Some lessons from the Democratic race so far....

For enough Democrats, Clinton represents enough change... Obama represents more change, certainly, but the perfect isn't the enemy of the good when there are other factors to consider.

Organization matters. Obama seems to have won Iowa because he had months to do hundreds of rallies and perform his special brand of magic in person; his campaign spent a lot of money per voter (and per young voter, in particular); he simply out-hustled her in a state where hustling matters.

The biggest evidence for this interpretation is that he did everything in New Hampshire he did in Iowa, but at much less of a magnitude; a state that was arguably more favorable to him demographically (a highly educated, wealthy Dem electorate) proved resistant because he did not have the same time to wear down their resistances. In other words -- to get enough to buy a real change message in this age of skepticism takes a lot of time and energy, and he did not have it in New Hampshire.

Experience matters. In 2003, experience, and the lack of a well-funded alternative, carried John Kerry through New Hampshire, through a loss in South Carolina, all the way to the nomination. What we called "momentum" turned out to be "no clear, acceptable alternative." In 2008, the Democrats do have an acceptable, well-funded alternative, albeit one with a transformative message. Is there enough time in California, Alabama, Georgia, New York, Arizona, Missouri.. to do what he did in Iowa?

Also: the anti-war energy in the Democratic Party, first kindled in 2002, has dissapated as a political force. Democrats still favor a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, but enough time has elapsed since 2002 to allow the strong feelings to attenuate, and the party has turned inward since then. Iraq is no more than an applause line right now.

** The swing constituency seems to be college educated women, who have a complicated relationship to Hillary Clinton and the babyboomers. Iowa won these women in Iowa, according to estimates, and Clinton won them (narrowly) in New Hampshire. They vote in large numbers in major Feb. 5 states.

** Perestroika works! Hillary Clinton's new habit of three press avails per week, one-on-one interviews with network correspondents on requests, answering questions after every speech -- it seems to have loosened up her press corps a bit, she certainly seems very comfortable doing it, and her accessibility has allowed the Clinton campaign to make sure that Clinton drives the daily headlines.

Comments

I think you mean "Glasnost works"

Posted by Andrei | January 21, 2008 12:30 PM

I think you're right on the time aspect. The thing that makes Iowa so great is that they get to see the candidates enough to make a truly informed decision. This doesn't happen in the states after that. If Obama would have had more time in New Hampshire and Nevada, he probably would have won. The problem for him is that the time crunch gets even worse from now on. The people in the February 5th states don't know him and won't by the time they vote. So it doesn't look good for him.

Posted by Mike | January 21, 2008 12:38 PM

When you say that, for many Dems, Clinton represents enough change, and Obama represents more change, are you referring to Obama's skin color? After all, Obama is more in line with most Democrats on Iraq, the Patriot Act, NSA spying, etc., than Hillary. On domestic issues, Obama is slightly to Hillary's right. And Obama's style, by itself, is hard not to like.

The big change would be to choose a person of half African descent as our president. That fear is what Hillary's campaign has been playing on lately. They've decided it's their strongest point.

I pity the Democratic Party is we can't look beyond the surface.

Posted by Hal | January 21, 2008 12:59 PM

Game over?

Posted by mb | January 21, 2008 12:59 PM

Marc,

I was thinking the same thing about Obama but couldn't have put it as well. Obama's biggest opponent-after the Clintons--is time. He doesn't have enough of it. He probably needs a BIG win in South Carolina to jump start him into the February 5th states. Otherwise he will be another candidate to be buzzsawed by the Clinton Machine.

Posted by Ben | January 21, 2008 1:03 PM

Game over? Most likely. Of course, there was a credible alternative to Clinton, and a real possiblilty for progressive change. It was Edwards. He lost to John Kerry last go around, in part because of the Dean scream. He is losing now because of the independent/youth turnout in Iowa that put Obama over the top. Hillary now seems as inevitable as John Kerry did last go around. Hope that works out for the democratic party. We all know how it went down the last time. I won't be much interested at this point. Reminds me of the beginning scene in the movie "Bullworth" . . ."the electorate is unenthused."

