Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

About That S.C. Memo

By Anne Kornblut
LAS VEGAS -- Tonight, Barack Obama contradicted the message that had been coming from his campaign on one point. His advisers had not previously taken responsibility for a memo from his South Carolina press secretary outlining verbal missteps on race by the Clintons. But during the debate in Las Vegas, Obama did not deny that the memo had come from his campaign, and said he would not stand by such work in the future, saying he regretted it "not only in hindsight but going forward."

"It is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously," he said, "which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues."

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 15, 2008; 11:56 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Conceding Michigan, McCain Rallies Troops in S.C.
Next: Distinctions With a Difference in Nevada

Comments

After reading all the comments so far that have hitched a ride on this column , I can't help but remember the quote attributed to comedian/cowboy Will Rodgers(ca. 1930-40's) : ""I'm not a member of ANY organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
I'm with you, Will.

Posted by: luise1 | January 17, 2008 6:09 AM | Report abuse

Go get 'em, B.O.! Vanquish the waddling, quacking 2-headed 4-flatfooted Billary Monster from the Planet Duck! Show that unbathed white trash what a REAL black president might be like!

Posted by: sawargos | January 16, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

r_newton, you've tried to pass off a strawman argument as a meaningful refutation of suspicions about the Clintons motives for myriad statements emanating from that campaign, and I've reversed it to illustrate just how meaningful it is. Of course the Clintons don't want to be seen as racist in the black community. But it is equally the case that Obama can only wreck his chances by becoming known as 'the black candidate'. Neither is any evidence that more subtle moves in this direction could not be politically expedient, or don't have past precedence. It can, they do. Have a read of Eugene Robinson's editorial and Sister Soulja reference and get back to me.

As regards 'twisting' or 'misconstruing' the Clintons words, feel free to take it up with the New York Times editorial board or the many shucking and jiving African Americans that were offended by some of these comments, before you point the dirty end of the stick at the black man.

Posted by: Majorajam | January 16, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Majorajam. A reliable sign that a person lacks a valid argument to present is when they attempt to put words in another person's mouth. Of course Obama does not want to be seen only as the "black candidate". A much more effective way of injecting race into the contest is to portray your opponent as biased or insensitive. The Clintons have been accused of many things, but as far as I know stupidity is not one of them. However, unless people are extremely guarded in what they say in political discourse, they will leave openings that can be twisted or misconstrued. This has been done, apparently quite effectively. If emotions are running as high in South Carolina as they appear to be in this discussion, I doubt if the damage can be undone.

Posted by: r_newton | January 16, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

didn't bill admit on sharpton's radio show that he had a list of comments by the obama camp before the SC memo surfaced ? to me there is only a problem if the SC memo had false statements- but if the reflected actual statements it's simply cataloging the HRC camps m.o.

Posted by: jacade | January 16, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I apologize for missing the typo in "African".

Posted by: r_newton | January 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Here is an excerpt from the NYT editorial I was referring to:

Mrs. Clinton ran an angry campaign in New Hampshire, and polls showed that voters noticed. She won narrowly, but came perilously close to injecting racial tension into what should have been -- and still should be -- an uplifting contest between the first major woman candidate and the first major African-American candidate.

In the days before the voting, Mrs. Clinton and her team were so intent on talking about how big a change a woman president would be -- and it surely would -- that some of her surrogates even suggested that it would be a more valuable change than an African-American president. Mrs. Clinton managed to energize the women's vote in New Hampshire to win the contest, but the Democratic Party should be celebrating its full diversity, a refreshing and notable difference from the field of Republican contenders.

In Mrs. Clinton's zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama's), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King's soaring rhetoric, but said: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. "

Why Mrs. Clinton would compare herself to Mr. Johnson, who escalated the war in Vietnam into a generational disaster, was baffling enough. It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. She pulled herself back from the brink by later talking about the mistreatment and danger Dr. King faced. Former President Bill Clinton, who seems to forget he is not the one running, hurled himself over the edge on Monday with a bizarre and rambling attack on Mr. Obama.

Mr. Clinton has generally been a statesman as ex-president, and keeping up this sort of behavior will undermine his credibility and ability to do more good.

