Classy!

Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had a sexual encounter during this visit. They kissed, and the President touched Ms. Lewinsky's bare breasts with his hands and mouth. At some point, Ms. Currie approached the door leading to the hallway, which was ajar, and said that the President had a telephone call. Ms. Lewinsky recalled that the caller was a Member of Congress with a nickname. While the President was on the telephone, according to Ms. Lewinsky, "he unzipped his pants and exposed himself," and she performed oral sex. Again, he stopped her before he ejaculated.

Goodness!
Where do they find these people? How do they get to talk to the media?

The Clinton camp really needs to tighten these things up--they're only acting as a foil to Obama's squeaky clean image.

Wow, I guess we know what kind of whisper campaign is going on: see SCProgressive above.

Now what this has to do with Hillary Clinton is beyond me.

The "Clinton staffer" in the above story would bother me more if they were named. In the meantime, I'm not going to let it bother me. Racial antagonisms will hurt my candidate's campaign in the long run, though it may help in the short term....

Things are really getting dirty out there, aren't they?

Note: I support Obama.

This is clearly the opinion of an unidentified staff but not the official position of the Clinton compaign. I'm a supporter of Clinton. You are not going to use my words against her, are you?

I usually don't blame candidates for every stupid thing that their underlings say and do, but Hillary really needs to lay down the law with her staff b/c this is getting sick.

Why would an advisor say something like that on the record? Obviously, this person knew the statement was offensive because they insisted an anonymity.

SC Progressive: A bit off topic don't you think? Did your subscription to Penthouse expire? Why don't you publish your own personal sexual exploits? Not interesting enough?

Yeah, Obama's just my imaginary friend; my 'invisible man', if you will.

Ridiculously offensive to Obama and every single individual who supports his candidacy.

This campaign is destroying the Clinton legacy.

What a disgusting, disrespectful caricature of those who are -- based on the merits -- supporting a positive, inspiring campaign and a thoroughly impressive candidate in Barack Obama. Given the alternatives, I'm not nearly stupid or selfish enough to withhold my support from HRC should she get the nomination.

But her campaign is really poisoning their relationship with Obama supporters and risking a division in the party. And in doing so proving further why so many are working so hard for a positive candidate like Obama.

For what it's worth, I am still fairly young, still fairly hip, do have social needs (and real friends of all races, for what it's worth).

The Clinton campaign keeps aiming lower with every passing week.

Why plaster an anonymous source as front page material for TPM??

I would reserve judgement. These anon sources and the way the media has behaved makes me sceptical. If the guy really believes it then tell us who he is. Otherwise this is bs. The stories seem to fit the usual media narrative when it comes to the Clintons. Obama meanwhile floats on water. Give me a break.
TPM is getting into the swing of things with this stuff. Becoming part of the MSM are you?

HA thats great news katie...I can't imagine why it wouldn't be front page news here at TPM, just like every single poll that shows Obama head anywhere.

FL
Clinton 51%, Obama 32%, Edwards 11%

Angry Vet wrote on January 11, 2008 5:37 PM:
Where do y'all think the momentum is out there? Hillary's campaign seems to be the one struggling, not Obama's (considering he was defeated in NH).

--- Dear Mr. Vet, please calm down. Yes, indeed. Not only do you have an imaginery black hip friend, you also have an imaginery win in NH. LOL!!!

Katie:

You probably missed this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html

How about this one Keith?

#
Pres '08 (D)
Jan 11 CNN
Clinton 49%, Obama 36%, Edwards 12% ...

How do you rationalize away this one?

I generally defend Hillary against the Obama supporter onslaught, but this is a very stupid comment. I don't have a problem with anonymous sources, so I think it was alright to run the article. One does have to put anonymously sourced stories in a separate category, however. I try to never assume that stories like this are automatically reflective of a campaign's position. Unfortunately, most national campaign are full of consultants with their own agendas. Look at all of the negativity coming from Kerry's camp in 04. Everybody was jockeying for position, and the candidate be damned.

katie wrote on January 11, 2008 5:46 PM:
How about this one Keith?

#
Pres '08 (D)
Jan 11 CNN
Clinton 49%, Obama 36%, Edwards 12% ...

How do you rationalize away this one?

--- He would say CNN is clinton news network, per bill o'reilly

It does just ooze Blumenthal, doesn't it?

Glorious news about Hillary's lead in Florida. I'm sure she's looking forward to the zero delegates it will add to her total.

ChrisO wrote on January 11, 2008 5:47 PM:
I generally

--- Did you realize that this kind of stupid anonymous comments and Cuomo's comments are being widely reported but Jessie Jackson Jr.'s stupid racist comments have not been reported except for this site at all? For this, I am grateful although this site has a clear bias for Obama against Clinto.

Unacceptable reporting. You do NOT attribute racially offensive remarks to an "anonymous Clinton staffer," thus giving Clinton and her staff no effective way to deny the story.

Especially right before the SC primary.

Either report the remark with source, or don't report it. No Clinton aide is entitled to anonymity for saying anything so stupid and offensive.

Why is this a news when the news start with "ANONYMOUS" Clinton supporter said.....

Me Anonymous Obama supporter said yesterday that Obama took bribe money from TONY REZKO in Illinois.

Just because you have a blog and news cycle is bit slow doesn't mean you should be posting every opinion of every anonymous supporter says about the candidate.

Yours truely

ME ANONYMOUS

It was a gaffe. A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.

