Once again, the Clintons are trying to make it about race, very explicitly this time, and he is graciously refusing to make it an issue.

Of course the Hillbots will say he is somehow the one shamelessly injecting race into the election, even though all the evidence is to the contrary.

I think he is letting Bill off the hook, but hopefully others won't, because it definitely wasn't lost on anyone that the Clintons were trying to turn him into the "black candidate" here, the culmination of their entire race baiting strategy. Too bad the whites voted for him too, so it kind of kills that plan.

Right. He was saying that Bill Clinton views the election through an old frame that's 20 years old, while today's voters don't. Kinda like saying, "Well, I won't say Bill Clinton's racist--I'll just say that he's old."

I don't even know what a lense is, but I think Greg is right. Of course, this was just about as tame a response as he could have given, so I also think he was trying to defuse the situation. Bill's comment speaks for itself - and what it says is ugly. Obama knows that and it leaves him an easy opportunity to rise above.

Obama wins when he doesn't take the bait, because that just leaves Bill out on a limb like the naked chad he's become. Now that Bill finally has admitted that race-baiting is in fact a core Clinton strategy, Obama does the correct thing and let's Bill sit in his own bucket of poison.

Psychologically, we now have to wonder if Bill has a huge, unconscious wish to see Hillary lose. The other explanation is that he has promised favors in advance to large donors of capital to his Foundation.

So Obama wins by appearing to let Bill off the hook, because he leaves the well-deserved criticism to everyone else.

I am outraged by this story. I saw the ORGINAL clip of the reporters question. He FIRST asked Bill whether Obama could win as a black candidate…then added the second part of the question. The media CUT the first part, then accused Bill of injecting ‘race’ (with Jesse Jackson) into this response. These tactics are increasingly alarming to me and show that the media is not only deliberately trying to “spin” again Bill Clinton, they are stealing the election from the American people. People need to stand up to this — it is WRONG!

His response put the issue into the narrative he is driving: past vs. future, old way of thinking vs. new.

The Clintons were savaged today in the liberal press. At the NYT, where the editorial board endorsed Hillary just 48 hours ago, Billary was whacked over the head by Frank Rich and Bob Herbert. Whacked hard. Ouch. The coup de Grace was of course the glowing endorsement of Obama by the daughter of our 35rd President, Caroline Kennedy.

I watched Hillary live, last night, after she had run away from the car accident she and her husband left in South Carolina. I watched her this morning on a TV talk show. And I just watched her campaigning in a church.

She knows.

Mastadon,

LOL. What I'm saying is that was OBAMA's point, though he stated it much more elegantly than I did.

I don't know about anyone else here, but it seems like the Clintons' tactics only serve to underscore and reinforce Obama's campaign themes.

Obama seems to be using the Clintons' attacks and mean strategies as opportunities to reiterate that this kind of politicking is outdated and that people are ready for something different.

It's perfect. He's able to respond to the meanness and dirtiness, while maintaining his message that we should try to "rise above" it.

Poor Bill Clinton. Now we have the Clintonites blaming the media.

Imagine that: the great strong leader; Bill Clinton is being led around by the nose by the big bad media. Clinton is the one who said Jesse Jackson. The reporter never asked him about Jesse. Bill threw that out on his own, but you want to try and spin it as if the reporter gave Bimbo Bill a reach around and shoved the name Jesse Jackson so far up Bimbo Bill's Arse that it shot out of his mouth. Now who is telling the biggest fairy tales. You Clintonites are truly pathetic.

I think Obama was saying what he believes: that South Carolina, the South, and the United States in general are different places than they were twenty years ago, and that a critical mass of people are simply ready to move on from the divisive racial politics of the past.

I do think he "let Bill off the hook", if by that one means not accusing Bill of race-baiting. But it was not exactly a defense of Bill's comment--as I would put it, Obama is suggesting that Bill's comment indicates that Bill is stuck in an outdated political worldview. Which of course fits nicely with Obama's past versus the future framing of the race.

Gregor - lies about Clinton admitting to race baiting.

The issue is now settled among experienced political observers that the Clinton's have been race-baiting, in code. And if you are a politician or observer in the South, it was settled long before yesterday. I find that it's only the very young, and those who live in the North, who are naive and oblivious to what the Clinton Campaign has been up to in this area. So you don't have to hear it from me. You can just sit back and here it from from one of many nationally known African American and/or white politicians, journalists, and others who have followed campaigns for 50 years.

Listen up greenhorn Clinton supporters, who are going through their first or second Presidential Race: there's an earthquake sweeping the DEM party to stop the Clintons and make them pay a penalty for the kind of dirty, race-baiting, surrogate-seige campaign they've been running. The Kennedy's are the dam breaking on this. The rebuke has begun.

Oh wait. Did you hear? The Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Seblius, is going to endorse Obama this week.

Can you say domino effect?

Smart (and classy) move by Obama. There's no reason to shoot your opponent in the chest when he's already shot himself in the face.

Ben Smith says that Obama appeared to be trying to defuse the idea that Bill was drawing a racially-charged comparison. It seems to me that when Obama said that voters looked at this through a "different lense," he basically meant that voters weren't putting Obama in the same "black candidate" box that Bill was slotting Obama into. Not sure if Obama is completely letting Bill off the hook here, though he was being awfully subtle about it.

