit

I am not swallowing anything. I just can't stand her.

crawl back under your rock

[krkaufman]

86. The US Supreme Court is my only concern.

Otherwise, I'd be tempted to go that route, as well.

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. I disagree with you, and I find it interesting that you would blame

the Clintons for this race issue when it was obviously brought on by the Obama camp--and it would only help Obama. How else do you think the got the black voting block so unified?

You are believing the media spin and the political lies of Obama. They are the ones crying racism from the rooftops when no racism was there. They are the ones that send out press releases suggesting racism. They are the ones who called on their surrogates to cry racism. And they are the ones who are helped.

How hard must it be to run against an african american who is willing, at the least discussion about issues, at the most benign criticism of his record, to shout "racism?" How do you run against that?

YOu bought the lie. And that is the same political tactic Bush used against Gore. And people bought it then too.

If you honestly believe that Obama is an innocent in this--and not playing politics, then I have a bridge to sell you in Alaska.

[cali]

21. bwahahahaha. typical of you.

forget people like Pat Leahy and Jim Clyburn and virtually every non MSM thoughtful commentator. You're just a riot. An arrogant and silly little riot, but a riot.

Evergreen and reality? Not even within shouting distance.

:rofl:

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. Cali: heed my grandmother's words:

if you have nothing nice to say or anything to contribute other than vitrolic anger--stfu.

Ok, she did not quite say it like that.

[pampango]

27. Evergreen, Grandma also told me to practice what I preach. n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

31. and yet

you ignore her.

[pampango]

32. How so? Don't think I called you any names or trashed your right to believe as you

wish and express yourself accordingly.

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. no. I was not talking to you.

[pampango]

25. I can disagree with you without accusing you of drinking the "kool aid", can't I?

I haven't "bought" anything, any more than you have. I assume that we each look at what has happened, think it through and decide what we believe about it. We can each believe what we wish.

I just see no political benefit for Obama in injecting the race issue into the campaign after he had done a fine job of appealing to white voters in Iowa. I do see political benefits for the Clintons in emphasizing the racial aspect of the competition with Obama.

I do believe that Obama is innocent in this. Does your bridge in Alaska lead anywhere? I like to know what I am buying.

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. he unified the black vote in SC. The polls shifted after he started crying Racism

against Clinton and for him. Before the mess started, Clinton had a shot in SC. Conversely: it would NOT help Clinton to inject race in the campaign. They know they need the black vote and they know the democratic party needs the black vote in the general.

Take a step back and tell me how it could help the Clintons. We have already seen how it helped Obama. Just look at the polls.

And although I try not to respond to Cali when she is in her tantrum mode: Clyburn spun Clinton's statement to be about Race. You and I know the "fairy tale" statement had nothing to do with race. Obama's well placed phone calls did the trick, and the surrogates shouted racism.

[pampango]

35. And you think that unifying the black vote is South Carolina was worth the risk on his part

of viewed by the much more numerous white voters of the country as more of a "Sharpton" or "Jackson" rather than a candidate who could appeal to all races and genders as in Iowa?

How did it help the Clintons? Just look at the polls. It may have hurt her in South Carolina. (We will see how the vote turns out. She may yet suprise us both in SC.) The polls in other states reflect the changing perceptions of Obama. And they know that blacks have no viable option in November if Hillary is the candidate. (Which is the same situation I will be in.)

I do not "know" that Bill's "fairy tale" statement was not about race. Unless you are Bill posting under a cool screen name, you do not "know" it either. At DU we often lambast Republicans for saying things that are racist. When they protest that they didn't mean it that way, we counter that if the group impuned perceives it as racist, your alleged intention is a weak defense. None of us believes that Bill or Hillary are racists, but we also believe that they are exceptional campaigners and usually "take no prisoners. I will leave it up to African Americans to determine whether the statement was racist or not.

As I said before, we each look at what has happened and reach our own conclusions without the benefit of drinking any sweetened beverages. For Obama to inject race into a campaign that was succeeding by doing the opposite would mean that he is incredibly stupid. I do not think he is. For the Clintons to inject race would be that they are no-holds-barred campaigners. I think that is the more likely scenario.