Anderson --

Maybe they went anonymous hoping Obama would chomp on the bait at which point they would scream "anonymous!" Plausible deniability...

Oh yea...that Jesse Jackson Jr was a real decent guy yesterday. Man you guys are just so blind. It's politics..and shes no better or no worse than he is.

Is it selective memory? Or selective hearing? Or are you just all idiots?

My first reaction to the quote was to laugh and cringe.

But honestly, I've talked to MANY young people, college kids, about their Obama support and I have to say this anonymous volunteer's quote has a ring of truth to it. Young white suburban kids adopt black culture as an affect because it's cool.

I'm not sorry somebody raised this point, because it's worth saying. I'm just sorry that the Clinton camp had to be associated with it, even by an anonymous volunteer.

Next they'll circulate a flyer in South Carolina claiming that Obama has an illegitimate "nappy-ho" daughter. It is unfortunate that the Clintons are adopting Karl Rove's strategies -- especially since the whole reason I am voting for a Democrat is to put an end to Karl Rove. But if you want war with Iraq, war with Iran, and continuing sewer-level politics, then by all means vote for Hillary.

here we go again...did any of you hillary-haters follow the link to the original article?...it was, not surprisingly, written by a fellow clinton-basher...the author is obviously one who must have participated in the communal gloating by the "liberal media"...it is also an anonymous source that was quoted...so, well, figure it out...but listen, you just keep on keepin on, because the clintons eat your words for breakfast...the vitriolic rhetoric only makes them stronger...so keep spewing and watch her grow...and grow and grow...and WIN, suckahs...

Why is the aide still anonymous?

Does it look like the Clinton campaign is playing the race card through surrogates?

I tend to think they are. But like most of the Clinton attacks they seem to be ineffective and primarily deepen the commitment of Obama supporters.

OMG the clinton campaign is racist. Thanks for letting me know I will switch vote now.

I find it so amazing that they are now playing the race card. Things must be really bad in Hillaryland right now. They have sunk to new depths. Perhaps they will begin criticizing many of us as vast progressive conspiracy once they flame out.

Did anyone think it would really be possible to keep this kind of filth out of the campaign? What, did you folks suddenly forget where you live, and the history therein? But, no matter, come the morning of Feb. 6 BHO will be packing his things and heading back to the Windy city, and "Your Girl" will go to capture the nomination only to be stomped by John McCain in the general election. Maybe then, the long, tedious sickening love affair Dems have with The Clintons will happily come to a end.

The bottom line: if McCain and Clinton get nominated, McCain will walk away with it. Sorry, there aren't enough Baby boomer women on the planet to stop McCain.

If Chuckabee or Romney get the nod against Hillary, it would probably be a toss up.

If Obama takes on ANY Republican, it will be a landslide for Obama.

Oh, did I mention that if Hillary is elected, Bush's foreign policy would barely change one bit? She'd spend the entire four years trying to prove that she wasn't "weak." Yeah, that's what we need right now.

katie writes

You're an idiot if you think that the DNC will continue to keep FL away from the convention.

Katie, calling people idiots neither supports your point nor makes you seem like you know what you're talking about.

The pundits think that the DNC will ultimately relent and seat half the delegates from FL and MI, and if the delegates don't make a difference in the outcome, that makes sense. But if those delegates would give Hillary a victory, I doubt that they'll do that, or they'll have a lot of really angry Obama supporters, as the DNC has discouraged candidates from campaigning in those states.

Furthermore, it's besides the point. Since Obama isn't campaigning in FL, it doesn't prove anything that he's behind there. Thus, TPM's failure to make a big deal of if the FL polls, is not evidence of anti-Clinton bias, which I believe was your original point.

Projection.

Look it up.

And who is the 'anonymous Clinton advisor'? Dick Morris?

A couple thoughts:

1. The Clinton campaign does seem to be using s sort of whisper campaign of racist allusions. If they are not sanctioning it- they need to publicly distance themselves from it and fire offending personnel. This quote in particular is bad.

2. The Obama campaign should fire Jesse jackson jr. This stuff isn't prettier when it comes from him. Furthermore, Obama supporters should walk the walk here and demand the firing. If Hillary is not allowed to use racist codes- Obama is not allowed to use sexist one.

3. The double standard-- I am an Obama supporter but I DO think the press is harder on Hillary. The are more negative to her and always have been. The problem with this as an argument for her candidacy is that it is a glimpse of the future. The press do not like her and it is as dangerous for her as it was for Gore and for Kerry. The MSM narrative can sink a campaign. WE do not want a candidate who begins with two strikes against them. Is this fair to Hillary? No. But I am mostly concerned about winning in November. I think Obama can. I think Hillary can not.

Wow, this is astonishingly terrible.

You know, those voters that believed in JFK and RFK really just wanted a hip white northeastern liberal friend.

re: Where is the insult to the candidate?

It's racially insulting to his entire campaign. In this quote and others of late, HRC & Co. are pushing this line that caucasian supporters of Obama only like him because of "white guilt." That's highly offensive. It demeans his supporters and his campaign.

You losers think Obama lost NH because of Bradley effect. How can he win the general election? You people are beyond naive! get a life!

Just wondering: does this mean that people who support Hillary only do so because they want an "imaginary race-baiting white woman friend?" I guess they think it would just be "cool" if a woman were in the oval office and it would expatiate some of their sexist guilt at the same time.

