seoul,

Thanks for the comments.

I think James Brown said it:

I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.

That is what this is about.

It’s about being insulted by supposed ‘ friends’.

I said, in the beginning, if this was a Republican, it would be one thing. Because Republicans are SUPPOSED to do this sort of shit.

But, to accept this from a Democrat?

Unacceptable.

Period.

And, yeah, I know, ‘innocent’ comments that we ‘ imagine’.

I know the drill, but unlike 40 years ago, we can speak up now. THAT is one thing our forefathers and mothers obtained for us.

As my fellow blogger ABB says about the Clintons and their shills:

The Shit Ain’t Subtle, and You Ain’t Slick.

what’s worse? frustrated and angry black people on tv start crying foul. bill and hillary would LOVE that. see, they’ll say, even barack obama can’t get black people to forgive you white people for your original sin of racism; so forget it, your support for barack won’t absolve you of the guilt.

god, it’s so aggravating….

In the words of that Clinton adviser: “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2238148,00.html

For Clinton’s surrogates (e.g. Bob Kerrey) to create this pattern and not even letting it go near Clinton is as shrewd as it is offensive and ugly. Clinton should come out and slam anyone that makes these remarks, and to tell them that she will hold herself personally responsible for any further attacks.

Let’s see some leadership Mrs. Clinton!

As an Independent I haven’t quite decided for whom I shall be voting, but I am sure it won’t be for Hillary Clinton.

1. Former President Clinton must have known that the “weapons of mass destruction” story was a pack of lies. Since he must have known, so must Senator Hillary Clinton. That means that Senator Clinton voted for war and killing knowing that it was based on a pack of lies.

2. As an American I can never forget the deep sense of embarrassment I felt at former President Clinton’s sexual behavior while in office. The whole world felt it, as well. Had Mrs. Clinton separated from him and built her career from there, I would look upon her as a fresh candidate, etc., etc., etc. But the idea of having the Clintons’ back in the White House, is not something I can ever vote for.

I also wonder if he intends to endorse Obama and is planting a seed for the media to repeat in a week or two. This way he can endorse Obama, and talk about his strengths while the largely white media mentions, “He was neutral, but apparently he was irritated by comments from Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton that he felt belittled Civil Rights leaders.” They might even talk about the LBJ, kid and fairy tale comments too.

That would be an extremely effective way for Obama’s campaign to defend itself while not having its finger prints on anything, just Clyburn at a rally speaking about his strengths.

I hope that happens. And I hope Uncommitted wins Michigan–polls taken before Uncommitted started its formal campaign showed Clinton 45 Uncommitted 30. However, since Clinton pledged not to campaign and Uncommitted is running a strong campaign, that could get a lot closer.

Love the site, and I’m glad to see someone — anyone, for Christ’s sake — calling the Clintonistas on this.

Let me tell you: As a white guy from the Deep South, I hear these dog-whistles loud and clear, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to vote for this sleaze in the general election. If any prominent supporters in the Edwards or Richardson campaigns had said half the garbage her people have, their candidacies would’ve been over.

Here’s hopin’ the folks in Nevada see this white trash for what it is. Obama’s going to destroy her in South Carolina.

Obama can’t respond, because his candidacy can’t become all about race. (Little Hillary is apparently free to play the gender card whenever she likes, though.) Luckily, he’s too sharp and too classy to take the bait, — and he wouldn’t dignify it with a response even if he could, anyway — but the best we can do is to keep calling the Clinton camp on it, in hopes of the blogs and press finally getting religion and taking her down.

Enough is enough. The Clintons have got to go.

Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he was rethinking his neutral stance in his state’s presidential primary out of disappointment at comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that he saw as diminishing the historic role of civil rights activists.

“To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us,” said Mr. Clyburn

Yes, that appears to be the strategy. It’s classic identity politics; the suggestion being that Obama’s supporters are nothing but angry, militant blacks with chips on their shoulders.

I think what’s necessary is for someone in media like Eugene Robinson or Donna Brazile (they seem to be the only Black folks allowed on the Sunday talk shows) to point out this strategy for what it is; caution voters to consider the sources; and continue their support for Obama with the same dignity with which he’s running his campaign.

And for anyone else who’s interested:
http://dillarddoctrine.blogspot.com/2008/01/drawing-line-letter-to-barack-hussein.html

Let’s see, just within the past week or so, we’ve had: Hillary Clinton insulting MLK’s legacy, Bill Clinton showing his most racist side with references to Obama as a fairy tale and a kid (easily recognizable racist code words for anyone from the South in particular), a New Hampshire primary with suspicious discrepancies between nonauditable Diebold ballots and hand-counted paper ballots (as well as exit polls), one Clinton surrogate linking Barack Obama to madrassahs and drug-dealing while another dredges up one of the worst, most racist phrases from the minstrel-show period.

