South Carolina In Flux

A spate of negative press may finally be catching up to Hillary Clinton in South Carolina. A new poll shows her in dangering of losing her second place standing to John Edwards, editorial boards across the country -- from the coasts to the plains -- have excoriated the campaign for running demonstratively false radio ad, and Bill Clinton's adrenal outbursts are being universally judges as harmful.

There was a better than even chance that had polls show John Edwards trailing Clinton significantly in South Carolina, he might have ended his campaign early. A lot of that support -- white, working class voters and poor black voters -- would have swung Clinton's campaign.

Joe Erwin, an Obama supporter who never minces his words, wrote in a campaign memo that "Hillary Clinton’s campaign is pulling out all the stops to win in South Carolina." He noted that the Clinton doubled its advertising buy to nearly $414,000 per week.

A few hours later, the Clinton campaign responded with Obama's own words:

Earlier today, the Obama campaign circulated an expectations-setting memo that asserted that Senator Clinton is going “all-out” to win in South Carolina. But just two days ago, Senator Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody where he suggested just the opposite.

Senator Obama: “I think the South Carolina voters will have to make an assessment in terms of how seriously she's taking the state. She said last night that Bill Clinton wasn't the one running for President, but this is the next primary and he's the one who's staying behind." [Obama interview, David Brody, 1/22/08]

So does the Obama campaign think we are giving up on South Carolina or going all out for it? I guess it depends on the day.

The truth is that Clinton wants to finish second -- preferably a strong second -- and wants whatever wounds were opened in South Carolina to heal quickly.

Comments

Yes, Edwards has been strong in the debates and playing up his home state ties as Romney did in Michigan.
So now they've revised their strategy and brought Hillary back to South Carolina early. Of course, the other theory is that they think they will win and are putting in some extra effort to get over the top.

Posted by Mike | January 24, 2008 4:20 PM

Why was Rudy lying about statistics in his ad not a "lie" that was reviled by editorial boards across the country? Why was Thompson take down of Huckabee in the GOP debate not "shading the truth"? Because they are men. Why is McCain lauded for saying that Hillary will "wave a white flag" for terrorists when that is certainly not true?

Hillary's construal of Obama's remarks is perfectly within the realm of normal political discourse, but because she is a woman she is expected to "play nice." It is sickening.

Posted by Teresa | January 24, 2008 4:28 PM

Teresa, with all due respect, you're way off base. First, it's more BILL Clinton that is being (rightfully) accused of lying, and he's a man.

Second, the press has long had a weird inability to call Republicans on blatant lies, and it dates back well before the primary. McCain, in particular, could say the sky is purple with green polka dots and the media would print it without contradiction, and would probably include fawning praise to his honesty, conviction, and 'maverick' nature.

Posted by matthewcc | January 24, 2008 4:34 PM

Clinton have "won" in South Carolina if you ask me. Third place would be a bummer. But at least they have exposed Obama and have made it impossible for the press to give him a complete free pass.

Just getting the national media to cover Rezko is worth all the work they have done in SC. St. Obama is no more. It is just Barry Obama the Chicago machine poll who has a habit of voting 'present.'

Posted by Dick Flatts | January 24, 2008 4:36 PM

Obama win at all cost race play has cost him Florida and west.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | January 24, 2008 4:37 PM

What's sickening is seeing Clinton supporters play the gender card whenever she does something wrong. Why can't she ever take responsibility for any of her mistakes?

Posted by Mike | January 24, 2008 4:38 PM

Matthewcc -- Actually I think all this talk about Bill is just another wing of the overall attack on Hillary. The media got burned in NH when they were prematurely dancing on her grave and ticked women off. They think going after Bill will shield them from being accusations of being sexist and is a better way to attack Hillary. I would not be surprised if there isn't a similar backlash amongst the women of South Carolina.

Look at McCain's comments today:

“Candidate Clinton has called for surrender and waving the white flag,” he said during an appearance in West Palm Beach. “I think it’s terrible. I think it’s terrible.”

Name me one thing that Bill or Hillary has said about Obama that comes even close to being as vile and untrue as that statement.

