Jay, meet Jay:

“It’s all going to be about voting records …”

I guess now you’ll argue now that discussing voting records has nothing to do with policy.

It has nothing to do with Wright’s theology, it has to do with what he said.

Um, Jay, that doesn’t make any sense. Not only because it very much is about the Afro-centric philosophy of Wright’s church. If you don’t believe me, turn on any conservative on the radio or television. It’s non-stop about how Obama was a member of a church that espouses “Black Ethics” and how that’s divisive and contrary to Obama’s own rhetoric.

Of course, your statement is so dumb on its face it hardly deserves a response, unless you want to tell me that “what [Wright} said” is in no way informed by, connected to or an expression of the man’s theological belief system. What your essentially saying is that the controversy isn’t about what Reverend Wright believes, it’s about what he says. That makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

Actually, I suggested no such thing.

when reminded of very recent republican race baiting you tell us “Tough Shit” because Dems started it, nyah, nyah.

Make all the lame little jokes you want, but Democrats and their supports cannot with any credibility whine, bitch and and squeal like stuck pigs about attaching a Pastor and the controversial things he said to a candidate, when they’ve made hay out of doing that for almost 15 years.

All of the attacks on McCain you layout we’re first employed by the Bush team in 2000 and were re-introduced by Romney Republicans — and then some — in the primary.

Nice deflection. While some of it may have originated with McCain’s primary opponents, Democrats have been happy to take the baton and carry it on their own. Maybe it’s a habit for you take people for such complete idiots, but I’ve actively been involved in politics and campaigns for nearly 20 years now. Don’t try to bullshit a bullshitter ok? If you seriously believe that Democratic operatives and other players haven’t been pushing those idiotic lines of attack, then you’re just off your rocker.

And maybe some of what Wright has said is being declared racially divisive because….hmmm..let me guess……they are racially divisive? I’ve seen Tony Evans and EV Hill preach and I don’t recall them using such rhetoric. Do you realize how silly your complaints sound? It’s like Republicans accusing Democrats of “gay baiting” when Democrats go after a conservative Pastor who says something controversial about homosexuals. News flash: Criticizing somebody for being racially divisive is not racist.

Do I have to remind you that Romney’s Mormon theology was declared off limits by Hugh Hewitt

Yes and everybody listens to and follows the orders of Hugh Hewitt. Stop it already.

but now Wright’s theology is the center of attacks on Obama

It has nothing to do with Wright’s theology, it has to do with what he said. It’s as simple as that. Whatever political fallout Obama sees as a result of this is his fault. You lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.

That should read “Most of … “

First you suggest that Republicans are going to run a strictly policy-based campaign, then, when reminded of very recent republican race baiting you tell us “Tough Shit” because Dems started it, nyah, nyah.

All of the attacks on McCain you layout we’re first employed by the Bush team in 2000 and were re-introduced by Romney Republicans — and then some — in the primary. Right-wing talk was the force driving those attacks, not Dems, who were still in the thick of their own primary fight — and still are. (I note you conveniently left out the special touch of Rove, disciple of Lee Atwater, and the mysterious mailers in 2000 that suggested McCain had an illegitimate black daughter.)

And what’s with the Iseman thing? Are you suggesting that the New York Times reported that story the way it did because Dems put them up to it? Democratic operatives are now writing copy for the Times? Really?

As for the pastor thing, of course race is the reason why Wright’s comments are being pushed as controversial and damaging. Conservatives are arguing that Wright’s comments are racially,/i>
divisive and contrary to Obama’s “post-race” rhetoric. If you don’t know that, just listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, Hewitt, Medved, O’Reilly, Rove etc. etc. etc. Race is their primary problem with Wrights comments. Do I have to remind you that Romney’s Mormon theology was declared off limits by Hugh Hewitt and others but now Wright’s theology is the center of attacks on Obama? The reason why it’s fair game is because Wright’s message if born from black experience and directed to blacks.

jay, you really ought to get into the real world more. Seriously.

Except that wasn’t the real story (largely ignored). The real story was did her proximity to McCain, as a lobbyist, influence him? I think that may be an issue, as does his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN STAFF.

f Obama is the nominee it will be Wright all the time, 24/7.
Know what I say? TOUGH SHIT.

Well, then what are you bitching about? Emotional attacks seem to be fair game.

I could go on, but I wanted to make sure you had a sense of just how deep and analytical Democratic operatives have been in discussing ‘policy’ with regard to Senator McCain. I’m glad they’re so willing to engage in such serious debates.

If Obama is the nominee it will be Wright all the time, 24/7.

Know what I say? TOUGH SHIT.

I’ve said this before. Democrats made their beds on this one. They’ve been feasting on linking controversial and downright ugly statements made by conservative (white) Pastors for the longest time. Now Democrats are going to have to deal with it. If it makes you feel better to think that the only reason it’s being done is so because Wright is black and not because of what he said,, that’s just grand.

Jay, the general election campaign has already started and the Republicans have already stated their strategy: If Obama is the nominee it will be Wright all the time, 24/7.

