Swift2

Thank you, Al Sharpton.

Yeah, you're right. I missed the part of the Clinton campaign where she jumps around in the white sheets and burns the cross. Jeez. If there's one Democratic candidate's supporters who specialize in race-baiting, it's Obama's. posted 05/10/2008 at 21:44:58

Hey, "electability" got us John Kerry. No more of this prognostication crap. Nobody knows what will happen.

And Obama needs all the votes in KY.

And Obama won in Georgia, didn't he? Why, yes, he did. posted 05/10/2008 at 21:42:45

By the '80s, the classic Democratic coalition of FDR had gotten weak enough that a sizable number of people left it and voted for Reagan. These were the Reagan Democrats. Some of them voted for economics, and things did improve -- for some. Some voted that way to vote against the '60s and the McGovernites. It's really complex. And yes, some voted for Reagan because of his appeal to racism, particularly in the South.

Bill Clinton was a change. Do you remember Dukakis? Classic liberal stance. Big, big loser. You want to run him again? Clinton did accept NAFTA, it's true. It was already a done deal when he came to office. All he did was get a side agreement on unions and the environment, and it hasn't worked.

By the way, I take my hat off to Obama, the black Bill Clinton. posted 05/10/2008 at 21:40:56

Look, it's the last and biggest demographic that votes overwhelmingly for Hillary. And it's a problem -- and an opportunity -- for the Obama campaign. I really don't know why that's so hard to understand. posted 05/10/2008 at 21:03:23

McCain doesn't appeal to the guns and bibles votes either. That's why he went to Hagee, that crazy old coot. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:59:46

Funny, coming from the campaign that made more creative use of race-baiting than any in memory. This last little nonsense is your Willie Horton of Outrage Flaps. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:58:57

Gee, 12 people in each place. Lots and lots of electoral votes. And though the Democrats have a better chance of taking some of those deep red states than usual -- in Colorado they definitely have a good shot -- the chance of taking North Dakota, Utah or Idaho is laughable. A state isn't just its college towns and black populations, you know. That was enough to win caucuses, but we'll see about the fall. So, easy enough to win a Democratic primary with a flash mob from colleges and the blacks, usually in a larger city. (Probably all 12 of them in Idaho.) Another thing when everybody votes. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:56:34

I think that joke is a good sociological statement. Some people, particularly those who might have heard the demonization of Hillary in the '90s when they were toddlers, have gotten overtaken by a negative psychology. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:52:36

Oh, yes. John McCain is a conservative. He once had liberal elements to his policy, but he's pandered those away long ago. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:50:44

Obama must be trying to "exceed expectations," no? I love how you can filter out this or that, depending on whether it helps or hurts your candidate. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:49:14

Oh, then the poor.

My question is, why do you put them down for voting for Hillary? Do you seriously think the only reason people could have for not voting for Obama is that they're racists? Really? Well, you need those people, or a large part, to vote for Obama in November. Are you trying to get their vote by calling them racists? Not a good way to get out the vote. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:48:09

Oh, I don't know. How about, "it must be clear to anybody watching Hillary for the past 16 years"? The 'proofs" of the Clintons' racism on Huffpo read like Monty Python. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:45:39

Even better, why are you mad at him, and why do you accept the perfectly ridiculous idea that Hillary's a racist, and why do you think that Obama's inability, so far, to get the white working class vote isn't important? Calm down. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:44:06

You don't know what she thinks in private, but from her life from the last 61 years, it's clear she doesn't believe in your bizarre interpretation. There was a vast right-wing conspiracy, you know. There is no "racist in the closet" with the Clintons. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:42:38

No, she said "after two weeks."

Once the Republicans were elected in 1994, health care reform was DEAD. Don't you know how politics works at ALL? posted 05/10/2008 at 20:33:25

I think you crazy people think his finger is his wang. No, it's not, you sexuallly crazy people. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:32:07

Excuse me, Bill was speaking and a heckler starts yelling. He listens, then he rebuts the point. End of story. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:31:25

Please, oh genius, tell us what she should have done? posted 05/10/2008 at 20:30:33

Hm. Dr. Freud would ask, when you see the wagging finger, what do you think of? Hmm? Jawohl. I thought so. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:29:37

Interesting that the Obama crowd has so many ignorant prigs on its side. Sexual problems, huh? posted 05/10/2008 at 20:25:50