Posted by Teresa | January 24, 2008 4:40 PM

Teresa, what would you say about distorting Obama's record on choice? About the lies about how he "worked for a slumlord"? What about the racist remarks made by Hillary's surrogates? McCain may be bad, but that certainly doesn't make Hillary honest or reliable.

Posted by michaelwu | January 24, 2008 4:52 PM

Teresa,

I completely disagree. Why would McCain's comment make any difference? He is not running in the Democratic primary!

As for Bill and Hillary, well, as a former Clinton supporter and proud feminist and Democrat, the way they have been behaving makes me feel sick. I am ashamed I voted for him twice, I don't want to see him esconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and I don't feel comfortable with electing a president who will clearly be part of a co-presidency. And by the way, what high-quality person would want to be VP or Secretary of State with Big Bill tromping around.

Posted by Sue | January 24, 2008 4:54 PM

It's fascinating, Teresa, that the best excuse you have for Hillary is that she is not John McCain. Doesn't that say everything about how loathsome HRC's candidacy really is? Why not go further and tell us that she is not Rudy Giuliani? Or Mitt Romney? Or Ron Paul? Or would that blur your finely-honed rhetorical point? We know HRC is not John McCain - what we want to know is why she is not behaving like a Democrat, but apparently working on Karl Rove 101 studies in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY!

Posted by jacinth | January 24, 2008 4:58 PM

"Just two days ago" Hillary was scheduled to return to South Carolina on Friday after spending Tues.-Thurs. away. And her ad expenditures hadn't grown to the level reported by Erwin.
The truth is that Hillary has to turn the momentum around in the next 38 hours, or she's stands a real chance of coming in 3rd, possibly 20 points behind Obama. O 46 - E 27 - C 26.

Posted by Byron | January 24, 2008 5:03 PM

I honestly think that the Obama campaign has to go and attack the Clintons (together) on this honesty and trust issue. And they can do so fairly by pointing out politics ain't bean bag and the Republicans will do worst. Plus, they've been on defense for a long time now.

Between Sandy Berger, the whitewater etc., and the questionable pardons from the Clinton years to the bungling of Somalia, the equivation on Bosnia, ignoring Rwanda etc are points he can rightfully hit Clinton. And with his outburst Bill has opened himself to being questioned on WHY he stayed silent instead of like Gore voicing his support to the anit-war movement? And point out how Hillary was GWB shield on Iraq in 2002 and 2003 going where many other Democrats refused to go in defending him and selling the war. There is footage of that, coupled with the fact 935 lies were told he can fairly ask do you want a president who can be hoodwinked on Iraq?

If the Obama campaign can not take these obvious openings then they deserve what happens. And if they win (god willing) more power to them.

Posted by Rhoda | January 24, 2008 5:05 PM

Marc, Where is this new poll?

The newest poll I've seen shows that Obama is losing black voters to both Edwards and to Clinton and that 20% of black voters remain undecided.

But Hillary remains firmly in second place. If she is indeed committed to winning South Carolina, like Obama is now claiming, then the gap should narrow further.

I think she left the field to Obama for a while so that he could let the voters get to know him. Polls have shown that his support among blacks is soft and dropping. So now she goes back into South Carolina and tries to win?

I'd like to see the poll you are referring to.

Posted by ken | January 24, 2008 5:08 PM

1) Obama did work for Rezko and then bought property from him well after it was known that Rezko was dirty. Obama admits that he used bad judgement.

2)Maybe Obama has a good record on choice, maybe not. THe new LA Times story today about how he "accidentally" voted the wrong way six times in the Illinois legislature ought to give some of you just a little pause. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,0,713086.story

3)What racist remarks have Hillary's surragates used? Last time I looked "fairy tale" doesn't carry any racial connotations. Are we supposed to assume that all drug users are African-American? Some of this is hard ball, but politics ain't bean bag.

4)I do think the media is harder on Hillary than other candidates. They were dancing on her grave before NH. What other candidate has had Drudge flashing a horrible picture of them which is then gleefully taken up by the MSM? Why is it that the MSM talks endlessly about Monica and ignore Rudy's extra marital affairs? We get to hear how she is "shrill" and "castrating" and "reminds people of their first wife". Name one other candidate who has been subjected to that by MSM pundits?