Obama may also be un-anxious to draw attention to the fact that 77% of his share of the vote in SC came from African American voters, and only 23% from white/Hispanic voters. The way CNN presented the data made it less than obvious that his support was that demographically lopsided and I imagine he's hoping no one will notice.

LOL!! "Aaron Spelling"...Very clever!

Obama may not be 'racist' but his voters surely are. His voters voted in block and he received 80% black votes in a state primary where over 50% voters were black and he claims that Clintons are playing race game. His voters did not vote for him because of his Health Plan or Foreign policy initiative but because he was black. Why is a Black person with strong Muslim background a so-called "Change" but a White Woman is not a "Change". Even Operah.. who expanded and enjoys the fruits of White America and claims to represent women issue went for Obama..It is just racism on the part of black. It is clear that Obama wants 80% black votes but does not want to mention that he is 'Black'. He may get 80% of Muslim votes but would not like to tell his full name or his fathers's Muslim background.

CalVoter

He wasn't letting Bill off the hook, but I think he just wanted to move beyond it.

That's what he said he would do down the stretch in South Carolina and he held true to his word. Clinton did not.

Anon at 6:18PM: Do you know what a "racist" is?

People like to vote for those who look like themselves. This is a fact of human nature. It's not "racist". Tribalism, perhaps.

The black community in SC up until sometime in December overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton.

Let me ask you this. Why do you think that more women than men are attracted to Hillary's campaign? Hmmm?

The Clinton's are playing a very dangerous game: Divide and conquer. They are trying to align the black vote with Obama and the white vote with Hillary. That's why Obama was complimentary on Edwards' campaign today, Edwards splits the white vote.

Where this strategy is dangerous, and cynical, is that once Hillary is nominated, they will attempt to heal the breach. Depending on how acrimonious things get, it may backfire.

The fact that both campaigns, for the moment, appear to be backing away from the brink speaks well for our chances in November.

Gregor:

The issue is now settled among experienced political observers that the Clinton's have been race-baiting, in code.

I understand that's the Obama camp's spin. That's the narrative. They've won a lot of folks in the media to buy into that spin, especially the Clinton haters who are very willing to believe Hillary and Machiavelli are twins.

I think the more objective view -- supported by both Obama himself and Clinton herself in the debate -- is that both candidates have tried to remain above the fray but that both have had supporters who have gotten carried away with insensitive remarks. Both camps are responsible for that. As for injecting race, I think the MSM is mostly responsible for this storyline.

Honestly folks, we have the first serious black and woman candidates running for the presidency. It's not surprising that at some points along the way of a heated contest some folks are going to say things that are insensitive and could be seen as racist or sexist by some. I think it's surprising and commendable that the race has been relatively civil so far. If Obama races the Republicans in the fall, the racial issue will get uglier and uglier and will leave people scratching their heads thinking that anyone could have thought the Clintons' remarks were anything but mild.

Obama may also be un-anxious to draw attention to the fact that 77% of his share of the vote in SC came from African American voters, and only 23% from white/Hispanic voters.

Obama won 52 percent of the non-black vote under 30.

And so your point is?
What?

That you like to filter things through a racial lens rather than a generational lens?

Must be a Clinton voter.

Obama may seem like he's being gracious and polite, but he's also tagging the Clintons with code words.

One that he's used before (the SC victory speech, the SC debate) is "bad habits". He's saying the Clintons are either pushing the bad habit of racism (by playing the race card); OR they are addicted to the bad habit of slash-and-burn politics.

This is a brilliant framing of the Clintons, because it infantilizes them, it portrays them as worthy of pity (which makes Obama look good in pitying them), and it constructs a public image of the Clintons in terms of pathologies that cannot be escaped. ie. the only way to break out of the "bad habits" is to choose Obama!

In short, it's exactly what right wing nuts have always thought about the Clintons, but in a kinder, softer frame.

I think we can expect to hear Obama talk about "bad habits" again, and to pin the term on the Clintons.

Clinton is so often hailed as this great political strategist, who knows what to do to win.

Why is that? He fended off Tsongas and Jerry Brown, and with the help of Dan Quayle and Ross Perot, he eked out 43 percent of the vote in 1992---probably more due to Bush being a bad republican who promised no new taxes, and had to (sensibly) break that promise.

Gingrich took congress away from him in 1994---so he had to basically become a moderate republican and work with Gingrich's agenda to get past a very ancient Bob Dole in 1996. 2000 might have been his greatest year---sure, his veep lost the White House, but his wife got the senate seat. Maybe she actually had some political talent.

Hillary is doing well against Obama, but Bill is coming across as the outdated second-rate politician he has always been.

Obama's deft handling of the Jesse Jackson nonsense is just one of many examples of how outclassed he is in trying to match up with Obama.

More on my earlier comment. Obama is choosing specific frames to portray the Clintons as trapped / addicted to an old style of politics.

let's not forget that obama won 52% of the white vote under-30.

i don't race is the big deal here---it's generational. older white voters are more likely to be against black candidates than younger white voters.

no shit.

I seem to recall a comment by Carville with something about running money through a trailer part or some such thing.

Carville's politics has always reminded me of such.

Now Bill Clinton's does as well.

Shame on him.

Just stay aware, Obama supporters, the media you cheer on today in bashing the Clintons, is the same media that will be "reporting" on the race once the Republics have a candidate.

CalD,

Fascinating numbers. Thanks for the response. So SC is an anomaly, numbers-wise, making a lot of the analyses we see even more ambiguous than usual?