"Shuck and jive", "fairytale", and, oh, yes, the suggestion that Tiger Woods be "lynched in an alley" as the only way to stop his domination of his sport. Just another week in America.

hillary and bill must think he's a 'fairytale' or an 'imaginary friend' because those darkies just blend in at night.

i have seriously been trying to see the value in a clinton restoration, but i am disgusted.

Now Hillary supporters are trumpeting polls? Oy vey.

Anyone out there remember Criswell? He used to say things like, "I predict that in the future people will wear their pants... OVER THEIR HEADS!"

Anyone at this point, on either side, who thinks they can predict the future based on polls should be running to be the new Criswell.

Genghis,

Look how tightly controlled their messages are (and their messenger for that matter). These comments are not accidents -- there's just too many of them since Hillary took a dive in Iowa, and there's barely any repudiation of them by the campaign itself (although Billy did try to take a small step back on the "fairy tale" comment today, and they did to re-explain the MLK comment).

HRC & Co are playing the Rovian divide and conquer strategy to a "T". They will only back off if the backlash gets too darned loud, and it hasn't yet, as exemplified when the campaign only takes baby half-steps back when objections are raised, and then these racially offensive statements keep a'comin'.

As for South Carolina, I think HRC & Co. are fine losing a state like SC in their quest to win most of the white-majority (democratic party-wise) states. It's hard-nosed bean counting to grab the nomination by any means necessary. It they have to sista-soldja the entire US African American community to do it, that's cool with them it seems.

At a certain point the Clinton campaign comments are no longer "clumsy," but part of a strategy, especially when they follow on the heels of surrogates like Bob Kerrey trumpeting Obama's secret Muslim ties, or Billy Shaheen's innuendos about Obama being a former drug dealer, along with Cuomo's "shuckin' and jiving'" statement. These are insulting smears and attacks on Obama through surrogates with "plausible deniability." Anything and everything apparently can be done diminish the opponent so the Clinton's can bring back their dynasty. Even at the sacrifice of the African American communities ties to the Democratic party.They know what they are doing.

Mel wrote:

Don't you find that curious that someone who snagged a Clinton "advisor" could only get that one short statement worth quoting

Not really. Not every "interview" is this wide-ranging plumbing of someone's full perspective. Very often, political operatives seek out a friendly reporter to drop single quotes that further growing campaign memes such as this one. (BushCo do it all the time -- for example, the whole Plame affair, where her identity was dropped into numerous "interviews" until it was finally published.)

yeah - you complete idiots - base a story on an "ANONYMOUS SOURCE" Clinton Adviser - WHAT HAPPENED TO JOURNALISM?- Karl Rove could be an anonymous source and the obamamaniacs and TPM would believe it.

twirling fartknocker, I won't argue that it's not possible, but I do think it's pretty obvious such a strategy would backfire. There's not much to gain--everyone already knows Obama is black--and much to lose if the Clinton camp looks like they're up to dirty race tricks. Do you really think it's a smart strategy?

And if it's not a smart strategy, then I think it's much more likely that these are out-of-control Clinton supporters, because whatever you say about Clinton, she's no dummy.

That said, I completely agree with you that Clinton needs to come down hard and this stuff. It's a major failure in and of itself if she doesn't.

joe says:

The pattern I detect is this: South Carolina is coming, and the Obama campaign is making a concerted, deliberate effort to paint the Clintons as racially insensitive

In the interest of full disclosure, I like Edwards and Obama, in that order.

It looks as though people are comfortable making racist remarks and the media likes to make stories of them. What about the sexism? Oh, I guess that's ok to say, and it shouldn't be much of a story.

Why? Because it's ok to make sexist remarks? Where is the outrage over the ridiculous remarks for JJ jr? Obama lost my money and support on that proud, as yet uncorrected sexist misrepresentation.

Dems are looking no better than Republicans in exposing their bigotry and sexism. It's just that public sexism goes uncorrected by the media, whereas public racism is beyond the pale. Gloria Steinem was more than a little right in NYT this week.

Reading through the above comments, like the quote, just shows what horrible people Clinton supporters are.

The deeper dog whistle to black voter might be to paint Obama as not really black and that he is simply the upscale white liberal "guilty white" set's "I have a fashionable black friend" wedge against the black community which is still feeling its way about Obama's creds. "Putting the chains on" is the way a fairly savvy political player friend of mine who is black put it.

Janet, I don't think that either flies, and JJ jr has received plenty of flack. But I agree with you that Obama needs to get him in line or get rid of him, and I'm dismayed that that this hasn't happened.

What came first, the Clintons or Rove. Technically the Clintons. Hmm. I think they could have taught Rove a thing or two.

That's philosophy for you.

Now for a question: Is it racist to use a bunch of widely disseminated racially insensitive remarks designed to ignite racial hatred, for pure political manipulation, even if you don't believe them yourself?

A thought to ponder. The past couple of decades has shown us increasing divisiveness, which has really served leaders of both parties who can blame the opposing side for gridlock and the deterioration of the American way of life.
But, listen, the winners all along in this divisiveness, whichever party had the Congressional majority or White House, are the international corporations and national mega-corporations......Wall Street and 1% of the population thrives while Main Street and 90+% of the population just gets by or stagnates.

So enter a charismatic and brilliant politician who decides to confront the Washington game, by taking on the whole notion of divisive gridlock.......he takes his case directly to the American people in language which profoundly resonates, and his message of hope coupled with involvement of citizens falls like blessed rain in a desert created by cynicism.

