Thursday Open Thread

I swear to goodness that when I checked Memeorandum and saw the headline “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out”I thought it meant something about his mother’s birth canal and a c-section birth and said to myself WTF.

Having read the article, I think the actual story is just about as stupid.






136 replies
  1. 1
    Seanly says:

    Didn’t this come up a couple of weeks ago? And was dismissed back then as it was the otehr 800 times? WTF is right.

  2. 2
    TheFountainHead says:

    Worst. Headline. Ever.

  3. 3

    Well, apparently it’s sort of a fun legal argument that people like to have. I mean, the words are right there in the Constitution, “natural-born American.” Surely they have some legal meaning. The quote from the woman who wrote about it in the Yale Law Journal is instructive– that it’s not implausible to think that the clause should disqualify McCain.

    Still, if that clause, as properly understood now and at the time of its enactment, serves to disqualify from the presidency children born abroad of servicemen, then it’s stupid, and it should and will be ignored.

  4. 4
    myiq2xu says:

    Since that story is stupid, why not look at something that matters then:

    After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama’s promises of a pure, soul-cleansing “new” politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp–over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress–will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.

    Real ponies don’t oink.

  5. 5
    p.lukasiak says:

    since this is an open thread, I think this is worthy of discussion…

    Race Man, by Sean Wilentz
    How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton

    key graf

    More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the “race card” were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the “race-baiter card” before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada–and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters.

    Wilentz goes into great detail (including some irrelevant stuff), but its well worth reading..

  6. 6
    p.lukasiak says:

    great minds, myiq! :)

  7. 7
    Garrigus Carraig says:

    It’s stupid for this particular case (& sometimes I wonder if the idea is being flogged by people who are too young to remember CZ), but seriously, I think it might be sensible to formalize the requirement. We all know where the line is more or less — John Sidney McCain III and Barry Goldwater are on this side of it, Arnold on the other –, but one of these days such a dispute will get heated for purely political reasons. May as well head that off.

  8. 8
    SGEW says:

    OMG! McCain is a PANAMANIAN MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE!!! Plus, his name literally means “Son of Cain”!!! And he has a black baby!!! And he has ties to George W. Bush who, as everyone knows, is secretly Vietnamese!!!

    Sigh. We (read: sane people) do this as spoof and snark. The Freepers (Wingnuttians? Rovians? Mainstream Republicans? 9/11ists? Bushkkakists?) do it earnestly.

    If there’s one thing I want from the M.U.P. (besides, you know, a pony) it’s for these kinds of political attacks to end forever. Or at least become totally ineffective for a while.

  9. 9
    Jen says:

    It is a slightly interesting legal argument, and the Constitution does really need to be amended on that point. There isn’t any plausible reason, in this day and age, to restrict eligibility to natural-born citizens. The trouble is going to come about because if there is an impetus to go through the tremendous hassle of amending the Constitution, it will probably be to pave the way for Schwarzanegger and it will politicize the issue. Ideally it should happen because it’s the right thing to do. So if course it won’t happen that way.

    Terrible, terrible headline. “canal” and “birth” in the same headline, and you’re talking about Panama. Aw-ful.

  10. 10
    Billy K says:

    McPain is ineligible! Bring on Huckabee!!!

  11. 11
    TheFountainHead says:

    To p. Luk and myiq:

    The people over at RedState have a lock on this kind of Revisionist History, perhaps they can help you analyze it to it’s full extent. Really, they’ll go after the nuance in a way I don’t think we’re qualified to do here.

  12. 12
    Zifnab says:

    Hang in there Romney! You’ve still got a shot come Convention time!

  13. 13
    myiq2xu says:

    The people over at RedState have a lock on this kind of Revisionist History, perhaps they can help you analyze it to it’s full extent. Really, they’ll go after the nuance in a way I don’t think we’re qualified to do here.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.

  14. 14
    Billy K says:

    p.lukasiak Says:
    great minds, myiq!

    Most inadvertently hilarious POTD.

  15. 15
    Shygetz says:

    I was thinking the same thing, Billy.

    A man who publically endorsed Clinton back in 2007 (you know, before all of this so-called “race baiting”) due to her “electability” while calling Obama’s campaign “beautiful loserdom” is now attacking Obama. *yawn* Where is this “something that matters”?

  16. 16
    4tehlulz says:

    Apparently, the NYT needed to fill some space.

  17. 17
    IanY77 says:

    Here’s your Thursday morning blood-boiler:

    Bad: Cop sics dog on suspect that is co-operating.
    Worse: Cop signals partner and plants bag of pot on suspect.
    Worsest: He does it in front of his own fucking dash cam, just after looking directly at said camera, and is now being sued by suspect.

    I’m going to try to embed the vid. If that doesn’t work, I’ll link to it in the next comment. Here goes:

  18. 18
    DM Metzger says:

    I was always under the impression that the only requirement for for natural-born status when you’ve got American parents was to be, well, born. As in “if your parents were American so were you” regardless of where the birth happened. I’ve been taught that since I started grade-school civics; when did it come under dispute?

  19. 19
    Mary says:

    From this week’s Time magazine on Bill’s role in the Clinton campaign:

    But he is appalled, friends and aides say, by what he has privately described as “political malpractice” by Hillary’s campaign. It spent money with abandon in the earliest primaries and assumed that the race would not last past Super Tuesday, on Feb. 5 — and failed to prepare for any of the states that followed. Two weeks before the Texas primary, Bill Clinton telephoned Waco insurance mogul and philanthropist Bernard Rapoport, a friend and backer since the 1970s. Rapoport told Clinton that this was the first contact he had had from anyone on the campaign. “He was madder than mad,” Rapoport says. “He was right. There was so much we could have done, but we never heard from anyone at headquarters.”

    That Bill Clinton would be surprised at any of this is surprising in itself, given the wide perception that he is the unseen hand guiding his wife’s campaign. But friends and advisers say that was never the case — in part because he understood Hillary’s need to establish her independence, and in part because of long-standing mistrust between his political operation and hers. He deferred to her team and its pseudo-incumbency strategy throughout the fall, friends say, even though his instincts told him that Obama was gaining steam and should be dealt with as a threat. When Bill visited Hillary’s Des Moines campaign headquarters a few days before the Iowa caucuses to give a pep talk to her young volunteers, her then campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle didn’t come out of her office. Those who were there saw it as an unmistakable snub and an assertion of who was in charge.

  20. 20
    IanY77 says:

    Nope, I wasn’t sure if I could do that. Some blogs you can, some you can’t. Here you go:

    Youtube.

  21. 21
    myiq2xu says:

    Well, apparently it’s sort of a fun legal argument that people like to have. I mean, the words are right there in the Constitution, “natural-born American.” Surely they have some legal meaning. The quote from the woman who wrote about it in the Yale Law Journal is instructive—that it’s not implausible to think that the clause should disqualify McCain.

    Still, if that clause, as properly understood now and at the time of its enactment, serves to disqualify from the presidency children born abroad of servicemen, then it’s stupid, and it should and will be ignored.

    There has never been a SCOTUS decision defining “natural born.” Some people say it means people born in the US and no one else.

    That would disqualify me and John McCain as well as thousands of others. I was born in Germany while my father was stationed there in the Air Force. Both of my parents as natural born citizens. So why am I “ineligible,” when the child of two illegal immigrants who is born within the borders of the US is “eligible?”

    For anyone who was worried, relax, I’m not planning on running.

    But it would be interesting to see who would challenge it. McCain won’t even be an official candidate until the GOP convention.

    He would have to at least be a candidate before he could be officially challenged. By then it appears likely that Obama would be the Democratic nominee.

    I can just imagine the mental gymnastics of the Obamanics if Obama filed a court challenge. They’re already hyperventilating because of court challenges Hillary hasn’t even hinted at filing on the delegate issues.

    Somehow, if he does it, they’ll have no problem with litigation.

  22. 22
    KCinDC says:

    I have a friend who was born on a military base in Europe and was convinced he was ineligible to be president (or would still be after he turned 35). Maybe now he’ll start planning his political career.

  23. 23
    TheFountainHead says:

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.

    A witty play one words (giving you credit where it may not be due) does not a retort make.

  24. 24
    PeterJ says:

    Interesting comment from a rightwing site:

    You guys don’t understand what is really going on here.

