I second your post. I was part and parcel of the African American club of Obama doubters. I thought he would lose in Iowa and New Hampshire would seal his fate. I decided that I would vote for Sen. Edwards instead of Sen. Clinton.

This is the first time in my voting life that I have had such an intense conversation about politics with my mother. She has repeated much of your missive. She is totally amazed and she said if Clinton receives the nomination by foul means, she refuses to vote for Clinton. I am bit more reasonable on whether I will vote for Clinton or not because I know that the Supreme Court is due for a new round of justices. After Antonin Scalia made the rounds this weekend I am sure that when I cast my ballot, I will be for the Democrat.

I found this excellent articleabout about the intersection of misogyny and racism in this nominating process.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DD113DF936A35755C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

June 5, 1997
Clinton Plans Moves Aimed to Improve Nation's Race Relations
By JAMES BENNET

After months of White House debate over how to improve race relations and add heft to President Clinton's second term, Mr. Clinton has decided to hold town hall meetings and other events on race around the country, appoint a high-powered advisory panel and write a report next year summarizing his findings.

But the overall goals of the President's race initiative appear fuzzy, and some leaders of civil rights groups are worried that it may be intended more to burnish Mr. Clinton's image than to address intense policy debates that divide along racial and ethnic lines.

Contributing to the skepticism is the leaders' grievance that the Administration is doing too little to protect the rights of minority members. Just last week, the Rev. Jesse Jackson sent a scalding three-page letter to the President, attacking what Mr. Jackson called the ''shameful disrepair'' of the Administration's structure to enforce civil rights laws. Today, Mr. Clinton met for an hour with Mr. Jackson, who had complained that the White House had rebuffed his requests for such a meeting ''over the past several months.''

Quote: "Come to think of it, a lot of Americans feel the same way, period. So, maybe in the final analysis, true leadership and decency just attract people irrespective of race."

Yes! Even though I'm smack in the midst of Hillary's demographic, she's never been my candidate. I used to admire Bill Clinton and loved to listen to him speak. One day, when this is all over, I suspect quite a few of us from all parts of the political spectrum will be trying to sort out what happened, what's left, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama. What's to be said about this incredible candidate who's so gifted, so smart, such a visionary, and, as you say, so decent?

And may I add: I love some of the photographs I've seen from this amazing campaign. One I keep going back to is Michelle Obama working the crowd, shaking hands, etc. and she and this 60-ish black woman are face to face. The older woman is grinning, her mouth open as if she's shouting, and I imagine her saying: "Girl! Look at you!" And Michelle is grinning back, as if to say: "I know! Can you believe it?!"

What a moment! I just love it.

Thank you Boyd, wonderful reflections. You remind me that the quality of the candidate brings out the quality of the electorate. You made me question a few things about myself.

I made up my mind about Barack Obama at the 2004 convention. I was simply gleeful when he decided to run this time around. That may sound like a snap judgement, but I am a writer and words matter to me. They speak of consciousness. That speech did it. This was a man of higher conscience than I had seen in politics in my lifetime.

I am Hillary's demographic (like Lynn Dee) and there is not a moment of my life that you would have been able to get me to vote for Hillary Clinton, although I would love a woman president. What is ironic is that I have always understood that the African American community is not monolithic, and was not going to vote for someone simply because they were black for the same reason that women over 50 are not monolithic and will not vote for someone simply because they are a woman.

So why over the course of this campaign have I not been willing to look more closely at the person to whom the polls say I should want to cleave to? Because I am a writer, and words matter to me.

In the South Carolina comments I heard more than marginalization, I heard dismissal. In the fairy tale comments I heard contempt. The Nevada comments were the ones that took the cake - accusing Obama's supporters of suppressing the vote in front of Bill and Chelsea on the floor of a casino, in public? What kind of fools were they taking us for? This was, from early on, beyond the pail. This was disdain for the American public who was viewed as not being intelligent enough to see through the wagging finger. The wagging finger that means I am about to manipulate you, you silly voter you.

Yes, the quality of the candidate brings out the quality of the electorate. This time we get to see how many voters have the qualities that bring purpose, integrity and consciousness into the White House, and how many don't.

Desidero,

I love it when you respond, because I donate to the Obama campaign just for you. I haven't maxed out yet, so keep up your attacks.

Cha-Ching!

I'm a 52 year old white guy in suburban Chicago. Been a Obama supporter since the start. Spent $30 to get up at 4:30am to take a bus down to Springfield in February 2007 for the privilege of freezing my toes off watching him throw his hat in the ring. I told a TV reporter I was a supporter because of his big brain and big heart.

Since then I've done my own informal polling of everybody - as a precinct committeeman it's part of the job. The Clintons have deep ties that go way back in the black community. The first time I heard Bill Clinton's name mentioned as a candidate for president was from a black guy in 1991. I thought a governor from a small, poor state who had already been fired once by Arkansans? Where's that coming from? This guy knew something I didn't, I was intrigued and I've never forgotten that conversation.