5)Mark reported that Obama staffers were asking him months ago when reporters were going to go after Bill's current love life? But that is OK right?

6)If Obama is going to whine now, what is he going to do when the GOP goes after him?

Posted by Teresa | January 24, 2008 5:43 PM

Why is anyone still believing polls???

I'd be delighted to see Obama win South Carolina, and I'll believe it after it happens. Until then I assume the Clintons are in it to win it, and they clearly haven't ceded the state. This thing isn't decided until the voting is done.

Posted by Rachel Q | January 24, 2008 5:47 PM

Ken - She left the voters to Obama so she could claim, after her loss, that he is just the "black" candidate that only wins because of the African Americans overwhelming support. But the poll shows that Obama is still firmly in first place with a solid 9% point advantage based on only a slight majority of the "blacks" - if she is losing in that setting - it's hard to spin that the loss was because of the "black vote" - Clearly, Obama has a broad appeal in the South - not something she wants people to know. And if she comes in 3rd - something Obama hasn't ever done - but she will have done twice - she really looks weak.

Posted by C.B. | January 24, 2008 5:51 PM

Obama playing the race card has cost him with the white, Latino, and Asian voters.

Posted by JoeCHI | January 24, 2008 5:54 PM

I'm hoping that the Bill and Hillary show will suffer a major setback in South Carolina on Saturday. I hope all of America wakes up and realizes that anyone of voting age was ready for the Clintons to leave the White House back in 2001 after Whitewater, Travelgate, Pardongate, Monicagate, etc. Probably our current leader is making everyone more fond of them.

Posted by Davey | January 24, 2008 5:54 PM

Teresa,

How about Bill's zinger about Obama's stance against the war being "a fairy tale"?

Also, don't forget this. Bill Clinton is the single most powerful, well known and liked figure in the Democratic party. When he speaks he knows that a lot of Democrats, especially those who aren't political news junkies, are inclined to take him at his word, no matter how false.

McCain's words? Hardcore pro-war Repubs may be nodding, but how many Democrats (or even disillusioned Repubs who want out of the war) do you think took him seriously?

It's not just what the Clintons are saying that many people find objectionable - it's who he's saying them about, and in what context. He's shoveling dirt on a fellow Democrat for the simple reason that Obama has dared to become a credible threat to the Clinton restoration.

What would you think if he stepped into, say a Democratic primary race between two strong candidates for a governorship to sling mud for one against the other?

Posted by DK | January 24, 2008 6:02 PM

Topic--The Infantilization of the Electorate

Seriously. Why is this topic not being discussed? At its core, whether you agree with their methods or not, the message of the Clinton Campaign is this:

"Remember? Remember how good you had it 10, 15 years ago? When everything was so good, the economy, our security, the environment, that oral sex and a celebrity murder were the two biggest stories of the decade? Remember? So let's all pretend 9/11 never happened, that the Constitution hasn't been overrun by the Bush Administration, that we aren't locked into a war because of our dependence on oil, that the balance of the climate isn't out of whack, that our cities haven't begun to rot from the center, and that our moral high ground hasn't been ceded completely. It was all a bad dream. Now shhhh. Go back to sleep and we'll take care of you. You won't have to anything, because we've got the wheel. We're going to do the hard work. Shhhh. It was just a dream."

This is ridiculous and I can't believe that a majority of Democratic voters are being sucked in by this, and, more importantly, that this isn't a part of the narrative of this primary campaign.

I support Obama, because yes, it is a roll of the dice, we don't know exactly how it'll go, but at least we can show the world that we've matured, that we're ready to do the hard work OURSELVES and not wait for anyone to do it for us. How come we're not talking about that? A vote for Clinton is a vote that signals how naive we actually are.

If we elect the Clintons then that's our signal to the world that we just want to hit the reset button, that what we want is a do-over, a take-back of historic proportions.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. We need a president, not an eight-year campaign.

We need to grow up.

That's what the world is waiting for.

Posted by Adam | January 24, 2008 6:03 PM

The attacks from Clintons have gone so far that even ardent Hillary supporters have been turned off by them. I have heard from atleast 5 of my Hillary loving female friends that they have changed their minds in last day or so and now will be voting for Obama or Edwards.