    We want all of you to go on record arguing that a US military base is soverign US territory. Thus you can undermine the whole legal cocoon that the Bush administration has built around Gitmo – with their absurd claim that it is not under US legal jurisdiction.

    You want McCain, then we own Gitmo.

    BTW, don’t think this is new. I recall there was some discussions about this back in 2000.

  25. 25
    p.lukasiak says:

    The people over at RedState have a lock on this kind of Revisionist History, perhaps they can help you analyze it to it’s full extent. Really, they’ll go after the nuance in a way I don’t think we’re qualified to do here.

    have you bothered to read the piece?

  26. 26
    SGEW says:

    Sorry myiq2xu and p.lukasiak (for both disagreeing and butting my nose in), but the article you linked to lost me once he cited Roth as an ethical example.

    There are people/pundits who claim that the Clintons are “racist.” This is retarded.

    Then, there are people who claim that the “race-baiting” “dog whistle” racial overtones coming from certain Clinton employees/volunteers were manufactured by Sen. Obama’s campaign. This is also retarded.

    ‘Tis true, myiq2xu, that Obama’s M.U.P. has mud on its hooves (am I mixing metaphors here?), mostly involving Illinois real estate and his church’s officials, but this TNR article is pretty goddamn preposterous.

    Or were all of us people of color just so stupid that we got suckered into believing our own eyes and ears when the Clinton camp put their foots in their mouths with racially insensitive gaffes? Obviously our perceptions were carefully crafted by the Obama camp’s reactions before we even heard them! The M.U.P. can transcend politics and even time itself! Extraordinary!

    BTW, Prof. Wilentz is a partisan Clinton supporter. Just thought I’d point that out.

  27. 27
    4tehlulz says:

    Speaking of space that needs to be filled:

    On one issue particularly worrisome to American consumers, there are indications that paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline is not out of the question once the summer driving season arrives. Asked about that, Bush said “That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that. … I know it’s high now.”

  28. 28
    Jen says:

    I can just imagine the mental gymnastics of the Obamanics if Obama filed a court challenge.

    He won’t. Won’t need to, won’t want to. It doesn’t really fit with the skies opening and the celestial choirs, you know?

  29. 29
    myiq2xu says:

    great minds, myiq!

    Don’t expect many of the denizens of this place to read the post though. As one of them already showed, they don’t care about the truth.

    There are a few that can reasoned with. TZ for example, can be persuaded to change his mind. All you need is irrefutable facts, good logical reasoning skills, and a blunt instrument.

  30. 30
    John S. says:

    great minds, myiq!

    Yes, Paul, you and myiq can count yourselves amongst the great mind that is Rick Moran over at Rightwing Nuthouse.

    Congratulations on your deep thoughts.

  31. 31
    Jen says:

    Being open and all, I thought Jon Swift was moderately funny today.

  32. 32
    ThymeZone says:

    The real story here is how two apparently intelligent people like myiqhalfyou and lukasiak have turned into two of the whiniest, stupidest goddam losers we have ever seen on this blog.

    Jesus, guys, really, you suck. Between the blizzard of phony numbers and the ludicrous assertions that faux race baiting has explained one of the biggest landslide shifts in a campaign season we’ve ever seen …. a million donors and $100m+ dollars over race baiting? DID YOU REALLY MEAN TO INSINUATE THAT YOU STUPID FUCKS?

    The caps are just in case you aren’t paying attention.

    You two are embarrassing US now. When you were just embarrassing yourselves nobody cared, but now it’s becoming a nuisance. Go away for crissakes.

  33. 33
    John S. says:

    have you bothered to read the piece?

    Yes, and it seems like a steaming turd – unless you really want it to be true, in which case it looks like a turd wrapped in gold. I don’t make a habit of investing too much stock in TNR, much in the same way that I tend not to hang on the writings over at the NRO.

  34. 34
    SGEW says:

    Okay, throwing more of my 2 cents in (I’ve got a jar of pennies today).

    Hey ThymeZone. How can you tell them to “go away” because you consider them to be “nuisance(s)” for linking to an article by a highly accredited writer? I may strongly disagree with the article (and the writer, for that matter), but it’s hardly embarrassing to the U.S., and is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in order to foster rational debate.

    And yes, I’m familiar with the on-going personality conflict in here (a strong factor in my relatively limited commenting). But I haven’t seen anything written here today that would deserve the writer being called a stupid fuck (in all caps, no less).

  35. 35
    myiq2xu says:

    Sorry myiq2xu and p.lukasiak (for both disagreeing and butting my nose in), but the article you linked to lost me once he cited Roth as an ethical example.

    Roth was not an “ethical” example, his story was an example of how the “race-baiting card” can be devastating to the innocent.

    Your objection to Roth is your only basis to refute the entire article? That’s pretty weak, but typical of the responses I get to links I post.

    Oh, that person. They have no credibility.”

    How about addressing the merits?

  36. 36
    myiq2xu says:

    You two are embarrassing US now. When you were just embarrassing yourselves nobody cared, but now it’s becoming a nuisance. Go away for crissakes.

    Where’s my bat?

  37. 37
    John S. says:

    “Oh, that person. They have no credibility.”

    Kind of like how you reject anything by Frank Rich out of hand for the same reason?

    That’s very consistent of you.

  38. 38

    […] it meant something about his mother’s birth canal and a c-section birth and said to myself WTF. Sphere: Related Content Filed under: US Politics, 2008 Campaign || […]

  39. 39
    ThymeZone says:

    Where’s my bat?

    In your belfry.

  40. 40
    The Other Steve says:

    Race Man, by Sean Wilentz
    How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton

    I found the piece to be extremely sexist.

  41. 41
    The Other Steve says:

    “Oh, that person. They have no credibility.”

    How about addressing the merits?

    The reason people are said to have no credibility is because they make arguments without merit.

  42. 42
    myiq2xu says:

    Yes, and it seems like a steaming turd – unless you really want it to be true, in which case it looks like a turd wrapped in gold. I don’t make a habit of investing too much stock in TNR, much in the same way that I tend not to hang on the writings over at the NRO.

    Yes, it is a big steaming turd. It also happens to be factually correct (I notice you did not refute a single factual assertion) and that big steaming turd is laying in the middle of the national living room while the media and the Obama Nation pretend like it isn’t there.

  43. 43
    The Other Steve says:

    McCain should go through a rebirthing process in Arizona.

    That’s the only way to resolve this issue.

  44. 44
    The Other Steve says:

    Yes, it is a big steaming turd. It also happens to be factually correct (I notice you did not refute a single factual assertion) and that big steaming turd is laying in the middle of the national living room while the media and the Obama Nation pretend like it isn’t there.

    I think you meant the living rooms of the 12 people who actually read The New Republic.

  45. 45
    Punchy says:

    If I were Obama, I’d say the following in a press confy:

    “As a Black man, I think it’s time for McCane to own up to his fathering of a fellow Black baby years ago the GOP told us all about. Why would the GOP have lied about this? Therefore, it must be true, otherwise….they’ve just been proven to be liars.”

  46. 46
    myiq2xu says:

    Kind of like how you reject anything by Frank Rich out of hand for the same reason?

    That’s very consistent of you.

    If you want a point by point takedown of him pick a column.

  47. 47
    ThymeZone says:

    How about addressing the merits?

    Your candidate ran a lousy campaign and got rope a doped by Cassius Clay, and will now lose, having snatched defeat from the very jaws of victory by refusing to see the reality of what was going on. Denial is not, to quote a commenter here, a river in Egypt.

    But please, keep up the whining. Really. Everybody just loves it.

  48. 48
    The Other Steve says:

    If you want a point by point takedown of him pick a column.

    In fairness. Frank Rich is a tool.

  49. 49
    myiq2xu says:

    The reason people are said to have no credibility is because they make arguments without merit.

    This is an example of circular logic.

    “He has no credibility because he makes arguments without merit, therefore I do not need to address the merits of his argument.”

  50. 50
    Dork says:

    race baiting

    First one to put 20 worms on 20 hooks wins?

  51. 51
    SGEW says:

    Your objection to Roth is your only basis to refute the entire article? That’s pretty weak, but typical of the responses I get to links I post.