I have a feeling this whole primary process is going to yield a sh*tload of fascinating numbers and analyses!

:-)

In his speech last night, Obama talked about 'distraction' and I believe that is exactly what is happening here. I saw the whole clip with Bill Clinton and he was led into the Jesse Jackson statement. But he still made it and he still implied that, of course Obama was going to win SC because he's black.

Really though, the media is feeding this fire on their own, much more than the individual campaigns are themselves because it sells. The Clintons are playing dirtier than Obama is and he has responded very well, as the above clip indicates.

The reason Obama is such a captivating figure is that he is speaking to the under 30 folks who are ready to move on. I urge all of you, if you havn't already, to read Andrew Sullivan's article in the Atlantic Monthly December 2007, "Goodbye to All That". I really don't think there is a more convincing argument to get us to stop this bickering and get started working on making this country a less racist and more equal place. Goodbye to all that indeed.

Hey, D.Campbell, and all of those who echoed the sentiments,

Reporter: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?

Bill Clinton: [chuckles] That's just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88; and, he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign; he's run a good campaign everywhere. He's got a good -- he's a good candidate with a good organization.

-- Okay, Clinton defenders. How has this been taken out of context? Where is the so-called "missing part"? You say you've seen the "whole clip" that shows someone other than Bill Clinton bringing up Jesse Jackson's name . . . where is it? Let's have a link. If Bill thought the question was loaded (or "bait") why did he take it? Nobody asked him why it took both of them to beat a black candidate; no reporter would ask a question like that. The question didn't raise the issue of race, or Jesse Jackson's name, at all. All Clinton had to say was, "Hillary is winning on her own merits", or, "I'm supporting my spouse, the way all loving spouses do". Did he do that? Nnnnooo!

BTW, I'm not one of these pussy hit-and-run posters. If you provide the proof I'll write the most detailed retraction of my comments plus slam of media selective editing that this blog will EVER see.

But first, YOU provide the proof of what you allege.

It's so incredibly clear - Bill Clinton was making a deliberate and and retrograde reference to the politics of division and hoping to infer to older, possibly less contemporary voters, the shade of fear and derision that was historically attached to Rev. Jackson. It may not be unfair to conclude that Rev. Jackson was never really a viable national candidate, while it is obvious that Sen. Obama is indeed a national candidate. Shame on you, Bill Clinton, for growing smaller with age, for encouraging the worst in people and for being so power mad that you would risk the revival of your party for your personal aggrandizement. Let's grow up and let go of our coded little hatreds and start to heal our country.

Quite apart from everything else, one should note that Obama and the Clintons simply appear to have different ideas about what is effective politicking, and we're seeing those two worldviews in sharp contrast.

With the Clintons, it's all about bull-dogging, oppo research, searching for chinks in the armor and then prying them open. It's gotcha politics, which I suppose is why the media covers it so obsessively; the Clintons and the media are very much alike in that -- even though it's pretty clear that the media are very unfair in the way they cover the Clintons. Now, that's not to say HRC and WJC don't heartily deserve much of the criticism. But look at the way HRC went after Obama in the debates, the way WJC was always slipping in code words and then stepping away and waiting for the explosion. It's nasty and it's blow-by-blow, but rhetorically there's not that much long-range thought.

With Obama, conflict is not the point. The point, as I've said before (and a few people here would agree, I think) is linguistic: It's about constructing a narrative about the Clintons, getting the media to play along, and then boxing them into it. The whole 'playing the refs' thing was an early clumsy attempt at this. Obama always seemed uncomfortable doing it, but it worked after a fashion. However, Obama can already sense he risks a backlash, so he's dialled down the temperature and, with the SC victory speech, has started spinning a new narrative for the media.

(And before Hillary supporters try to call me out on this, let me just say: if the Clintons thought the media were on their side and somehow biased against Obama, you can be sure they'd squeeze every advantage they could out of it. They have the advantage of a former president; Obama has the advantage of the media. Get used to it.)

The new narrative Obama is spinning is brilliant, as ChrisNBama pointed out. He's created a 'past vs future' frame, and put the Clintons into the past. He's created a 'bad habits vs be all you can' frame and the Clintons (bad habits) against the American public (be all you can / yes you can).

Moreover, Obama's delivering both of these frames in a tone more in sorrow than in anger, which plays well on TV. Those wanting to see some flashed of anger can stop reading now, because Obama just doesn't do that. And he shouldn't try.

How effective is this new narrative going to be? I think most people are turned off by anger, so I think the tone will play well to the public. It's a question of whether the media pick up the memes, but they love bright shiny things, so I expect the master narrative will be in play by the next debate. (Already, we're seeing "What about Bill's legacy?" stories.)

The best thing about this strategy is that it plays to Obama's skill as a writer. If the man ever becomes president, future generations will be studying his speeches.

Obama is so wishy washy that diarists spend a lot of time trying to decipher his coded messages. LOL
Typical Centrist!

I don't trust Obama - because he hasn't given me a reason to trust him.

I will be voting for Edwards!
WooHoo!

DemUnity08 wrote on January 27, 2008 5:15 PM:
"Once again I'm sure the comments on this thread by Obama supporters will be much less classy and much more crude than those of Obama himself. His supporters are obsessed with race, and hypersensitive to even the slightest slights that could possibly give them any cause for outrage. I hope I'm wrong, but the Obama supporters on TPM have proven themselves to be a pretty biased bunch."