It's called VOTES! They didn't have the votes for a comprehensive plan. And since Democrats had the House and Senate, you can ask them why they didn't take it up. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:24:42

Yeah, so what was wrong with THEM? posted 05/10/2008 at 20:23:00

Race-baiter. posted 05/10/2008 at 18:21:59

I don't think I've ever seen Clinton supporters claim that. I do know that HuffPo Obama supporters couldn't live without demonizing the Clintons. Hey, quick; what's Obama's policy on health care, energy, the war, or anything? When there's a difference with Hillary, Hillary's on the left. Now, why is that?
The answer: Hillary's evil incarnate, a Nazi racist, blah blah...
Come on, now: please talk about what President Obama will do. posted 05/10/2008 at 18:20:29

You're changing the subject, aren't you? posted 05/10/2008 at 18:17:38

That's what she said to the reporter. That's not what she said to Bill. I guess it's all right for her to lie, then. posted 05/10/2008 at 18:17:08

Everybody has a responsibility to the truth.

It's sure interesting to read the HuffPo, though, to see how far the Anti-Clinton disease has come. posted 05/10/2008 at 18:16:27

She said they didn't try. That's the lie. posted 05/10/2008 at 18:15:25

Any fool can sue. The criminal charges were already laughed out of court, and this piece of crap lawsuit will too. posted 05/10/2008 at 18:14:25

Yes, it was severely ill in the first year, and down and and out when it was defeated just in time... for the midterm elections, strangely enough. Now, why was that timing there?

Let's say your memory of the '90s is very selective. Obama's not going to back out of NAFTA, bigbingtheory. Nobody is. You want to, but it ain't gonna happen. And in 15 years, you'll be disgusted and amazed when some idiot heckler tells President Obama that he never tried. Only the heckler might be right. posted 05/10/2008 at 18:12:47

You may have noticed that your wise media run exactly one "story" about Bill. There are always cameras out where he is, but they only put the outbursts on the air. Because, you see, that's their "story," and they're sticking to it. posted 05/10/2008 at 18:08:20

Why not, when the other person is too cowardly to even try? posted 05/10/2008 at 18:07:05

That's the looniest thing I've ever heard. So I have the right to lie about you, and you have to take it and be happy about it? posted 05/10/2008 at 17:52:47

They don't deny that they failed. They deny they didn't work for it. Bill staked his first term on delivering it, and when it collapsed -- thanks, Democrats -- the "Republican Revolution" was on. posted 05/10/2008 at 17:51:42

So, KarateKid, when you have a meeting I'm going to stand up and start lying about you. And you will condescendingly point your finger at me. And I will feel brave. Nice thing, politics. posted 05/10/2008 at 17:50:35

Obama's not going to change a damn thing about NAFTA, "reflective." posted 05/10/2008 at 17:49:30

So, FDR, whose plan was to bring health care just after social security, is a big failure, and so is Harry Truman, and every president since then. LBJ? Why, that's just for old people!

Come on. They're losing. Can't you admit the truth NOW? They did their damnedest. They got defeated, and it wasn't because of lack of trying. It had a lot more to do with the $300 million campaign launched by the insurance industry called "Harry & Louise," which Obama's campaign shamefully echoed this season. It had a lot to do with Rush Limbaugh and Newt and the "Republican Revolution," which is now in shambles.

"They caved." Well, you know, they didn't. But when the House and Senate are in the hands of a zealous opposition, you resort to a kind of guerilla warfare. You're damn lucky that Bill was tricky and sneaky enough, and tough enough with his vetoes, in the '90s. There were lots of moments when Bill was all we had between us and Newt's Madmen. And that's the truth. posted 05/10/2008 at 17:47:26

I was with you up to the end. I won't ever do that. I first heard that kind of pig-headedness here, when Hillary was 20 points up. "I won't vote for her, I'll vote for McCain first," they said. Please, wake up. Nothing's worth that. posted 05/10/2008 at 17:40:13

Doesn't bother you that a) more documents were declassified by the Clinton administration than any previous administration, that they're releasing their administration's documents at a faster clip than any previous administration -- just wait for W's document dumps in 2040. But you know you can always feel good about yourself by using the talking point that Karl Rove suggested for Obama in the British newspaper about 9 months ago. posted 05/10/2008 at 17:38:39

Note the place and the headline: "Bill Clinton gets angry at heckler," not "crazy old lady gets confused about the facts." Maybe she's conflating two things: Hillary became less visible at some point because of the endless heckling from the right about the "two for one" business, and the "Tammy Wynette" "baking cookies," etc. It was hard being the first activist first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt.