We understand, and usually admire, Mrs. Clinton's determination. Allowing her team's wearyingly familiar strong-arm instincts to take over would be damaging for the Democrats in the fall, no matter who gets the nomination. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that Democratic voters liked all of their candidates -- they simply chose one. It would be a mistake for a politician whose unfavorable ratings across the nation have long been stuck in the 40 percent range to erase that good feeling about her party.

Put that into your 'Obama started this whole thing' pipe and smoke it.

PS r_newton, if you think Obama has something to gain in being seen as the 'black candidate' perhaps you should take it up with Jesse Jackson.

Posted by: Majorajam | January 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

To spinmisters ,deluded head cases and surrogates posing as reporters:

Collecting comments made by Hillary, Bill and their surrogates that offended many African-Americans is not dwelling on race or sex ; it is citing facts . Reciting those facts lays blame where it belongs - on the Clinton's camp.

All the Clinton's are doing is trying to use our historic social ills to their advantage - and that's shameful and it may not work . I'm pleased this country is showing it won't fall for gimmicks right out of Rove's handbook .

Now ,if we can prevent the hacking of voting machines and insist on the use of tamper proof paper ballots - we stand some chance at holding an honest election.

Posted by: fullerg | January 16, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

This is baloney revisionist history. The day after the New Hampshire primary the New York Times editorial board, who almost assuredly will endorse Clinton, wrote an editorial that stated that the Clinton's tactics bordered on playing the race card. This was before any memo, and before Andrew Cuomo- a high level Clinton supporter- let us know that candidates can't expect to "shuck and jive" their way to the nomination.

We have journalists for a reason that seems to be lost on them. And that reason is to sort through chronologies and facts and give us a story not dictated by a political insider. Obama's admission whether it was an admission of his campaign's involvement in 'the memo', or merely a supporter's, can hardly be construed as owning up to race baiting. Get real!

Posted by: Majorajam | January 16, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

How could it possibly benefit the Clinton campaign to "play the race card", especially at this juncture? Wouldn't alienating the Africn American voters practically assure her defeat in South Carolina? A few days ago, in response to comments that the contest was becoming scrappy, Obama responded to the effect that he could easily compete in such a setting. Obviously it was not an empty boast.

Posted by: r_newton | January 16, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

For all of you talking about who is a racist and who is not, you need to check out Senator Obama's church website, www.tucc.org/about.htm, and their value system www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html, and tell me this man is not a racist himself. What you decide to believe in life will influence the decisions you make, and when you are president, those decisions affect us all. Do we really want him to be our next president? I don't. Not if these are his beliefs.

Before you think I am racist for having a problem with this website, replace the word black with the word white. If that would offend you, then why should it be ok as it stands now. If this country wishes to move forward, we have to get past double standards in race.

And before you judge me for the things I have said, please know I am a young white southern christian, and one of my best friends and mother figure to me (when mine was nowhere to be found) is a poor, middle age, evangelical black woman, who is a better woman on her worst day than most other women are on their best day. I could not imagine my life without her, nor would I be who I am today without her. So I am not racist, nor do I care what walk of life somone is in. How rich or poor you are does not affect whether you are racist, nor does it affect whether you are a good person or not, those are personal decisions we each make every day.

So please, stop with the racism Obama and Clinton. Both of you need to grow up. We all know life is different for blacks and whites. Life is different for most other cultures and other religions, so quit beating a dead dog. We all need to start stepping up and taking responsibility for our own words and actions, and stop blaming everyone else. Otherwise, we will still all be bickering about the same issues 100 years from now.

So, Obama, any answers about your racism?

Posted by: shadow3720 | January 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

After reading several of the posting and being a Clinton supporter because I felt overall.......Bill was a very good president. An as a African American I have looked at the Omaba's campaign with the same level of scrutiny as Hillary and John Edwards they all have some well positioned policies and some not so good. So I must say I was completely horrified to watch and read the level venom over the last week. To use the standard cliche, "I have been black all my life" so it pains me to see and hear the same old race arguments, from both sides. It is true that most white Americans have NO clue on the actual thoughts and feeling of most African Americans, I say this with very close white friends...not just "I know a white person" as much we discuss issues they still can't accept complexities of being black in America, it always returns to stereotypes....blacks think this....should do this....why don't THEY. So disappointing!