Posted by progressivedem | January 21, 2008 1:09 PM

When Hillary goes down in flames, ala Kerry, at the end of this year, I'm going to laugh my ass off at the ignorant Demos who sided with the Machiavellian twins, the Clintons. How stupid can people be?

Posted by Morg | January 21, 2008 1:11 PM

Marc, your analysis leaves out the elephant in the room: that playing the race and gender cards has worked for Hillary so far as judged by the female surge in NH and the racially polarized electorate in Nevada.

Of course,this is a truth you can't really write because its not in the talking points distributed to you.

Btu ,hey, nice job spinning that everything but that has been a factor.

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 1:41 PM

There's only one person who can save Obama now and that's Al Gore.

Posted by Mike | January 21, 2008 2:12 PM

RKA, your argument comes down to saying that Obama cannot win because he is black. OK. But who is saying that besides Obama supporters? I don't see anyone in the Clinton campaign saying that. In fact if anyone even so much as hinted at what you are saying Hillary fired them immediately.

But I have to disagree with your argument. Obama is not losing because he is black and Clinton is a woman. He is losing because he does not address peoples real needs. Lofty rhetoric is nice and pleasing but it doesn't win votes when the people need someone who honestly and directly addresses their economic concerns. Hillary Clinton does this, Barack Obama does not.

Posted by ken | January 21, 2008 2:18 PM

Marc, you do a great job here. Spot on.

But you fail to mention real reasons why Obama may be having trouble with registered Democrats, and why he is pulling these 'Democrat for a Day' stunts.

Lastly, the national, corporate media is still a huge problem for Clinton. They are 80% in Obama's corner and waiting to pounce on the next Hillary "drivers lics." type mistake.

Obama gets a write up in the Sun-Times for his involvment with Rezco and the startling news that he may be the "unnamed political candidate" in the Rezco indictment, and the national media yawns.

Posted by Dick Flatts | January 21, 2008 2:26 PM

RKA, Obama played the race card after NH. He sent Jesse Jackson Jr. out the very next afternoon (JJ Jr. has an official pos. with the campaign and is not just a junior staffer) and attacked Clinton using race.

What do you think Katrina has to do with New Hampshire RKA?

When asked about losing New Hampshire Jackson said all he knew was that Clinton cried when she thought she was losing but she never cried for the victims of Katrina.

Sounds like race baiting to me.

Posted by Dick Flatts | January 21, 2008 2:30 PM

Ken,

Your argment is a straw man, a form of reasoning common among the Clintons and their supporters. The first step is to say I said something I did not say, and then knock down the false assertion you yourself made. It's similar to what Bill Clinton does when he knocks dow the straw man that "Reagan had all the good ideas," when Obama never said any suck thing.

So let me spell out what I am saying. Obama the racial concilliatory, the non-angry black man can and can win But the Clintons and the media have brilliantly tried to caricature him over the last week as a shaptonesque figure and it has probably had some success. If you want historical precedent, look at how the media shaped perceptions of Gore in the 2000 election to Bush's manifest benefit. Just as the media made Gore to be a liar and exaggerator in teh minds of many voters, the media, who prefer Hillary for ratings purposes, are busy trying to make Obama "the (divisive, scary) black candidate"

Meanwhile, HIllary has cried in NH and last week gone on Tyra Banks to sell herself as someone who ministers to women who have been cheated upon, and you and Ambinder want to pretend this has no impact in a close election for a dem primary electorare that is 60% female? While Obama is granted zero margin of error on race, Hillary is allowed to expolit gender with impunity.

The lesson of the last two weeks is not that people are not buying Obama's message, it is that they are not hearing it because the clintons have sucessfully changed the subject to race and gender, a topic of discussion that favors them given the demographics of the electorate. The media can't resist a race and gender food fight and if the Clintons start one, few can hear Obama's message through the ensuing chaos. The serious, well informed voters will not be influenced but the masses of unengaged, casual voters are influenced by racial and gender politics.

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 2:41 PM

I agree with all of this post. I think the main thing for Obama right now is tv, tv, and more tv. He needs to be driving the message and he can not afford to lose a single news cycle. He has, what, 16 until the Feb. 5th primary. He has to be the one driving the conversation as he was in Iowa. It has to be him setting the agenda and that means attacking: attacking first and at the same time using the attack to reinforce his message has them playing defense and rebutting HIS message.