So Hillary kept a lower profile while she put together the task force.

Were there mistakes? Sure, in retrospect. Did she work hard to get it done? Absolutely. Oh, but that's right. She didn't campaign for Obama's measly "reforms", so she must have done nothing. posted 05/10/2008 at 17:34:55

Note: the original story says "pressured." HuffPo says "threatens." Gee, what a "thug."

Look, kiddies, the problem of getting a vote for Michigan and Florida will last longer than Hillary's campaign. Now that Obama has sloughed it off into the future, when they will be able to vote in Soviet, one-candidate election, you bet they ought to come up with a formula to seat the delegates, and fast. I don't think any state will be jumping the gun next election, after this bloodbath. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:13:33

She's still a dangerous wacko. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:15:14

So, you believe everything you read in the Obama Post? posted 05/04/2008 at 20:10:08

You'll notice, this is only -- supposedly -- being considered if there's an appreciable change in the political realities between now and the end of the month. Like, maybe, 70% wins by Hillary in the last primaries. A revelation that Obama is a transvestite or something. (Joke, folks.) All coverage of the Hillary campaign here on the Obama Post is meant to make people think she's crazy and evil. posted 05/04/2008 at 19:06:16

You know, I work in subtitles and captioning, and if I had been captioning that, the best I could have put was "indistinct" and "whispering." But if you insist on hearing anything, you will. That's the way the brain works. posted 05/04/2008 at 04:01:34

In case you don't know it, you're race baiting right there. In your little story, the "white president's little missy" thinks she's entitled to the office. Funny, she's working her butt off, and she's behind. I think she got lulled into some complacency because she was 20 points up for so long. And your characterization of Bill Clinton is particularly racist, and untrue.

That's what I mean by race baiting. posted 05/04/2008 at 03:59:51

The taping of Obama was done by someone working for the Huffington Post. The Clintons had nothing to do with it. The Wright snippets came from tapes he sold in his church, and the excerpting seems to have been done by Sean Hannity. Hillary has said nothing except, "He wouldn't be my pastor." Hillary was painted as a racist from denying four times that Obama is a Muslim, sympathizing with him for the lies that are spread about him, and then, on the fourth try, she says, "as far as I know," which, if you think about it, is all anybody can say about another's religion -- but that one phrase, after of three definitive denials, is pounced upon. 60 minutes is legendary for filming roll after roll of film, waiting for the gotcha phrase. Was she asked a fifth or sixth time? No, they cut after the one ambiguous phrase. It's obvious that the Bob Herberts of the world were waiting for any ambiguity they could pounce on to define the way they wanted to. A-ha. You see, Hillary isn't normal, according to the psychos. She's completely in control of what she says. Which is odd, because the way the Sam Steins and so on define her is obviously NOT what she would say if she was "completely in control." But an evil, scheming manipulator, which is the character we want you to see here, would say something with that intent, but we've heroically turned her back! posted 05/04/2008 at 03:57:00

Remember the Cold War? How many millions died? No one. What was it based on? Deterrence. Stalin had the bomb, but we had more. Some wanted to strike the Soviet Union first, but Truman, and Ike, said no preemptive wars. Ike pulled our troops out of Europe and Japan by ringing the Soviet Union with bombs. That was the threat. No more Russia if you do that. No more expansion. If you try to attack us, we will destroy you. We didn't have a Third World War, now, did we? The Russians were rational.
Now, we have a War on Terror in which Bush has supposed that Muslims are not rational. That Iran is a nation of terrorists. That, in his phrase, "the smoking gun must never be a mushroom cloud." He would attack a nation just because someday they might have a nuke.
Hillary says we should withdraw from Iraq, hold a series of meetings in the region, and come up with a new alignment of the middle east without being aggressors. We might put Israel, and others, under the American "umbrella." So then if they attack Israel with nukes, we will retaliate. She didn't say "we will," she said, "If..." and she offered the same protection to others.
I think Iran is rational and will abandon any nuclear ambitions. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:51:14

So you'd vote for the Republican nutcase, who would do everything that Obama is opposed to, rather than the Democrat who isn't your first choice? Your irrationality knows no bounds. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:23:48