If you hear any of the shows like Ed Schultz and Randy Rhodes you must have heard plenty of Clinton calling the hosts and telling them how turned off they are at Clintons due to their attacks on Obama.

This looks like the defining event of this campaign where in Hillary's numbers will slowly collapse everywhere.

Posted by Michelle | January 24, 2008 6:11 PM

I think the Rezko sleaze may doom Obama with many voters. The press is just starting to research stories on the whole thing and how much Obama benefited from his connection.

Another problem he will have with voters is his prediliction to lie whenever he is challenged. He lied three times in the last debate. He lied on Good Morning America with Meridith Viera when she put one of his debate lies up on the screen and asked him to explain.

His lack of any deep understanding of policy issues could be overlooked at first, but it hurts him the more people see him and want to see some real meat. It hurts him because it confirms the belief that he is all talk and never lives up to his rhetoric.

But he can give a nice speach using a teleprompter. So he has that going for him.

Posted by ken | January 24, 2008 6:17 PM

Tereas - on to your six points - you must have a Clinton talking points memo with you.

1. Obama was a junior associate in a firm that did work with community groups who wored with Rezko. And let me tell you, as a lawyer myself, associates don't pick who they work for - they're given work by partners and they do it. Hillary should know this - she was a corporate partner who worked for Wal-Mart, making this misrepresentation especially cynical. Obama's firm checked the records and Obama billed less than 10 hours on this work - which had only an indirect association to Rezko.

1A - Obama's admission to boneheadedness was in asking Rezko for advice when he was trying to buy a plot of land next to his house. I believe the plot was in fact owned by Rezko, but Obama payed market price for the land. Do you have an explanation even remotely as reasonable to explain how Hillary turned $1,000 into $100,000 on a cattle futures trade? Who the hell not in some way connected to the industry trades cattle futures? Oh, I forgot, Hillary did have a connection, through hey work at Rose LAw Firm for Tyson, another exemplary example of corporate ethics...

2. Obama has a 100% record on choice from pro choice groups. One of the founders of Planned Parenthood in NH went public in the Washington Post stating that she was duped by the Clintons into signing that bogus mailer equating Obama's "present" votes with an anti-abortion stance, and that Clinton's mailer has cast the pro-choice movement in NH into turmoil.

3. Only the clueless or intentionally ignorant would say there's no racial connotation to the drug user thing. By the way, the bigger flap was the insinuation that Obama may have "dealt" them too - has a white politician who admitted to past drug use ever been baselessly accused of perhaps dealing them too? Also, how about Obama as "hip, imaginary black friend" to white people?

4. The media is harder on Hillary. Boo hoo. That sounds suspiciously like your whining point you accuse Obama of! Hillary's high profile has its bad point (media will occasionally be harsher) as well as the good (guaranteed coverage of her nad Bills remarks). Why won't they stop whining?

5. Hillary staffers actually sent those disgusting Obama as Muslim emails. Whose done worse? And so what? You don't think Hillary staffers haven't been asking when the media would bring up Rezko? They're staffers, not the candidates. At least it appears that the Obama campaign does a better job of policing its staffers to ensure they don't actually DO something out of bounds.

6. When the GOP goes after Obama, he'll hit back. Like I said before, its different when the person attacking is the informal head of your own party.

Hillary and Bill want to distort, you as a supperter are following their lead. Obama is defending himself and putting out truth squads, I'm try to follow that lead. Which do you think is more palatable to most people?

6.

Posted by Teresa | January 24, 2008 6:20 PM

The previous was from me, not Teresa. Apologies.

Posted by DK | January 24, 2008 6:21 PM

Ken,

You are so full of s***. How much are you paid by the Clinton campaign to spew nonsense? Seriously, you could not get a better job than being a smear-pod?

Posted by amazed | January 24, 2008 6:22 PM

Hurray for Theresa.

CB: a solid 9% lead: solid in this cycle has proved not to be solid at all.
THe polls I say yesterday where double digits and so it looks like a downward trend: But you are right it looks like a very solid downward trend.