That is the place to be.

And he needs to choose his states and devote the money and time to getting the delegates he needs.

This can be done but he fundamentally needs to shift how the campaign engages; not the message. And he needs to take this opportunity to hit the Iraq message and how it detracts from Clinton's day one mantra.

She is not ready today, forget day one. That needs to be the subtext of everything. She got Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, hitting Bin Laden if necessary, the economic stimulus package etc. etc Thse are things he needs to do.

Posted by Rhoda | January 21, 2008 2:51 PM

Very smart post. I had pretty much figured that Obama needed 3 of 4 early states to change the game on Feb 5. He wad close, but not close enough and Bill may have been the decisive factor in both contests (assuming he and Whourley put Hillary up to the let your feminine side show stunt that they pulled in NH with the vulnerable roundtables and the iron my shirt guy and then in NV the hard to take seriously concerns about voter intimidation). Clinton may be angry now that he has been abandoned by the black community but the Hispanic voters in the West will make up the difference. He is such a skilled politician--the lip biting and fake explosions of anger. The press just eats him up, they love him so. The endorsements and the delegate count still might keep it close, and Obama is no dummy, but if Hillary loses on Feb 5 it will be a major upset (a Yankees ACLS type collapse). She always had better organization and years to run up her political credit so she could call in favors. Obama must have expected that Republicans would have preferred to run against him so they would do everything they could to go after Clinton now, while he could keep his hands clean. But he underestimated his own appeal (and threat to Republicans), and the codependence of the right and left in this country. We live like the children of parents who hate each other, battling for some tiny advantage or just for the opportunity to gloat, while the schools fall apart, the military falls apart, the foreign policy is hopelessly muddled, no energy policy, no health care, the whole country in debt up to the eyeballs, and nothing is getting done, because pols right and left wake up in bed next to each other and the first thing they think is how much they hate each other and how much they will make the other side pay for some half-forgotten wrong.

Again the tragedy of the Clintons is that by winning the nomination they will ruin the party. Look at who is voting for her--by and large older women. In 8 years where will they be? Meanwhile Obama is racking up the youth vote--and that's just the people who show up. With time, he might have been able to bring the Hispanic vote in with his fluency with social conservative religious based moral system and whatever cred he would get by beating back the anti-immigration zealots. He would leave the WH better for the Dem party and arguably for the country. Hillary will be a capable leader, but her style of governing does not energize people or grow the party. Why should we get involved if Hillary is going to fix it all for us. We will get some good policies that the Republicans will dismantle as soon as they find their reincarnation of Reagan. Bill's a genius, and Hillary is very smart, but their presidency is the beginning of the end for the party or at best a squandered opportunity to renew it. Their election would only confirm their LBJ argument that you change America from the top down, but the top is so half-rotten with lobbyists and special interest money that it is going to be a long dark 8 years for the country. We just have to figure out which cave to hide in.

Posted by JC | January 21, 2008 3:06 PM

Ha. Dickie. Your praise of Ambinder is doing wonders for his "fair and balanced" reputation.

I thinh the JJ Jr. comments were ill-advised, but in any case they were more an attack on HIllary for fake self-serving crying than a racial comment.

But it was Obama who said yesterday that none of our hands are clean. The spots on Obama's hands do not neutralize the caked mud lining the Clintons'

The national, corporate media is not in Obama's favor, they are pro-racial-and-gender-food-fight. Just look at CNN. "LIve after the debate, an AC 360 special, race and politics in america.

Corprate American likes money. To get money you need ratings. To get ratings, you like scandals and racial and gender food fight. To get scandals and racial and gender food fights, you need the Clitnons. There are structural reasons why the media will always favor the Clintons type of politics over Obama's type of politics. How many newspapers and magazines did unity ever sell? How many bloggers did bipartisanship ever employ? How many pundits get ratings when washington is civil?

Please, your whiing about the media being out to get HIllary are nothing but a bunch of crocodile tears. The media is trying to give Rezko some attantion as they conveniently lump the exponentiually greater clintonian corruption as "old news." But yeah, the media is relly biased against HIllary. Sure.