    Yeah, sorry. I was (weakly) trying to be a little snarky about Roth (but my dislike of Roth is a whole other subject).

    My substantive rebuttal to that article is its casual ignorance of millions of minorities’ visceral reactions to certain statements and actions coming from the Clinton offices; reactions that preceded any Obama spin. I just really can’t buy that our impression was based on what Sen. Obama would say in reaction to these gaffes. Sure, maybe the Obama campaign’s spin increased the accusations of “race-baiting” in the media (after the fact), but a lot of us were already pretty convinced that we weren’t imagining the dog whistles. Those whistles are pretty fucking loud sometimes. Call me over-sensitive.

    And I didn’t say Prof. Wilentz doesn’t have credibility (Roth doesn’t have credibility, but, again, that’s another topic), but pointing out a pundit’s political ties can be a substantive criticism of their viewpoint. Not a totally dismissive one, naturally, but still, it’s there.

  52. 52
    John S. says:

    If you want a point by point takedown of him pick a column.

    Riiiiight. Except when John posted one of his columns and you had the opportunity to do so, you merely stated:

    Doesn’t hurt -isn’t true.

    That CPAC flu must have made you delerious.

    Rich is an old school Hillary hater. Are you gonna start listening to MoDo next?

    And now you want to lecture people for doing the same thing you did? That’s pretty damn funny.

  53. 53
    myiq2xu says:

    Your candidate ran a lousy campaign and got rope a doped by Cassius Clay, and will now lose, having snatched defeat from the very jaws of victory by refusing to see the reality of what was going on. Denial is not, to quote a commenter here, a river in Egypt.

    Oh yeah? Just wait until your candidate is jawed by the snatch of defeat!

  54. 54
    Halteclere says:

    I can just imagine the mental gymnastics of the Obamanics if Obama filed a court challenge. They’re already hyperventilating because of court challenges Hillary hasn’t even hinted at filing on the delegate issues.

    Because it is just that – your imagination at work. Why on earth would Obama (or Clinton for that matter, if she managed to pull this primary thing off) waste effort challenging the legality of McCain running for President?

    Talk about giving (properly, for once) meat to the meme that Democrats hate our troops by such a stupid challenge. This thing is a Pandora’s box best left to academic, theoretical discussions.

  55. 55
    John S. says:

    In fairness. Frank Rich is a tool.

    Yes, he is. But that isn’t the point.

    The point is that myiq has full descended into the realm of being a hypocrite.

  56. 56
    myiq2xu says:

    First one to put 20 worms on 20 hooks wins?

    They will be the master baiter

  57. 57
    Llelldorin says:

    Let’s assume arguendo that the linked article is entirely, absolutely true, in every respect. In that case, Clinton’s campaign was demolished by some mildly clever unfair attacks in the media.

    If that’s the case, it deals a devastating blow to one of Clinton’s principal arguments. For the entirety of this campaign, we’ve been hearing that Clinton would be the strongest candidate in the general election because she’s already faced unfair attacks in the media and knows how to handle them. I really don’t think you can reconcile “she’s immune to the mighty Republican Wurlitzer” with “the MUP took her out with a kazoo.”

  58. 58
    TenguPhule says:

    Bush confirms recession by denying it

    Always wrong, always predictable.

  59. 59
    myiq2xu says:

    And now you want to lecture people for doing the same thing you did? That’s pretty damn funny.

    I said pick a column, so I am going to assume you want me to address the piece of shit that John was crowing about.

    I’ll be back

  60. 60
    Andrew says:

    First one to put 20 worms on 20 hooks wins?

    Yeah, I giggled a little bit.

  61. 61
    myiq2xu says:

    The point is that myiq has full descended into the realm of being a hypocrite.

    Oh, and when I get back, you better be ready to address the merits of the Wilentz article.

    Put up or STFU

  62. 62
    4tehlulz says:

    Just wait until your candidate is jawed by the snatch of defeat!

    SEXY!

  63. 63
    John S. says:

    I said pick a column, so I am going to assume you want me to address the piece of shit that John was crowing about.

    Don’t waste your time – it is Frank Rich after all.

    I just found it incredibly ironic that you would lecture people on doing something that you yourself did when the tables were turned – even if it was Frank Rich.

  64. 64
    tBone says:

    Don’t expect many of the denizens of this place to read the post though. As one of them already showed, they don’t care about the truth.

    Cue violins for our Sisterhood of Perpetual Victimhood.

    If you want people to listen to you, it’s simple: stop being an obnoxious, whiny little troll.

  65. 65
    chopper says:

    Don’t expect many of the denizens of this place to read the post though. As one of them already showed, they don’t care about the truth.

    your ideas are intriguing and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  66. 66
    myiq2xu says:

    If you want people to listen to you, it’s simple: stop being an obnoxious, whiny little troll.

    Yes, please do

  67. 67
    D. Mason says:

    Or were all of us people of color just so stupid that we got suckered into believing our own eyes and ears when the Clinton camp put their foots in their mouths with racially insensitive gaffes?

    During this primary I think a lot of people have seen gaffes in places where there were none. I think the SC comment was the closest thing and that’s a big stretch to me. This is politics not pre-school and “insensative” things are going to be said along the way. Obama and Clinton are oponents in what they both believe to be the ultimate contest, criticism does not equal racism. Obama probably has to play the race card to win the primary but it might hurt him in the long run. Not only does this shit expose Obama as another status-quo candidate, when McCain starts attacking Obama in earnest the racist meme will be old. People will be tired of hearing about how any criticism of Obama is “dog-whistle” politics and so forth. Before you know it the boy who cried bigot will be up against a political enemy who is really willing to go racial and his cries of foul will fall on apathetic ears. The fact that it was surrogates who brought out the accusations of racism against Clinton won’t help either, people will only accept that surrogates spoke out of turn when they weren’t speaking in unison.

  68. 68
    myiq2xu says:

    Don’t waste your time – it is Frank Rich after all.

    Ok, if you’re gonna pussy out I won’t bother preparing my own response to it. I’ll just refer you to Bob Somerby

    Yeah, that guy.

  69. 69
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    All else aside, does anyone think that Hillary Clinton, whose blundering campaign and absolute lack of charisma has transformed her from a sure thing into a struggling candidate could actually beat Senator Methuselah in the general election? There was a discussion on one of the threads last night about Republican plans to “Dukakisize” Obama, should he be the nominee. I’m thinking that Hillary is the one who would get that treatment and that it would work.

  70. 70
    tBone says:

    Yes, please do

    You know who else loves the “I know you are, but what am I?” rhetorical gambit, myiq2? My first grader.

  71. 71
    myiq2xu says:

    Not only does this shit expose Obama as another status-quo candidate, when McCain starts attacking Obama in earnest the racist meme will be old. People will be tired of hearing about how any criticism of Obama is “dog-whistle” politics and so forth.

    Here’s my predeiction: When Hillary’s candidacy is safely dead and buried (with a wooden stake thru her heart) the media will suddenly notice what really happened.

    The first time Obama has some real racism to complain about, the media will bring up what he did to Hillary and blast him for race-baiting.

    IOW – Obama gave the GOP a “get out of jail free” card to trump the race card.

    Kind of like when Hillary rightfully complains about the media, and all the HillaryHaters respond with “She’s playing the victim card again.”

  72. 72
    chopper says:

    All else aside, does anyone think that Hillary Clinton, whose blundering campaign and absolute lack of charisma has transformed her from a sure thing into a struggling candidate could actually beat Senator Methuselah in the general election?

    a struggling candidate who hasn’t won a majority of delegates in any single primary day so far, no less.

  73. 73
    myiq2xu says:

    You know who else loves the “I know you are, but what am I?” rhetorical gambit, myiq2? My first grader.

    I apologize for stooping to your level

  74. 74
    The Other Steve says:

    The point is that myiq has full descended into the realm of being a hypocrite.

    Obviously you do not understand how Darrel, er I mean myiq argues.

    He’s critical of Obama. But he’s not really a hypocrite, because not once has he ever defended or championed Clinton(or Bush). So in his world he’s arguing in good faith, because while he’s critical of your guy since he’s never actually defended his guy, he can’t really be a hypocrite.