Until IA a lot of the black folks expressed skepticism. From older black women who were overwhelmingly in Hillary's camp I heard the phrase "he's just a baby" a number of times. Remember last November Hillary still held a 20% lead in SC among black folks.

Obviously Obama has more than reversed that sentiment. Here's my take on it, as reliably Democratic voters black people pragmatically are focused on the most important thing: electing a Democratic president. This election is too important to support another Jesse Jackson if that's all Obama was going to be and couldn't attract enough white support to win. When it became clear that he not only could attract white voters but was also clearly the better candidate it became a no brainer. Black folks may be shocked, but they aren't dumb. They're going with Obama not because he's a black candidate, they're going for him because he has the best chance to win in the fall. The fact that he's a brother is a very happy plus but it's not the overriding factor.

Great post. Spot on.
Bill and surrogates were laying race landmines just begging the Obama camp to cry "foul."
Ugh. I hate to say it, but do you know who was pushing the "why is Obama so sensitive about appearing in his native Somali garb?" line? Stephanie Tubbs-Jones. Yep, willfully "accidentally"misrepresenting the background and origin of the photo and of Obama himself.

Great post. Spot on.

This 57 year old white female feminist is solidly in Obama's court.

How the press does not cover how the Clintons have squandered the black vote is beyond me. The assumption that blacks were going to vote for the black guy anyway is just insulting. The Clintons should have kept a sizeable portion of the black vote throughout this race. The Clintons have purposefully tried to paint Obama as only the "black" candidate, and done everything they can to instill fear of the "black man". When she was silent after the speech on race, I was pretty much done with her. A democrat with any decency, and especially one running for president, embraces a speech like that that embodies Democratic ideals. But it was not in her to do one, simple decent, Democratic thing. It's one thing to want to win at all costs; it's another thing to do it by throwing the ideals of your party under the bus with such relish.

During Hillarcare in the early '90's, Hillary thought if she gave away the store to her enemies, they would reward her. Bill Clinton did that throughout his Administration, and we know how they paid back his numerous favors. Hillary has learned nothing -- by pandering to the Rush Limbaugh wing of the Democratic party she might run up some more white votes. But are these people voting for Hillary in the GE against McCain? Of course not. And in her lust, and evident comfort with this lowball pandering, she has insulted and demeaned one of the most loyal voting blocs of the Democratic party. And let's not forget voters like me, whom she has horrified.

I loved and defended the Clintons for years, through their ethical lapses, their shady campaign deals and Bill's reckless behavior that gave the presidency to George Bush. Why in the world they feel entitled to a return to the White HOuse is beyond me. They may think they are the only ones with any answers; but haven't we had enough messianic delusions to last us a lifetime?

Excellent post, Boyd. Thanks very much for taking the time to write it.

I don't think the Clinton's are racist, and I do completely believe that they did a tremendous amount to help the black community. However, this is politics, which isn't ever about what the politician did or said. It is about perceptions, and media, and is tremendously dependent on the politicians ability to get his/her message out, without saying many things that can be easily misinterpreted.

Both Obama and Clinton have been tripped up by saying things that were easily misinterpreted. Clinton with the "MLK, Fairy tale, Jesse Jackson" comments, and Obama with the "bitter" comment. All of these comments can be interpreted to look like the candidate is saying something that he or she is not. These are mistakes, and they have been costly to both candidates.

I will grant that Hillary has a track record that should have given her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to racial issues, and Obama is largely an unknown. But, this is what politics in this country has become...a battle of twisting the words and speeches of the other candidate, getting 24/7 media coverage of the misinterpretation, and pretending to be outraged at the views of the other candidate. It is truly sad.

Ahh, Mr. Glad, You reveal yourself to be increasingly petty, small and irrelevant.

Nothing personal, of course. :)

Great post, Boyd (a long read, but it pays off!)

Very fine post.

One way to measure a good post for Obama, and one that clearly hits a Clinton weakness, is the space and energy Billy Glad devotes to a rebuttal. Billy is a very smart fellow. He knows when his candidate is hurt, and when that happens, he gets in high gear. One way he counters an argument is to skillfully demean other posters. This is another indication that he's worried about the impact.

One mistake the Clinton campaign has made is having Billy Glad canvassing a few voters in Indiana when they really should have him in their war room. He's a lot smarter than the people they have. I'd assign Billy to watch over Bill. He's got the savvy, he's got the toughness. He's got the balls that Bill has never had.

But Obama has the high road. Walk on brother.

Quote: "Call me perverse, but I appreciate a candidate who understands what's good politics versus what's always strictly the best policy. Sometimes you have to lay a big piece of cheese in the mousetrap to get something more important done."

Looks like truth is proving to be pretty good politics too.