He didn't say what you think he said. Look, I do subtitles for a living. When sound is that bad, you can imagine the people said anything you want. And obviously, you want anybody associated with the Clintons to be a cartoon villain. Hey, JasonMA: it's not Saturday morning anymore. Turn off the TV. Start reading. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:22:11

See what I mean? The Obama campaign started ramping up when they started playing the Republican playbook from the '90s. Know what, shackelford? None of those charges meant a damn thing. You can find anything you want on the Internet, and some of it's even true. But that's just paranoid ranting. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:20:10

You mean Peter Paul, who swindled the great comic artist Stan Lee? Who had previously done time in federal prison for fraud? That Peter Paul? He's a flim-flam man, he bilked Stan Lee, and he made a bid for influence by holding a fundraiser for Hillary. Now he wants Hillary to give back the money that the partygoers gave her, not him. It was tossed out of court, and it's only a matter of time before it's tossed out of civil court. He's got no case.

He owes Stan Lee some money, though. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:18:23

According to the latest polls, Hillary has the best chance of defeating McCain. But don't let the facts bother you. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:15:28

If that's what his campaign stands for, it's only in your mind it does. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:13:37

Your analysis, I agree, is a no-brainer. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:13:01

What's the scandal? If you curl yourself up into a tight little ball of outrage, everything looks outrageous.

Where's the suppression angle? It seems like they've goofed, and they're not very well run, but what have they done that would discourage a single person not to vote in the primaries? They started calling after the primary door closed, right? They're calling people about registering for the general election. Probably should have waited until after the campaign, though there's a case to be made that some people who didn't register for the primary will be swept up in all the activity and send in a card. They couldn't vote in the primary anyway.

Oh, but it's Hillary, so you guys must believe that it's Pure Evil.

Know what? The party's really grown in the last four years. I think we added some crazies. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:12:34

"It is not uncommon to adopt the traits of those you have opposed."

Like the Obama people, like Huffington? posted 05/02/2008 at 15:07:13

Sid Blumenthal doesn't tell lies. He has opinions you don't agree with. That doesn't mean either of you are lying. Jesus, I think Obama-fever is driving you guys nuts. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:05:25

No one can criticize the Master, huh? posted 05/02/2008 at 15:03:24

Yes, it's true. We are Cylon. We are the followers of the Queen of Hellstroms Hive, and we are out to destroy you.

Please. The Obama campaign remains the most hugely negative campaign in primary history. What is Mr. Dreier doing but fostering another conspiratorial angle on what is free speech. Sid is writing e-mails to his friends. So the f what? Mr. Dreier is blabbing about it as though it was news, and as though it's anything but a man who is loyal to the Clintons and skeptical of Obama telling his friends what he thinks. Does he wish more people saw things his way? Of course. Nothing sinister in that at all.
The "cult" accusation comes from a single observation that Obama's meetings are long on inspiration and cheering, and awfully short on serious policy proposals. He talks about the end of ideology, but how on earth does he think that's going to happen?

Mr. Dreier, and the legions of the Obama Post, can write anything they damn well please. And so can Sid Blumenthal. It's called the First Amendment. posted 05/02/2008 at 14:59:43

The relevant part was to put Israel under the US nuclear umbrella, so that nobody would get hurt. If you think Iran is no kind of a threat at all, you're living in la-la land. If you want to then bomb Iran without provocation, you're in a Bush dream. But warning them that bombing Israel would get them nothing but destruction is talking just the way Eisenhower did, when he started the policy of MAD that contained the Soviets without war. Please don't take your policy cues from the hysterical left.
And then once Israel is under the US protection, you could pressure them to start talks about disarming. posted 05/01/2008 at 22:18:10

Because of his attitude. And his policies aren't exactly FDR, you know? Imagine if Bill Bradley could have spoken well. Same old crap about bipartisanship and the "end of ideology." There's only one time to end "ideology," and that's when you've won. posted 05/01/2008 at 22:14:34

Okay! Now here's the usual Obama rejoinder when faced with something that doesn't play well in the mainstream. "But they did it too!"
Well, Ayers and Dohrn were not some guy writing in the Harvard Crimson, were they? The Weathermen were part of a self-styled revolutionary group that believed they should blow up government buildings to start the revolution. Now, the first people they blew up were themselves. Then there was an ultra-violent and a less violent split, and a lot of people lost enthusiasm as time went on. It never did start a revolution, now, did it? The only political movement the Weather Underground added to was the election of Richard Nixon, and the rise of the Reagan Republican. So, the criminal liability for the Ayers was miniscule, but their political culpability was quite large. Kind of like Ralph Nader's role in 2000.
But why Obama's name gets mixed up with this couple is flimsy and stupid. Wait a minute: it was framed by the right, as a way to paint the Obama movement as crazy leftist radicals that the country rejected, forcibly, in the '70s. In fact, every Democrat with a chance gets painted with the "radical left" brush, like that moderate Howard Dean.
So, of course, it's only logical that the Obama movement will respond with... mud-slinging? Who taught you politics, Rush Limbaugh or Lenin? posted 04/30/2008 at 15:00:57