At least you acknowledged that Obama is trying to diffuse things. But, human nature being what it is, you shouldn't be surprised if some Obama folks strike back at you based on your genralizations about them. When you attack people, a lot of them tend to attack back.

Asie from that, I think you need to consider that some folks are especially offended that the Clintons are doing this. Leaders of the Dem party should be above exploiting racial tensions. So, for many, it is outrageous that Clinton would turn his back on the core values of the party just to help his wife get elected. And HRC obviously stands by this strategy, or else it would stop. Angry, yes. Even quite a few people I know who've been leaning towards Clinton are now changing their minds because of the recent things the Clinton campaign seems to be doing. This was a bad move on her part; she may yet win the nomination, but in doing so she may alienate a significant number of people who would've normally been strong supporters. Hard to know for sure... only time will tell.

Oops, here's the link that I forgot to include in my previous comment.

coyote wrote on January 27, 2008 5:24 PM:
"They are stealing the election from the American people

I see. When Bill Clinton is quoted out of context, the election is being stolen from the American people. But when the Clintons quote Obama out of context, that's just tough campaigning that shows the Clintons are winners, and that candidates need to "watch what they say.""

Nice one coyote. Nailed that one. But let's also point out something. HRC takes each and every opportunity to take Obama's statements out of context. As we see in the video, Obama doesn't play that game. Now, some will debate whether or not he's being 'agressive' enough, but one thing is clear, he is fighting a much cleaner fight.

I'm starting to get suspicious that some of the so-called Obama supporters on this, and other threads on the internet, are GOP dirty-tricksters trying to sow division among Democrats. It's hard to imagine real liberals having so much irrational hatred and contempt for the Clintons.

Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 5:30 PM:
"Poor Bill Clinton. Now we have the Clintonites blaming the media.

Imagine that: the great strong leader; Bill Clinton is being led around by the nose by the big bad media. Clinton is the one who said Jesse Jackson. The reporter never asked him about Jesse. Bill threw that out on his own, but you want to try and spin it as if the reporter gave Bimbo Bill a reach around and shoved the name Jesse Jackson so far up Bimbo Bill's Arse that it shot out of his mouth. Now who is telling the biggest fairy tales. You Clintonites are truly pathetic."

Well said.
May I pile on? Thanks.

I've read a lot from Clinton and Edwards people lately about how Obama cries foul, that he's just whining about the race-baiting. I didn't see any whining there. And, I notice now that it's the Clinton folks whining about the media.

Separately, you can look at what's going on here in only one of two ways: either the Clintons are really trying to avoid race-baiting, or they are intentionally race baiting.

If, they aren't race-baiting, then Bill's repeated gaffs are really getting to be a problem. Nobody makes him say these things. We often hear that when Obama says something nuanced, and the Clintons spin it, that that's normal politics and if he can't handle it, then he's not ready to face it in the general. Well, um... what's Clinton's excuse? You can't keep crying foul over things you say just because the media supposedly lead you into it. Bill has been around long enough to know what to say and how to say it. If he's not, then his wife better shut him up. And if she can't, what does that say about her readiness for the G.E., or what kind of presidency she will let him run (or ruin) for her?

Or, they're doing it on purpose. The Clintons know everyone's antennae are acutely tuned in to each and every racial nuance the candidates (and surrogates) utter. If they didn't want Bill to say this, he wouldn't have said it. And it makes sense from a political standpoint; they know that boxing Obama in as just a token black candidate a-la Jesse Jackson would help. They also know that if they can get the Sharpton-types worked into a frothy anger, then Obama gets associated and identified as the angry-black-man's candidate... turning off quite a few others in the process.

I hope the public recognizes it for what it is, and recoil in disgust. As a progressive independent voter, it doesn't surprise me when Republicans try to exploit racial tensions in order to win elections. But I expect something better from Democrats - especially the senior leadership of the party. I used to respect and admire Bill and Hillary. But over the course of the last few weeks they've lowered my esteem for them greatly.

DanM,

Your suspicions are ill founded. I'll grant you that these comment boards are not the Oxford debating society on either side of the discussion. But there are a lot of longtime Democrats out there who have drastically modified their appraisal of the Clintons after finding their candidate on the wrong side of Bill/Hillary's ambitions.

I don't hate them. But right now, Bill kind of feels like Cousin Eddie from the National Lampoon's Vacation movies. I'd kind of like him to move his RV off of my property, if you know what I mean.

Laura,

I'd just point out that Barack Obama has a pretty good size megaphone of his own at this juncture, Bill and Hillary Clinton are not actually the same person either, Jesse Jackson Jr., is in fact a national co-chair for the Barack Obama campaign, not just some random passer-by, and I really think that Obama's silence on Jackson's performance speaks volumes.

Anyway, I believe we're agreed that there are really no angels in any of this, just politicians. But I actually do think that as politicians go, these are all pretty good people.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 27, 2008 6:10 PM:
"Alot of Monday night quarterbacking, but Obama's toning down of the racial impetus of Bill Clinton's remarks may have this council as an underlying factor as well. Obama needs to stop talking race and start talking transformation, which is a lesson he seems to be taking to heart."

Absolutey. He's learning one of the key lessons: stay on-message. HIs campaign has always been about unity. To the degree anyone can get him off topic, it hurts him.

D.Campbell wrote on January 27, 2008 6:11 PM:
"You can't find it. I saw it YESTERDAY when it first aired. Now, the clip has been edited to try to paint Bill a biggot.