There are many reasons why blacks and whites (and gays and Asians and Hispanics...) have turned away from Clinton and toward Obama.

Clinton panders. She's a phoney. To be a "tough fighter" she favors Republican tactics and talking points. She and Bill have pushed the race button.

Are blacks voting for Obama just because he's black? Are women voting for Clinton just because she's a woman -- or is it mysogynistic to ask that?

I'm a white aging dude, but I took the same path as Boyd, almost. I thought it would be Clinton, would have to be Clinton, the stars (and media) foretold it... I wanted Edwards, Richardson, Obama, couldn't make up my mind (as a Michigan resident, thought I wouldn't really need to make up my mind).

Like Boyd, I thought Obama might be held back because of race, but was amazed that he was getting ahead. Then, the realization: Obama is winning in spite of race. Obama is winning because he's solid, because he's the best one for the job. I mememe put it best up above: "Let's face it: Obama is deep! He's tough! He's genuine!"

It's amusing that we have a couple posters here pooping their little piles all over, trying to convince us that blacks vote for Obama because he's black. Nope, that sweeping generality just doesn't explain it.

Blacks and whites can see it for themselves: Obama is wining in spite of race.

Quote: "One way to measure a good post for Obama, and one that clearly hits a Clinton weakness, is the space and energy Billy Glad devotes to a rebuttal."

LOL! I know you must be laughing, Billy. You seem like someone who can appreciate a good skewering, even when it's your liver that's being punctured.

:)

Thank you for your thoughtful post... you have contributed to the discussion in a beautiful way...

Okay, now I'm angry. I'm glad this primary has gone on for this long, because it has revealed how many people think that Black people, as a whole, are deaf, dumb, and blind. At the beginning, I thought HRC was getting a bumb rap as being too divisive. I felt that she was extremely intelligent and competent, and people were just using any excuse to dislike her. However, it NEVER occurred to me, that as a Black person, I owed any loyalty/allegiance or otherwise to her because of what her husband did. Condescending much? Where do I begin. I don't know the full extent of Bill's record, but it is undisputed that he appointed several people of color to prominent positions, and also supported civil rights legislation. But even if that were a persuasive argument to support HRC, which it isn't, Bill's record doesn't have anything to do with her. It confounds belief that so many people are just willing to accept this "it was good in the 90s" logic. She was NOT president then, several articles have pointed out, it was NOT good in the 90s for everybody, and the circumstances in this country, and the world for that matter, have changed dramatically since that time.

Also, HRC was going to have to work extra hard to get my vote anyway. Contrary to whatever useless poll is telling people, my biggest issue was the vote on the Iraq war. To me, that is the biggest foreign policy blunder of our generation. So the fact that HRC exercised such poor judgment on this issue, meant she was going to have to bring the heat, but she hasn't. I'm not saying that all of the criticism of her, or her positions, is fair, but with her switheroo on NAFTA, the blatant conflict of interest with CAFTA, the feigned outrage speeches, the sniper fire, the Ireland peace talks, Farrakhan, gas-tax pandering, threatening to "obliterate" a country in a hypothetical, the FL/MI debacle, the dream ticket crap, and the list goes on, I have several other reasons NOT to vote for her because of the things that SHE alone has done. Not because of Bill's bizarre statements, or even those of her surrogates/supporters. But, HER. I have a problem with HER specifically.

But no, nobody considers all that. Because I'm Black, these idiots automatically assume that I would vote for a candidate because of tribalism. Am I proud of Barack? Yes. Do I think he offers something the other candidates don't? Yes. Do I think he is the perfect candidate? No. But I am willing to give him a shot.

I even have to disagree with Boyd. I didn't fall for that "inevitability" of Clinton argument. I knew for some reason, that Obama was going to be competitve in this race, and I was right. He has made some notable mistakes, but to be new to the game, he has done fairly well.

But, back to my original statement. For those that don't know, it is EXTREMELY offensive to suggest that Black people are "pissing" on the Clintons. I'm not pissing on anyone. I just don't think she has the type of vision and character that I want in the next President.

Billy-

I am truly sorry for you. I feel as if I'm gloating sometimes (sorry- been a long time since i've felt good about a candidate...since WJC to be exact). Then I see shit like this:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/01/the_quotable_sh.html

I know, I know, I'm a sucker. How can this stuff be accurate? All these people are out to get her. It's so shallow to mislead folks like some of these sites do. Even though there is no basis in truth. It's really unfair to Hillary when people just won't give her a break. The gas tax thing, and all... man, seems people just want to label her as a panderer! Ya' know, If I was her, and I was scared of terrorists, I would have voted the same damned way too. After all, she did the research, right? There was a lot of people fooled just like she was. And the damned MSM just keeps asking her the first question and all. Why can't you people see this stuff like Billy does... I mean, this poor bastard has walked door to door (online) for this woman, spent hard earned money, written countless intelligent and researched posts defending this bitch! She owes it to Billy to win! I don't care HOW she does it-- burn, baby, burn!