There’s now another 20 million or so Democrats at the very least, including me, who will never vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if she’s nominated. She’s extremely harmful to the country.

And it gets worse than that– I’ve been in touch with some African-American communities throughout the country, including in Florida, and they’ve said that if Hillary is nominated, with all the attacks on Black icons, possible vote fraud in New Hampshire, and now these racist comments by Hillary and her campaign supporters, then it’s going to be the Watts riots on steroids. We’re talking some nasty scenes, cities burning down. When you spend centuries overcoming oppression, and then putting your trust in a democracy, and then that democracy is found to be rigged against the African-American people yet again– and by Democrats like the Clintons, who claim to be our friends, but who are actually corporate whores at their cores– then you come to realize that there’s no redress for us, ever, within the system. While I’m terrified by the possibility of rioting, I can certainly understand the rage building up in people right now, and this rigged, racist contest leads to a Hillary coronation at the Democratic Convention, I have little doubt that it’s gonna get very ugly in an awful lot of places. We’re beyond the straw breaking the camel’s back here, and I doubt there’s anything that could prevent the rage from pouring out into the streets and city centers.

I’ve been lurking here(h/t onemillionstrong) for a while and I thank you so much for being here..

I”m at a loss for how I can help..I truly am..yes I donate but it’s not enough..as a white woman, do I have anything to offer Barack in SC?

Are you sure you sent it to the right address? Cuz never got it.

toosenseblog@yahoo.com

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/in-harlem-a-tough-choice-between-clinton-and-obama/

I’ve looked at his policy statements. Even went so far as to write about the specific ones I disagreed with. Hell, I think I even sent you a copy, to clear up the last time you suggested that my only problem with Obama seemed to be his name.

If race has anything to do with this year’s election, it only does because WE’RE the only ones making it an issue. Everyone else seems to want to keep the debate on the issues.
The majority of people here support him. You know I don’t.

But take this as an example: a McCain supporter calls Clinton a bitch. Its a story for maybe a day or so. Statements like Cuomo’s get made…and the only people who seem to care are other black people (tonight’s discussion excluded). Its not hitting the mainstream. Hell, not even Sharpton seems to care…and we know he’d be the FIRST person to cry foul.

We agree that this isn’t helpful to Obama as a candidate. But at some point, we have to let the idea of calling everyone who attacks one of our own racist. Cause if WE can’t get past it, how the hell can we expect anyone else to?

(off subject and a bit rambling, but my coffee isn’t working well tonight)

Keep calling it like it is! Like you said, silence is not an option!

Thanks dna, you nailed that one!

The Bradley Effect is largely anecdotal. There’s a lot of prima facie evidence for it in the N.H. results, and a Times op-ed pointed to the fact that poll numbers leave out or overstate the voting intentions of poor white voters, who are less likely to vote for a black candidate.

But let’s not forget: polls have gotten it royally wrong before, and when the candidates haven’t been black. McCain famously won N.H. in 2000 by 19 points or something like that, and no one picked him to win. Sometimes, polls are just wrong.

There are as many arguments for the Bradley effect as there are against it.

Posts on this blog have called out specific people for specific comments. Your response doesn’t actually make an argument for why a specific comment ISN’T racist, but it does expresses your irritation with the fact that people are talking about it.

The question “Is this all Obama’s campaign is” doesn’t have anything to do with this site. We’re not campaigning for him. We are participating in a conversation that involves the most high profile black man in the country right now.

If you want to know Obama’s positions on specific issues, I suggest you go to his website. You can learn all about his plan to make broadband internet more accessible to people of all incomes, his plan for leaving Iraq, even his ideas about reducing recidivism and even his efforts to promote “responsible fatherhood”.

But this has to be like the millionth time you’ve come on a thread and responded to an issue with a blanket statement claiming ignorance about Obama’s policy positions and demanding that we outline them rather than observe the ways his candidacy is affecting the race and the country.

I think what I hear you saying is that you think the focus on racially charged statements hurts Obama as a candidate more than it helps him. I buy that, but I’m less interested in his being elected than I am in dealing with the issues his candidacy raises.

Does not talking about race erase the issue? Maybe you think it does, or at least for the most part. I don’t, I think the silence provides an excuse to avoid an honest discussion of the subject beyond the messianic fawning over his “articulateness” or his ability as a speaker.