If Dems are trying to "dump" the Clintons by using these tactics (or endorsing them), we are not the part of "hope" that Obama promises. Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see that the response from Bill doesn't fit the later part of the question. And, why would he say he was being "baited" if the question was only the later part? I'm not willing to surrender the principle of fair play to jump on the Obama bandwagon. The Clintons deserve a fair election - as do all the candidates."

Maybe the reporter was baiting Clinton... but what is amazing is that Clinton fell for it! (Or did he?) In any case, what is clear if you watch the video of Obama's response is that Obama didn't take the bait. He stayed on-message with the idea that the Clinton's are old-school, and therefore can't represent 'change'. Not bad. (Maybe Obama is ready for prime-time after all.) You seem offended that we might be willing to "surrender the principle of fair play to jump on the Obama bandwagon." Wow. So, Clinton has been all fair and nice? She didn't twist the meaning of his words when he talked about Reagan? She's playing fair when she claims Obama's 'present' votes on abortion bills while in the Illinios Senate were proof that he isn't committed to a woman's right to choose, even though Illinois pro-choice groups were the ones that asked him to vote that way as part of a larger strategy? You can't have it both ways dude? We could easily replace "Clinton" for "Obama" and repeat what you said and it might fit better:

"I'm not willing to surrender the principle of fair play to jump on the Clinton bandwagon. Obama deserve a fair election - as do all the candidates."

Sounds about right.

tpm keeps humping The Big Dogs leg but no joy. If you really thought that cropped and clipped video would do it you're outa luck boys. Well keep at guys you never know you might get lucky. Anyway here is a real reporter:

Media Race Baiting

The Obama camp was smart to gin up any plausible rationale for sidelining or ridiculing the former president. For the most part, he is an asset for his wife, the New York senator.

It was certainly brilliant for Obama’s team to enlist the aid of the news media in stirring up racial resentment against the Clintons – going back to New Hampshire when reporters and pundits promoted the bogus notion that Obama lost the state because of racism. That still unproven charge had to help Obama’s forces get the attention of African-American voters in South Carolina.

But it was sad to see so many in the news media become tools for one campaign’s agenda.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/01/the-media-only-hurts-itself-by.html

And more Craig Crawford.

marshall = SC town drunk

CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney [Spears], he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801260001

Something in the water there at tpm?

As a Black person, I know what Obama is doing here. He has to take the high road every time on these kinds of questions otherwise his statements will be interpreted as him "whining" about unfairness due to race.

The funny thing is this unleveled playing field exists, but we can't even bring it up because people think it belongs in the deck of "race cards". America has never had a national dialogue on racism and probably never will. Yet we are forced to navigate and wade awkwardly and usually offensively through the mucky residue of a history of vile racism that sort of just died along with the perpetrators, and act like we had a conference in 1968 that made everyone equals.

plum wrote on January 27, 2008 6:42 PM:
"Obama may seem like he's being gracious and polite, but he's also tagging the Clintons with code words.

One that he's used before (the SC victory speech, the SC debate) is "bad habits". He's saying the Clintons are either pushing the bad habit of racism (by playing the race card); OR they are addicted to the bad habit of slash-and-burn politics.

This is a brilliant framing of the Clintons, because it infantilizes them, it portrays them as worthy of pity (which makes Obama look good in pitying them), and it constructs a public image of the Clintons in terms of pathologies that cannot be escaped. ie. the only way to break out of the "bad habits" is to choose Obama!

In short, it's exactly what right wing nuts have always thought about the Clintons, but in a kinder, softer frame.

I think we can expect to hear Obama talk about "bad habits" again, and to pin the term on the Clintons."

It is the latter (slash-and-burn politics) not the former. But, Plum, if the Obama campaign has framed itself on the idea of getting beyond slash-and-burn politics, then how can he not bring it up? And, given this is part of what his campaign is about, wouldn't it be kinda stupid for the Clintons to intentionally walk into it like this - unless maybe it really is a bad habit and they just can't help themselves? Either way, you can't turn this on Obama. He doesn't make them say what they say. But, if it looks, smells, sounds and tastes like slash-and-burn politics, then Obama certainly has a right to call it that way. What is he supposed to do, play dumb and act like they didn't say anything? C'mon!

The Democrats need to stop living in a "fairy tale" or, as someone said, they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I didn't think this was possible with 3 great contenders, but now I can see how it happens. They started by alienating Michigan and Florida. Now, out of SC they have generated a race divide with awful implications.

The overwhelming victory of Obama in SC is clearly a black block vote, and to say otherwise is kidding yourself. Pointing to the 25% white vote for him, I will bet, is an elusion. I have been trying to find this, and cannot, but I'll bet the majority of this (that over the 10% in the pre-election polls) was a republican crossover vote. You can tell yourself that many Republicans support Obama - but why would they support a liberal who opposes tax cuts for the rich and increased social spending - even if they are against the war? Alternatively, they voted against Hillary and for whom they think is the weaker (fall) candidate.

The SC results make Obama the black candidate, something he was, up till now, skillfully avoiding. My fear is that this will generate a backlash in the general election (unifying Republicans and many white southern Democrats). Clinton, on the other hand, is now branded as a race-baiter (even though the Obama surrogates, and the press, actually had more to do with pushing the race issue) and will loose, as a result, a chunk of the black vote in the fall (if she gets the nomination).