Oh, about Obama's "trouble" with registered dems, the fact is he is doing pretty well up against the machine of the only 2 term dem president in decades. The real story is that Hillary is doing badly with independents, crossover republicans, rural areas, etc. Coupled with her alienation of black voters thought he racial politics, it is hard to see how she beats McCain.

And if you want a story that the pundity is missing. how about the story that Hillary is defending home turf in NTC and Bill Clinton in Bufallo, NY! This does not seem like the campaign locations of a candidate Ambinder would love nothing more than to declare inevitable once again!

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 3:07 PM

Democrats still favor a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq

No matter how many times people say this, it's still not true, Marc.

Posted by justinb | January 21, 2008 3:10 PM

Breaking:

Obama gay sex, crack use while in IL legislature.

Larry Sinclair makes direct, video taped allegation that he did drugs with Obama and performed oral sex on Obama in 1999.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/21/15941/0872#4

You tube link contained in link

Posted by Charles Cox | January 21, 2008 3:20 PM

Obama had a hundred million dollars and he didn't manage to change the world with it. He spent as much as hillary, made decisions about how to spend his time and money and his fabled judgement didn't turn out. RKA is crying that it is clinton's fault because she stood in his way but the fault belongs to your candidate, his message and his followers who based on the evidence of thier postings on this blog perhaps spend too much time crying and are a bit paranoid.
Hillary is not allowed on tyra Banks? She's not allowed to move her candidacy forward? She isn't allowed to say its personal up in new hampshire and be tired and near tears? Edwards says its personal 5 times a minute.
Oh I get it: you like to pretend that clinton is part of a machine and in that way dehumanize her as if she is actually a machine. You'd rather run against something less than human becuase its easier to scare folks away from her that way.
RKA likes it when one guy gets to wear the good guy hat and the other one doesn't:
right now Hillary clinton still has people voting for her and Obama isn't the obvious choice to lots of folks that he is to you.
The truth might be that America doesn't think he is ready yet and that he only won his neighboring state and that took most of a 100 million dollars.
He's a rookie and a neophyte and he's not ready for the prime time and he has to clean his desk first.
One interesting bit of history is that Bill almost ran 4 years earlier than he did but with Hillary decided it was too soon. Lots of people encouraged Hillary to run 4 years ago and she decided it was too soon: If Obama blows this thing he's going to wish he had shown similar judgement.

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 3:21 PM

"it is going to be a long dark 8 years for the country." if Hillary wins? I think this is unadulterated hyperbole.

I think visions of doom and gloom if HRC wins are not based on any facts whatsoever, and certainly would contrast with Bill's presidency which was largely good and productive. I personally think HRC would be better than Bill. Remember she was the one who wanted to go into Rawanda to stop the genocide there, but Bill listened to his advisors (the same ones, like Dr. Rice who advise Obama now)and made what he admits was his biggest mistake.

What I am curious about is if people really want real change in Washington, why didnt they support Edwards? He was the only real and specific change candidate in the race.

As to their relative campaigning, both HRC and Obama are waging tough war. Both are stretching rules, saying things in heat that they wouldnt say otherwise, picking stupid fights like on King (Obama's bad) and Reagan (Clinton's bad), both are waging ground war and with the stakes high I couldnt care less. I disagree that Obama has been stilted by the media or the Clintons in getting his message out. I disagree that the Clintons have tried to "Sharptonesque" him. I disagree that the Clintons will ruin the party. All of this is devoid of factual support. I say fight it out hard and let the strongest candidate win. You will have to be strong to win against the Repubs in the fall. Neither side has the right to cry foul here. Neither side has the right to let our country go conservative again out of snit that their man or woman didnt prevail.

These fights are not bad unless we let them be. They dont split a party unless we let them split us. And all the while that some of us get way too emotional about our candidate and the survival of the world if he or she should lose, just keep saying "Supreme Court" to yourself. To me, more than anything else, that is the prize. With liberal justice stevens about to retire, and with 4 ubber conservatives there now, the next selection will be critical and guide the court for decades. Ignore that at our country's peril.