HRC Campaign '07-'08: On top, stumbled, fell, and lost what was owed her-- Tragic.

a moment of silence, please...

ok, coffee anyone?

White voters look at the issues and vote for the best candidate. Black voters simply vote for Oilbama because he is Black. Never mind that Oilbama is in the pocket of Big Oil, and voted for Dick Cheney's Big Oil Energy Bill. Very Racist, should be a big story in this election.

There are many good reasons to vote for Obama, some of which are mentioned in this post. However, alleged race baiting by the Clintons is certainly not one of them. This is one of the most serious and destructive charges a person can make - and one that is belied not only by the Clintons' history in attempting to promote better race relations, but by the candidate himself; back in January, Obama said: "What I am absolutely convinced of is that everybody here is committed to racial equality—has been historically." These specious claims of racism threaten to fracture the coalition the Democrats desperately need to prevail in the next election -no matter who the nominee is. By promoting and exploiting racial divisisions, Obama supporters do their candidate no favor - and in fact exhibit the same polarizing attitudes that he eloquently exposed in his speech in Philadelphia. Most important, the claims themselves are specious. To that end, I am quoting the transcript of Bill Clinton's remarks after South Carolina that caused such a furor. Let me preface this by saying that leading up to the South Carolina primary, everyone was predicting a big Obama victory based upon a large African American turnout. To those who see racism here, I would ask what they think Bill should have said differently? Anyway, here it is, for your edification. (For some reason, I don't get the icon that permits block quotes or hyperlinks).

Bill Clinton: Wow. Hi, Everybody.

Reporter: How’s it going for you this morning, Mr. President?

BC: Oh, good. You know, I like election days and I think it’s interesting they vote on Saturday here, it makes it easier for working people to go. You know, there’s really not much you can do to change a lot of votes, but by stirring around you may induce people who are for you to go ahead and vote when they might not have.

Reporter: You proud of what you’ve done here in South Carolina?

BC: Oh yeah, we’ve done our best, and we’ve had, I particularly have enjoyed, you know, my role here has been almost exclusively to go around and do town meetings and answer questions, that’s most of what I’ve done, and I’ve really enjoyed that. I think it’s been immensely impressive to me to see in the audiences whether they were predominately African American, predominately white, or totally integrated, there has not been a great deal of difference in the questions people ask. If the voters really are intensely interested in what we can do to change the economic direction of the country, what we can do about healthcare, what we can do to restore our country’s standing in the world. And there doesn’t seem to be even a great deal of difference in the questions asked, depending on who they’re supporting, so I’ve – I like that, because, you know, I just answer questions. They know I know some things about this stuff, I make the case for Hillary as best I can, but basically I just tell them why I’m for Hillary, and then I answer their questions.

Reporter: That said, some of the folks in your own party have accused you of race baiting here.

BC: Yeah, well I would refer them to what John Lewis and Andrew Young – two people left who were with Martin Luther King every step of the way – said. I don’t have to defend myself on civil rights, and John Lewis and Andrew Young said what needed to be said about that. There’s nothing left for me to say.

Reporter: Mr. President, Senator Kerry that – had some critical comments too about some of the things that have gone on this week. He said being a former president doesn’t give you a license to abuse the truth. Just wanted your reaction to that.

BC: Yes, but did you notice he didn’t specify anything? You notice that? They never do. They hurl these charges, but nothing is specified. I’m not taking the bait today. I did what I could to help Senator Kerry every time he needed me, and every time he asked me, and I have no -- he can support whomever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, but there’s nothing for me to respond to because I don’t believe in labeling, I think he should have specifics, so today we just want everybody to vote.

David Wright: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?

BC: [Laughs] That’s just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here. He’s run a good campaign everywhere, he’s got a, he is a good candidate, with a good organization.

DW: He says he is sometimes not sure who his opponent is, you or his wife.

BC: That is bait, too.

DW: Your wife, rather, sorry.

BC: I am working for my wife because I believe she’d be the best president. If weren't married, I'd be working for her if she asked me to. And his wife’s done a good job for him, and --

DW: She’s not an ex-president of the United States, though.

