Another cultist, I see. What flavor cool-aid did you consume?

Of course Reed is correct. The Hillary campaign is continuously reminding us of the identities. It is a fact that Obama has begun to attract large numbers of blacks. But that is not his campaign. He is reaching out to a larger audience. It is also true that without explicitly stating it that Hillary has attracted large numbers of women voters. Nothing wrong with that. However, now that she is starting to lose to Obama her campaign explodes with all of these talking points about how she is the victim of sexism. Also implying that many of us who would really like to see the Clinton's removed from the national Democratic Party scene as also being sexist. She and her attack dog Bill are the ones that have introduced identity politics. Obama is the one who is using his primary campaign to build unity among all of those factions, groups and ethnicities that make up the Democratic Party.

I watched tonight the two interviews with Sen Clinton and Sen Obama on the eve of the Potomac Primary contests -- and it became so apparent what the issue is --

Sen Clinton having fought for years and been the victim - some deserved/some not of incessant attacks is now "wounded". She is wounded in the sense that she knows no other way to react/run for office/talk/behave in a retailiatory manner.

The "fighter" that maybe some see as a good thing - seems sad to me -- at this stage of her career Mrs Clinton should not have to fight for everything - but what is clear is that she will not/cannot change

The Clintons truly seem to feel they are victims, that they devoted their life and energy for the common good and we are not grateful enough. I think Sen Clinton really thinks she is the only choice for this election and that we just don't get it.

Personally I spent years defending Bill and Hillary Clinton from family, friends and coworkers who did not like them -- etc--

But I get it now - she is not genuine. There is nothing real about her. Maybe that armor she has been wearing all these years has just worn her down. Maybe it's not fair. But it is what it is.

I heard 80 year old Doug Wilder say today - Pres Clinton was a great president but his time has passed. If an 80 year old man can see the future -so can I.

In the sense that she could have been the first woman President I feel for Hillary Clinton. In the sense that this is my country - I support Barack Obama.

Oh Goodness. Barack Obama, the Dream. The Legend. The Man from a Land called Hope. The Man who will build a Bridge to the Future of Politics...

Until he becomes President and is hit with the full force of the Right Wing Media Machine. And then the man from Hope becomes mired in the Politics of Today.

Thanks, Reed.

Not one person here is likely to explain why they think Obama is the black candidate. Seems like only yesterday that Obama wasn't black enough.

The biggest problem with apartheid politics that the MSM adores is that a candidate like Edwards never got a hearing in trying to talk real issues.

Best, Terry

let's not even attempt to say one of these camps uses identity politics and the other is "above" all that and better.

Well before we jump to any conclusions, I think we should at least run this by my Islamic drug-dealer. Oh wait, nevermind: I buy all my happy pills from Mark Penn, MD, so everything's mellow and I can just project my racial issues onto the actual minority underdog candidate. Get a fucking life, dude.

I go half way with Reed.

I agree
A. Obama makes less use of identity politics than HRC. And perhaps Dukakis and Mondale. And

B. manifests "new politics".

But don't see that B follows from A.
Or worse , that B is identical with A.

What's "new" in Obama is the implication that his willingness to compromise is not just a pragmatic legislative tactic but something much more fundamental , a necessary consequence of respecting the validity of diverse view points . I.e. not "my way or the highway".

Maybe not all that far from "triangulation" !

But I don't see and causal relationship between this philosophy and his scanting of identity politics. The two work on independent axes and it's semantic sleight of hand to imply a necessary connection when what they chiefly share is the accident of each being denominated as "politics"

Reed, It's misleading to refer to "the identity politics of the 60's and 70's." The civil rights movement stood for trans-identity politics--i. e., you have the right to vote, the right to public accommodations, the right to equal schools, and so on regardless of your skin color, sex, etc. This spirit, applied to the overcoming of racial subordination, was then generalized to sex, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. To insist on equal treatment, with all its complexities, was to insist on exactly what you attribute to Obama: "a politics that does not start and finish with demographics, but instead depends on common ethical principles that don't so much cross, as they ignore lines drawn by race, gender, and religion."

In the later '60s and '70s came the hardening of separate categories into what later came to be called "identity politics." Obama knows the difference, I'm sure. He's an early-'60s guy.

Well said, both you and Mr. Gitlin.

It strikes me that there are two issues at play here.

The stuff about 'identity politics' is interesting, but not particularly well enunciated. The kindest thing I'll say is that it's typical Reed. There's an effort to draw a distinction between the Clinton and Obama campaigns as a matter of one practicing 'identity politics' and the other not.

What it is, is Reed's fumbly effort to contribute to the dominant meme here at TPMCafe of Obama = 'Magically Good.' and Hillary = 'Profane Evil.'

There are other variations of the juxtaposition. One is Obama = New/Fresh/Optimistic/Success versus Hillary = Old/Tired/Cynical/Failed.

Is it realistic? Not really. Good and evil are pretty poor concepts to apply here, and it doesn't help to throw in magical thinking versus cynicism. The labels aren't helpful and often aren't particularly accurate.