  75. 75
    The Other Steve says:

    Here’s my predeiction: When Hillary’s candidacy is safely dead and buried (with a wooden stake thru her heart) the media will suddenly notice what really happened.

    The first time Obama has some real racism to complain about, the media will bring up what he did to Hillary and blast him for race-baiting.

    I don’t recall Obama ever seeing complaining about racism.

    Maybe you have a link, or a video or quote or something?

  76. 76
    The Other Steve says:

    Oh yeah? Just wait until your candidate is jawed by the snatch of defeat!

    All this talk of snatches is extremely sexist.

  77. 77
    John S. says:

    Ok, if you’re gonna pussy out

    Ok, I was just trying to save you the time and trouble. I guess that makes me a pussy. Funny how you’ve changed your tune, Mr. “No Personal Attcks”. I guess you’re a hypocrite on that score, too.

    Bob Somerby’s takedown of Rich doesn’t make you not a hypocrite, by the way.

  78. 78
    ThymeZone says:

    “He has no credibility because he makes arguments without merit, therefore I do not need to address the merits of his argument.”

    Um, do you think it is illogical to apply this very reasoning when considering the assertions of, say, erm, um, George W. Bush?

    Because I do.

  79. 79
    SGEW says:

    During this primary I think a lot of people have seen gaffes in places where there were none.

    Absolutely. No argument there. But (and it’s a big but), there have been gaffes from the Clinton campaign (but not usually the Clintons themselves, mind you). Nickel and dime stuff (and nothing compared to, say, the G.O.P. shenanigans), but (I believe) incontrovertible fuck ups with noticable (to some) racial overtones.

    I think the SC comment was the closest thing and that’s a big stretch to me.

    Again, most of the problematic statements have come from staffers, not the Clintons themselves. The S.C. comment (“Jesse Jackson”) isn’t, on its own merits, totally objectionable . . . but put it in context, and it’s very, very cringe-worthy.

    This is politics not pre-school and “insensative” (sic) things are going to be said along the way.

    Yes, insensitive things will be said (see, e.g., the N.A.F.T.A. and Health Care mailings, or Clinton’s attacks on Obama’s Reagan comments), and this is, indeed, good ol’ politics. But there’s a rather large difference between generally insensitivity, which is allowable, and, gosh, racial insensitivity, which is not. Call me politically correct, if you must. But don’t get mad if I call you racist back.

  80. 80
    libarbarian says:

    Real ponies don’t oink.

    lol!

    Thats a funny article.

  81. 81
    D. Mason says:

    I don’t recall Obama ever seeing complaining about racism.

    Maybe you have a link, or a video or quote or something?

    Although your reply wasn’t directly to mine I feel the need to point out that we have had years of Bush surrogates putting out shit that “Bush never said”. Don’t pretend like these eruptions of people noticing Clintons “dog whistling” are spontaneous. You can’t possibly be that naive.

  82. 82
    ThymeZone says:

    there have been gaffes from the Clinton campaign (but not usually the Clintons themselves, mind you).

    “I am honored to be here with Barack Obama”

    36 hours later:

    “Shame on you, Barack Obama!”

    Can anyone tell me what her message has been lately? Other than “Help me, I’m mellllltinnnnggg!”

  83. 83
    John S. says:

    I feel the need to point out that we have had years of Bush surrogates putting out shit that “Bush never said”.

    For me, it depends on how far up the chain it goes.

    If a top level Clinton or Obama surrogate says something, then AFAIC it might as well have come from the candidate themselves. If a very low-level surrogate or mere supporter (or blog commenter) says something, I tend not to lay it right at the doorstep of the candidate.

    These are Democrats, after all. They aren’t quite as adept at message control as the Republicans are.

  84. 84
    SGEW says:

    Don’t pretend like these eruptions of people noticing Clintons “dog whistling” are spontaneous.

    If you don’t notice the dog whistle, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t used. It wasn’t intended to be heard by you.

    BTW: I fucking HATE the phrase “dog whistle”!

  85. 85
    Pb says:

    p.lukasiak Says:

    great minds, myiq! :)

    Uh oh, I see the daily Taylor Marsh talking points made it here early.

    Race Man, by Sean Wilentz

    How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton

    Because, you know, Sean Wilentz, who just wrote a column entitled “Race Man“, is way more astute than the 78% of black voters in South Carolina who voted for Obama. Because, unlike them, Sean Wilentz knows racism when he sees it.

    By the way, I look forward to the coming narrative about how it’s really the African Americans who control the media. Please let me know when that meme starts (or started?) making the rounds over at Taylor Marsh, HillaryIs44, etc. Thanks in advance!

  86. 86
    John S. says:

    myiq2xu-

    After re-reading my comment, I have to apologize.

    I don’t think you are a hypocrite – that was a little hyperbolic. However, I think you are making some hypocritical arguments here, and that isn’t the same thing.

    Just wanted to clarify that and move back to neutral ground.

  87. 87
    TheFountainHead says:

    Let’s assume arguendo that the linked article is entirely, absolutely true, in every respect. In that case, Clinton’s campaign was demolished by some mildly clever unfair attacks in the media.

    If that’s the case, it deals a devastating blow to one of Clinton’s principal arguments. For the entirety of this campaign, we’ve been hearing that Clinton would be the strongest candidate in the general election because she’s already faced unfair attacks in the media and knows how to handle them. I really don’t think you can reconcile “she’s immune to the mighty Republican Wurlitzer” with “the MUP took her out with a kazoo.”

    QFFT.

    The only TRUE race-baiting I saw with my own eyes from the Clintons was Bill’s unsolicited Jesse Jackson comment which sought to paint Obama not as a black candidate (he’s fucking black, people) but as just another ineffectual black candidate. That being said, the above logic is pretty solid. You cannot run a campaign that you claim to be immune to Republican trickery, and then hope to win the nomination by convincing the Democrats that, on the other hand, you are the victim of Democratic trickery.

    That would be, I believe, why we are all collectively looking at the Clinton campaign and saying, “Huh? What?”

  88. 88
    D. Mason says:

    Call me politically correct, if you must. But don’t get mad if I call you racist back.

    Oh, don’t worry, I don’t take offense to knee jerk responses to criticism. I know it’s difficult to receive criticism and that some individuals don’t react in a reasoned way.

    Perhaps I was unclear with my original point, which is this. Obama supporters should take care when trying to use their guys race for favor since that opens the door to having his race used in contexts that might not be as advantageous. The supporters themselves will see this as quite unfair and even *gasp* racist but the unbiased observer will see it as turnabout being fair play.

  89. 89
    myiq2xu says:

    Just wanted to clarify that and move back to neutral ground.

    ‘S cool. Don’t expect me to hug you though.

    (Caidence will get jealous)

  90. 90
    ThymeZone says:

    For me, it depends on how far up the chain it goes.

    No, it depends on who is taking responsibility.

    If a guy can’t take responsibility for what goes on his own campaing, why would we want to entrust him with the biggest set of responsibilites on earth?

    McCain may not have personally asked Cunningham to shit on Obama, for example, but don’t tell me that either (a) he couldnt know who was warming up his audience and vetted him or asked him to be vetted appropriately, or (b) he could have just taken responsibility for the thing and said, I’m sorry, that won’t happen again … and mean it?

    He didn’t. He employed “plausible deniability” and got the bash on Obama without taking any responsbility for it.

    The whole idea of “the buck stops here” is eliminating the who struck John aspects of “up the chain.” You don’t walk it up the chain. You go to the top of the chain and expect accountability.

  91. 91
    Krista says:

    If that’s the case, it deals a devastating blow to one of Clinton’s principal arguments. For the entirety of this campaign, we’ve been hearing that Clinton would be the strongest candidate in the general election because she’s already faced unfair attacks in the media and knows how to handle them. I really don’t think you can reconcile “she’s immune to the mighty Republican Wurlitzer” with “the MUP took her out with a kazoo.”

    P.O.T.-Freaking-Month!

  92. 92
    SGEW says:

    The supporters themselves will see this as quite unfair and even gasp racist but the unbiased observer will see it as turnabout being fair play.