Obama can't win as a black candidate, and Clinton can't win without them. Both Clinton and Obama are rapidly becoming unviable for the fall and the Democrats are doing this to themselves!

The Clintons will say anything, do anything to win an election up to and including stealing delegations and race-baiting

We need to rid ourselves of this pair

Query: Why is it OK for African-American South Carolinians to vote overwhelmingly for Sen. Obama based, at least in large part, on his race, and it is OK for Sen. Obama to accept those essentially racist votes, but it is NOT OK for anyone to call him or his campaign or African-American South Carolinians on it. If white South Carolinians voted overwhelmingly for a white candidate merely because he was white, I do believe I know what people would be saying about it.

I can understand the Clintons' frustration.

rachelrachel writes

The truth is that the SC exit polls did show a great racial polarization; with whites voting for the white candidates, and blacks voting for the black candidate. An obvious historical parallel was Jesse Jackson's Palmetto State victories in earlier years. Was it "race-baiting" for Mr. Clinton to point out this obvious fact? Come on now.

"Race-baiting" isn't the right word, exactly. I would say that Clinton is playing "race politics". An unaffiliated analyst who drew a parallel between Jackson and Obama would not be playing race politics. But Bill Clinton is not an unaffiliated analyst. He's a fierce backer of Hillary Clinton. When he makes a statement to the media about Clinton's opponent, you have to assume that it's an attempt to influence voters to support his wife.

Comparing Obama to Jackson does that in two ways. First, Jackson was never in serious contention to win the nomination, so drawing the parallel suggests that Obama isn't in serious contention either. Second, and this is the race politics bit, Jackson was identified with African-American causes and voters to a much greater extent than Obama. He wasn't a serious candidate for the nomination because he had no base of support outside black voters. To compare Obama to Jackson is to imply that Obama is the candidate for the black folks and the Hillary Clintion, conversely, is the candidate for the white folks.

So it's not that Clinton's racist; it's that he's attempting to exploit Obama's political support among black voters in order to discourage white voters from supporting him. That's race politics.

jd294,

I'm pretty sure you'd lose that bet. The exit polls show that Obama's support among non-black voters was basically a function of age, with him actually winning handily among non-black voters under 30. There is no reason for that to be the pattern if it was driven by Republican crossovers.

Jeff,

Actually, Edwards won the white vote in SC and got all of 2% of the black vote.

And yet there has not in fact been a huge reaction about Edwards "accepting" these votes. Which I personally think is fine: I think it would be wrong to assume those white people voting for Edwards were racists. I just wish people would apply the same standards to black people voting for Obama.

Bill...out of control.

Barack...quite in control.

When the doors fly off the unhinged billary, Barack will send someone able to sweep up the mess.

Like he didn't engage GS on bubba's comment.

DTM, Sen. Obama got nearly 80% of the African American vote. Neither white candidate got even 50% of the white vote, and Sen. Clinton got nearly all the remaining African American votes.

Of course, all those African American voters were merely voting on the issues.

Look, I don't have a gigantic problem with African Americans voting for an African American candidate merely because he's African American--history gives them a good reason to.

But lets not pretend that that isn't, in the end, racist voting which has little to do with either the issues or who would be a better president.

Jeff,

Think that through a little more.

You have two white candidates running and one black candidate. The two white candidates split about 75% of the white vote between them. The one black candidate gets about 80% of the black vote. So how do you know which set of voters are the "racists"?

Or focus specifically on Edwards' voters. He got around 40% of the white vote, and 2% of the black vote. So who are the "racists": the 38% of black people who didn't vote for Edwards (and note some of them should be attributed to Clinton), or the 38% of white voters who did?

Now don't get me wrong: again, I'm not saying the white voters in the SC primary were a bunch of racists. My point is just that neither is anyone else saying that. And yet the evidence, such as it is, could work either way.

DTM: Perhaps all of them. I'm not saying some of the white voters aren't being racist. What I AM saying is that black voters are too, and yet it's not apparently permissible to point that out, as the Clintons have been rather unsubtly trying to do.

Sen. Obama DID NOT win South Carolina because the majority of South Carolina Democrats thought he was the best candidate: he won because the majority of South Carolina Democrats voting in this election were African American, and they voted overwhelmingly for him. It is a win because of race as surely as any white candidate ever won in South Carolina because of race. And by putting race, rather than issues, first, IMHO, African American South Carolinians have diminished themselves (and may have ultimately diminished Sen. Obama) just as surely as any white racist ever did by voting for any candidate but the black one.

Seriously, you guys ought to look at the 'journalists' who are perpetuating this fraud on the people, and notice that Obama's biggest supporters on the Times are the same ones -- Dowd, Rich and Herbert, oddly enough -- that invented three or four of the false stories about Gore. And having gotten away with that heist, and not having been punished for it, they're free to kill again.

Jeff,

First, it should now be clear the double standard is in fact working the opposite way from what you originally claimed: plenty of people are in fact suggesting Obama's win in South Carolina should be discounted because of the large percentage of black people who voted for him, even though they are not similarly discounting the results when large percentages of white voters vote for white people.

Second, on the one hand you seem to now be admitting maybe it was the white voters in SC who were the racists, but then you turn around and largely discuss only the black voters in your second paragraph.

Third, I think you are using a false dichotomy when you separate out race from "issues". For one thing, there are issues directly related to race. For another, race correlates with certain issues even if it is not directly related.