So stunning and powerful is this message that tens of thousands come out to hear him. He actually wins the first election in the primary season, and that has to be taken seriously. He comes within three points of winning the second contest. He has raised money to compete with any existing political machine. He demonstrates extraordinary organizational abilities.

So, the issue is what to do to counter the movement that has grown so strong, and which promises the logical countervalence to the outsized control of America by the elites who have and would continue to benefit from a divided electorate, in fact the only possible countervalence promoted by the progressives.

The defense for the threatened elites may be to, hell or high water, get back to divisive politicking---foster new divisiveness by resurrecting the old racial one, or play the fear card and use security-issue divisiveness to smear him as some kind of manchurian candidate.

If the Clintons, who, in a few short years, are suddenly now worth tens of millions of dollars, and are obviously fostering new divisiveness, then they are part of the problem with America, not part of the solution for ordinary citizens. If the Clintons are a part of the colluding elites who enjoy personal advancement within the gridlock, then I hope they get countervailed along with the rest of the old establishment.

I'm a Clinton supporter and I don't believe anonymous quotes regarding any candidate from any news source.

Serious question: do you believe anonymous sources who say damaging things about the Bush administration and reveal its law breaking? I'm not saying that all anonymous sources should be believed out of hand, but I'm sure people are very selective when it comes to which anonymous sources they choose to scrutinize.

First of all, the story dopesn't say "Clinton aide' or "Clinton campaign," it says "Clinton advisor." The press has a protocol for how they label people, and this statement could have been made by anyone in the campaign's orbit. But Obama's supporters waste no time in attributing this to "the campaign," and adding it to the list of "racist" comments coming from the Clintons. Gee, all of those years the Clintons supported, and were supported by the black community, and now supposedly they can't open their mouths without spouting racist comments? Give me a break. And a look at many of these so-called racist comments reveals much ado about nothing.

I thought Hillary's comments about MLK and LBJ, and Cuomo's shuck and jive comment, were very clumsy and shouldn't have been said. But as for some of the others, they are quickly taking on the status of urban legends. Billy Shaheen said he was concerned that the Republicans would resortt to what he described as "dirty tricks," and use Obama's admitted drug use to imply that he sold drugs. So how do Obama's supporters play it? "Billy Shaheen hinted that Obama sold drugs." I don't think the Clintons are the only ones engaging in puroposeful distortions here. I'm not sure why it's wrong for Shaheen to bring up something the Republicans can use against Obama, while every comment section I see is full of Obama supporters reciting chapter and verse about how Hillary's unelectable, and what the Republicans will say about her.

And what's with the fairy tale thing? I've watched that video. Bill Clinton details Obama's claims about being steadfastly against the war, and calls them a fairy tale. Get all hot and bothered if you think it's not true, but racism? Really.

Notice how the South Carolina primary is coming up, with lots of black voters, and suddenly all of these Obama surrogates are coming out of the woodwork with charges or racism? But of course none of that can be orchestrated, because Obama's too pure.

And for you Obama supporters, feel free to advocate for your guy. But it's getting a little noticeable how on every negative post about Hillary, a bunch of commenters show up saying "I liked her up to now, but this has definitely made me support Obama." In addition to being pretty transpsarent, it's also not a new tactic.

Finally, a shout out to DonnaG. "...his message of hope coupled with involvement of citizens falls like blessed rain in a desert created by cynicism." Was it right after that he ascended to heaven on a cloud?

I think Donna G gets it exactly right. (Thanks for such a well written and thoughtful comment.)

I really don't know what to make of the few racially insensitive statements that have been made by various people associated with (some closely, others not) to the Clinton campaign.

I really don't know.

But what I do know is that the Clinton campaign, without a doubt, decided after Iowa to begin engaging in negative attacks on Obama. And they have not been the type of "negative" attacks that simply point out differences in policy positions or past votes.

Their attacks have been both 1) dishonest: regarding Obama's record on a women's right to choose, regarding his opposition to the Iraq War;, and 2) extremely misleading (to the point of being dishonest): he is only a “talker” who has not accomplished anything, he was a "part-time" State Senator, he has not "thought through" his decision to run for the Presidency (as if he is some sort of child), which Sen. Clinton managed to say as she got emotional in NH. (I'm not saying the emotion wasn't real, only that she also managed to engage in a disingenuous attack, which I think generally got overlooked.)

Personally, I think Obama should have hit back harder against Sen. Clinton’s repeated claims that he is for the most part only a "talker" by listing the many accomplishments he has accumulated over his 10 years as a legislator. It seems that Obama did not want to be pulled off his message of change before NH; but I think that he (and his campaign) now understand that it is crucial to rebut this line of attack.

I have always believed that if a politician or a candidate cannot make their case to the public without distorting the records of their rivals (or their own), it is evident that they do not believe that they can win on the merits of their own accomplishments or campaign message.

I am so tired of this cynical and dishonest type of politics. It has gotten this country (and the Democratic Party) nowhere over the past 15 years. And I am tired of feeling hopeless about the Democratic Party; but most of all, I'm tired of being chronically disappointed the leadership of my country.

Not racist, but I'd never vote for a black person. They cant even run their own continent, why would I let them run my country? I'll be voting republican anyways

Yeah, you are a racist. I'm not even going to start to talk about how ignorant that was.

Mike, of course you're voting Republican. Your master Adolf Hitler would be proud. It couldn't happen to a nicer little fascist.