DK: the fairy tale remark is a perfectly legitimate comment: That weekend the comparisons to Kennedy and Jackie had gotten a bit thick so deriding the comparisons to camalot was precise and totally lacks any racial coding: Donna Brazil was totally off there. Can you demonstrate that this word fairy tale carries any weight in the history of race-baiting? Newsweeks cover that saturday made it seem he was a fairy tale prince come to wake up a sleeping nation and jack Kennedy and King all rolled into one and that he had it all locked up: you tell me now: what part of that narrative wasn't a fairytale? He didn't even write the iowa speech. He wasn't JFK and he wasn't King and he wasn't even LBJ.
And are zingers bad: I thought they were still allowed.
And DK you and obama still haven't convinced non hillary haters that Bill is lying: he is using the full force of his stature and his considerable political smarts to advocate for the candidate he believes in. Calling these comments lies doesn't make them lies:
Obama hasn't proved or shown that he didn't take the speech off his web site for political cover, hasn't shown that he didn't soften his opposition of the war at the time of the convention to get his career making speaking slot at the convention, and Obama hasn't demonstrated to me that he didn't say what Bill AND tim russert said he did (on meet the press weeks ago, tim nailed him on each of these and obama didn't successfully explain it then either). So it looks like the truth hurts and its easier for him to lie about Bill than present his case in specifics.
AND Obama tried to make a case of Hillary being on the board of wall mart back in the little rock days and its true: but according to wikipedia's biography of michelle Obama, his own wife was on the Board of one of Walmarts biggest suppliers until 2007 when she suddenly resigned after some comments obama made about Union practices there:
how two faced and close to home is that?

Posted by Michael C. | January 24, 2008 6:29 PM

DK, Obama and Rezko are tight buddies.

Obama asked Rezko to help him out buying his mansion in Chicago knowing that Rezko was under federal investigation for corruption. Rezko oblidged him by having his wife help Obama out.

Obama bought the house and Mrs. Rezko bought the lot next door ON THE SAME DAY. The owner insisted on selling them at them together but did not insist on it being to the same buyer.

The more you know about Rezkogate now, before the primary, the better informed you will be when the time comes to vote.

Posted by ken | January 24, 2008 6:32 PM

Michaelwu:
remarks by hillary's supporters?
Obama's supporters say racist and race baiting stuff on this blog every day and nearly all day:
what have you done to criticise these remarks and what do these supporters say about obama's campaign?

Posted by Michael C. | January 24, 2008 6:33 PM

Imagine if Edwards beats Hillary in SC. Who'll drop out after that?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 24, 2008 6:38 PM

Michael C. Pay attention- in the poll in question Clinton is still 15% points behind Obama instead of 19% points. Edwards is now 20% behind Obama, instead of 24% points. Wow - that is some trend. (The average of all the polls have Obama leading by 9%) The only real trend where the race could be said to be tightening in S.C. is that Edwards is gaining on Clinton for second place.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1433

Spin all you like for now but see you Saturday night.

Posted by C.B. | January 24, 2008 6:46 PM

CB
NH looked like a slam dunk and the polls all said
it was obama: aren't you a little nervous trusting the polls again.
I listened to the PBS Macneil leaher report podcast from just before NEVADA just this morning and thier famous political guys both predicted obama would take Nevada. Don't the polls make you nervous? four points down in a very dynamic electorate: who can predict turnout? no party registration in SC right? anybody can show? does that help Obama or Edwards or Clinton? I sure am not smart enough to spin that. Sounds like the situation has about the same number of moving parts as NH though.
But if I understand you correctly a poll of the polls puts Mr. O 9 points ahead of Mrs. C: that would make me really nervous if I were counting on Obama to pull it out: he's been off message all week and he got his butt whipped in front of the entire congressional Black caucus monday night. I saw my hero John Lewis laugh at Obama: that had to hurt: lewis's book is one of the greatest books I have ever read: you?

Posted by Michael C. | January 24, 2008 7:22 PM

obama supporters are on a jihad against democrats and our party. all he has is the race card, and people in feb 5 won't buy it (or even in south carolina, he's just lost 5 points in the last day, mostly among blacks).

just quit while you're ahead, maybe get a couple decades more experience in the senate. maybe then you'll finally figure out that your frustration doesn't justify you leading a lynch mob against bill clinton

Posted by jeanette | January 24, 2008 7:29 PM

Remember, I have already predicted:

If Sen. Obama wins SC, I predict it will be a very small margin (2-3%).