BC: I know but that doesn’t mean that – I’m still a citizen now, when, you know, I can't wait to get back to my foundation work. I’m not a direct, directly involved in politics but I am concerned about my country and I think she’d be the best president. And I would be working for her if we had never been married. She’s the best qualified person I’ve had a chance to support for president in my lifetime. For, because of the variety of experiences she’s had but because of the things she has done in every stage of her life to change other people’s lives for the better, and that’s what I say, my message has been 99.9 percent positive for 100 percent of this campaign.
Not only about her, but about the other candidates. And I think that when I think she’s being misrepresented I have a right to try to, with factual accuracy, set the record straight, which is what I have tried to do.

let this topic die already! the truth is blacks should not have to explain why they are voting for obama in droves anymore than they have had to explain why they have continually voted for white democratics in the past.

obama just happen to be a better candidate this time around and not only black people are realizing it. if you are for hrc, good for you. the same white posters who are crying racism b/c blacks are casting that vote for obama, neglect the fact that rural whites and women have overwhelming cast their vote for hrc.

we do not need to be rocket scientist to admit to ourselves that at least some of the votes on both end of the spectrum is purely race-related; however, it is an insult to suggest that the majority of blacks are voting simply on color and nothing else. obama is getting support across all colorlines. the fact that he is so inclusive will undoubtedly resonate more firmly with blacks.

keep in mind obama initially couldn't get blacks to support him. they didn't believe in their own. he had to prove himself worthy. everyone including blacks were willing to hand that vote to hrc simply bc she is brand name. one cannot deny the fact that once you get to know obama, he is not a shabby guy.

obama cannot and will not win everyone's vote, so to Otto and the like, give it a rest. i am proud to be an obama supporter. this campaign really opened up all of our eyes and now we all know what we are up against. for too long, we swept the obvious under the rug and pretend all is peachy in the name of affirmative action.

if you think hrc and her surrogates were not race baiters and if you think she doesn't resort to any and every dirty trick to win, then cast that vote for her. i happen to disagree strongly. i will take my chances with obama b/c his campaign is a good example of what an obama presidency could mean--inclusiveness, the people first, humility, well-reasoned, compassionate and above "honesty". regardless of where you stand, obama tends to do what he considers to be the right thing even if it could cost him. i am sure he will lose IN and barely win NC b/c he didn't pander with the gas tax. well if that happens, then it means the american people for all of our hollow cries demanding truth and honesty, really prefer the okiedoke!!

i like obama have faith in the american people to do what is right even if in the face of adversity. that is why millions are voting for him even though hrc, her surrogates, her supporters on the blogs and the republican machine would prefer we focus on what distinguishes us v/s what unites us!

What will be very interesting to see is the whining from Oilbama supporters, should he steal the nomination by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, after white voters overwhelmingly vote for McCain. Oilbama supporters will try and claim that voters are racist picking McCain while ignoring the overwhelmingly racist voting record of Blacks in this primary.

RALEIGH, N.C., May 2 (UPI) — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has been avoiding stops in black communities in his quest to become the first black major party nominee for the U.S. presidency.

The saddest line in this sorry story? “Isaac Onah, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina, told the Boston Globe that black voters appear to understand Obama’s campaign strategy.” Oh great, Barack. Even your hapless black supporters know you’re trying to win white votes by not being seen with them.

Maybe Obama’s like his preacher. He talks the talk about racial equality and believes in black nationalism. But where is Rev. Wright having his church pay for and build his multi-million-dollar mansion? In an overwhelmingly WHITE and GATED community, on a golf course. Talk’s cheap, isn’t it.

Talk’s cheap, isn’t it.

If it wasn't, you wouldn't be hanging around here. Or does the Aryan Nation pay you?

Here yee here ye. Love your post. Thanks. A lot of white people feel the same. We are offended by hypocrisy, low ball tactics and race baiting as well. Clinton is hoping to win the nomination and that we'll all then forget and forgive. She's counting on us all to have very short memories. Not me. I shant be forgetting come November.

Sending you a shout-out from Rockford! We have a very strong Obama group here and throughout northern Illinois.

Obama 08

If Clinton was a stronger candidate she would have a lot more support from the AA community even with all her racially insensitive (or perhaps calculated) gaffes. Also Obama's message of change resonates much better within the AA community; they tend not to see the status quo as being something good.

I have to chuckle that my least favorite African American politician, Harold Ford, is still an ardent DLC Hillary fan.

I'm glad you like your candidate. I don't vote for someone based on the size of their crowds myself; plus, I keep seeing articles like this and this, written by African Americans.

eastside93...I submit that the candidacies of Jesse Jackson prove this point. Jackson NEVER (as in never, never ever) drew this kind of A-A support at the polls. The reason? Many of us knew he wasn't going to win.

I've never seen the ethnic voting breakdowns of what Jackson got of the AA vote so I can't do comparisons here but I would say that reading your comment regarding Jackson's candidacy pissed me off about as much as when Barry disparaged Jackson's accomplishments in the same way. I'm wondering. Why does Obama resent being compared to Jackson? Jackson has made it easier for him.

In 1988, Jackson won 11-13 primaries/caucuses. I think he led in delegates after either Super Tues or maybe winning the MI primary shortly thereafter. I registered as a Dem to vote for him that year and he narrowly lost my state and basically lost the nomination after WI voted big for Dukakis.