Mike writes:

"Not racist, but I'd never vote for a black person. They cant even run their own continent, why would I let them run my country? I'll be voting republican anyways though."

Would you want a black person in charge of national security and diplomacy? How about two of them?

See what happens when you vote for the wrong white guy?

Michael A wrote on January 11, 2008 7:23 PM:
Something very strange and very sad is going on here. I really don't understand it. I would never in a million years have thought that the clintons would say and do what they have been saying and doing in the last week. I find it distressing, depressing and really, really republician. WTF is going on?????? Dean should pull their party cards and send them over to the other primary where they belong.

Here's what's going on: The Clintons have to win the nomination at all costs. It doesn't matter how bad they piss off Democrats because their strategy for the general is a three way race like in '92, with Bloomberg playing the spoiler this time. They are banking on splitting up the vote so she can win with majority female support.

The reporter who cited the anonymous Clinton advisor is Jonathan Freedlander.

He also was granted an interview with Bill Clinton himself to promote Bill's autobiography.

I'd say he has reasonably good sources, even highly placed, within the Clinton camp.

Freedland, Jonathan Freedland, ...

no "-er" at the end. Oops.

I don't mean to suggest that the comment is made-up, or that it's excusable. I think if it's true, it's horrendous.

But, it's worth noting that this is a somewhat shaky source. British newspapers have different (read: lower) fact-checking and sourcing standards. Personally, I'm a fan of a more polemic press, but I've learned the hard way not to rely on British journalism for accuracy or double-checked quotations. Moreover, this isn't even an article - it's a comment. If you read the whole piece, it's one reporter's sweeping and almost completely unsubstantiated view of the American election. Administer a grain of salt, everyone.

No, he doesn't mushmouth. The "advisor" you're referring to happens to be a Gospel singer that appeared on one of Obama's Gospel tours. Not excusing ignorance where it appears, but there's a huge difference in a performer invited to a fund-raising function, and an actual adviser.

As to the article, I said here that the Clinton's would get around to race-baiting tactics, but this is MUCH earlier and much more overt than even I expected. There much be something they saw in the NH numbers that's driving this. It's sickening, but it was predictable. Hopefully, Obama has his ducks in a row and is able to turn this into real and palpable support in SC, and possibly shame the Clinton's into apologizing (not bloody likely, but we can dream).

As an African American man who has been very supportive of the Clintons for years, I'm really starting to resent the Clintons with these overt racial remarks coming from the people who are surrounding them. I think Racist Liberals are worse then Racist Conservatives, and I hope that good hearted and decent Americans, not just African Americans are paying close attention to what is unraveling right in front of our faces. I don't know how many more times I will be able to ignore these settle racist remarks coming from the Clinton Camp.

anonymous staffer...could it be....Tom Edsall at HuffBlo?

Hell, if Senator Clinton were to go on tour Donnie McClurkin she wouldn't have been given the pass that Big O gets. But that is beside the point. We know nothing about who said what to who. Did the reporter hear the quote himself? How central to the campaign? When was the last time they communicated with the campaign? The only thing we do know is that it was attributed to an "Adviser", which TPM on the front page has as an "Aide" which is simply not the same.

Anonymous: "Why the hell don't you Hillbots wake up and smell Bush's third term?"

Maybe it's because you're practically shouting at them in such a totally uncivil and abusisive tone, that they simply turned off the volume and decided to take a nap. I mean, really -- "Hillbots"? That's really juvenile.

Why you apparently believe that you're going to convince anyone of your position when you spew like a sick bird's ass, I don't know. All I can say is that you sound exactly like my 13-year-old son at his most obnoxious and unpleasant, and you're not really doing your preferred candidate any favors when you do.

So, get a grip, will ya?

Bernard: "As an African American man who has been very supportive of the Clintons for years, I'm really starting to resent the Clintons with these overt racial remarks coming from the people who are surrounding them."

I personally found such remarks to be at best insensitive, but then racism is something that's truly in the eyes of the beholder.

And as a white man, it's certainly not my place to tell you as a black man to get over it and move on. All I can do is apologize, and tell white people that they don't have to be a racist to still be insensitive to racial and ethnic concerns. It's often a very fine line between insensitive and offensive.

Sorry, hello_world, but you are not exactly accurate in your decription of McClurkin. He headlined a three concert tour for Obama. And he's not just a "performer." He's a Pentecostal minister who has said that being gay is a curse and that many gays were thrust into homosexuality by abuse and molestation.

I wasn't particularly incensed by the whole issue, because gay rights don't happen to be an issue I get emotional about. But can you honestly say that if Hillary had a "performer" headline three fundraisers for her who said being black is a curse, you would dismiss it by saying "he's not one of her advisors?" Honestly?

The Clinton's signed DOMA into law. Do you want to keep running your mouth now?

A) DOMA does not call homosexuality a curse,
yet Obama "Advisor" McClurkin does.
B) lots of things have changed in 11 years
C) WJC signed DOMA not Senator Clinton.
D) DOMA would have survived Veto as it won the senate with 85 votes, and the house with about 85% of the vote.

jim: "The Serious adults have arrived. And they support Serious candidates like Hillary, who will always give you the Serious Wars that America deserves."

My, my, but aren't we the presumptive one?

Where in my post did I ever say that I supported Hillary Clinton? One does not have to support her candidacy to still find the vile and abuse of her to be mysogynistic and offensive to the point of asinine.