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. Obama needs a win, badly. Iowa was not enough to carry him and

he fears the momentum shift. It is worth the risk to win SC. It will give him the momentum for the big day.

I think they measured that and saw that he was becoming a paragraph in history, and decided to go for it. SC will give him that momentum. It is a big cost to America. But he is interested in his win.

There is no way using race helps the Clintons

[pampango]

40. You are right that he needs a win in SC, but he knows that racial polarization is too high a price

to pay. It would cost him more than it was worth.

Since he had shown no signs previously of using race, I do not believe he would use it even if it paid a short term benefit to him. I don't "know" that, but I believe it.

I disagree that using race does not help the Clintons. If Obama wins in SC, it can be minimized as a function of the African American vote. It has also helped Clinton in the polls in other states, by pushing the white perception of Obama closer to being a Sharpton (a Black candidate) rather than a unifying candidate.

[Evergreen Emerald]

55. see, we fundamentally disagree, because his whole campaign has always been about race

"our time is now," Michelle talking about black voters voting for him because he is black. I think he has used race from the beginning.

Conversely, Clinton has not used race. And when she even attempted to suggest she was female everyone cried foul and successfully shut her up.

There is a double standard here in America

[pampango]

56. You're right. Our disagreement could not be more fundamental.

His campaign is about transcending race. We are destined to disagree.

I would like to see the person that could successfully shut up Hillary or Bill (or any of our other candidates for that matter). :)

[rodeodance]

70. Yes, the price is high--and I wonder why he still went for it.

[Kahuna]

41. Everybody but those wearing Clinton blinders KNOW by now who

inserted "race." Who benefits by injecting the race card? The Clinton meme is that it was Obamaso that he could win in SC which is ridiculous because he was already ahead in the SC polling. So does it benefit? Do you think Obama is so stupid as to believe that he could win a race war....in America?

I'm not going to ask you to remove the blinders because I know that you won't.

[rufus dog]

45. Evergreen you must think Obama is a idiot!

Why would the Obama camp want to bring race up as an issue. He did everything he could NOT to bring race up. Would a jewish person make that a central point in a candidacy across a wide demographic group? No because the vast majority of the electorate is not jewish. Just like the vast majority of the electorate is not black. Clinton pushed this issue because they knew they may lose the battle (SC) but they can use it to win the war. (Feb. 5) You really need to think because you and your side is using the Bush type tactics.

[rodeodance]

69. Nicely said. It is indeed baffling how many have bought into the media spin!

[ileus]

20. You'll be back in November.

[pampango]

22. You are probably right. My guess it that African Americans will be back, too.

Don't know whether that means we are taken for granted or just solid parts of the Democratic base and have nowhere else to to. :)

[knowledgeispwr]

42. To me, it means we are taken for granted...

that we can be thrown under the proverbial bus for political gain, only to be expected to come back and vote loyally for the person who dissed us. It makes my blood boil.

[babylonsister]

24. May I just say, thank you for your post, and for recognizing reality.

The Clintons are brilliant campaigners, but they are 'dirty' imo also. And there's the rub; why can't they win 'clean'? I'd vote for Obama 100x before I'd ever want to vote for Hillary; Obama is a gentleman with a lot of integrity. I haven't seen those traits from the Clintons. They are playing us, and the majority have allowed it. Now that's sad.

Yes, my heart is also heavy, as you put it so nicely.

[southern_dem]

33. Sorry but

Obama has nothing to gain by being portrayed as the "black" candidate. I'm not going to say the Clinton camp is behind it, but the media sure as heck is and it will not and has not helped Obama one bit.

[Laelth]

73. Welcome to DU!

I agree. Obama gains nothing by playing the race card. It's the George Bush Sr.s and the Jesse Helmses of the world who gain by injecting race into the debate.

Is the media doing it? Certainly. Is Hillary benefiting? Yes. Is she responsible? That's another question, but she needs to denounce the politics of race-baiting and denounce all those who accuse Obama of playing the race card before I will believe that she's not responsible. She hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge.

:dem:

-Laelth

[mahina]

80. aloha, welcome to DU.