Well, you're the one with the racist images in your brain. posted 04/30/2008 at 16:12:01

Bill Clinton was approached by a reporter whose first question was, "So, how does it feel, that it takes two of you to campaign against Obama?" He said, "I'm not rising to the bait." So there was a confrontation with the press as part of the context. Then he began to speak, on a day when the polls were telling him that Hillary was losing badly, largely because she lost her big lead among African Americans. Bill knows his history, so he went back to the closest historical parallel. (I was a supporter of the Rainbow Coalition, by the way.) So, he was overoptimistic about the rest of the race, from his point of view. He compared a civil-rights era leader to a "post-racial" leader. Horrors! How racist can you get! Jackson lost! So his coalition collapsed! So the coded message is-- Campaigns are complicated things? Sometimes a coalition holds, sometimes it doesn't, and you're never quite sure of what will happen next in politics? Ha! Bull Connor must have loved that!
Obama's campaign loves to have race on the table when it benefits him, but to be able to use it as an axe too. posted 04/30/2008 at 16:10:40

Obama himself did not say anything racial. It was his campaign, and even more, his supporters. posted 04/30/2008 at 16:01:16

It was already in the Obama-- er, the Huffington Post. So what? This is the genius of the Obama campaign.

And campaigning against a black candidate without losing the black vote if you win is exactly the dilemma the Clinton campaign has been in. It's been made especially difficult by the preemptive screams of racism whenever they say anything. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:59:44

I think that's a fair description. It's leaving out the rest of his career, but fair enough. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:56:40

Oh, I think Wilentz would say, openly, he's pro-Clinton. Not that there's anything wrong with that. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:55:10

Because without winning over a majority of African-Americans in South Carolina -- all the polls had Hillary and Bill far in the lead for months -- the Obama campaign was dead. I don't fault them for that. I'm old enough to remember the way Irish Catholics voted for JFK, and frankly, these voters were Obama's to lose -- and he didn't. What makes me angry is the deliberate framing of the most innocuous remark, or any kind of political difference, as "racist." That's cynical. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:53:16

Is that why Obama didn't go to Jena, didn't go to the Tavis Smiley event in New Orleans, and hasn't had a peep to say about the Sean Bell shooting? If anybody wants to play race two ways, it's Obama. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:48:20

Newsflash: who says that "the Clinton campaign" GAVE Drudge that picture. Why, Drudge. How believable is he? Are you freekin' kidding? Taking "facts" from Drudge? And yes, the picture did appear on the Free Republic site.
When Salon wanted to reprint it for their story, they didn't want to pay Drudge royalties, so they went straight to the AP site, searched, and bought the photo within a few minutes. Do you think all the oppo researchers are Hillary's?
As for the rest, it's obvious that you've fully bought into the right-wing picture of Hillary the Controlling Bitch. Well, I haven't bought into the right-wing picture of Obama the Angry Black Man, so maybe you should think about it. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:47:04

Read the text of that ad. Look for the name, "Obama." It isn't there. The ad says, "Who do you trust?" The kicker is, the Clinton campaign had a survey that told them about 10% of the voters DID trust Clinton more with that phone call. That's an important difference, and any campaign manager wants to draw people's attention to a difference like that. Obama ran a commercial in the last minutes of PA where he, to my mind, lied about Hillary's health care proposals. Negative ad? Yeah, you bet. Is he blamed for it in the press? Why, no.
The most depressing part of the Obama movement is this: anybody who points out flaws, real or unreal, is not treated with respect. They're a paid agent, a racist, a shill for Billary or "that bitch." I suggest you honor democracy a little more.
I think the "dream ticket" was dreamed up by the people. It's highly unlikely, now, but it still wouldn't be a bad idea. The only real problem is, who would take first place?
But now, think of this. Obama wins. Hillary concedes. They appear together, talking against McCain. Impossible? No. Then, at the convention, Obama nominates Hillary for VP. Horrible? No. They're very close on most issues, closer than the Obamans think, that's for sure.
The only problem to me would be, would the Democrats be better served taking on racism and sexism with the same ticket? posted 04/30/2008 at 15:40:47

Why do you make that assertion? What's your evidence? How do you define "right"?