Maybe, as an Obama supporter, you can tell me...why does Obama resent being compared to Jackson? He should have embraced it but he'd already gone race pimp by that time with the phony outrage over the MLK/LBJ bs.

A campaign that believes it will 'provide true leadership and decency' (as Boyd Reed puts it) shouldn't descend so readily into the slime and innuendo that Mr Reed so clearly enjoys. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: and the proof here is that Mr Reed (and the Obama campaign) are invariably willing to go negative and spew racist rumor and innuendo about the Clintons. Mr Reed's so-called epiphany is really just a thinly-veiled diatribe against the Clintons - not an inspiring explanation of his support for Obama. Why is he only able to explain his support for Obama through his spite for the Clintons? Why does he need to vilify the Clintons to rationalize voting for Obama? Why, in fact, should his, or anyone else's, decision become so cartoonish - especially when we as a nation are facing such really un-cartoonish challenges at this time.

Here is what Mr Reed managed to be magnanimous enough to say about the Clintons:

1) "Yes, I knew she had some shadiness in her past."

2) "I never thought Bill was a racist.  However, I knew he was race-baiting in his comments."

3) "I started to remember some of the scandals - and recalled that very little of Hillary's history had ever really been explored."

4) ".... although my background research on Clinton left me nervous, .."

5) "... Hillary Clinton's tacit acceptance of Ferraro's ridiculous statements.."

6) "Yes, Black voters noticed Bill Shaheen, the South Carolina comments, the  Somali tribal garb photo, .."

7) "There are many theories about what's happened this year.  Most of them center around the signs of race-baiting from the Clinton campaign."

8) ".... she began to align more and more with the Republican side."

9) "We watched Clinton's rallies, where she drew mostly white women, and realized that we wouldn't be comfortable at those events."

10) ".....we watched Clinton triangulate, prevaricate and obfuscate her way through this primary season."

11) ".. toxic behavior from the Clintons that's turning off voters of all hues."

12) "... Hillary Clinton assumed that we'd be there for her when needed, and allowed her campaign to exude indifference to everyone except her sisterhood."

13) ".....true leadership and decency just attract people irrespective of race.  It's a concept that just doesn't fit in the poll-tested, micro-trended campaign strategery of Hillary Clinton.."

I suggest that Mr Reed continue on in his research quest (even though it makes him nervous) into the 'shadiness' of Clinton's past. See what you can dig up, why don't you? You've already found out that she's lacking in decency and is a racist, toxic, shady operator and obfuscatory type of Republican to boot - who only associates with white lesbian women (the sisterhood) and is indifferent to everyone else. I think you'll be lucky if you can beat that, though.

For the rest of us, however, I thought Rachel Sklar (Huffington Post) put it best, in January, when she reported on this whole race-baiting scam just as it began soon after the Primary in New Hampshire. Here is what she said:

"I have been appalled and dismayed at how the media have glibly mis-characterized Bill Clinton's "fairytale" comments as being about anything other than Barack Obama's position on the Iraq war, which was clearly the context in which the comment was made. Despite that, the media, commentators, the Obama campaign and now Michelle Obama, explicitly in a televised speech, have mis-characterized that comment to imply (nay, flat-out say) that Clinton called Obama himself a "fairytale," as well as his message of hope and redemption for disenfranchised minorities.

This would be fine if he had said that. BUT HE DIDN'T. So leaving aside the merits of what he did say regarding the Iraq war (which Obama has disputed), the fact remains: The media, TV commentators, the Obama campaign and now Michelle Obama - a very smart woman who has to know exactly what she is doing - is perpetuating that misinterpretation in order to imply that the Clintons are trying to tamp down on the African-American dream.
This is not an exaggeration. Here are Michelle Obama's remarks, verbatim, from her speech tonight:

'Sometimes we feel it's better not to try at all than to try and fail. These are complicated emotions, left in our heads and hearts from years of struggle, emotions we must face if we're going to overcome as a community if we want to lift ourselves up. We must do it in the face of those who will attempt to play on those emotions for our own purposes, to discourage us from believing what is possible...to dismiss this moment as an illusion, as a fairytale.'

I like Michelle Obama a lot, and I consider her a woman of integrity, so this bothers me -- because it is NOT WHAT CLINTON SAID. And it is certainly not what the Clintons are seeking to do, to keep black people -- or any people! -- from having hopes or aspirations for the future. Come on. That is so patently unfair and plays to the basest of emotions: fear. Isn't that what Obama spoke so eloquently against in his speech after Iowa? Is that really how his campaign wants to whip up support in South Carolina, by whipping up a fervor against the Clintons - on false grounds?"

That about sums it up. You can read her whole report and others here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

Another thing you should read is Sean Wilentz's February 27 piece in the New Republic entitled 'Race Man'. Here is part of his last two paragraphs:

"In doing so, the media has confirmed what has been the true pattern in the race for the Democratic nomination--the most outrageous deployment of racial politics since the Willie Horton ad campaign in 1988 and the most
insidious since Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, praising states' rights.

