It is a satirical remark which lampoons the notion that Bill Clinton was the first black president.

Get it now?

I get it. Cute.

There is, however, a difference. Bill Clinton's well-known tag as the first black president came at a time when there was no opposition for that title.

Running against a woman and claiming that he out-womans her is, shall we say, a big disingenuous. It may be cute, but I think women will see through that, no matter whom they support.

"With friends like these..." indeed. I do not wish to come down too hard on Mrs Kaine, a fine woman no doubt, but this is handing the comics a gift on a silver plate to make a buffoon out of Obama. It is not an endorsement I would stick on the campaign's web portal.

Memo to surrogates: STFU. Let's let the candidate do the talking.

I get where she was trying to go with the comment, but subtle comedy is probably not her strong suit. I doubt it will get a ton of traction.

Ok, off topic, but interesting nonetheless. What does it mean when 1.9 million dems voted in the illinois primary and only 1.7 million dems voted in the NY primary? Who has the more motivated base? NY has about twice the population of illinois, right. Very interesting.

It was actually Megan Beyer, not Governor Kaine's wife, who made the remark you quoted. Double check the source and please correct.

Oh Jesus. First MoveOn and now this. What's next--a Lieberman endorsement?

Ha Ha
This is going to go the same way as Maria Shriver and Oprah Kaball in CA.

Keep it up.

Jeez, back to your respective corners partisans, put away the pitchforks!
Not even a bit of levity, part intentional and part purposeful, escapes scathing and disparaging review here.
Anyone who can't get at least a quiet chuckle from this is off their meds. If not their rocker.
And thanks Greg & Josh for this and the entire TPM site, bugs and all.

Um, that's funny. What's up with the "friends like these" tag? Can you humorless lumbering people really not see a joke for what it is? Toni Morrison can call Clinton 'black', so a woman can call Obama a 'woman', sure why not? People, try not to be so uptight!

LOL! Teh stupid - it burns!

Over course, one would be "oversensitive" to suggest that there's anything inappropriate about calling Clinton "the first black president". Funny how that works.

The genesis of the purported strategy of having pro-choice legislators vote present so legislators in districts that were weak on choice could duck the vote and avoid electoral trouble is unclear. Planned Parenthood in Illinois says it is their idea, Illinois NOW says they urged against it, elsewhere I have heard that Obama himself proposed it as a way to protect members having trouble in their districts and other legislators have denied in the Chicago Tribune that there was any such strategy. In any case Obama who faced no electoral trouble had no need to duck but did so anyway. The obvious danger of such a ‘strategy’ is that it reduces the apparent strength of the pro-choice side and it makes any legislator who uses it look weak on choice – which is precisely where Obama finds himself now.

I first became doubtful about Obama’s attitudes towards choice because of his statement in regards toSchiavo that there was nothing unconstitutional in giving more process than is due.” To view keeping her in the limbo against her wishes as established in court as giving her due process is to deny her personhood and her right to have her moral decision making respected in the same way as anyone else.

While Obama has voted correctly on pro-choice issues – he could not do otherwise if he wanted to rise in Democratic politics – and he does not appear to believe in the personhood of the fetus he was put on the defensive by Alan Keyes’s views:

“And while I found it simple enough to dispose of his constitutional and policy arguments, his readings of Scripture put me on the defensive

Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, Mr. Keyes would say, and yet the supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, Mr. Keyes would say, and yet he supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

What could I say? That a literal reading of the Bible was folly? That Mr. Keyes, a Roman Catholic, should disregard the Pope’s teachings? Unwilling to go there, I answered with the usual liberal response in such debates – that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my religious views on another, that I was running to be Senator from Illinois and not the minister of Illinois. But even as I answered, I was mindful of Mr. Keyes’s implicit accusation – that I remained steeped in doubt, that my faith was adulterated, that I was not a true Christian.”

To depend on the gut feelings of a man who feels that his position on abortion is challenged by the tenets of his faith for protection of choice when the alternative is to vote for a woman who understands completely how and why this is the woman’s own decision is folly.

A difference in the skill and determination and understanding with which one politician compared to another approaches the issue of choise is a legitimate ground for choosing between them.