Why? Because I believe that the two Clintons' Attack Machine has already successfully baited the SC voters via race, gender, and ethnicity.

Posted by eorse | January 24, 2008 7:30 PM

Bill Clinton's Old Politics

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/01/bill-clintons-old-politics.html

posted by Robert Reich* | 8:07 AM

Thursday, January 24, 2008

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton’s 1992 campaign – indeed, the entire “New Democratic” message of the 1990s – was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.
___________________

*Robert Reich is the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

Posted by techinvestor | January 24, 2008 7:32 PM

"obama supporters are on a jihad against democrats and our party. all he has is the race card"

Wow. just... wow. Accusing someone of being on a 'jihad' (no bigoted insinuations there...) then accusing them of using the 'race card'.

As far as Obama playing the race card: its a ridiculous lie. I'm willing to give Clinton's people (except Bob Kerry, who sucks) a pass and assume they're not racist or race baiters, just idiots. But what I will not put up with is turning around and saying its Obama's fault Clinton supporters say stupid things.

Just because a lot of independent black people got independently with their own judgement pissed off at the Clintons isn't Obama's fault. Obama doesn't control the black community.

A lot of Clinton supporters talk about blacks like they're some sort of mindless mob. Have you considered, for a minute, they might have their own brains and might, you know, have decided for themselves that the garbage coming out of the Clinton camp is offensive?

If the Clintons are restored to the White House, its back to the wilderness for Democrats. It's taken a decade and a couple of major screwups by the Republicans for us to rebuild after the mess they left. I'm not sure the Democratic party will be viable between the coasts after a Clinton II stint.

Posted by matthewcc | January 24, 2008 7:44 PM

Here's an excellent link to Chicago bloggers who began dissecting the Rezko/Obama link a long time ago and found no there there

http://illinoisreason.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/illinois-blogs-recap-rezko-obama-not-much-there-there/

Eventhough Hillary's not been in SC, I hear that her dirty tricks from her ground staff are alive and well..she's targeting single women with the same mailer she used in NH regarding Obama's 'present' vote on choice, the push polling calls continue, the calls saying "Barack Hussein Obama" is not good for our country continue...

Posted by MEG | January 24, 2008 7:48 PM

Michael C, provide some examples of such comments on this blog, and I will happily respond. Until then, please tell me something: I can accept you have the right to swallow the Clinton KoolAid, but what made you swallow the bottle and label as well?

Posted by Michaelwu | January 24, 2008 7:57 PM

Matthewcc - excellent post - and we should add that a lot of non-black people find the Clinton campaign's race-baiting to be thoroughly contemptible as well.

Posted by jacinth | January 24, 2008 7:59 PM

I can't wait to hear the Hillary-nuts tell us that Reich must be a closet neocon, and that UCBerkeley is really a fascist institution. After all, they've read their Jonah Goldberg.

Posted by sashaqz | January 24, 2008 8:01 PM

The last several weeks have been eye-opening: Race-baiting via surrogates(Shaheen,Kerrey,Penn),Hillary "tearing up", and Bill defending the "little woman" with slimy attacks aganst Obama. Guess what? They certainly ot much more than they bargained for: I and many of my friends(NYC rogressives) ARE NOW OFF THE CLINTON RESERVATION! If she gets the nomination, we will not contribute, work, or vote or her in the general election(whch she cannot win in any case). The Clintons are all about power, and destroying a man who may be the best hope of the Democraic Party since JFK is just a bump in the road to them. Hopefully a small single in Hell is awaiting them.

Posted by beth | January 24, 2008 8:16 PM

Michael C - I didn't say "fairy tale" had a racial tone, I was responding to Teresa's assertion that Bill never said anything as misleading as McCain's surrender comment. Both are gross mischaracterizations, and both are dismissive. But thanks for using it to re-inject race and bloviate about "Obama's no JFK/RFK", very helpful. By the way, read the New Yorker's new profile on Hillary - their personal friend and head of their impeachment defense in the 90's is supporting Obama because, in his words, Obama reminds him of RFK. It's real live people who are making the comparison.