Again, your own candidate is terribly ill-served when his supporters abuse their fellow Democrats in such uncivil and often profane tones, simply because those fellow Democrats made a conscious decision to support another candidate in the primary. If your candidate prevails and is the nominee, he will need the votes of the very people his own supporters have taken to calling idiots, morons, Hillbots, old hippies with drool cups (I had to laugh at that visual alone!, etc., etc.

Toss in all the unsubstantiated GOP talking points about Hillary Clinton that some Obama supporters have apparently adopted as their own, and what we have here is the pornographic soundtrack to Karl Rove's favorite wet dream.

And while some Obama supporters may be arrogant enough to believe that Mrs. Clinton's supporters simply have nowhere else to go come November, all of us best realize very quickly that they don't have to go anywhere.

They may well have learned over the course of the primary season to see the abuse of Mrs. Clinton, her husband and themselves -- which has been heaped upon all parties in very personal terms -- as representative of the Obama campaign, and that therefore your candidate is at his core really no different that that of the current White House occupant, who similarly fancied himself as someone who brings people together while his own supporters yelled at his opponent to "get out of Cheney's house!"

And because of that fascinating psycholical concept called free association, they might well decide to leave the ballot blank -- or even worse for the Democrats down-ticket, just stay home and not vote at all.

Look, I'm not trying to discourage people from supporting Sen. Obama, an eminently attractive and inspirational candidate who's certainly far superior to any of the GOP candidates.

But I am telling them that if they don't exercise some personal restraint and discretion, and stop acting like such dick-swinging assholes in expressing that support, they run a serious risk of becoming counter-productive, and provoke a major (albeit unintended) voter backlash against Obama's candidacy.

Now, go to your room, and contemplate the lessons of New Hampshire, where women showed up at the polls on Tuesday in such overwhelming numbers (57% of all Democratic voters) as to swamp Obama's decided support amongst men (a demographic he currently leads in double digits), and thus deliver to Mrs. Clinton a suprising and very welcome victory.

Otherwise -- well, let's just say that Mom's getting really pissed off, and she's now looking in the pantry for her paddle.

Aloha.

How do we know this is even true? After the press messed up Cuomo's quote (context; he was talking about politicians in general, not Obama) who knows what this means? The fact so many people are quick to believe something that can't be proven is something else.

I'm saddened to watch one of my favorite news sources pissing away it's credibility by continuing to bend over backwards to justify / rationalize / spin the undeniable pattern of Clinton campaign comments that are at minimum racially insensitive.

Now is precisely the time to hold the Clinton's accountable for these campaign statements - before they continue to fester, tear at old wounds, and divide our nation even more.

It's not Obama's job to deal with these racially-charged comments. It's Sen. Clinton's - and all the rest of us who care about our party, care about our country, and care about our future.

If the return to a "Southern Strategy" is the kind of "change" Sen. Clinton has in mind, I think people need to know about it.

Okay, the comment is said rather stupidly (I have trouble believing a serious Clinton aid would think this as an anonymous quote would help the Clintons).

But what is the essential difference between "Obama is the young cross-over multi-ethnic candidate who can show the world that we speak with more than one race" and "my new hip black friend"?

Why can Obama use Oprah to pull in the black vote but it's awful for me to say that Oprah is pulling in the black vote for Obama? Or even worse, that Hillary should try to pull in the black vote?

Racial predispositions and assumptions exist in all of us. But let's not jump the shark.

Dollars to Donuts the person who dropped that quote is an older, long time African-American activist.

African-American activists have been stating similar things for sometime.

Check on Glen Ford at http://www.blackagendareport.com
and especially his "debate" with Michael Eric Dyson at http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/9/barack_obama_and_the_african_american

I'm not buying the comment, particularly not from an un-named alleged campaign aide or advisor. And which is it, an aide or an advisor?

Why and how would this benefit the Clinton's in any way? A person who would not vote for Obama because he is black would not vote for him in the first place. Nor would they vote for a woman or any democrat for that matter.

The comments about fairy tales by Bill Clinton were clearly not meant as a racial slur. Just like Biden's clean and articulate, the media has decided to spin it to the negative. What Hillary Clinton said about Martin Luther King was likewise taken out of context and spun into controversy by the media when no controversy exists.

This is right out of the republican playbook and that is who benefits from all this. We fight among ourselves, and vow not to vote for so and so and they win once again.

Could it be that all those who are supporting Hillary are just doing so because they never know when they might become a wealthy fugitives from justice, and would like the option of buying Presidential Pardons!

Former Presidents used to stay out of Presidential campaigns until Bill Clinton came along and decided that custom and traditions mean nothing to him. Well that is not surprising, considering how that low life treated his marriage and wife. Of course she accepted his Bimbo Marathons, which shows that she is weak. If she would not stand up for her own pride and dignity, why should we expect her to stand up for the pride and dignity of the nation.

Hillary belittled Dr. King's noble efforts and accomplishments, for which he gave his very life.

Hillary's brothers lived in the White House and were paid hundreds of thousands by Drug Criminals seeking presidential pardons from her husband. She has never explained that.

Hillary's arrogance, when she was in the White House, set back Health Care reform by at least twenty years.

They were paid to grant Marc Rich, a fugitive who never faced justice, a Presidential Pardon.

The Clintons are corrupt, and always have been.

Hillary uncovered what Barak Obama told his teacher when he was in Kindergarten, but she can not reveal what she did in the White House.

This is the person you want back in the White House?.