All that said, I am sure a few black people voted for Obama just because he was black. And I am sure a few white people didn't vote for Obama just because he was black. But we really are in no position to put percentages on either of those categories.

By the way, Republicans have been trying the "black people, vote for me because I'm black" strategy. It generally doesn't work: black voters don't support black Republicans in much higher percentages than they support white Republicans.

So if there is any sort of race-based voting going on, it has to be more subtle than that. More plausible would be something like black voters coming to believe things like that Obama's background would make him more likely to advance the nature of race relations in the United States. And frankly, maybe they are right about that.

The terms of reference are clear - Jesse Jackson was strong in South Carolina and won about 10 other states, but couldn't pull a national victory. Quite likely a good analogy for Obama, but we'll see. Nothing "racist" about it - Jackson himself was running a Rainbow Coalition trying to move past race, and to some extent he succeeded (I remember a caucus in a college town in the Ozarks where he pulled a lot of youth and white votes).

Funny how it's okay to compare Obama to Martin Luther King but not to Jesse Jackson. And quite frankly, both were much better speakers with more visionary ideas than Obama.

DTM and sue, I don't think that you can deny that many voters do vote race, even if they have rationalizations for their votes. You don't get 80% of a demographic from straight issue-voting alone.

But that's not the point. However people vote, a politician can choose to exploit the tendency to vote along race lines--"vote for me b/c I am (or am not) black"--or reject it. Bill Clinton has clearly chosen to exploit it.

What I think Clinton was saying was not "white people, don't vote for him because he's black"--historically, South Carolinian whites haven't need to be told that. I *think* what he was saying is "Don't vote for the African American just because he's African American." He was making the same request--none to skillfully--that Sen. Obama makes of all white Americans: don't vote *against* me because of my race.

Jeff, you'll have to do a closer interpretation of Clinton's words for me, because I don't see how the Jesse Jackson comment makes that point at all.

I hear Clinton saying that Obama won SC only because of black voters just like Jesse Jackson. Now while that may be a true and unsensational thing for a journalist to say, there's an implication when Bill Clinton says it that Obama is the candidate of black people, not of white people.

Obama's talked about attacking Iran, and Packistan. Yes we can.

Genghis: Jackson was never in serious contention to win the nomination

That's not actually true -- the 1988 race was wide open, and Jackson was a very serious candidate whose campaign was more like a movement: the "Rainbow Coalition," remember? He won a bunch of states in the process.

Genghis:

I hear Clinton saying that Obama won SC only because of black voters just like Jesse Jackson. Now while that may be a true and unsensational thing for a journalist to say, there's an implication when Bill Clinton says it that Obama is the candidate of black people, not of white people.

Only if you're reading something into it that isn't there. People who are always looking for racism will find it in even the most innocuous comments.

Wilbur,

By some coincidence, in the 2004 presidential election, black voters accounted for 16.7% of the total Democratic vote nationwide.

Something else that was notable about SC was that in 2004, John Edwards got 37% of the African-American vote in SC, to Kerry's 34% and Al Sharpton's 17%. I can't help wondering if maybe he should have waded into the fray a little more.

Another thing I thought was kind of interesting was that 30% of Hillary Clinton's total vote came from African-Americans and 70% from white/Hispanic/other voters, which happens to reflect SC's Demographic make-up pretty precisely.

I meant to mention in my previous comment that this time around, Edwards got 2% of the black vote in SC (down from 37% in '04).

Hey Greg: DUH!!!!

Obama was saying that Bill is irrelevant. You seriously don't get the implication? Are you really that naive? What Obama was saying was that Bill is an old man--out of touch and in the way:

"Jesse Jackson ran historic races in 1984 and 1988...that was 20 years ago, George."

In other words, "Who gives a shit what Bill thinks? He's practically senile, and he's messing up Hillary's campaign."

Stephanopoulos asked explicitly: "You think President Clinton was engaging in racial politics there?"

"I think that, that's his frame of reference was the Jesse Jackson races. That's when he was active and involved..."

Translation: Bill Clinton is a gray-haired old man who is totally out of touch with what's going on in American politics today. He's old school. No one cares anymore.

Don't you get it, Greg? He was telling Bill to go fuck himself.

Rezko= biggest non-scandal since Whitewater & travelgate.

Let's all enjoy this fun and dirty talk about our three excellent '08 candidates. Still a few more months before the Republican Attack Machine restages a speedboat rally for the Straits of Hormuz.

facta non verba wrote: "He's not a progressive. His appeal to independents basically demonstrates that. They don't care for the partisanship because they are by definition non-partisan. But we are partisan and we believe not only in our ideas which were there in the 1980s contrary to popular belief but also because partisanship works. Ask FDR or LBJ or even Ronald Reagan. If they were successful it was because they were partisan not bipartisan. They forced the other side to capitulate."

You just don't get it. Obama wants to turn our slim majorities into meaningful majorities and use the bully pulpit to bring the electorate behind progressive ideas. That's how you "force the other side to capitulate."

The Obama line on Rezko runs something like this: Obama did not know Rezko well, didn't know he was corrupt, only "billed" five hours, didn't do Rezko any favors and has returned the money. So let's examine:

Rezko: "He sold him a house $300,000 below market value. How many people would do that for you? Obama sold him back a portion of a vacant lot at above market prices."

