Remember the O.J. Simpson verdict? Remember those shots of everyday African-Americans cheering in the beauty shops and corner stores? Remember how shocked well-meaning white liberal women were, how stunned? They believed in DNA. They couldn't understand the black reaction, they thought it was a feminist issue--domineering man murders his female property. They didn't get it.
In due course, the cultural fashionistas--led by the Clintons--covered over that glimpse of truth and carried on with their shell game, substituting high profile gestures of diversity for economic justice, serving the cause of global corporate capital under an umbrella of inclusive rhetoric.
Now Obama is no radical reformer on the policy level. At least not yet. Let's not pretend he is. But Obama is, in virtue of his being, a radical transformer of the discourse that defines our society. And the Clintons know it. They know they can't hold a candle to him on the issue of who really represents transformative change.
So here's what the Clintons decided to do. They decided to fit South Carolina, where Obama seemed bound to win anyway, into this story line: Obama emerges from his victory there and goes into the delegate rich primaries on February 5 as "the black candidate." That's what all their attacks over the last couple of weeks come down to. That's why Hillary bailed out and left Bill (America's so-called first black president) in South Carolina to bury the hatchet--in Obama's neck. In a real black man's neck.
They made that decision after all these astonishing months in which Obama has managed to transcend race in this country. After all these astonishing months in which Obama has presented an authentic progressive alternative to identity politics for the nation and the world--that's the choice the Clintons made. In spite of the transcending promise he represents, they have maneuvered to stick the label "black candidate" on Obama's forehead--and risk setting us back by decades.
Why have they done that? In order to win. That's how entitled they feel to a Clinton restoration.
Remarkable... simply brilliant. Every talking head, commentator and columnist speaks endlessly, and unavoidably, about the role of the African-American vote in these primaries but, if Bill Clinton simply MENTIONS it -- in relevant context -- during a speech, he's "playing the race card".
Talk about swallowing the boilerplate press narrative whole...
Obama should pick up the 10% of the black vote that still goes to Republicans for +2% of the general election vote. The "Brady effect" has been about -8%. H starts out -6% in the hole. Look at the states where John Kerry won by 6% or less and give them to the Republicans. Obama cannot win.
Hillary may pick up 10% of the Republican womens vote, about +2% of the general election vote. Hillary's "Brady effect" will be about the same 8%, because she's a woman and she is who she is. SAgain she starts out -6%. Look at the states where John Kerry won by 6% or less and give them to the Republicans. Hillary cannot win.
Nixon created the Southern Strategy. Ford lost in spite of it because he pardoned Nixon. Reagan won with it twice, Bush 1 won with it, Clinton won because Perot ran (twice), Bush 2 won with it twice. Hillary and Obama both reinforce the southern strategy and will lose because of it, even in a change election. Edwards can win because he will break it up. The corporate main stream media has marginalized Edwards and tried to make this between Hillary and Obama. You would think that they are pulling for the Republicans
The Democrats only hope is for there to be no clear winner out of the primaries. Then the convention could pick someone like Edwards or should I say it - Al Gore.
The white voter’s support of Obama is conditioned in him being the noble victim.
The day he becomes the aggressor or is seen as the dominant force you can count out at least 10% of his white voters. This is called the “Bradley effect” it is never in play as long as the black candidate is behind, but the moment they are in front in kicks in.
Nothing changes from Iowa, New Hampshire to SC except that Obama became the front runner against and surprise he have lost 10% of his white voters.
The more support he gathers the less support he would have this is his dilemma.
He did not down play the New Hampshire polls, he is not down playing the SC polls, and the pressure to perform is on him. If he wins it was expected and he gets no attention from the win, I bet my house on the fact that the media will be more interested and will cover more of how the Clintons would spin a third place finish tomorrow then they are on Obama winning the only way he can get anything out of SC is if he looses.
He is always asking permission to attack his political adversaries and when he does you wonder what the fuss was all about.
“Factually inaccurate”, what is that, who is he talking to? not to the Clintons base, for sure!
The Clintons are giving us a glimpse of what the republicans would do and say about Obama the problem is if Obama did the same to the Clintons his base of white supports would evaporate like it did in New Hampshire any way you look at it the Obama is a “bound man”
It was already going to be hard, with how high her negatives are. They are disgusting.
You seem to support Obama, but you write-
"Now Obama is no radical reformer on the policy level".
Considering where we are, with Bush and policies Hillary voted for currently in effect, how can you say Obama's positions don't qualify as radical.
I seem to recall the establishment and their media cronies labelling the anti-war movement radical to try to keep people from joining and minimize their impact...
... Obama stood to support them, against the establishment.
The establishment wanted a Bankruptcy bill, Hillary voted for it, and Obama voted against.
Does Obama need to propose social communes, seizure of assetts from the rich and wealth re-distribution to qualify as a radical?
Isn't charting a different course by definition radical?
One Clinton strategy for this race is to diminish the policy differences that show Obama in line with the Democratic base while Hillary's record shows her on the wrong side.
Her campaign harped on it endlessly, the pundits picked it up and now you are repeating it.
It's just not true. All of you are taking Hillary's word for her new stands, believing her campaign rhetoric, rather than comparing them to her voting record.
Isn't it more important to focus on where Hillary stood when push comes to shove, particularly now when she and Bill have today been exposed as liars by BOTH Shields and Brooks on PBS's the NewsHour?
Can you trust anything they are saying now when the record contradicts it?
When Hillary is laying the "excesses" of the last few weeks at Bill's feet, despite her campaign organizing his efforts, can she be believed?
And then think of the volumes of slime they have waiting for Bill and Hill.
And then think of Edwards, the only electable Dem.
Their means ARE their ends... and, if we let them back in...
Ours.
By far the most disgusting thing about them is not how they've treated Obama, but how they've treated the political process and the cynicism with which they have approached their scorched earth combat.
I believe Obama will win, and when he does, I want them to have the obscurity they richly deserve.
Thanks.
Come outside, America. It's beautiful out here in the sun!!!