    – Using race as a political advantage: Unfair, perhaps, and possibly counter-productive. A contentious debate that many, many scholarly and erudite persons have weighed in on. I will even concede the point, for purposes of this thread, that using Sen. Obama’s ethnic heritage and/or skin color as a beneficial image for his political campaign is inadvisable. Sure. But:

    – Using race as a political DISadvantage: Straight up racism. Sorry. Call it a double standard. Call it “fair play” or “turnabout” (or even “reverse-discrimination!”). But, in today’s society and culture (which includes many people who hold strong views on this subject, maybe because we’re minorities and are therefore “biased” (unlike your “unbiased” view: now why is that?)), it’s usually called “racist.” Deal.

  93. 93
    Buck says:

    chopper Says:

    Don’t expect many of the denizens of this place to read the post though. As one of them already showed, they don’t care about the truth.

    your ideas are intriguing and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    LOL!

  94. 94
    myiq2xu says:

    The only TRUE race-baiting I saw with my own eyes from the Clintons was Bill’s unsolicited Jesse Jackson comment which sought to paint Obama not as a black candidate (he’s fucking black, people) but as just another ineffectual black candidate.

    I don’t think Bill meant that with his comment, but you may disagree. Only Bill knows for sure.

    I think Bill and Hillary’s real problem on this issue is that they have been so closely involved with the black community for so long that they forgot that they aren’t part of that community and never will be. They can be accepted, but not part of it.

    I cannot accept the idea that the Clintons are racists or were using a racist strategy. They have too much history working for civil rights and to end racism for that to be credible.

    But they’re white, and there are some things that a white person can’t say without raising the suspicion of racism. The “N” word is the most obvious one.

    Black people and other minorities have good reason to believe that racism is alive and well in this country. It’s no surprise that they will be sensitive on that subject.

    I don’t think Bill has a racist bone in his body. But he forgot that not everybody believes that. He said something dumb because he’s not a racist. A racist would have been more careful.

  95. 95
    libarbarian says:

    D. Mason Says:

    Don’t pretend like these eruptions of people noticing Clintons “dog whistling” are spontaneous. You can’t possibly be that naive.

    Whats naive is assuming that the only alternative to a “spontaneous erruption” is a centrally coordinated strategy.

    Jesus man, look where you are – a blog linked to other blogs with commenters who go around reading them and talking to one another.

    We live in a world with near-instant communication and lots n’ lots of forums where a rumor or allegation can quickly spread. To someone thinking simplistically it might look suspiciously spontaneous but Occams Razor would make me think that these pseudo-spontaneous outcries are really just the product of the speed at which memes can spread nowadays

  96. 96
    SGEW says:

    I don’t think Bill has a racist bone in his body. But he forgot that not everybody believes that. He said something dumb because he’s not a racist. A racist would have been more careful.

    Very good point.

  97. 97
    D. Mason says:

    SGEW I believe your statements were only accurate in a narrow context. Obama is free and welcome to use certain aspects of his identity, as any candidate is and should be, to gain support. When he makes an appeal to black voters on the grounds of shared life experience, for example, then kudos to him. When his race becomes a shield against all criticism it becomes unacceptable to me. That is the absolute fastest way he can lose my support and I doubt I am alone. I also don’t make much distinction when it is done by a chorus of supporters, those talking points came from somewhere. I honestly want to support Obama but it seems the best I can hope for is holding my nose and voting for him since apparently I am a bigot if I don’t lockstep. That brings us back to the status quo.

  98. 98
    John S. says:

    He said something dumb because he’s not a racist. A racist would have been more careful.

    A person can say something that smacks of racism without actually being a bona fide racist.

  99. 99
    TheFountainHead says:

    I don’t think Bill has a racist bone in his body. But he forgot that not everybody believes that. He said something dumb because he’s not a racist. A racist would have been more careful.

    I would sincerely like to believe that this is true, but Bill also doesn’t have much of a history of misspeaking and not meaning what he says, so I’m not sure how I can give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, especially considering that the comment was unsolicited.

    In either case, it was still an incredibly dumb remark, and I don’t think you can read it any other way than, “Barack Obama, like Jesse Jackson, can only win states with irrational African American support because he has a poor platform as a candidate.”

  100. 100
    cleek says:

    McCain’s attack on Cunningham means McCain’s too soft to lead.

    the right makes everyone else feel smart and decent, by comparison. thanks, right!

  101. 101
    John S. says:

    No, it depends on who is taking responsibility.

    I wasn’t referring to the McCain incident, but my point is still valid when applied to it. The man wasn’t a blogger or some low-level operative – he was the opening act.

    That goes right to the top of the food chain in my book, and McCain looks like an ass for pretending he didn’t know what kind of music his opening act was going to play.

  102. 102
    ThymeZone says:

    and McCain looks like an ass for pretending he didn’t know what kind of music his opening act was going to play

    Okay, gotcha, I thought you were saying something different.

    NM

  103. 103
    D. Mason says:

    Occams Razor would make me think that these pseudo-spontaneous outcries are really just the product of the speed at which memes can spread nowadays

    Then the same Occams razor should lead you to the conclusion that Bush never intended to imply ties between saddam and al-queda. You could easily see that these “Obama is a secret muslim” emails don’t originate from Republicans who might be running against him in November. It’s absolutely goddamn absurd to think that these waves of accusations against Clinton have no support or base in the Obama camp. The material these cries of racism are made of is so tissue-thin it’s unreal and they wouldn’t be moving forward unless someone was pushing them.

    The thing that pisses me off most about this shit is that I can’t stand Hillary and pretty much like Obama. Watching his campaign make hay off this gutter slime is sickening.

  104. 104
    SGEW says:

    SGEW I believe your statements were only accurate in a narrow context.

    Acknowledged (tho’ I would certainly quibble over “narrow”). But that’s the context I was addressing. Which brings up:

    When his race becomes a shield against all criticism it becomes unacceptable to me.

    I really haven’t seen this play out yet. I absolutely concur that using race as a “shield against all criticism” is unacceptable: it’s unfair, it’s counter-progressive, and (most importantly) it won’t work. There’ve been some of this sort of spin that I’ve seen in the media (and the TNR article does raise some good points; I just disagree with its central premise), but I can’t imagine that it’s a tactic that the Obama team is really going to run with.

    It’s been used as a shield against criticism that has had racist connotations, not against “all” criticism. Again, one can debate whether those criticisms were, in fact, racially insensitive (depends on who’s listening, if you ask me), but no one (that I’ve seen) has used race as a defense in, say, the health care debate, or N.A.F.T.A., or Iraq, or Pakistan, or climate change, or, you know, any of the actual policies that we’re going to vote about in November.

    You’re not a bigot if you criticize Sen. Obama for waffling on N.A.F.T.A. (he’s waffling on N.A.F.T.A., by the way). You’re a bigot if you accuse Sen. Obama of dismantling immigration laws because Black Hussein Obama wants to let in more Muslim terrorists from Somalia: did you see the photo?!? ZOMGWTF?!? Let’s have a lynching party!

    See the difference? (And no, the Clinton campaign hasn’t done anything like this. I’m referring to Fox and its ilk).

    Oh, final little thing:

    The material these cries of racism are made of is so tissue-thin it’s unreal . . . .

    Again, context. Eye of the beholder stuff. Some people were offended, and others were not. For whatever reason. Do I need to spell it out?

  105. 105
    D. Mason says:

    Do I need to spell it out?

    Certainly not, the point you made at the end is easily apparent for all who have eyes to see it. I just hate to see a genuinely good candidate, who happens to be black, suffer because hyper-sensative elements within his campaign can’t or won’t refrain from over-using the race card.

  106. 106
    SGEW says:

    I just hate to see a genuinely good candidate, who happens to be black, suffer because hyper-sensative elements within his campaign can’t or won’t refrain from over-using the race card.

    Absolute concurrence from me here on this point. Over usage of the so-called “race card” will probably be unwise. Personally, I haven’t really seen it used very much, but, in any case, I doubt it will wind up being overused in the general.

    Except when it’s legitimate. It’s been weak tea so far (e.g., Biden’s “clean and articulate” bumble), but that card needs to get played sometimes. Remember! Sometimes (I ain’t accusin’ no one no how of this right now, so all should remain calm) when someone calls “race card!” in a debate, the proper response is “Why, that’s because you racist, you racist.” Call it for what it is.

  107. 107
    John S. says:

    Okay, gotcha, I thought you were saying something different.

    No worries.