Posted by Jammer | January 21, 2008 3:30 PM

RKA;
I re-read your opinion a few more times to make sure I got it: First you call ambinder a shill for the clintons who can't think for himself: that's petty and childish AND wildly inaccurate. As a long time clinton supporter I can tell you I don't think he's particularly in Hillary's camp.
Next you say gender card for NH and forget that hillary carried women in Michigan and Nevada too.
is it because she wears make-up that she's playing the gender card? That she has a female name? That she doesn't have a deep voice?
She will be history if she wins: women were the last group to get the vote in this country in 1920. And they had to fight like hell to get it: do you think its okay if she fights like hell to win?
Obama's first words out of his mouth in IOWA after the win was, "They say this night would never come". Now it turns out he didn't even write the speech but those are the words and everyone listening knew that it was a phrase meant to evoke the civil rights movement and not just one man's ambition to be president. He is the one who speaks about his campaign as a movement instead of a campaign.
The emphasis on hope and change (he said change 35 times in that short speech) may be more change than America wants: folks know he says hope to erase risk: he's untried, a neophyte: he is using the words as synanyms when they are not the same at all.
The argument about king and Johnson is simple: he kept encouraging people to say he's like king and like JFK and she just like LLoyd Benson said
that you aren't them and young and pretty is not the whole story: johnson's machine made a huge difference too.
He walked into the truth of that perception he was trying to craft and it embarrased him.
Obama may have blown it by over confidence in IOWA and NH. He won a neighboring state and he thought he won the superbowl. That might have turned off a lot of people.
your caqndidate is fighting his own weaknesses: you don't need to blame racism or gender awareness or hillary's machine or anything.
The campaign is a uphill climb for either of them and your continual accusations make your candidate
look very small.

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 3:42 PM

Shorter RKA: HRC is running a better campaign than Obama.

Posted by justinb | January 21, 2008 3:52 PM

"Is it because she wears make-up that she's playing the gender card?"

Ha.

Thanks for proving my point of the reliance of Clinton supporters on straw man argumentation.

You're having such a good time fighting with your straw man version of me, why should I bother to even intervene?

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 3:54 PM

Shorter RKA: HRC has lately been more effective in turning media attention towards gutter politics than Obama has been effective in keeping the conversation on the high road.

But that is not entirely Obama's fault. The media hearts gutter politics, of course.

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 4:03 PM

Shorter (and shorter) RKA. Yes please! :)

Seriously, I said the same after Iowa. Obama won because of his hands on, face to face canvassing, and the fact that he spent more time and money there than either of the other candidates. His % of the vote was probably almost directly proportional to that extra effort.

But Iowa is the only state that lends itself to that. All of the candidates spent about half their time and money before the first vote was cast in Iowa. The other half has to be divided between 49 states.

Posted by robert ethan | January 21, 2008 4:14 PM

I just watched u-tube of Obama complaining that Bill Clinton is campaigning for his wife and that he plays too hard. He sounds just like RKA. did you think the clintons were just going to give up and not campaign?
Did you think he could just quote MLK all the way to the convention without someone saying the lloyd benson line: your not MLK?
He says stop lying about my opposition to the war but Bill said he hid his opposition by taking it off the web site for years, that he at the time of the convention said other things about the war and his opposition to it. NOW here's the thing RKA: why doesn't he stop "stop lying about my record" (like mcCain losing to Bush 8 years ago) and prove that he didn't take it off his web site, that he didn't water down his opposition and that he didn't vote to finance the war for hundreds of billions of dollars. If he's lying let obama prove it.
What obama talks about is up to him.
talking about his desk is his fault.
Not putting on commercials that the media shows a hundred times is his fault.
On his site he has two sweet downloads about fatherhood and connecting to people: those could be the highroad commericals.
But I also resist your claim that Hillary is in the gutter: a nasty slur. Bill was on the nightly news last night talking great things about Obama and Hillary and King and understanding that black voters might not be able to stand with the clintons this time. The high road. very healing. gracious. and definately not the gutter. Hillary with Calvin Butts in Harlem yesterday: not the gutter.
mostly it is us bloggers trying to show how right we are that are in the gutter and of course Chris matthews and Andrew Sullivan who increasingly live there.