The truth is that there's not all that much difference between the two. They're both centrist Senate politicians. Obama, particularly, is further to the right than most of his supporters want to admit.

Identity politics play a part in both candidates campaigns, and its nonsense to say that it doesn't. Obama can't escape his blackness any more than Hillary can escape her womanhood. On another thread, much is made of Obama's resort to the revivalist language of black clergy and black Christianity, with its resonance in the civil rights movement. Obama's going to inherit a large black constituency no matter what, as a matter of course. It's not as if Hillary had to point out to blacks that Obama is black. It's not as if blacks decided to vote for Obama without noticing his skin colour.

Nor is it particularly objectionable for blacks to vote for Obama because he's black... any more than it is for women to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. The 'politics of identity' are employed overtly by both.

But in both cases, each attempt to transcend the politics of identity. The truth is that unlike the Dixiecrats, the politics of identity will not translate to a majority. Thus each of them must, as Jesse Jackson once attempted, build a rainbow coalition.

Obama builds roots among blacks, among youth, among Southern state Democrats and among secure upper middle class white Democrats, and among men. Hillary doesn't go over well among these, and in some cases the issue really is misogyny.

Hillary appeals to women, to hispanics, to asians, and somewhat to working classes. These are constituencies that Obama doesn't really seem to have much traction in.

Edwards interestingly enough, tried to run a colour blind campaign, targetted at the working class and poor. His eschewal of identity politics as a base, or building a coalition from there, left him perrenially in third place. There's a lesson for Reed.

What's most interesting to me is how 'clean' the fracture lines seem to be becoming. Blacks, Southern Democrats, etc., break disproportionately for Obama. He's not just winning these constituencies, he's walking away with them. The same thing goes for Clinton, her lead among Hispanics and Asians is in double digits.

Despite the press from the Obama cult, Obama is not a universal unifier. Of course, neither is Clinton, but that's not an accusation levelled at her much. Rather, Clinton is seen as the fundamentally divisive personality, ignoring Obama's own divisive potential. Again, you've got that juxtaposition. Obama = Unity, Clinton = Division.

Anyway, the point is that there are interesting things going on, which are largely overlooked and misrepresented in the constant boosterism of favoured candidates and mindless attacks on disliked candidates.

The other interesting thing that Reed alludes to but doesn't handle particularly well is the role of Bill Clinton as a force in the campaign.

And Clinton, make no mistake, is less a personality than a force. Loud, unmissable, capricious, powerful although not necessarily effective.

I'm casting my mind back, and I can't think of an equivalent for either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Al Gore when he ran, ran away from Bill Clinton... undoubtedly a factor in his defeat. Meanwhile, among Democrat candidates and nominees a 'stab in the back' syndrome emerged. Al Gore sat out the next couple of primaries, but he was notable in his failure to back Lieberman in 2004. Kerry, a sort of empty suit version of Gore, took it a step further, overtly stabbing his former running mate Edwards in the back.

Prior to that, Bill Clinton came to the fore without a patron. No one wanted sponsorship from either Mondale or Dukakis and their respective career ending disasters. Jimmy Carter, arguably the first victim of the hate machine, was literally unwelcome. Johnson's endorsement before him was poison, and so it goes.

On the Republican side, there's a superficial resemblance with the situation of father and son Bush. But remember that father Bush's presidency was seen as a failure, there was little political capital or public influence in a man who was seen as inarticulate, out of touch, spent and unpopular. Bill Clinton in contrast is articulate, in touch, popular and very much a vital active force.

Reagan could have played a similar role as Clinton, but he barely campaigned for Bush senior and due to Alzheimers, had no role in or interest in subsequent Republican nominations

Nixon was poison and it was all he could do to rehabilitate himself. There was no weight to throw around. Ford was a bumbling failure. Dole a 'Kerry-esque' nonentity, neither with weight.

So, what we have is Bill Clinton in an altogether unique situation. A powerful and successful two term President, with constituency and influence largely intact, and weighing in powerfully on the side of his wife.

In this, he's a mixed blessing. When Bill Clinton talks, the media comes, people stop what they're doing and listen. On the other hand, he provokes animosity, he incites the lunatic fringe. It's not clear that his partisanship is always helpful.

One almost has a sense that you'd want him to be more magisterial, above the fray. But often he acts like a partisan hit man. It's a display of loyalty. But is partisan the right role for Clinton? And even if Clinton is a clear partisan, is he in the right role as a partisan? Should he be a hitter, a slugger, a trench and gutter man, or should he be trying to be bigger than that.

I dunno. There's no real precedents, so Clinton has nothing to go on. He has his loyalty to his wife. We have our awkward discomfort.

I am sick of the Clintons portraying themselves as victims. Are they suffering from dementia? Did they forget that they've already had 8 years in the White House and parlayed that into jobs and books earning them mega millions?

The identity politics I oppose is oligarchy. Give someone else a chance!

And back to issues - the war matters hugely to me and I'm more than fed up with being lied to about it. I flatly do not believe Hillary did not know she was voting to authorize war and since she continues to lie about that there is no way I can support her.