    Speaking of opening acts, I am actually reminded of a Doobie Brothers concert I went to many years ago. The opening act was a group (their name escapes me) whose music was very afro-centric, complete with dozens of dancers in African garb streaming down the aisles. They were good, and would have been an excellent fit opening for a Peter Gabriel concert or something, but the mostly white 50-something biker crowd wasn’t particularly thrilled.

    I still wonder to this day who the hell booked them, as it was the greatest mismatch I have ever seen.

  108. 108
    Dr. Squid says:

    Never mind RIP William F. Buckley.

    RIP Myron Cope, legendary Stillers announcer and inventor of the Terrible Towel.

    Yoi and Double Yoi.

  109. 109
    p.lukasiak says:

    Let’s assume arguendo that the linked article is entirely, absolutely true, in every respect. In that case, Clinton’s campaign was demolished by some mildly clever unfair attacks in the media.

    The “race card” didn’t lead to the Obama victory in SC, nor is it responsible for the problems in the clinton campaign.

    The reason that the Obama campaign played the race card was to prevent his victory in South Carolina from being credited to his support among blacks — by making the race issue radioactive, his campaign managed to keep the media from telling the truth that Bill Clinton told — that his victory looked just like Jesse Jackson’s.

    If you look at pollster.com’s chart of SC polls, you will notice that Obama had opened up a substantial lead in SC well before the ‘race card’ controversy took off.

    Now lets compare four polls from the same company Survey USA(all linked from the pollster.com site.)

    Nov. 9-11, 07 — Clinton up by 14 pts statewide
    Statewide (C 47% E 10% O 33%)
    Blacks (C 39% E 3% O 52%)
    Whites (C 55% E 17% O 15%)

    Dec 7-12, 07 — Clinton up by 4 pts statewide
    Statewide (C 44% E 11% O 40%)
    Blacks (C 39% E 2% O 56%)
    Whites (C 51% E 23% O 19%)

    Jan. 4-6, 08 (Jan 3 Iowa primary)– Clinton down by 20 pts statewide
    Statewide (C 30% E 16% O 50%)
    Blacks (C 23% E 4% O 69%)
    Whites (C 38% E 28% O 29%)

    Jan 16-17, 08 (after NH..and ‘the race card’ controversy bloomed) Obama leads by 10
    Statewide (C 36% E 15% O46%)
    Blacks (C 20% E 3% O 74%)
    Whites (C 50% E 26% O 22%)

    Jan 23-24 (right before SC primary)
    Statewide (C 30% E 24% O 43%)
    Blacks (C 18% E 6% O 73%)
    Whites (C 38% E 38% O 21%)

    This looks to me that Clinton was fading in SC well before the Iowa caucus (between Nov and Dec)… but among white voters, not black voters. Obama took the lead right after he proved he was “for real” by winning in the Iowa caucuses — 13% of black voters shift from Clinton to Obama, creating a commanding lead among black voters for Obama. 10% of white voters also shifted from Clinton to Obama, but she still held the lead there by 11 pts. Then New Hampshire happens, and the “race card” starts getting played… noting much happens in terms of black support, but Clinton rebounds in terms of white support, while Obama loses 25% of his white support. Then the “race card” controversy fades after Obama finally says there was nothing “racial” in Clinton’s comments on (Jan 20th, IIRC)

    Now, if you look at those Jan 4-6 numbers, what you are seeing is the impact of the “Iowa bump”. You are also seeing an Obama win, and a big win at that, based on 3-1 support over Clinton among blacks.

    And that’s why Obama had to play ‘the race card’. Not to win — the controversy didn’t have much impact among the black vote, but clearly hurt him with white voters — but to make it impossible for people to point out that he won in SC because of the black vote.

  110. 110
    SGEW says:

    (H)is campaign managed to keep the media from telling the truth that Bill Clinton told—that his victory looked just like Jesse Jackson’s.

    Jimminy Crickets!

    Obama may have won S.C. “because of the black vote” (and Clinton won CA because of the “woman” vote), and, yeah, J.J. won in ’84 and ’88 . . . but to say that Obama’s victory “looked just like Jesse Jackson’s (victories)”? Yowza.

    Please allow this TPM article to make the case dismissing this:

    (I)n 1984 and 1988, the nominations were pretty much sewn up by Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis by the time South Carolina’s caucuses (at the time it was a caucus not a primary) rolled around. So they were at best lightly contested.

    (U)nlike this year South Carolina was only lightly or moderately contested by the frontrunning candidates. And certainly in 1984 and to a large degree in 1988, the nomination contest was already decided, which contributed significantly to Jackson’s wins. What’s more, caucuses are much easier to win with legwork and organization than primaries if your competitors are not making a big effort in the state.

    Bill Clinton’s statement about Jackson’s victories was, while accurate, highly misleading on something like three or four different counts.

    Insulting on several levels.

  111. 111
    chopper says:

    The reason that the Obama campaign played the race card was to prevent his victory in South Carolina from being credited to his support among blacks—by making the race issue radioactive, his campaign managed to keep the media from telling the truth that Bill Clinton told—that his victory looked just like Jesse Jackson’s.

    seriously, you guys have to have a newsletter.

    maybe a pamphlet? some kind of tract i can take home to the missus?

  112. 112
    John S. says:

    Insulting on several levels.

    Don’t get insulted. That’s just Paul doing his usual schtick. He’ll pull out numbers and all kinds of analysis to make the same point over and over again…

    Hillary Clinton is #1 and all others are #2 – or lower.

  113. 113
    p.lukasiak says:

    Please allow this TPM article to make the case dismissing this:

    you seem to miss the distinction between “looks like” and “well, the context were different”.

    Did Obama get more white support than Jackson…sure. But as with Jackson, he won in SC (and by large margins) based on massive support from the black community.

  114. 114
    SGEW says:

    you seem to miss the distinction between “looks like” and “well, the context were different”.

    You seem to miss the distinction between “looks like” and “looks just like” (emphasis mine).

  115. 115
    p.lukasiak says:

    Guys, Wilentz makes a convincing case that it was Obama who played the race-baiting card, whether you like it or not.

    But I do have a problem with Wilentz’s piece, in that it assumes that Black people can’t tell when someone is playing the race card, and when they’re not. The polling data shows otherwise — that the race-baiting issue didn’t cut much into what was left of Clinton’s support among blacks, nor did it substantially improve Obama’s among blacks. The big shift had occurred in the black vote long before the whole ‘race thing’ became an issue.

  116. 116
    SGEW says:

    Guys, Wilentz makes a convincing case . . . .

    Two minor quibbles: “Guys”? “Convincing”?

    The polling data shows otherwise—that the race-baiting issue didn’t cut much into what was left of Clinton’s support among blacks, nor did it substantially improve Obama’s among blacks. The big shift had occurred in the black vote long before the whole ‘race thing’ became an issue.

    And the polling data from S.C. (that you cited) that ends before Pres. Clinton’s “Jesse Jackson” comment proves . . . what exactly?

    Also: are you claiming that the African American community does not, by and large, believe that the Clinton campaign engaged in “race-baiting”? I would be very interested in data showing that (honestly!).

  117. 117
    cleek says:

    George Will doesn’t much like the Good St. John

    Although his campaign is run by lobbyists; and although his dealings with lobbyists have generated what he, when judging the behavior of others, calls corrupt appearances; and although he has profited from his manipulation of the taxpayer-funding system that is celebrated by reformers — still, he probably is innocent of insincerity. Such is his towering moral vanity, he seems sincerely to consider it theoretically impossible for him to commit the offenses of appearances that he incessantly ascribes to others.

  118. 118
    p.lukasiak says:

    Two minor quibbles: “Guys”? “Convincing”?

    you’re right about ‘guys’. Its sexist language (although not intended as such).

    But I do think that Wilentz’s case was ‘convincing’ — certainly to the extent that the Clintons were not playing the race card, and that the Obama campaign exploited the issue. I don’t think he proved that there was a conscious and deliberate decision by the Obama himself to “create” race as an issue — but the post “Clinton crying incident” comments of his co-chair, JJ Jr., was clearly playing the race card.

    So would “compelling” be better than “convincing” for you?