As mention in some of the earlier posting the Democrats are setting themselves up to pass the Presidential chair right back to the Republican Party. I am looking for someone that can get us back on the track, the track that Bill left the country in 2000, reasonable good economic footing, balance budget, also looking at government to figure out how to make it work for everyday Americans. Like how to send kids to college without having $100K in student loans when they finish. We need to leave the country better off for the next generation, so this whole debate about race is a false argument. Without a strong African American vote for the Democratic nominee no one wins. And just looking at the facts, this has made me upset to see the Democrats loosing focus of the main objective of replacing the Republican President and his misguided polices.

With all that said, the Clintons (and their supporters) need to turn down the volume, dividing the black vote is not a winning strategy. Do I think the Clintons played the race card, yes, did Obama play possum with it also, yes. But what disturbed me, was the Clintons doing the George Bush policy of ALWAYS ATTACK. When the issue of her comments about Martin Luther King first came out she could very easily said "The statement was taken out of context and if I offended anyone I regret it" like all public officials do..... not that the response is sincere or not, I would have accepted it. But instead, like Bush when anyone questions anything he says the first thing is to destroy the messenger. That type of response has gotten the country into a war that we have no idea how to end...no matter who becomes the next President. Hopefully, we can get back on track of discussing the issues. Hillary could have gotten my vote so easily, if she only didn't follow the standard political script .....now she needs prove she deserve it.....what a waste of time. Plus, I don't want to start looking at John McCain.

Posted by: tboykins | January 16, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Anne, Will you please stop needling our thoughts by bringing this topic of race again and again. We had enough of it and we need to try to recover from it.

Posted by: fridamulindayahoocouk | January 16, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Looking at all the racism claims here I don't see Obama leading to more unity in this country. If anything, his reign will bring more animosity unless his supporters start seeing that not every criticism of Obama is race-based. I've looked through comments on many sites and every reporter who criticized Obama was called a racist by at least some Obama's supporters. My fear is that when he takes office, if he gets any of the same criticism all previous presidents received, there's going to be a lot of name calling and I don't envy reporters who will have to cover the story.

Posted by: RedMenace1 | January 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The race and victim cards have been played. Just prior to the SC primary. Very effective-check out the uncommitted stats for the Michigan primary. The timing was perfect by the Obama staff. Bill Clinton says Obama's stance on the war is a fairy tale and somehow that is racist-how? Hilary adds that LBJ got the civil rights legislation passed. He did. It took a guy that powerful-he was as head of the Senate for years, way before he became president. But of all the leaders and people who worked for civil rights-it was Dr.King, who through using spiritual principles and sacrifice really produced results. It was a partnership of different elements-a brotherhood of morality and justice that did it. The same will be needed if Obama, Hilary or any decent figure becomes the nominee. If not the presidency will be lost again. The Clintons are not racist nor are they pure. But we sure had one great booming economy and the country moved forward. I am an independent who likes several from each party to different degrees and I want something better for our country and us than we are receiving now.

Posted by: jjj1 | January 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

infantry11b4faus, why are you hiding your real middle name?

I would, too, if mine was A**hole!

Posted by: kshe7 | January 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

barack [which means blessed] HUSSEIN [his real middle name - so his name is one typicle of islamics = blessed Hussein] obama can, like all islamics, lie when it suits him. all islamics, in pursuit of power, can even pretend to be a different religion, drink, smoke, and anything thing an islamic can NOT do, if in pursuit of spreading islam, which HUSSEIN obama is doing and will do if elected.
why is he hiding his full name?

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | January 16, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Once and for all, go to MSNBC's First Read to get the accurate timeline of the events that have unfolded over the last two weeks. There you will see that Hillary's Clinton's problems started when she was trying to win the point about "hope."

The memo from the Obama campaign did not START this episode. And it pales in signigficance when you look at the volume, tone, tenor, and "delivery agent" of the attacks against Sen. Obama by members of the Clinton team, her surrogates and supporters.

All Obama did last night was to graciously allow Clinton some wiggle room to get out of the horrendous situation she found herself in.

Now, should these attacks resume, the Obama campaign -- and by extension, those of us who support him -- are entitled to vigorously defend our candidate.

If Hillary wants to play the "I'm just a poor, little woman" card, she is free to do so with statements about herself. But she cannot claim she was piled on, beaten up, victimized by the men -- particularly the black man -- in this race.