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 4:22 PM

Robert, you are correct that Hillary does have an advantage in upcoming contests because voters will be more dependent on the national media as opposed to face-to-face contact because the media invariably promotes race and gender based narrative favorable to the divisive identity politics hillary needs to use in order to beat back Obama.

But, we should not forget to keep our eye on the ball here. This is going to be a scrappy fight for delegates and if you look deep into the the delegate math, which is complicated, most smart people realize this may be a long contest with a fight to the end.

Look, I realize you clinton people are trying to spin the national media into making HIllary "inevitable' again. But HIllary and Bill would not be throwing the kitchen sink at Obama if they were as inevitable as the spinners would have us believe.

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 4:27 PM

Jammer -

I don't think it'll be 8 years of doom and gloom under HRC, but it'll be at least 4 of McCain, starting exactly one year from now, if the dems nominate Hillary.

Conservatives will quickly put their distrust of McCain behind them if Hillary is the candidate. There is no one, not even a Republican, who can mobilize the right like Hillary. Go talk to any conservative in a purple state - they are absolutely committed to turning out to vote against her.

Posted by Steve C | January 21, 2008 4:34 PM

Gloat all you want Clintonites. But after the despicable and classless Rovian campaign they have waged against Obama, this is one Florida Democrat who is ready to vote for John McCain. Many other Dems and independents like me too.

You better pray that Romney can beat McCain or you are toast.

Posted by Moderate Dave | January 21, 2008 4:39 PM

Michael,

I have to laugh at one of your many fine points.

You say that Bill clinton was so graciously praising Obama on the nightly news last night.

When Bill goes on a national telecast and says something on the order of Obama is so eloquent and he can understand if black people will vote for him, this is the translation: "Of course some black people are going to support a black candiate even though he is all talk. But we'll be there for you when he inevitably loses, so don't worry"

Please, Michael. The "praise" in that interview was a condenscending continuation of the overall stratgey to pigeonhole Obama as "the black candidate" so to rev up the white and hispanic vote against him. Do you really think Bill Clinton goes on nightly news to praise Obama out of the goodness of his heart? Do you want to get in on this great real estate deal I got lined up while you are at it?

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 4:41 PM

RKA: I read your comments above again.
You say that the news media needs mud and for mud you need the Clintons.
Just how constructive is that argument?
You congradulate your candidate for losing so closely to the machine of a two term president. That's obama's choice: he knew she was running when he got in but also its sexist and inaccurate to call it his machine. She has campaigned vigorously for the past ten years for the party and state and federal campaigns across the country: she helped alot of people win place and show. The organization of people is hers, not his: he's been off in Africa and indoneysia and raising money for his library. so don't trivialize the org she built or the ducks she put in a row. You just don't get how we love her for her ability and sensibility and not as an appendage of him.
You say she is off in buffalo and NYC shoring up support. By going to NYC yesterday she picked up Calvin Butts endorsement in Harlem AND let her press plane go home for a night or two to get laundry and have sex with thier boyfriends/husbands/wives and see thier kids. She probably had a fund raiser and she signalled to black clinton supporters that MLK JR matters to her too. Bill in Buffalo is more of the same: it let him go home for the night, and she does represent the state. And your media gods are located there. Remember obama bee-lined to MAnhatten after NH to shake the trees for money too.
As for your media structural jive: great: write a dissertation: is obama the second coming going to change all that too?
Obama's unity stuff is ultimately like a hallmark card: Bush sold the same phoney :I am a uniter not a divider. Clinton was a centrist remember: the right lies and cheats and steals and they attacked clinton when he was too close to the center because it made them look fringe and they attacked him when he was left as if that made him satan. Do you think Obama won't have the same problem? The amazing thing about clinton and hillary is their resilience: does obama have any? do his supporters?

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 4:43 PM

Michael C:

Can you name one major progressive initiative implemented by Bill? It's called triangulation: play left to get elected, then run scared from the right in the purple states and give them whatever they want.

Obama is actually serious about healthcare reform and getting us out of Iraq, and it's anybody's guess what Hillary is serious about aside from winning.