    And the polling data from S.C. (that you cited) that ends before Pres. Clinton’s “Jesse Jackson” comment proves . . . what exactly?

    well, because I don’t have internals from all the polling, I can’t say with any authority. But the final Survey USA poll does show Obama winning by a significant margin overall while losing the white vote to Clinton nearly 2-1, and winning the black vote by 55 points (3.5 to 1).

  119. 119
    ThymeZone says:

    But the final Survey USA poll does show Obama winning by a significant margin overall while losing the white vote to Clinton nearly 2-1, and winning the black vote by 55 points (3.5 to 1).

    How many inches of webpage have you devoted to this topic in the last month, and …. what is the point?

    Can you make a one or two-sentence point? Confine your answer to South Carolina because that is the scope of my question.

  120. 120
    SGEW says:

    (T)he post “Clinton crying incident” comments of his co-chair, JJ Jr., was clearly playing the race card.

    Oh, right. Jesse Jackson Jr.’s “Katrina” bit. Yeesh. You’re right, that was way outta line. We seem to share a repudiation of that unfortunate bit of spin, and Sen. Obama definitely should clamp down on that sorta thing (for reasons both ethical and politically expedient). Other than that incident, tho’, I hold to my disagreement with Wilentz’s article (as has been hashed out: I’m done).

    Again, the polling data from S.C. appears to be mostly irrelevant (as it was all done before Pres. Clinton’s “Jesse Jackson” incident (but after Jr.’s “Katrina” comment – I’m not sure how much impact that had)). What would be more interesting is the numbers after S.C. amongst African-American voters in following elections.

    But I’m not sure how much that’ll prove, as I’m now tremendously suspicious of most polling data (especially SUSA, but they’re not too much worse than anyone else, I think), so it’s kind of a moot point.

    How much impact do these political spins have on the electorate? I don’t think there’s really a trustworthy mechanism to find out in any quantitative way. But we’ll always have pundits (and anonymous commentors) who can argue about it! Hooray!

  121. 121
    ThymeZone says:

    Again, the polling data from S.C. appears to be mostly irrelevant

    It was mostly irrelevant even before the SC vote was held. The CW was that SC was Obama’s and in the bag before the “race” issue was ever on the table, if I remember correctly. That whites there would not vote for him, but that black voter turnout promised to give him an easy win there.

    Why we have to keep doing the Daily Lukasiak Sudoku on this thing and all those useless numbers is beyond me.

    The Obama juggernaut has encroached firmly into the Clinton demos and out of the demos they were “giving” him a few months ago. Not only is this subthread off topic for the thread, it is not even on topic for the general campaign any more. What’s on topic today is why Clinton’s lead in Texas has evaporated.

    Maybe we can get 10 or 20 thousand words and big blocks of numbers from the idiot savants to explain that?

    Or is that what we have to look forward to in the next two months: How Obama stole Texas?

    Fuck. Really, just fuck.

  122. 122
    John Cole says:

    Paul-

    I have read the piece, and suffice it to say, I am less convinced than you are. On top of that, you add that even though they did allegedly play the race card, it didn’t much matter.

    What exactly is your point?

    I should note- I thought there was some bit of playing into the race when they were claiming all sorts of stuff was racist (the whole Clinton “kid” nonsense comes to mind), but other than that, I really have not seen much race-baiting from either the Clinton’s or the Obama campaign. And what there was pales in comparison to the shit being flung by the GOP.

    FWIW- I think Yglesias had some pretty good points on this here:

    Meanwhile, there are plenty of other things the Clinton campaign could have said that would have been totally nonracial. Their problem is that on a lot of important issues where there seems to be a contrast, they didn’t really want to defend their position. Clinton could have said that Obama’s opposition to the 2002 AUMF for Iraq illustrated that he has dangerous left-wing opinions about national security issues. She could have said that, yes, the Clinton administration backed NAFTA and rightly so. But they didn’t want to do that stuff, because they thought it would have left them on the wrong side of public opinion. Rather than try to persuade people of the merits of their case, they tried to deny that there was a disagreement. But that is what made it hard for Clinton to attack Obama — outside of health care, she didn’t really want to draw issue contrasts, and that left her without a great deal to say.

  123. 123
    ThymeZone says:

    Texas:

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Obama attracting 48% of the vote while Clinton earns 44%. Eight percent (8%) remain undecided and another 12% say it’s possible they could change their mind. That latter figure includes 3% who say there’s a good chance they could change their mind. See Video.

    Obama leads by sixteen points among men, but trails by nine among women. Clinton’s lead among Hispanic voters is down to seven percentage points.

    Among those who are undecided, 73% have a favorable opinion of Clinton and 66% say the same about Obama.

    Overall, 76% have a favorable opinion of Clinton and 75% view Obama in such a positive light.

    Seventy-nine percent (79%) believe Clinton would be at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. Seventy-eight percent (78%) say the same about Obama.

    These latest results show a continuing trend in Obama’s favor. Last Sunday, Clinton led by a single point. Last week, Clinton was up by three. Two weeks ago, the former First Lady enjoyed a double digit lead. The Rasmussen Reports surveys in Texas include people who have already voted and those who are likely to vote. Currently, Obama leads by six among those who have already voted or are absolutely certain they will vote.

    By all means, continue to stamp feet about a vote that was held a month ago, and ignore the obvious and relevant things going on today.

    Does anybody — ANYBODY — think that what is happening today is the result of some race-focussed bullshit from a month ago, that nobody is talking about any more?

    Well, except here. We can’t stop talking about it here because we have two yappy little stupidfuck dogs who won’t stop barking about it.

    WTF?

  124. 124
    John Cole says:

    BTW- Wilentz defense of Mark Penn repeatedly using the word cocaine on Hardball was the most laughable portion of that article.

  125. 125
    SGEW says:

    By all means, continue to stamp feet about a vote that was held a month ago, and ignore the obvious and relevant things going on today.

    Ahem. Race relations, the sensitivity of language when used as political rhetoric, polling data’s efficacy in determining the effect of spin, and (in case you missed it) a recent article from TNR by a Pulitzer prize winning historian are all, arguably, relevant today. I thought this was an open thread.

    Also:

    two yappy little stupidfuck dogs who won’t stop barking about it.

    I protest your tone and language. Not that that matters (I am familiar with your style, ThymeZone, and certainly would not want you to be censored in any manner), but I feel I should say it.

  126. 126
    Sirkowski says:

    We finally have the proof Juan McCain is a Mexican.

  127. 127
    ThymeZone says:

    I protest your tone and language

    Too bad. I never use any language here that is not used by the blogowners. If you have a language issue, take it up with them.

  128. 128
    SGEW says:

    I never use any language here that is not used by the blogowners. If you have a language issue, take it up with them.

    Not the cursing, mind you. Fuckity fuck fuck, and all that. More the insults. But whatever, never mind me. I’m “sensitive.”

  129. 129
    ThymeZone says:

    More the insults

    Alright, well, I’ll take it under advisement. But right off the top of my pointy head, my retort would be that the spam that myiq and lukasiak have wallpapered all over this place for the last month on the subject of why poor Hillary isn’t going to get the nomination she is entitled to … THAT’S the insult. That has become an insult to our intelligence, and I’m getting a little sick of it.

    And I’m cranky, so I say so in …. assertive tones :)

  130. 130
    p.lukasiak says:

    I have read the piece, and suffice it to say, I am less convinced than you are. On top of that, you add that even though they did allegedly play the race card, it didn’t much matter.
    What exactly is your point?

    Well, my point is mostly that I agree with Wilentz insofar as he shows that the Clinton campaign was not playing the race card — and that the Obama campaign hyped the controversy.

    I don’t think that Wilentz proved what he seems to assert with regard to the Obama campaign deliberately creating the controversy. Obama supporters seemed to have started the worst of it, with the media’s help, and the campaign exploited it to the hilt.

    Nor do I think that Wilentz is convincing regarding the motivation of the Obama campaign to hype the issue — think of it this way, John. Obama wins in Iowa, then Hillary wins Michigan, New Hampshire, and Nevada, Obama pulls out a win in South Carolina on the strength of the black vote, then he loses again in Florida. To the average person, Iowa starts to look like a fluke in terms of Obama’s ability to win sufficient support with white voters to win anything.

    And that was the last perception the Obama campaign wanted people to have going into Super Tuesday — and he sure didn’t want anyone in the media suggesting that might be the case. So he made the race issue radioactive.