This episode has shown Hillary to be ruthlessly ambitious, cunning and calculating -- all things we knew about her before. While those traits are admirable in Lady Macbeth, I'd prefer a different skill set in my President.

That is why I'll will gleefully vote for Barack Obama in the primary and for the OBAMA/EDWARDS ticket in the general election in the fall.

Posted by: jade_7243 | January 16, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"sort" = "short"

(darn spellchecker -- at least I didn't say "snort" ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Other candidates like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul have voted AGAINST funding the war -- if Obama announced today that he would no longer vote for war appropriations and if the President does not bring the troops home by March 30th, he would vote to convict on a Bill of Impeachment, that might just convince me he's "consistent" against the Iraq war.

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

smeesq:

What is the "sort, concise" explanation for Obama voting for war funding but saying he opposes said war?

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

First, the "memo" goes out. Then, Obama calls Clinton's MRC remarks "ill advised". Next, his surrogate in a PBS interview repeatedly bemoans the "fact" that Cinton is not sticking to the issues. Finally, he proposes a "cease fire". Pretty slick, I'd say.

Posted by: r_newton | January 16, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Is this what we want for political debate. Stop it now.

President John Edwards.

Posted by: capemh | January 16, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary went into the Primary thinking it was just a formality. When she came in 3rd in Iowa it sent a clear message to all the candidates that people are sick and tired of the political cronyism in Washington, lobbyist and special interest groups looting American citizens.

Posted by: gal7764 | January 16, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

All the toxic acid that comes out of the Clintons mouths and campaign gives me Heartburn.

Posted by: dan8 | January 16, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

The Race Baiting is clearly be done by the Media! Articles like the "Farrakhan test" are to throw flames on the fire. White voters today are much smarter than that and the Media and Racist Reporters should expect a backlash over this.

While the real racist continue to whine, the Obama movement continues to gather major support. While Hillary supporters are left with rigging Diebold machines!

Posted by: systemsthinking | January 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I come from a family of fiscal conservative Republicans (most of the men) and lots of liberal feminists (the women.) We're not arguing politics anymore, we all think that Obama is an intelligent, thoughtful,hardworking,honest-even inspiring-candidate.
Obama needs to ignore most of the mud that the Clinton's are slinging; when he does respond it should be short and concise, and then move on to talk in detail about issues. And his staff should keep their mouths shut, and their memos private unless they have been directed by their boss otherwise.

Posted by: smeesq | January 16, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton had a point about the "fairy tale" being Obama's consistency on being against the Iraq war: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html#comments

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

The only people I see and hear on the radio talking about race is the Clintons...They are injecting race and trying to make it look like it started with Barack. And Clinton surely can't talk about someone telling fairy tales...

Posted by: gal7764 | January 16, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

You would have to have just landed from Mars to think the Obama campaign is not playing the race card.


They are doing to galvanize black voters in key states. That they distort the truth just like Rush Limbaugh is not a problem for them.


So much for Obama's "new way"

Posted by: wj_phillips | January 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

i watched bill say the "fairy tale" thing and his tone was so idignant and angry... it was really surprising. i truly believe that the clintons are the origin of the negative campaining - they are the ones who know how to spin. you don't see obama "defending" his own actions or speech, he is the one denouncing OTHER'S actions. the fact that hilary has to defend herself and her husband by spinning and misdirecting their own words makes it pretty obvious to me who engaged in all this in the first place.

Posted by: sparkmika | January 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

HRC and her cadre of Clintonistas started this fight; Obama extented an olive branch. HRC takes it but her lackeys want to continue the mudsling.

Svreader, you might be right on something; being nice will get you killed. So the fight HRC and Co. started. let's finish it and the Clintons at the ballot box. Support Obama; failing that, BOYCOTT HILLARY (since LBJ was the savior of Black people, let HRC & Co. round up LBJ's progeny and get them to vote her into the Oval Office. Certainly HRC does not need Black people (smirk)).

Posted by: meldupree | January 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Look at the polls in SC of blacks supporting Obama versus whites supporting Hillary. Clearly race enters into the contest. But if Blacks vote for Obama because he is black it is not racist but whites voting for Hillary because she is white is Racist. This Nation needs to get away from double standards on race and get away from being so PC correct that serious problems cannot even be discussed and possibly helped without everyone being labeled racist!