You've got your facts wrong here. A third-party Seller had the house and adjoining lot on the market. Obama bought the house for over $1.3 million, $300,000 off the list price, which was consistent with the market. Rezko bought the empty lot for the list price of $650,000 (also consistent with the market). Obama bought 1/6th of the empty lot from Rezko for $108,000 (1/6th of Rezko's price), even though they had an appraisal done which appraised that 1/6th piece at under $50,000.

"Obama only billed five hours
Over a six year career, five hours? I breathe to my lawyer and I get billed more than. Utterly unbelievable, which is a problem for Obama."

So you just feel this in your bones? Notwithstanding the investigations by journalists and statements by the law firm? He was a junior associate who spent 5 hours doing low-level due diligence work; his client was not Rezko but the non-profit agency that was Rezko's partner in the deal. There is really nothing unusual or "unbelievable" about this.

"Obama didn't do Rezko any favors
Not exactly. Obama secured low interest loans for Rezko for rebuilding public housing projects that were in Obama's district and elsewhere."

Really? What exactly did Obama do to secure these loans for Rezko? This was Rezko's business.

"And yet the campaign contributions also continued to flow and kick-off dinners were hosted but no, no favors were exchanged."

Certainly he was a major contributor to Obama, but from all of the news reports Rezko was a contributor and fundraiser for lots of Chicago pols. It's a smart thing for developers to do. Perhaps Obama made a phone call to get Rezko an appointment with somebody that Rezko was trying to pitch a project to, or similar favors that happen all of the time. But the Chicago papers have been looking at this for a long time and there's no evidence of Obama doing anything significant for Rezko, or of any Denny Hastert-style maneuvering putting money in Obama's pocket.

facta non verba said: "Another problem for Obama is Alice Palmer, his first political mentor in Chicago's South Side. In his run for the Illinois State Senate in 1996 on the last day possible Obama went into the Chicago Board of Elections with a team of lawyers and challenged the validity of Mrs. Palmer petition signatures and those of three other candidates. While Mrs Palmer had indeed stepped back into the race after losing a primary run for Congress, she was the incumbent and his mentor and yet rather than bow out gracefully he played dirty politics to strike her from the race."

Several thoughts on this:

--Since when is it "dirty politics" when you are enforcing the rules? It was those other candidates that had fraudulent petititions. Sure it's what the Trib called the "bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics" but, hey, I guess that "kumbaya" attack goes by the wayside.

--Re Alice Palmer, this from the Trib story:

In recent interviews, Obama and Palmer agreed that he asked her whether she wanted to keep her options open and file to run for her state Senate seat as a fallback in case her congressional bid failed.

Obama says he told her: "We haven't started the campaign yet."

"I hadn't publicly announced," he said. "But what I said was that once I announce, and I have started to raise money, and gather supporters, hire staff and opened up an office, signed a lease, then it's going to be very difficult for me to step down. And she gave me repeated assurances that she was in [the congressional race] to stay."

Obama "did say that to me," Palmer says now. "And I certainly did say that I wasn't going to run. There's no question about that."

....Then Palmer's congressional bid collapsed. On Nov. 28, 1995, she placed a distant third...

Palmer didn't fade quietly away. Citing an "outpouring" of support, she upended the political landscape by switching gears and deciding to run in the March 1996 primary for her state Senate seat.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story?page=1

Greg,

With all the talk about the Bill Clinton video having two questions and the first being cut out, do you actually have the feed of the Clinton interview to see what exactly he was asked? Or do you just have the MSNBC clip?

It wasn't just the Jesse Jackson comments, it was Clinton's sneering tone. Just like the sneering tone he got with the Dartmouth crowd just before the NH primaries.

Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton is not backdooring his way to a 3rd term needs to explain why he's utterly overshadowing (and not in a good way) his wife at this point in the campaign.

The Clintons are so 90s. Turn the page, people.

Bill I only hope if you return to the White House -- that you please keep your pants up!

The Clinton supporters deny that the Clintons are intentionally race-baiting, and claim that it is simply a function of Obama or his supporters being too sensitive-- that is, it's not really racial bait, but the Obama camp is like a ravenous fish hungry for racial polarization that just snaps at anything, regardless of how hard the Clintons try to keep race off the table.

Of course, this abstracts from the fact that racial polarization is the surest and most likely path for Obama's candidacy to implode. I regularly talk to six Clinton supporters, and it seems to me they all seem to ignor this fact. In trying to solve a crime, or any human causality, we insist on motive--we simply will not convict without it. But in this case, people seem willling to look entirely past motive, all of which would be stacked on the Clinton side.

I find that odd.

Peep,calm down and make a sense out Bill's comments on JJ,Just recollect your senses together,Obama is smart n that's why he praises Hillary some times.

Of course, this abstracts from the fact that racial polarization is the surest and most likely path for Obama's candidacy to implode.

In most states, that's true. But it's the surest way in win in South Carolina, where some of Obama's supporters called Bill and the Hillary campaign on racially divisive politics, compared him to Lee Atwater, etc. So, if this can be done locally, and not get caught on the national radar screen, it would benefit Obama.

I don't know whether this was done with the connivance of the Obama campaign; I just know that he benefitted from it.

First off I have to say DemUnity08 must be paid to sit on this site and type all day.

Ha, ha. Not even close. I support a Clinton/Obama '08 or Obama/Clinton '08 ticket. Those are my first two choices. You apparently are committed to one or the other, which is fine, but why disparage those of us who think they are both great candidates, and who would love to see both of them on the ticket?