On the Clinton's lies, I think a good example is the radio ad misrepresenting Obama's Regan comments yet again - the Clinton campaign basically acknowledged it by pulling the ad after the outcry.

RE: Walmart - If your accusation is true, notice that Michelle at least resigned. And would you care to weigh in on the damage that Walmart has done to this country compared to a company called Treehouse Foods? Is that really the best you can do?

Ken - others have posted independent analyses of the Rezko situation, why don't you? And even if you conclude based on the evidence that Rezko helped Obama buy the house, which isn't unreasonable, Obama paid market price for the house. Not exactly riveting stuff in the world of political scandal.

No rational Obama supporter thinks he's a saint - he's just inspiring, intelligent, and a breath of fresh air in a really stale, divisive political environment.

Posted by DK | January 24, 2008 8:22 PM

Oh, the tragedy of unintended consequences for the clintons.

After Iowa, they knew the black vote would coalsce around Obama no matter what and so they made the best of a bad situation by mounting a concerted, sustained effort to make Obama "the back candidate"

With the assistance of the media, they have succeeding in racially polarizing the NV and SC electorates.

But, the success of their plan was contingent on the non-viability of John Edwards.

But the debate on Monday changed that. While Obama and Hillary went at it, Edwards looked good and he is picking up white votes lost by both Obama and by Clinton, according to the latest MSNBC poll.

Now Ambinder and others in the press who don't understand delegate math think that the ket issue is whether or not Edwards gets second or not. The bigger issue is whether he can get to the magic 15% threshold in white majority congressional districts to take delegates away from Hillary Clinton. This will probably happen in SC and it could happen in congessional districts accross the country on Feb 5th.

This is why I think HIllary came back early to SC. The race baiting strategy has strengthened Edwards and thus is creating a situation where the white vote. and more importantly, white area delegates could be split by HIllary and Edwards.

As the contest moves on to other states, Obama could put together a coalition of upscale whites, young of all races, and strong black votes. Hillary will probably reatin hispanic, but the anti-black vote in the dem party may well get split and there could be important delegate repercussions to this if Edwards can just hit 15% in certain congressional districts.

This is a very complicated game of chess, folks. And if you don't understand delegate math, then you really have no clue what is happening here and why.

Karma is a bitch, and the race baiting by the clintons just could backfire on them because of John Edwards as a "catch basin' for the stirred-up, racial vote.

By the way, many of you in the media are starting to feel a little guilty in being the accomplices to what the Clintons have done. There is a way for you to get some degree of absolution for what you have done to the party and the country. You can prop up John Edwards a bit. Help him get over that 15% finish line in white districts accross the country so that HIllary can pay the price for the unamerican conduct of her campaign.

Posted by RKA | January 24, 2008 8:29 PM

Michaelwu:
last weekend I compared Obama to Jerry Brown and someone on this blog immediately suggested I was racist.
A week earlier I said that I felt obama had been calling hillary a liar since the start of his campaign by inference and someone told me to get back to the stormfront racist motherfucker.
I post here and only here about Clinton and why I support her campaign and holes I see in Obama's campaign and these reactionary race-based comments because I don't support obama are examples I can easily cite. But all day long the accusations of race baiting without specifics here are as Bill clinton suggested in yesterday's copmments racist themselves. Anti-female comments about Hillary's appearance and her marriage are crass and demonstrate a complete lack of restraint and real content. Focussing on Bill's red face is about color and demonstrates insensitivty and bias: if i blogged about the color of obama's skin it would certainly be biased and racial. I have very pink skin and it reddens when I speak, under bright lights, when I rub my cheek, or out in the sun for more than 5 minutes even in january: my skin is just like bills and some day my nose will be as purple as bills: that bloggers here have mentioned dozens of times shows a bias that would not be acceptable about Obama or Michelle. You may say these are not double standards but I disagree.
Fairy tale is not racist from any angle that I see.
I see racism all around in my work in an innercity school with a diverse student body: I see it in my colleagues and my administrators at times. I am not soft-selling the level of the problem in our country. But I honestly do not see the Clintons doing this.
When I listened to the SLATE book Club podcast on Obama's book today on my ipod they paraphrased obama as saying that if he is elected president the world will look at America differently. I have heard this sentiment many times and I try not to attach the idea that he thinks his skin matters in this campaign but ultimately this sentiment does attach that meaning and thats both a positive and negative interpretation but then it is the race card.
My opinion.