For my money all of the candidates will say or do anything to get elected with the exception of Ron Paul where you agree or not with his positions. He is the only one that puts principles, the Constitution and rule of law above money and votes. The rest are party-bound Prostitutes paid by the special interests, swirling and partying, amidst the rubble of their own malfeasance - taking this Nation right down in the gutter with them.

Posted by: american1 | January 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

You folks are crazy. Obama is a class act.

Posted by: TennGurl | January 16, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

It is clear that Obama wanted to inject race into the campaign immediately after losing New Hampshire.

The very next day, after losing New Hampshire, his surrogate Jesse Jackson Jr., an official member of Obama's campaign does an interview with Nora O'Donnell on MSNBC and attacked Hillary Clinton.

Jesse said that Clinton cried in New Hampshire when she thought she was losing but that she never cried for people effect by Katrina.

Now talk about dog whistle politics. What to you think Jesse Jackson Jr. was trying to do, the day after losing New Hampshire, linking New Hampshire with Katrina?

Posted by: dpand1 | January 16, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

I am a 51 year old white male who voted for Jesse Jackson way back in the primary of '84. What is all of the furor about Obama? He is a very good 1 term senator and democrat. How is he qualified to be president? Do we really want Obama following the idiot George Bush? I hate to say it but '08 is starting to look a whole lot like '68. I hope the turn of events don't end up causing the election of someone like McCain (Nixon) this fall. It is kind of silly to try and paint the Clinton's with the paint brush of race.

Posted by: DEWBIG5 | January 16, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Let's see, acknowledging a list of offensive comments made by your opponent versus "I did not have sex with that woman." Yeah, it's a tough one all right.

Posted by: ALessi | January 16, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

the clinton's repositioning is making my mind spin and go numb...i don't have anything good to say, which is surely what they want.

Posted by: edvanrensyahoocom | January 16, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

A additional comment on this issue. I am an African American who happens to support Senator Clinton. This is not to say that I dislike Senator Obama or would not support him fully if he is the Democratic nominee. I have been concerned that the media's treatment of any criticism of Senator Obama is viewed as a racial attack. It is not and the fact the Senator Obama's campaign has promoted this view is playing the victim card. It is counter to the main theme of his campaign and the primary reason he gives to support him - which is that he is a transcendent candidate whose appeal cuts across racial and political lines. His campaign's use of race transforms his campaign from one where his a presidential candidate who happens to be black to a black presidential candidate - ala Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton et al.

Posted by: brian_wood | January 16, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

The Dems will lose in Nov if they nominate Clinton. Haven't they learned from history. The Clintons will do anything to stay in power lie, manipulate, play dirty. That is their game and a lot of people are sick of them.

Posted by: vflex | January 16, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

ABC-Anybody But Clinton.

Posted by: nerdoff | January 16, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Ouch, elroy1.

P.S. to brian_wood -- whenever I've seen Hillary Clinton asked that pointed question, she's deferred to the judgment of the American people -- in the end, they will make the decision.

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

I find it funny that Senator Clinton is criticized for not making the case for her opponents to be President. She has been asked on several occasions if Senators Obama and Edwards are qualified to be President. It's not her job to make the argument to the voters for her opponents. That responsibility falls on Senators Obama and Edwards - not on the Clinton campaign. When Senator Clinton talks about her qualifications to be President and the need to be ready day one, she is not diminishing her opponents nor is she using the scare tactics of President Bush. She is simply making the case for her candidacy; her opponents need to do the same for themselves.

Posted by: brian_wood | January 16, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

We hate Hillary now, but we hate you, JakeD, more.

Posted by: elroy1 | January 16, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

With sobriety and a stiff realism, Democrats need to pause and ask themselves what they have learned about their party and the Machiavellian junior senator from Illinois. The jangling discord you hear all around you is the sound of special interest groups vying for the position of premier victim. It is precisely for this reason that Obama's assertion about being a unifier (when did we hear this before? and why do we buy it now?)is an empty campaign slogan. Then there is the irony that the unifier is actually a race man and, floral rhetoric aside, that is not the human race. He is a race man, obligated by the fractious and contentious ideologies of petty pastors and anti-semitic activists. Everything--everything--will be construed through that lens of race, so that even the staunchest white supporters of civil rights will be maligned and pilloried for having the audacity to ask hard questions of him. The Republicans, of course, will not be constrained by such politically correct and naive notions. They will ask, point out the obvious, and should no lessons be learned, likely win.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | January 16, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

And the big deal is???? They should have released the memo IMHO just to show how all of Hillary's protestations of innocense are bogus. I'm sure Kornblut has seen the memo. Do your job Anne. Report.