It may strike some as ironic that the racializing should be coming from a black candidate's campaign and
its supporters. But this is an American presidential campaign--and there is a long history of candidates
who are willing to inflame the most deadly passions in our national life in order to get elected. Sadly, it is
what Barack Obama and his campaign gurus have been doing for months..."

Dear Mr Reed:

Let me assure you that I too am a very fair and nice person.

You say that race didn’t enter into your calculations at all. Why did you then say in your post that you ‘knew’ that Bill Clinton was ‘race baiting’? And, what about detecting ‘the signs of race-baiting from the Clinton campaign’? And, what did you mean when you said that you "“watched Clinton’s rallies, where she drew mostly white women, and realized that we wouldn’t be comfortable at those events.”? It is, of course, patently untrue to suggest that 'mostly white women' attend HRCs events - but worse, your comment is very close to being either racist and/or misogynistic. Which do you prefer? Why would 'white people' who might also be 'women' make you feel uncomfortable? For someone who claims that he doesn't take race into account you seem awfully focused on it.

Here are some of the more obvious errors in your response to my post. I’ll try to respond separately to your other points later.

You responded to my post by saying this:

“I don't see the words "fairy tale" being used to allude to Bill Clinton's SC comments. I think, if you read the comment, you will see that she's talking about Hillary Clinton's repeated dismissal of Obama's central message as being "wishful thinking", for lack of a better phrase.”

Here is my response:

I don’t understand your reference to ‘tonight’ - nobody said that this was a quote from a speech she gave ‘tonight’ - whatever that means. It’s a quote from a speech that Michelle Obama made at the Trumpet Awards (on January 13) just after Bill Clinton had made his ‘fairy tale’ comments (at Dartmouth College) regarding the press’ coverage of Obama’s positions on the Iraq War. Michelle Obama could not possibly have been referring (as you suggest) to anything Bill Clinton said in South Carolina - because the SC Primary was still two weeks in the future and he hadn’t been there yet!

I know it bothers you that Hillary Clinton has criticized some of the ‘central messages’ of the Obama campaign - just as Obama has criticized and ridiculed her campaign’s messages. I just hope you are not now suggesting that this is another example of her ‘racial insensitivity’? Please don’t tell me that it is now impermissible for anyone to criticize what you yourself call Obama’s ‘message’.
Now, you say that this was merely a speech about Obama’s message of hope - despite the fact that the speech was given during the aftermath of Bill Clinton’s ‘fairy tale’ comment in New Hampshire - when the words ‘fairy tale’ were splashed all over the media. And, despite the fact that, in her speech, Michelle Obama accuses ‘people’ of trying to discourage African Americans from ‘believing what is possible...to dismiss this moment as an illusion, as a fairy tale.” 'People' 'dismissing this moment' as a 'fairy tale'?

However, even in the unlikely event that you are right (i.e. this was merely a reference to, as you say, Hillary’s criticisms of Obama’s ‘central message’) - it is still racist speech! She is still saying that it is illegitimate on racial grounds to criticize the Obama Campaign’s message. So, either way you look at it, it isn't good. Either she's deliberately misconstruing Bill Clinton's 'fairy tale' statement or she's claiming that it is racially insensitive to criticize Obama's 'message'! Which one is it?

Anyway, very few in the press agree with your interpretation. Most reports at the time showed that Michelle Obama was misinterpreting Bill Clinton’s comments. Here are some contemporaneous quotes. No doubt, you’ll say they’re all biased.

ABC News (Jan 13): Greeted by a standing ovation when she took the stage at the opening of the Trumpet Awards an event celebrating black achievement she went on to criticize anyone who would "dismiss this moment as an illusion, a fairy tale" in an obvious reference to comments made by Bill Clinton, the spouse of her husband's main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, who used the term "fairy tale" to refer to Obama's characterization of his position on the Iraq war.

ElectionSpeak.com - Jan 14: Michelle Obama, who was speaking at a premier of the Trumpet Awards, was met by a   by a standing ovation, as she criticized anyone who would "dismiss this moment as an illusion, a fairy tale." She was responding to remarks made by Bill Clinton, the husband of Obama's main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton. Clinton had earlier described Obama's account of his position on the Iraq war as a "fairy tale".

Associated Press, Jan 14: Barack Obama's other half spoke briefly at the opening of the Trumpet Awards tonight and was greeted with a standing ovation when she took the stage. In her address, she was critical of those whom she said would "dismiss this moment as an illusion, a fairytale" -- a response to comments made by the spouse of her husband's rival, Bill Clinton, who said the Illinois senator was telling a "fairy tale" about his opposition to the Iraq war.

Now, of course, if Michelle Obama had really disagreed with these press reports she could easily have corrected them - but she didn’t. She simply left hanging out there one of the most ‘toxic’ accusations that can be made!