They destroyed the Democrat Majority once before, and now that the Party is starting to claw it's way back in, they would destroy it again.

Mr. Hide The Cigar destroyed Al Gore's chances of having a fair shot at keeping the Presidency, and If Hillary is electes, Bill will be such a force, that the VP will be neutered, and the Party will have no future leader developed once again.

The Clintons wrecked our majority once, and if you elect Hillary, they will destroy it for good, the next time. Wake up. The party is more important than the Clintons. Pick anyone but Hillary for the future sake of the party.

I notice a lot of posters are starting their comments with: "As a black man" or "As a black woman" and then going on to support the Clintons. Stop it. If you truly are Black people you would know that that is just as offensive as people saying "as a White Person" You are starting out with a racial description of yourselves, and then pretending to claim that race should not be an issue. Well, then practice what you preach, and stop beginning with your racial identity. You seem to think that will carry more weight. For me, it sounds more like some white supporters of the Clintons lying about their race. The only other explaination for their motivations can be is that the want to treated like tokens of their race. Try writing you comments as a human person, and keep your race cards in the deck.

Liam,
How about a Russian, Swede, German. Polish, Jew, Moslem, Christian, Baptist, Latina, Latin or make your pick. Is there a race card here Liam

Get over the race card stupidity in your deck; it is a description. Do you believe these individual are as you suggest as in "comments as a human person"
Finally, think about that chattel slavery card, Liam. No harm meant, the race card nonsense is a dated bait and switch tactic (tag one’s opponent with one’s sins) as in whites are racist but do not play the race card. Get over it!!!!!!

The content of your character, and not the color of your skin. Sound familiar?. Act like you want to be treated that way, instead of trying to get treated in separate manner because you want to inform us all that your opinion should carry more weight because you are black. How the hell can any one tell that. You are on the internet where anyone can make that claim, when they want to tell us that they are black and they support Hillary, and see no racial politics in what Her campaign and her Husband have been putting out there.

Let the content of your comments, and not the color of your skin convey your opinions. I don't care what color you are, and I am not about to give your comments extra points because you claim that you are black, white, brown, etc. If you want to get past the issue of race, then stop telling us which race you belong too.

The Internet is color blind. You appear to want us to judge you first by the color of your skin. Dr. King would not approve. Your personal anecdotal tales have no bearing on the topic, and tend to come across as ego-centric, bordering on narcissism.

The topic is about how the Clinton campaign is conducting the battle against Senator Obama, and not about what some said to you or me,or what either of us had for breakfast.

If the Clintons want to avoid having questions raised, then they should stick to telling us what Hillary stands for instead of trying to diminish what Senator Obama stands for.

Recent comments by Clinton & surrogates:

"Obama hasn't done his spadework"
"He is just the neighboring boy"
"Obama is like MLK and JFK...and look what happened to them"

The Clinton machine has now decided that only unions that support her have a right to vote, look at what they are doing in Nevada.

This campaign is transparent with it's dirty tricks and racist remarks. If she gets the nomination I will be staying home on election day.

To AimeyMays and AngryVet:

This is not just a single comment like this, even if *this particular one* was made by an "anonymous staffer". It's a whole series of such comments made by the Clinton campaign, most of which do have authors on them-- Bob Kerrey and his linking of Obama to his Muslim heritage, his middle name ("Hussein, Hussein, his middle name is Hussein!") and madrassahs (not that I, innocent clean-thinking Bob Kerrey, would consider that but you know, people would), then Mark Penn among others linking Obama to drug-dealing and cocaine, coupled with Bill Clinton's derisive insult of Obama as a "kid", Hillary hitting MLK himself, and then Andrew Cuomo's shuck and jive comment. This is an obvious pattern, an attempt to portray Obama as "the Black candidate" and "the race-card using candidate" as a way to scare off white voters.

And it's succeeded only in dividing our coalition and driving Democrats away from her.

Oh, by the way, I'm a Clinton supporter. Or at least I was until recently. And I'll never support them, I'll actively work against them. This is not what the country needs, and we can all see through the strategy. We're not falling for it.

Liam, Go Away! You stuff is old school, like A.A.G. REYNOLDS COLOR BLINDNESS CIRCA EARLY 80'S & C. “D-Cornhusker Kinda Supreme” Thomas dismantling of the EEOC, that was the story not Anita Hill! What you have done is what the Clintons were seeking; circular and meaningless statements to trigger backlash or is it blacklash! No one bought from you or Clinton. Feeling kinda lonesome Liam? The danger is in Clinton’s court or backlash from the target group(whites) not added support; whatever impact this had in NH is meaningless, if any; the harm will come in S. C. and, maybe, Nev.

What’s Going On Here? has got it! This started before Iowa, a highpoint is Clinton on Charlie Rose; in the fog after Iowa another phase was put in place with a mailer, Clinton’s speech, remarks by various surrogates, hyper media, staff changes, etc. In short all of this did not make much sense, remember these folks have gone passed hell and back; the issue with the polls was the undecided that began to shift in late December and went nuts after Iowa, Obama numbers began to surge before 12/31/07 and reached their high point about 01/06/08 remained steady through the NH voting; the fireworks on the weekend did have some impact, mainly the undecided decided and slight shifts from the other three to Clinton for a variety of reasons. Clinton and Co. feared a blowout but certainly recognized some undecided would turn their way; a 20% shift from Clinton to Obama in eight days does not hold water, interestingly I have heard no one seriously discuss the undecided shifts; in the final three days a variety of seemingly disjointed sideshows were occurring, given known report it appears micro-targeting to various sub-groups keyed to taxes, racial innuendo, background (35yrs etc.) and so on; blogs reported this but the mainstreamers were in free fall, and H.C. increased her intensity.