And why do you think that anybody who supports Hillary must be doing it out of corrupt motives? It's one jump away to Rush Limbaugh with this kind of thinking. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:30:39

Grace2008, the majority elects presidents. That's the problem. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:28:26

It's called race-baiting. A similar tactic has been used on Obama in the past, as for instance, when he tried to run against Bobby Rush. He wasn't "black enough." It worked in Chicago. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:23:30

Every single thing you say is a simple declaration, like a declaration of faith, without evidence. Doesn't that bother you? posted 04/30/2008 at 15:21:10

The talking points memo stuff is proof that somebody has kidnapped the real Josh Marshall and put a nutbar in his place. The registration period for the primaries is over. This was intended to increase the registration for the general elections. To interpret the efforts in NC and elsewhere as anything else relies on making people think the voters are dumb, or, more likely, rumors and paranoia fostered by people who want to provoke black fears of being disenfranchised by the Clintons. Now, who would that be? posted 04/30/2008 at 15:20:07

The triangulation theory was a desperate improvisation, to turn back the Republican "revolution" -- which came to power by every divisive strategy possible -- by adopting some of the key reasons that had made a majority vote for Newt and his pals. By 1994, the mood of the country about Democrats was like the view of Republicans today. The Clintons are centrist and pragmatic, but spitting out the word "triangulation" like it's some kind of religious heresy doesn't help your cause. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:15:05

Glad to see the effect the Obama campaign is having in knitting the country together. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:10:51

This is the David Sirota who wrote the learned essay "proving" that Hillary's voters are all racist, right?

I'll say it once. Protectionism is the top countries of the world leads to one thing: world war and depression. posted 05/01/2008 at 20:52:21

Dave Winer makes a mistake here: Wright has never been a problem to fair-minded people who listen to the whole sermon, and understand his remarks in context. It's a problem because the media is crazy. It's a problem because a lot of people don't listen to the whole thing. It's a problem because, like Bill Clinton's remark comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, it makes him into the "black" candidate. That's what Obama has desperately tried to avoid; thus his absence from the protests in Louisiana, his nonattendance at Tavis Smiley's seminar on Black America, and don't hold your breath waiting for a reaction to the Sean Bell killing either. Obama desperately wants to avoid being taken as a candidate for blacks, or for civil rights; so much so that Clinton's remark comparing his campaign in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's was pounded as "racist". posted 04/28/2008 at 07:09:38

My God, the temerity of those Florida voters! They want their votes to count! Who do they think they are? Obama supporters? Apparently not. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:35:17

Actually, you should read Sam Stein's interview with Mudcat Saunders, who is very friendly to Barack. The comment at the fundraiser, by the way, was revealed by a reporter HERE, not by one of Hillary's evil minions.

Mudcat makes the relevant political judgments there. Barack made a comment that doesn't sound good to white, rural America, which is the way that a lot of Democrats have sounded to them. If he actually believes that, he's in trouble. What Democrat carried rural America, not once, but twice? Hmm, could it be that Democrat's last name began with a "C."?

I especially appreciated Saunders' comment that "Reagan Democrats are begging to come home, if only we make a big enough tent for them." Making disparaging remarks about people's religion and their guns is a good way to lose rural America. posted 04/24/2008 at 14:46:50

Good lord, call out the cops! It wasn't 10%, only 9.something! Stop the presses!

I know spin is unmerciful and inevitable, but that's about the nitpickiest of spin possible.

The reality was, it wasn't a 9% win for Obama. Close doesn't really count in anything but horseshoes. (The same would go for what some blowhard pundit said was the "minimum," too.) posted 04/24/2008 at 14:38:23

I was trying, idly, to find the image on the net, to see the context. I couldn't find that, but I did find it posted on the National Review Online in September, 2004, by Kathryn Jean Lopez, under the headline, "McCain-Hillary 2008? Hillary-McCain 2008?" So you see what happens to bipartisans: tunnel-vision ideologues attack them. Is that the only picture of McCain they could dig up? Looks a photo op for some kind of environmental cause, no? Alaska drilling?