[zulchzulu]

34. Thanks for your observation

I would say that Obama is not damaged goods as you may think after all this Clinton Machine grinding.

His record and his views will stand this test and he'll be an even stronger candidate for the GE. As your analogy from being a coach can be used as an example, he's got the skills and he'll make it past the team that wants to play dirty on the court. He'll also do it with class.

[UALRBSofL]

38. Such A Disturbing Post

I have never cared for posts that attack, point fingers, or blame any Democrat candidate of racism. I would hope the democrat party was beyond this and above the republican party attitude. That said, it saddens me to see people post that the Clintons are racists or that they are bringing race to the forefront of a campaign. It hurts my heart when I see people state they wouldn't be voting if Hillary is the nominee. It leads me to believe that person that says that doesn't really care enough about our party to get out and vote and would rather take the chance of putting a republican in office. The fact is, the Clintons are not racists, never have been, never will be. The fact is, the Clintons have never injected race into the issues. The fact is, many news networks seem to be pushing the issue and trying there best to push the race injection on the Clintons. I'm pretty sure you can make an argument that the Clintons injected race into the campaign if the words are stretched enough. The same thing can be said of the Barack campaign. The news networks have stated several times things that Obama and his supporters have said that could be construde as injecting race into the campaign but I tend to ignore it. In my opinion, when the news media plays these games I tend to turn it off. Yes, there has been aligations about the Democrat Black Caucus as reported by the media but I just turn it off. However, I hope everyone will vote whether it's Barack, Hillary, or John. Do we really want another republican in office that will continue where Bush left off?

[Adelante]

48. Welcome to DU, UALRBSofL

Enjoy your stay :hi:

[Barack_America]

43. Thank you for your courageous post. I agree with it except...

That I don't believe that Obama is done.

What the Clintons did by injecting race into the election is to stir up the FEAR that "a black man can't get elected", "any black man would just become the black candidate".

But that is just a fear, and it will always be there until we have a black President.

I want to give this country the benefit of the doubt that we ARE ready. I don't want to give in to that fear.

[pampango]

47. I hope you are right. There is a chance that you are. However, I trust (distrust?) Bill's

political judgment enough, that I expect that fear will help Hillary get elected. ;)

I want to give the country the benefit of the doubt in this (I suppose I am a natural optimist), but my money is on Bill being right (unfortunately).

[mahina]

46. I understand you're feeling kind of down,

so here are some clips to lift your heart. They sure lift mine. Aloha. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms http://youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc&feature=related

[FrenchieCat]

49. That 2nd link is prior to the destructive tone that the Clintons

pressed to the media....who took it and ran with it.

I'm so turned off at this point that I am seriously thinking of resigning from my home here at DU and becoming one of the millions of apathetic voters as I was before 2000. I now believe that most in the Democratic party are no better than their GOP counterpart. I am disgusted, dissappointed, and thoroughly sick of the divisiveness of politics as I see them today.

Barack Obama gave me hope, and the Clintons snatch it away from me.

I will not vote for a candidate who took away the only thing that has kept me going for the last 8 years. Why should I? :shrug:

[mahina]

52. Aloha FC

Keep the faith. DU is not the real world.

Barack helped me find hope, and it is not going away. This place is so engaging sometimes, it's easy to forget that 10 minutes working for change, helping Barack for instance, in our own communities is better spent than 10 days online. For real.

Be of good cheer. Don't let the Clintons of all people kill your hope, just like MLK said, only light can conquer the darkness. I don't mean that the Clintons are the darkness, but the hopelessness you speak of is, and it's a big pothole you know is there, so by all means, detour my dear!

I have appreciated your work here. When is your community's caucus?

Aloha sister

[FrenchieCat]

71. Feb 5th in California!

Northern California will be Obama country....I believe! :hi:

[mahina]

78. Yes We Can, baby

:pals:

[BringBigDogBack]

51. kick!