Posted by Steve C | January 21, 2008 4:50 PM

RKA;
the cool thing about your criticism is that if Bill Clinton were fair and decent like you and your candidate he would have to admit that this is a bright new light in the democratic party and admire his energy and ability BUT then if he says those things he must be actually saying something else that is derogatory and denigrates and marginalizes him.
The cool thing about your arguemnt above is that if Bill Clinton actually respected black people and understood thier hopes and dreams and how important the spirit and legacy of MLK JR is to our country and black folks he would go on tv and say exactly the things he said even if his wife is running against him. SO if Bill does those things it must mean something else.
Face it, RKA you've constructed a world for yourself where Bill can't do right by black people:
you reject the high road when bill clinton is on it. Your straw man jive lets you run the clintons down no matter what they do because you like your candidate better: your candidate who went on tv today and whined just as you are doing.
What if Bill and Hillary aren't playing the race card here: would that mean that you are?

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 4:54 PM

Ok, Michael. I think you beat me. Hillary chose to campaign in NY so that members of the press could do their laundry and have sex! There's no way I can argue with that one. You win!

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 5:00 PM

Look, Michael. I don't think the clintons are racist or that they haven't done good things for blacks. But the loss of a significant part of their base to Obama has forced them to make it up in other ways. The most efficient way to do that is to use blacks as a foil to whip up an anti-black vote among whites and hispanics.

There is nothing particularly original about this. This sort of politics is practiced in big cities across America on a daily basis.

All I am doing is pointing out the elephant in the room over the last two weeks. I understand that it is in your cadidate's interest for the media to spin that she has shiftd the race beased on her "experience" but the more likely explanation is that she has effectively inserted race and gender into the campaign to her manifest short term benefit, and I am simply pointing out that she has serverly compromised her general election electabillity (and even Obama's a little bit) in the process. What Hillary is doing is bad for democrats, even if it is stopping her short term bleeding.

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 5:09 PM

Naming something Bill did 16 0r 12 or 8 years ago:
He cut the deficit when he got into office and found out all the bush numbers were lies.
He faced up to reality and explained that premises he ran on -increased social spending - would have to wait because the numbers that bush published were BS. he fought the good fight against Colin powell and Fing Sam Nunn for gays in the military on day one and lost but tried to do right (no matter what A, sullivan says; he risked much of his capitol on that fight and made a deal and colin powell and nunn didn't keep it).
He set stupid Al gore loose on government waste. he started collecting taxes because the dirt bag republicans had stopped auditing and regulating the collection of taxes. He worked 20 hours aday. he studied new ideas. He brought some regulation back to government and the industry. He hired deval Patrick if memory serves. He sent george whatshisname to ireland to negotiate peace there, According to my bosnian muslim students he saved their lives and stopped the killing there. he kept greenspan in, picked Rubin, had madeline albright.
And you know what he ran as a centlist as a new democrat: the left didn't like him. He won as a centrist. But after 12 years of reagan and bush the center was pretty left.
AND bill isn't running now: Hillary is against obama and your a nut job if you don't think she'll help change health care in this country if she wins.
She is left of Bill but so am I. I can't believe you or obama can't understand her when she says she will end this war. Why is obama serious but hillary not?
be as biased as you want.

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 5:10 PM

One more thing Michael. A friendly piece of advice, actually.

If you are going to vigorously defend the clintons against race baiting, you might want to avoid accusing people of "straw man jive."

It doesn't shuck well to some people, you know?

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 5:18 PM

I think extra 100,000 cops on the street is a progressive achievement -- crime disproportionately affects the poor.