The point is this was a coordinated strategy to win, if possible, but to narrow the gap the lower the better; the aim of this strategy was to slow down Obama and to change the narrative to the Comeback kid, etc. Obama's concession speech noted the gap that his campaign had closed; this in fact is the story the media took up the Bradley effect, performances, the Comeback Kid Routine, etc.
Yep! Slick Willie Lives. The problem: the race card; was less than artful shall we say as this smells of turdblossoms! Clyburn of S.C. shuts it down in the NYT, Clinton was on the radio with Sharpton in NYC, and Hillary was in Las Vegas literally pandering to one Spanish speaking Culinary worker ( contrived press) and takes swipes at the union; Obama notes Chicago style politics in an interview; Obama’s campaign issues press release on a pattern of Clinton’s & surrogates behavior; Mark Stanford, Governer of S.C. as guest columnist on “Obama’s symbolism here of S.C.”; H.C. not mentioned whose candidacy is equally significant on a number of levels, but Stanford and Clyburn are focused on S.C.; local press reports Clyburn milder view on 01/12/08 noting displeasure of SC Black folks; McCain & Family sends a mailer picturing his daughter with the actual story to counter Bush’s 2000 pseudo race story in S.C.; it appears very well done and a credit to McCain. (See Local Press in S.C. and L.V.)
Racism by Clinton- No! Hubris stupidity and whatever term one selects, unquestionably. Yep! The Comeback Kids controlled the narrative for less than 36 hours. The Clintons many smiles with turdblossom makeup! Obama Fired-Up and Ready to Go!
In the near term it gets worse. January 21, 2008 MLK National Holiday (Arizona, No Problem); the month of February Black History month (Yes Liam, it was meant for the wider society) it has been around since 1926 or 28; it used to be a week; and the kicker on April 4, 2008 the 40th anniversary of the death of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. ( Yes the calendar does have mercy, Liam)
Talk about free publicity. Yep! They gained control over the narrative, the cost to be determined. (Some body out in the blog world need put these and related events to a calendar, minus the levity with brevity herein and of course, Liam).

Well Liam! Got to go now! Much of the above is Southern Fried politics circa 2008 with a gentle dose of Southern Comfort style racial politics( for the week of verse group politics) and triangulated with NH and Iowa. Author? One of those as you say “As a Human Person” sort of person from LA! Uncertain if this is Lower Alabama, Louisiana or Los Angeles? Let jus za I be uh George Wallace, Huey P Long n d Tom Bradley kinda human person, Liam!

This negro Barack Obama should just shut up and sit down. It's not his turn and he's upset about that.

Hey FREDDY,
Is negro and Trash synonymous...I'm sure you woulds know!

would you ever publish this from an ANONYMOUS OBAMA ADVISOR who says that "every white person who does not vote for Obama is RACIST." TPM - would you ever publish that? C'mon. God, I wish more entities like Media Matters but more powerful would put you so called "journalists" under microscopes. There is one huge flaw to the blogosphere world being mistaken for journalist - this very fact, that no training = no journalistic integrity = the Mainstream Media so eager to not be scooped by the blogs, let rumors go unchecked.

Not long ago Obama claimed he could better understand what Moslems think because of his time at ages 6-10 spent in Indonesia. Nothing like 1) playing a funny religion game, 2) overestimating your retention and understanding at 9 years old, and 3) underestimating the diversity of Moslems spread from Indonesia to Morocco.

This is all very worrisome. This is exactly what the Republican Party has been praying for. They want the enthusiasm and unity that has been enjoyed amongst Democrats to be so fractured that come Nov. many will stay home and not vote. It's working.

For 2 days now, from blog to blog, all I read is "I will NEVER vote for Clinton after this" "I will NEVER vote for Obama after this" and the worst "I'd rather vote for McCain". All with not one mention of Edwards as an alternative.

The Clintons may be allot of things, however, racist I just do not believe is one of them. I do not believe that Bill Clinton's use of the phrase "fairy Tale" was meant as a racial slur, that Hillary Clinton's comments on Martin Luther King in any way took away from what Martin Luther King accommplished nor was it meant to. The alleged quote from an un-named source can also be interpreted in many ways, bottom line on that was it was not said by either Clinton.

Are we at the point where any criticism of Clinton is sexist (agreed that most in the corporate media are in point of fact sexist remarks), any criticism of Obama is Racist? Was Biden really being racist when he said that Obama was clean and articulate?
How many times have we now heard the media , who condemned Biden, utter those exact words? Yet Biden was finished by the media before his campaign even began. The same media who destroyed Gore, Kerry, Harold Ford, etc., and are now doing the same thing by creating controversy where none exists. I for one am tired of these pundits interpreting what was said for me as if I couldn't possibly understand.

This is getting out of control. We have 3 marvelous candidates each of whom would make an exceptional President. The reality is someone has to loose. Whoever becomes the nominee we must get behind, support and vote for.

This is a historical election let's not make it a hysterical one. If we fail the alternative is 4 more years of the same.

Liam, you do have a way with words, in or out of context! Like at the end "represent more than just the black race! Where might this race be found!

Again, Go Away & LOL it helps,Liam!