    I mean, TZ is claiming that I’ve been discussing race related data for a month. But I haven’t. At all. Because the subject is so radioactive.

    But when you (?) skewered Lanny Davis for saying that it was tough to criticize Obama without risking accusations of racism, I had to say that Davis was right. Not because everyone who criticizes Obama is accused of playing the race card, but because the extent to which things people have said have been taken completely out of context to reinforce the “race card” argument.

    (I mean, I’ve been accused a couple of times already of saying that black voters don’t/shouldn’t count. Which I’ve never said.)

  131. 131
    ThymeZone says:

    TZ is claiming that I’ve been discussing race related data for a month

    No, that is not what I said, what I said was that you have been wallpapering this place for a month with spam about … whatever the hell it is you are talking about.

    You tell me what it is. I asked you to state your point in two sentences and got no reply (unless I missed it).

    WTF? The constant barrage of “analysis” and numbers, all of which mean exactly nothing. Your candidate is losing. I don’t think anybody here needs an explanation of why that is. If anyone doesn’t already have an opinion on that subject, I seriously doubt that your latest spreadsheet is going to sway them.

    There are three candidates in this race now, M, C and O.

    Watch three speeches and pick the one that doesn’t give you a migraine or sound like the nuns at your Catholic school, and then get back to me. This ain’t rocket science, Paul. Obama is popular and likeable and your candidate can’t overcome that. Period.

    Jesus. NOT my yard man.

  132. 132
    Llelldorin says:

    Nor do I think that Wilentz is convincing regarding the motivation of the Obama campaign to hype the issue—- think of it this way, John. Obama wins in Iowa, then Hillary wins Michigan, New Hampshire, and Nevada, Obama pulls out a win in South Carolina on the strength of the black vote, then he loses again in Florida. To the average person, Iowa starts to look like a fluke in terms of Obama’s ability to win sufficient support with white voters to win anything.

    And, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that this analysis would have been nonsense. (Actually, with the benefit of thensight most of us denounced this argument as nonsense at the time, given the odd nature of the MI and FL contests this year.)

    So now your complaint is that Obama managed to prevent the media from running an unfair and untrue hit piece on him? You’ll forgive me if I seem a bit puzzled about why this should be an incredibly damning point against a candidate.

    And that was the last perception the Obama campaign wanted people to have going into Super Tuesday—and he sure didn’t want anyone in the media suggesting that might be the case. So he made the race issue radioactive.

    To whom, precisely? The New York Times coverage of the SC primary began as follows:

    COLUMBIA, S.C. — Senator Barack Obama won a commanding victory over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the South Carolina Democratic primary on Saturday, drawing a wide majority of black support and one-quarter of white voters in a contest that sets the stage for a multistate fight for the party’s presidential nomination.

  133. 133
    ThymeZone says:

    This stuff reminds me a lot of the cableblather show I am seeing now on tv (which one, doesn’t matter).

    On and on the pundits go, clacking their dentures endlessly over arcana and speculative trivia, whether this or that raised eyebrow by this candidate or staffer might have cause this or that demo to think something or other.

    And on and they go, on and on and on and on. Five minutes, ten minutes, commercial break, fifteen minutes ….. the soporific effect cannot be understated.

    Until one of them (a household name, sort of) says: I just don’t think she is as good at this as he is.

    Gee. Ya think?

  134. 134
    Tax Analyst says:

    I just don’t think she is as good at this as he is.

    Yes, and this sharply-nuanced POV is one that an increasingly large number of potential voters, including myself, have come to share.

    Which is why I, too, grow weary of all the poll analysis, supposition and indignation over HRC’s treatment. At a certain point it just seems like a lot of mental masturbation. Look, I would have been happy to give her my vote for President if she had won the nomination. I’m sure she would make a decent President, or at least a better one than Bush was and McCain would be. I will still vote for her if she somehow pulls out of this tailspin and gets the nomination. But she hasn’t run a strong enough campaign, period. And everything said after that is just an excuse, and after a while it’s just lame.

    From all evidence to date Obama is a stronger candidate. From all evidence to date Obama’s campaign seems more resillient and less likely to implode in the General Election. From all evidence to date Obama will make a better President than John McCain or anybody else the Republican’s could possible end up throwing out there.

  135. 135
    Brachiator says:

    Wilentz goes into great detail (including some irrelevant stuff), but its well worth reading..

    Wilentz is a strong Clinton partisan. This wouldn’t be so bad except that he distorts the facts and goes out of his way to attempt to absolve Team Clinton for all responsibility for alienating gobs of voters.

    A fiery, but informed riposte to Wilentz, begins as follows:

    TNR has a piece up that I wouldn’t wipe my ass with, and not just because TNR uses that stupid shiny paper to print their magazine. Sean Wilentz competes with Jonah Goldberg for most intellectually dishonest of the year…

    A meatier section clearly points out the degree to which Wilentz is intellectually dishonest:

    His first example of Obama playing the race card is Shaheen’s comments about his drug use, which he must be either deliberately misrepresenting or he lets interns write his commentary.

    Even before the first caucus met in Iowa, the Obama campaign was ready to play a similar game. In mid-December 2007, one of the Clinton campaign’s co-chairs in New Hampshire, Bill Shaheen, remarked entirely on his own on how the Republicans might make mischievous and damaging political use of Obama’s admitted use of marijuana and cocaine during his youth. The observation was not especially astute: Since George W. Bush, both the electorate and the press have seemed to be forgiving of a candidate’s youthful substance abuse, so long as says he has reformed himself.

    Except that’s not what Shaheen said. What he said was:

    “The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight … and one of the things they’re certainly going to jump on is his drug use… It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’

    None of the previous candidates who admitted to drug use were asked this question. The “drug dealer” element here is what tipped people off to the racial subtext, why exactly, would Obama be asked if he dealt drugs if none of the other candidates were?

    This blogger also demolishes the attempt by Wilentz to sanitize Bill Clinton’s attempt to diminish Obama’s South Carolina primary victory, and provides the context too often missing from discussions of this “controversy.”

    Clinton’s sly trick, supposedly, was to mention Jackson and no other Democrat who had previously prevailed in South Carolina–thereby demeaning Obama’s almost certain victory as a “black” thing. But the fact remains that Clinton, who watches internal polls closely and is an astute observer, knew whereof he spoke: when the returns were counted, Obama’s and Jackson’s percentages of the overall vote and the key to their victories–a heavy majority among blacks–truly were comparable.

    Except they really weren’t, because Obama got nearly three times the white vote Jackson did, and Jackson won Caucuses, not primaries, which according to Clinton campaign manager Mark Penn, don’t actually count. Of course, states with black people don’t count according to Penn either, but that’s not a race thing. I’m sure it’s just that he’s a moron.

    The full post can be found here: I’m All Out Of Violins

    [all credit to Andrew Sullivan for the link reference, and yes, he is a Clinton hater]

    By the way, I find it interesting that no one has asked Senator Clinton whether she ever used drugs or ever inhaled. And as an Ivy League alumnus, I can testify that a lot of folk who have since cleaned up their shit were into various degrees of drugs and drink, and the majority of people who offered me drugs, either as a freebie or for sale, looked a whole lot like Bill and Hillary during their Yale days.

    This does not in any way suggest that Hillary was toking out in between jaunts to her law school classes, but everyone who slung this crap at Obama were lying hypocrites, and knew that they were lying hypocrites.

    Apart from this, Wilentz’ crap is just more whining misdirection that refuses to look at the missteps of the Team Clinton campaign.

  136. 136
    Tom in Texas says:

    Alright, well, I’ll take it under advisement. But right off the top of my pointy head, my retort would be that the spam that myiq and lukasiak have wallpapered all over this place for the last month on the subject of why poor Hillary isn’t going to get the nomination she is entitled to … THAT’S the insult. That has become an insult to our intelligence, and I’m getting a little sick of it.

    And I’m cranky, so I say so in …. assertive tones :)

    Look on the bright side. The whining would last a lot longer (and mean a lot more) were it happening in November.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] it meant something about his mother’s birth canal and a c-section birth and said to myself WTF. Sphere: Related Content Filed under: US Politics, 2008 Campaign || […]

Comments are closed.