Posted by Rusty | January 21, 2008 5:25 PM

RKA: you and the media. This morning's nytimes talked about budget problems for all campaigns.
Hillary stopped flying two private planes. She cancelled hers and now rides the press plane. She changed her media availability just by doing that. She also is available to reporters three times a week now and interviews by request. Obama made a different choice: he got rid of the press plane and told the press to book thier own flights. How pissy a rookie mistake is that?
do you think the press can get where he's going by booking commercial flights/
this is part of the experience deal RKA: in the first clinton white house they stupidly tried to get the press to use a different space. they literally walled off the old press access. George stephanopolis and Bill tried it and hillary learned the lesson. Perhaps Obama is suffering fromn this dumb rookie move this week.
He also stoppped taking questions when he got to NH and Hillary started taking question in NH.
I do believe that there are plenty of racists around. I see racist attitudes everyday in my school adversely affecting everything we are suppose to do BUT let me suggest that this new argument that clintons are trying to make the black candidate more black and gin up latino hostility and distrust against blacks is just more lunatic fringe stuff: I don't buy it.
The hostility in the community might exist. But I think the clintons are trying to match a positive message to each constitutient group and do right by them: get the message out. I believe the obama campaign is doing that too. I think Edwards campaign is predicated on race and gender that his only message is that he is more electible because he is not female and not black. But Hillary and barack each I think are trying to represent and talk to each group. Us bloggers are a different story: completely lacking in empathy and grace, busy trying to be right.

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 5:31 PM

RKA: the word jive has been around along time: 50 years from the jazz world on through to the 60's 70's and hippies and all our counterculture: it is part of my childhood: it is part of the american venacular. I think your structure stuff is total BS and I wanted to use a nicer word.
I get that after I disagree with you you want to connect it to a different phrase by adding the word shuck which I did not write or evoke and to borrow your construction make a straaw word out of it. That way you get to suggest that I played a race card, discount my opinion, and get the crazy people on this site to pile on.
That's not exactly faiir is it?

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 5:40 PM

MIcheal, michael, don't worry, I don't think you are a racist. I was just having a little fun at your expense.

But, you know, I am just some nobody commenter. Who really cares what I think, you know?

I think the opinions of people like Ted Kennedy are a bit more relevant. And Ted Kennedy told Bill Clinton that he was partly responsible for injecting race into this campaign and told him to cool it.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385

Posted by RKA | January 21, 2008 6:41 PM

"Experience matters. "

I agree that's why I support a candidate like Obama whose experience isn't botching universal health care reform causing it to be delayed at least 15 years and twice being suckered into supporting George Bush's claims about the need for the U.S. to attack a Middle East country due to terrorism/WMD.

Posted by Ron | January 21, 2008 6:59 PM

Michael C, I can see you drank the KoolAid, but did you have to swallow the bottle as well?

Posted by jacinth | January 21, 2008 7:13 PM

Obama caught. Remember the name Larry Sinclair.

Larry Sinclair looks at the camera offers to take a polygraph and says he used crack cociane with Obama and performed oral sex on Obama in a limo in 1999 (while Obama was in the IL Senate).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

Time for Barack Obama to end his campaign to "spend more time with his family."

Posted by Rich Mann | January 21, 2008 7:23 PM

Rich Mann
This is not even credible.

Posted by MGJ | January 21, 2008 7:46 PM

"precipitous withdrawal from Iraq"
Ambinder,
Did even one of the Democrats you spoke with use the term precipitous? The Democrats I know all say they prefer a "as quickly as possible withdrawal without unduly endangering the departing troops."

Are you on the McCain bus now?

Posted by Ambinder parrots McCain | January 21, 2008 10:14 PM

I love ted kennedy but ted Kennedy is an old man. His endorsement mattered to Kerry because they were from the same state and people knew that kennedy treated kerry like a water boy.
Kennedy isn't much of a factor now: he defends his families legacy and name ferociously and Clinton is doing exactly what Barack would do for Michelle and Edwards would do for his wife if they were running, and if they were ex-presidents.
Carter has really found his voice in the past ten years and yes it is aleways contreversial but these men don't give up thier rights as citizens just because they were president. They got in because they cared and determined. Its Kerry's and Gore's own stupidity not to have used clinton because of thier weak egos and wanting to be thier own man. They would have won with his help.
Obama can't get kennedy's endorsement and be the new kind of democrat. Isn't kennedy having trouble living down NCLB? didn't he team with Bush on that disaster? he's poison right now.
Rahm emamanuel is a former Clinton guy yes but he's a congressman on Obama's home turf so he says Clinton should be more careful. But did he endorse?
Hey RKA: did you see John Lewis in the front row tonight laughing and clapping when Hillary mentioned Obama's ties to whoever? That's got to hurt, huh?
Did you ever read lewis's book? what an amazing book.

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 11:31 PM