Posted by Michael C. | January 24, 2008 8:47 PM

Michael C:
You must be drinking the Clintons' kool-aid because you are using the same tactic of spewing misinformation that they do. Anybody who watched the debate could see that the audience was clearly behind Obama. Saying that Obama "got his butt kicked" does not line up with most of the analysis of the debate, which gave Obama the edge between the two of them.

John Lewis endorsed Hillary early on, so of course he was applauding her at the debate. And where did you hear that John Lewis was Obama's "hero"?

At best, you could argue that Lewis was one of the heroes of the civil rights movement, but there's no evidence whatsoever that Obama has claimed Lewis is one of HIS heroes.

Posted by gwen | January 24, 2008 8:48 PM

MichaelC, you sound as if a long sleep in a warm bed would help you with the high fever you seem to be running. Are you serious;y trying to say that noticing Bill Clinton's red face is somehow racist? Please, take the medicine, rest and feel better.

Posted by jacinth | January 24, 2008 9:02 PM

Michael C., you sound like a complete fool. Please be quiet, the grownups are talking.

Posted by CW | January 24, 2008 9:19 PM

An Obama SC win where he only wins 10% of the white vote isn't going to help much. All the press will talk about is how he captured 65% of the black vote and no white voters. Obama will be done after February 5 unless he changes his appeal on the fly.

Posted by not quite dead | January 24, 2008 10:14 PM

Bill Clinton's campaign behavior affecting his global reputation - and NOT for the better: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/516866be-c9c9-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.html

Per Obama's pro-choice record: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Posted by JR | January 24, 2008 10:34 PM

Just the facts about Obama and Rezko

The Los Angeles Times ran this story on January 23 about Obama's Longtime Patron. The same day that Obama and his wife bought their house on Chicago's South Side, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent lot from the same sellers. Mrs. Rezko paid the asking price of $625,000. The Obamas purchased their house $300,000 below the asking price because of a slow real estate market. Obama's judgment is being challenged because at the time "Rezko was under scrutiny by federal authorities."

The main point of the article is Rezko played a large part in financing Obama's rise into politics through donations. Since 1995 Obama has received a total of $200,000+ from Rezko and his employees and business associates.

I really don't care about Obama's ties to Rezko. However, I am sick of the Clinton haters. When this election season began, I felt really positive about a Democrat being in the White House. But, I'm discovering Democrats are their own worst enemies.

Posted by EWard | January 25, 2008 1:55 AM

It appears that John Kerry was right when he said the Clintons only care about power. Their collective behavior so far is a dream for Fox news and the right wing talk show hosts. They always complained about the Clintons and now some liberal Democrats are voicing some similar complaints. When Bill Clinton got fake angry at the broadcaster in Nevada and ranted that the nine caucus locations on the strip were unfair because those votes counted (he claimed) five times more than other votes, I started to think it was time for Bill to retire. He and his wife had no objection to those nine locations until he thought they might be helpful to Obama. At the time the Democratic party approved of this, not a peep was heard from the Clintons. Of course, that was when they both thought it would help them. I guess Bill's fake anger and deceit should not have surprised me. Even though I am a liberal Democrat and I voted for him twice, I am tired of his behavior. Maybe he should just go home and take a nap. I think the Clintons are in danger of a third place finish in South Carolina. And I agree with the poster who said it would be a good example of karma if it does happen. I am using the Nevada episode as one obvious example of how the truth is no obstacle for the Clinton's. I am aware of the others that have been discussed many times in prior posts. When compared to the Clinton campaign circus (the two candidates for co-president that the loyal opposition would love to run against), I think an Obama/Edwards ticket (in either order) would be far more likely to prevail in November.

Posted by JH | January 26, 2008 3:31 AM