But the Huffpo crowd will stop at nothing, apparently. Now, McCain did flirt with running as a Democrat. That's already well known. Want to know how to hurt his chances? Do some oppo research into the number of times he's gone across the aisle, which is why The Base hates him. Force him to condemn his past stances, and bring up the painful memories for the Base. (The Republican base: Al Qaeda means "the base." Funny, huh?) posted 04/24/2008 at 15:11:53

Once again, Huffpo slants a story about McCain by headlining it with a picture of Hillary with him. Picture language? "Hillary agrees that women shouldn't be paid the same." The event was some kind of bipartisan photo op about the environment. You remember bipartisanship? Y'all praise it when Barack does it, but when Hillary, who's actually done it more often and more effectively, you call her a sellout and a neocon. posted 04/24/2008 at 14:52:04

See? McCain didn't say anything negative. He's trying to rein them in, and to understand what a great guy he is, the networks are playing this over and over. He's a positive guy.

Sort of the same way Obama is doing things. posted 04/23/2008 at 23:16:38

Edsall a Hillary supporter? I think not. He trends Obama, or he wouldn't be working here. posted 04/22/2008 at 15:49:30

It's called a racial stereotype. That's why it's hit a nerve. It doesn't matter whether it's a black or white stereotype, it's an excuse for racist invective. posted 04/22/2008 at 15:47:54

A novel theory of 2000. Let's see, there was Nader, Rove, the national press corps who sold us a phony called GW Bush as a normal guy, and who concocted a dozen or so phony stories about Al Gore (He was a pathological liar, remember? He'd "do anything" to be elected. Sound familiar?). They lied outright most of the time about him, and lastly, there was Al Gore, who chose the shlub Lieberman as moral "cover" -- great idea, Al -- and who sabotaged his campaign over and over, because he was afraid to bring the Big Dog out on the stump for him.

Have fun voting for Nader. posted 04/22/2008 at 15:46:48

If they don't, they won't have any explanation for Hillary's win in PA. Let's see: it must be racism. No, it's voter fraud. With this kind of crank conspiracy theory, we cheapen our party. We need those guys to vote for us, not McCain. posted 04/22/2008 at 15:40:47

How does Obama get elected without a big slice of those white guys? Answer, he doesn't. Obama knows that, even if the elitist snots among his supporters do not. posted 04/22/2008 at 15:39:08

For the politically illiterate, the number of states is completely immaterial. One, two, many Rhode Islands is a weak revolution. posted 04/22/2008 at 15:37:41

Is anybody arguing for a "no white guys can vote" election? Does that include white male Obama supporters? Obviously not. This dumb article is just another way of "progressives" injecting race into the campaign, and the picture is most likely some photo editor's self-hatred. Can't stand thinking about your uncles, can you? You know, if I was against Obama -- I'm not, I'm just for Clinton -- and I put a picture of an obese pair of African-Americans in a stereotypical situation in my article, there'd be (rightly) hell to pay. But dress it up with sociological jargon, and make the targets of racism white, and it's cool! It confirms my worst suspicions of the trendy types who love the HuffPo. posted 04/22/2008 at 15:35:08

No, I'm afraid you're tarnished, joedougi, for being a rabid partisan. posted 04/22/2008 at 16:08:11

"If you disagree with Obama and his Chicago street fighter campaign, you're a racist." posted 04/22/2008 at 16:07:37

Wouldn't have anything to do with your state of mind, and the Huffpo's deliberate selection of unflattering pictures, right? No, that would be the Old Politics. posted 04/22/2008 at 16:06:24

You mean, the ex-con who latched on to Stan Lee, the great creator of Marvel Comics, convinced him to get financing in the Internet bubble, and before it popped, held an event for Hillary's Senate campaign and now is doing his best to make some money from Hillary? He's a con man, his motions have all lost, and his whole lawsuit is full of crap. That Paul? posted 04/22/2008 at 16:05:17

Name one thing.

It was the Obama campaign that cited Drudge as evidence that Hillary's camp had somehow released pictures to him, and that he, Drudge, was setting the record straight. That's race-baiting. Believe Drudge? Are you naive or cynical?

By the way, the pictures were perfectly innocuous, if you learn the story behind them. That's what almost all of America would know, if the Obama campaign hadn't used these pictures as a way to make the Clinton campaign look bad; they've created the impression that the costume is something to be ashamed of. posted 04/22/2008 at 16:02:13