:applause:

[AtomicKitten]

53. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[Beacool]

54. Why is everyone so naive about what it takes to win an election?

I haven't seen either Clinton, so far, do anything horrendous. Bill and Hillary's comments were misconstrued and exaggerated by the media. Since when it's racist to say that a candidate's position on a certain issue is a "fairy tale"? Whether that assertion was factual or not, it still was NOT a racist remark. Same with Hillary! Maybe we are soooo touchy in this country about race that nobody feels free to express their thoughts, but what Hillary said about MLK & LBJ was factually correct. Maybe she came off as being insensitive, but knowing everything this woman has done since college to advance the civil rights and women's cause, I was surprised about the way the media spun it to be racist. I know from people close to her that she was actually shocked that some would think that she would ever make a racist comment.

[pampango]

58. I think Hillary and Bill are as far from being racist as one can be, which makes injecting race

into the campaign even less tolerable than if were someone like David Duke to do it. At least, it would be obvious that Duke was doing it for reasons of belief, no matter how warped, not for tactical reasons.

If you truly believe that the Clintons did not see a benefit in slowing Obama's momentum after Iowa and dealing with his appeal to white voters that was evidenced there, then you are welcome to your opinion. It lets them off the hook, IMHO, to blame the emergence of race as in issue after Iowa solely on the "media".

No recitation of events from either you or me is going to convince the other of the rightness of our position. I understand that and accept it. I am sorry it has come to this. I was excited about Hillary, as well as Obama, several months ago. Am I naive about what it takes to win an election? Possibly. I have already admitted to being a "softee" in that regard, at least. If I am the only one, then Hillary has nothing to worry about.

[Jai4WKC08]

57. Too quick to blame the Clintons

Just as the racial divisiveness does Obama no good in the long run, it does the Clintons no good in the long run either. We need a unified party to win in November, and the Clintons know it as well as anyone.

But you know who it does benefit, short and long term? The Republicans and the corporate media. They are the ones playing the race card. And they are the ones taking everything Bill or Hillary say out of context, sometime completely misquoted, and play it again and again, and often frame it to make it look like Bill is enraged, or Clinton all weepy, when neither one was true.

[pampango]

61. Not quick at all. I've been watching and connecting the dots for

several weeks now. Since Hillary excited me previously, I had not desire to leap to any conclusion that would prove myself wrong about her.

You are right that racial divisiveness does no one any good in the long run, but I can see how the Clintons would have seen some gain to be had after Iowa in doing what it took to slow Obama down. If they didn't put the brakes on him quickly, Hillary's chances would have been really bad.

Does the media take race and gender controversy and run with it? You betcha. Does that mean they manufactured the controversy? I don't think so, but I realize that is a matter that I now believe but cannot prove. I am sure that Bill knew that it wouldn't take much to get the media going on the Obama is black, don't you know, hysteria. Bill is not a racist and wouldn't say anything overtly racist, but he didn't have to. He is a great campaign strategist and, IMHO, he played the media brilliantly.

My guess is that once the Clintons wrap up the nomination, they figure they will be largely able to sooth any racial divisions that they used in winning. They have a good history with the Black community and probably figure that they will get the African American vote in November, anyway.

[dailykoff]

59. Noted and remembered!

:hi:

[dailykoff]

60. p.s. I wouldn't count Obama out.

There was a general feeling of catastrophe right after hilly swiped NH (okay, after somebody did), but Obama went on to win a major union endorsement and wound up winning more delegates in Nevada than hilly despite the dirtiest of tricks. So sometimes the best team really does win.

[neutron]

65. He's quite the Whiner

[dailykoff]

79. Ahem, as I was saying...

I wouldn't count the WINNER out just yet.

[jlake]

72. Sincerity?

[pampango]

76. Always hard to tell at DU, isn't it?

We each make our own judgments. It is harder to credit someone with sincerity, if we don't agree with them. ;)

[Perry Logan]

75. I'm amazed at how many people the anti-Clinton folks insult--without realizing it.

The anti-Clintonites are a strange tribe, aren't they? Everytime they tell us how wicked the Clintons are, they imply that the huge numbers of Americans who happen to like the Clintons are stupid or callous or of a low moral nature.

[krkaufman]

81. Any second thoughts on the viability of Obama?

Seems pretty darn viable, at the moment.

[CorpGovActivist]

87. KICK!!!