I, for one, am so glad to hear that.

I expect Democrats will welcome a debate on whether the U.S. should maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years. The Dems will likely prevail in a discussion about the future of health care and social security. We really like talking about the environment–we’re a bunch of tree-hugging wackos, remember?

Taxation and deficits? As soon as Mr. McCain picks a position and sticks with it long enough to discuss it, the Dems will emerge as the party of fiscal responsibility, not the party of taking out another equity loan from the Bank of China.

I’m also very happy to hear that the election will not be about silly “wedge issues” like gay marriage, abortion, silly posturing on illegal immigration, and whether Mr. Obama is actually a Secret Angry Negro.

That’s awesome news, Jay.

Amazing. Another one that has bought into the notion that a Republican has never won a campaign based on issues or the fact that more Americans agree with their policies than that of their opponents. There’s always a built in excuse for why Democrats lose. It’s amazing.

This notion that it won’t be about policies is absurd. For the first time since I can remember, we’re going to have two Presidential candidates that are going to be sitting Senators. It’s all going to be about voting records and I can tell you right now, that the majority of the public at this point is going to look more favorably upon McCain’s than the other two.

In my view, these stupid accusations about McCain appealing to latent racism by talking about his biography is just another thing to add to the list of excuses Democrats can use should they lose this November.

I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I suspect that discreditable is a poor word choice here. Like Quaker says (see you’re not so alone) exploiting racism and sexism is never creditable. It seems to me that Matt is saying McCain is doing it in a way that can’t really be attacked because it’s so indirect, so subtle. Which is to say that what McCain is doing is discreditable, it’s just tough to actually discredit it. That’s really how I read it. And that’s how the rest of the campaign will play out. You think McCain or whatever shadowy “independent citizen’s group” emerges from the slime (with cash enough to produce ads and get it on the air) would run a Willy Horton-style ad against Obama? No way. But I suspect we’ll lots of ads playing up the uncertain, fearful times we live in — war, economic insecurity etc. — to suggest that now is not the time for change, but a time for the familiar and traditional (read: yet another white man in office).

Because policy isn’t going to be the ground on which McCain can win this thing. Americans don’t want another four years of Bush Co which is exactly what McCain advocates. So if policy can’t win, it’s going to be Wedge Issue City this year, just like every other Republican campaign for the last 30 years. And whether it’s Clinton or Obama as the candidate, the wedge issues are going to be feminism and race. Simple as that.

When Matt Yglesias writes “…it’s the best way I can think of…that doesn’t involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way,” those special glasses apparently reveal the hidden meaning that says “I think McCain actually is exploiting racism and sexism, so now I will try to discredit him for it.”

But then when Jon Henke writes, “Democrats - whether due to paranoia or calculation - are going to see racism under every rock, and they’re going to exploit the hell out of it,” that’s not a dismissal. Even though all claims of racism are crammed into two tidy categories - paranoid or calculated - the super-secret hidden meaning of the statement is completely nonjudgmental and fair.

Where do I get me a pair?

Alone, but still right. Story of my life, pal.

And taking the history of Republican political campaigns as their guide, Democrats are perfectly justified in looking for racism in just about everything McCain does or says. One hundred percent.

Does that mean every suspicion will be well-founded? No. But Matt’s comments hardly rise to the level of paranoia or exaggeration. They make perfect sense in the context of the dynamics of this campaign. Hell, McCain already put out an ad declaring him to “The American president Americans have been waiting for.” You don’t think that isn’t supposed to appeal to the percentage of asshats who think Obama is a stealth muslim because of his middle name? Please.

Again. Reading comprehension:

are going to see racism under every rock

IE, they’re going to look for racism in just about everything McCain does or says. These two examples (Sorry Quaker, deny it all you want, but you’re alone on your POV of what Matt is writing) are perfect. They’re absurd, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg.

Then it’ll be “this can’t be racism because they were wrong that one time”.

Actually, that kind if thinking applies to YOU in a sense. “This accusation must be true because there were other accusations that were true.”

Already in this campaign McCain has had to tell activists on the right to chill with racial/cultural attacks.

Yeah I know. The whole middle name thing. I still think that’s pretty funny.

You say

So that’s it, then? Democrats - whether due to paranoia or calculation - are going to see racism under every rock, and they’re going to exploit the hell out of it.

Isn’t that a dismissal? You aren’t saying racism doesn’t exist, but you’re trying to lay the groundwork to dismiss liberals pointing out that the right does this all the time. Then it’ll be “this can’t be racism because they were wrong that one time”.

Already in this campaign McCain has had to tell activists on the right to chill with racial/cultural attacks. I’m willing to bet my hat that its going to happen again, and it will have defacto approval from the GOP and most of the con movement.

So that’s it, then? Democrats - whether due to paranoia or calculation - are going to see racism under every rock, and they’re going to exploit the hell out of it.

Atwater made playing the race card acceptable and second nature to a whole generation of conservative political operatives still at work today. Now we have the first major black candidate with a real shot at winning the presidency and you think dems should just chill out, man? You gotta be kidding me.