Posted by: jam754 | January 16, 2008 6:55 AM | Report abuse

I sure wish that just a few of you who hate the Clintons now had come to that conclusion BEFORE your Senators had voted on his impeachment -- he's up to no good, again, painting Obama as the "establishment" candidate -- Hillary is the OUTSIDER now?!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-15-bill-clinton-nevada_N.htm

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2008 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is a hunk of white trash. I realize now that I never liked him. Anybody but the Clintons in '08.

Posted by: nerdoff | January 16, 2008 6:43 AM | Report abuse

This is great for Obama. It shows that he has some backbone and learning well to play dirty politics. We will need it if he becomes nominee.

Race baiting in part of American politics and he has to play it to win.

Before this he could not buy backbone, voting absent on Iran resolution, changing his action on Iraq war at every turn.

We will need a tough candidate to win against the Republicans

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 16, 2008 5:16 AM | Report abuse

We all lose if race becomes the central issue of this election. Those that do not wish to endure prejudice should not create it.

Stick to the problems that face our country, Obama--the biggest problem being our current government.

Posted by: loudermilk | January 16, 2008 3:45 AM | Report abuse

obama lovers are parsing obama's own admission that his campaign has been pushing unfounded and manipulative talk about racial issues in clinton's comments!!

obama's own statements this entire week has been about race, race, race!!!!!

the anti-clinton bias by WAPO is obvious as it has parroted this insane obama talking point since!

Posted by: mikel1 | January 16, 2008 3:43 AM | Report abuse

.

this is a no-win pointless dialogue/pout-fest/mud-fest that will cost the democrats the entire election if it continues one day more.

shame on all involved whether starting it or merely joining it.

.

Posted by: andfurthermore1 | January 16, 2008 3:08 AM | Report abuse

All said and done, I think the racial overtone is omnipresent. Just see how the blacks reacted by voting uncommitted 68% at the just concluded Michigan primary, days after what Hillary said.

Posted by: kimleng_my | January 16, 2008 2:57 AM | Report abuse

These people are hardcore politicians and they are just warming up. They are in his to win, period. If they tone it down awhile, it is only to minimize possible damage to the candidate, now and in the future. As far as the Post or the author being biased, check the news at Fox, or Rush Limbaugh, or Mitt Romney's new Clear Channel stations, then et back to us. any comment at this point will seem biased because it does not favor a particular candidate.

Posted by: kbtoledo | January 16, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

Boutan: To even think Anne Kornblut is a Hillary supporter. you must be completely out of your mind. She has, over many months been one of the most ardent supporters of Obama. Maybe this is another "Fairy tale" being put out by the Obama campaign.

Posted by: lylepink | January 16, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Axelrod, Plouffe and Gibbs are engaging in gutter politics by unnecessarily injecting race into the primary campaign. I'm glad that the DNC finally told them to knock it off.

Posted by: cali_snowboarder | January 16, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Anne Kornblut... could you at least TRY to conceal the fact you are a raging Clinton supporter? Every post you make gets worse and worse.

I really can't believe that WaPo lets this amateur crap get posted on here... it is as if the web is a suitable place for their cheap hack journalists to cut their teeth...

Posted by: Boutan | January 16, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

"Now it is clear who started all these racial issues."

Dave, are you serious? The memo was a list of comments made by Hillary, Bill and their surrogates that offended many African-Americans. And yet, by gathering these quotes, and putting them on one page, it is somehow Barack's fault that they said these things in the first place?

Posted by: jgerbs711 | January 16, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Liar, liar, liar.
now it is clear who started all these racial issues.

Posted by: dave_whal | January 16, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

I believe that this post is misleading, as it does not include some of the context in which Obama made these comments. He also made it very clear that he condoned the memo and that he had no part in its creation or implementation , talking about how both he and Hillary have had some trouble with some supporters saying and doing things not backed by the campaign. But, that said, it is time to move on from this bickering and focus on the issues.

Posted by: jmztitans2 | January 16, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company