But, being the decent folk that they are, you would have thought that the Obamas might have made a simple effort in this direction. In fact, the reverse happened: Rep Clyburn took the Michelle Obama theme further - when he told the NYT that Clinton had called the whole ‘dream of unity’ a fairy tale. He said:

“To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us”

And, then, the Obama surrogate, Donna Brazile, went on national television to say that calling ‘Obama a fairy tale’ was an insult that she reacted to as an African American!

“I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing,”

So, the question for the Obama campaign should be this: since when has criticizing an opponent’s position on a campaign issue like a war become illegitimate? Since when has it become racially insensitive to do so?

As Rachel Sklar said at the time (HuffPo):

“As for the Obama campaign, the media should call them on the crucial context they fail to include. Why edit out the Rabin reference from Bill Clinton's remarks to focus on Mandela? Why continue to cite the fairy tale ref when it was clearly not meant to implicate race? Do we really want "could be construed as racially insensitive" to be the new tripwire, especially with such flimsy evidence? It's just such a terrible charge to make, the bar for making it needs to be much, much higher. Absent real George Allen-like evidence, it seems to be unfairly made.”

Needless to say, the Obama Campaign continued to trumpet this misrepresented version of Clinton’s statement. And it gets even better: Donna Brazile then leaked a first draft of the Obama campaign’s - soon to be released - 'race card' memo to Politico.com’s Ben Smith.

Here’s what Ben Smith said: “Asked in an e-mail from Politico about the situation Friday, she responded by sending over links to five cases in which the Clintons and their surrogates talked about Obama, along with a question: “Is Clinton using a race-baiting strategy against Obama?” Brazile later said she wasn't intending to raise the question herself, just to pass on a question that was being asked by others.”

Yeah, yeah.

Soon after that, the Obama campaign sent out Dick Harpootlian to bait Bill Clinton: calling him ‘reprehensible’ for using ‘Lee Atwater’ tactics in Nevada ('Lee Atwater' is code for racist by the way - and if that isn't playing the race card, what is?

If you are still in any doubt as to Miss Brazile’s links to the Obama campaign, you should know that the same memo she had leaked to Politico earlier was then released by the Obama Campaign in South Carolina. Sam Stein of HuffPo said:

“Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary.” Stein went on to say that the memo “lists the contact info and name of Obama’s South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive. The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage.”

Amongst other things, the memo perpetuated the slander that Bill Clinton’s ‘fairy tale’ comment was racist. And this is the clearest possible indicator that it was indeed the deliberate strategy of the Obama Campaign to accuse the Clintons of racism. Because, not only did Obama miss countless opportunities to correct his wife, the press (and Donna Brazile and James Clyburn etc etc) on Clinton’s ‘fairy tale’ statement - not only did he fail to do any of this - but he then actually went on the record with his SC attack memo: specifically endorsing the slander (the fairy tale story) that he already knew to be untrue!

Later, the Obama campaign refused to ‘comment’ on the memo but continued to spread the racist innuendo. A campaign spokesperson, Candice Tolliver, told Politico that, with regard to the 'race-based' comments by the Cintons listed in the Obama Campaign’s attack memo: “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?” How slimy can you get? What on earth do you think the ’something bigger’ could be? Could it be: "Gasp!: The Clintons are racists”?

After his South Carolina victory, Obama then went on to make one of the singularly most ungracious acceptance speeches I have yet heard. After saying that we should all respect our opponents, he proceeded to do just the opposite: accusing the Clintons of demonizing him and being willing to 'say anything and do anything" (hint: racist?) "to win an election". In this, he was echoing his radio ad which aired during the primary there.

All this shows that Clinton was absolutely accurate when he said that it was the Obama Campaign that had played the race card ‘ON’ him. By this, he meant that they had unfairly accused HIM of raising race as an issue in the campaign. The Obama Campaign’s South Carolina memo shows that Clinton was correct on this.

Rep Clyburn was recently quoted as asking (in the lead up to North Carolina):

"How do you play the race card on the ex-president of the United States? How do you do it? I would like to know how that's done and who they [are]. And I'd like to see these memos he's talking about. That's what's so bizarre about this."

Well, for the answers to ‘who?’ and ‘how?’ - Rep Clyburn doesn’t have to look very far. After all, it was he who previously distorted Bill Clinton’s fairy tale comment on the Iraq War when he said this (and a lot more):

“To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us”

And, as for actually finding what he calls ‘these memos’ (Clinton only referred to one), Clyburn should have no trouble at all. He need only ask Obama. After all, Obama acknowledged (during the South Carolina debate) that his campaign had indeed issued the race card attack memo - but only when specifically confronted with the memo by Tim Russert. It seems that the only thing that is 'bizarre' in all this is Rep Clyburn’s memory - because he was at that debate!