At A Certain Point, A Pattern Emerges

Oliver, don't forget about Andrew Cuomo saying "You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference,"

"Shuck and jive" is explicitly racist.

Also, watch out for the things that they are saying that indicate Obama is lazy, or codes for "lazy n-word" if you prefer. Referring to him as a "part-time legislator" not only isn't true but really is an insinuation of laziness. Watch for more.

It's hard for Obama and his surrogates to fight back about this without making it a 'race war," which is what the Clinton's want. There are more white people than black people, so Obama can corner the black vote but if low-information whites think he's too uppity, he'll lose their votes.

So I hope he fights back but not publicly on this issue too much.

One person I wish would go public is Maya Angelou to dissociate herself from Bill and Hillary and say "I was wrong, he's not the first black president: He's running a racist codeword campaign."

Doubt she'll do it but I wish she would. She's a poet. She knows these words aren't chosen casually.

"At A Certain Point, A Pattern Emerges"

Ain't that the truth. Like they say, talk like a racist, bark like a racist, mouth horses**t like a racist, and it becomes pretty damn obvious, the Clintons and their campaign are racists of the most repugnant kind, at the very least using blatantly racist innuendo in the most vile fashion to turn Obama from An American Candidate into That Scary Black Man at the Podium That Whites Must Always Be Wary of. And to think at some point I actually liked the Clintons.

The hip black friend swipe, on top of Bill "where's my KKK hood, that way I can hide it" Clinton's declaration of Obama as a kid swipe (ooh, dog-whistle, dog-whistle for white voters, where can I get me one?!), on top of Hillary's little "man that MLK mighta had some cute ideas and all but with his brains all spilled out on the pavement when he got too uppity, it took a white hero LBJ to get it done" swipe, on top of Andrew Cuomo's talk of shuckin' it and jivin' it, on top of Mark Penn and Bill Sheehan and their cute little "oh, some people think Barack Obama might be a drug dealer, but no, pure innocent us, no we'd never raise a topic like that" act, on top of Bob Kerrey's "hey, I know some people might think that Barack Obama might be a Muslim Madrassah-raised Muslim-country livin' terrorist-sympathizin' Manchurian candidate but me, now, I'd never think that and oh BTW did I remember to mention that some people might think that 'OBAMA MIGHT BE A MUSLIM MADRASSAH-RAISED TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER' again not that I would actually believe that" act--

and well, you gotta hand it to the Clintons. When Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and their whole entourage do racism, I mean, they don't go for half-measures, they go for the whole hog, the full monty, the whole kit and kaboodle. I mean hey, not even Trent Lott or ol' Strom in their fondest wet dreams coulda come up with a racism display and Black-Boogeyman-scare-the-whites fest like the Clintons have. Gotta love the Clintons' new motto: "Hey, if you're gonna be racist, then dammit, be thorough about it, do it right."

In fact, there's little doubt about what the Clintons are doing right now, getting sossed in their $5 million penthouse with Hillary in her best Marie Antoinette wig, while Bill Clinton gets pecker-sucked by his favorite blow-up doll and Hillary Clinton gives rim jobs for one of the corporate crooks who are her main campaign contributors, with Bill sayin' to Hillary: "Hey, Hill, those Negroes may be dumb but boy are they cute, I mean, we can toss out the worst stream of racist drivel since mah 10th removed cousin, the great Nathan Bedford Forrest, first donned the White hood to put them 'coons in their place, scare the whites away from that uppity coon Barack Obama but then we can still pretend to be civil rights admirers and you know, them coons, they don't know any better, they'd still be coming out to vote for us in November 2008! Ain't America great?"

"Oh Bill, all your talk about election-rigging and now that gleam in your eye when you talk about pulling the wool over those dumb Black monkeys, man it's just so much fun how dumb and easily led those monkeys are, oh Bill, you're gettin' me hot, I haven't been this hot since that anal action foursome with your cousin and that big hunky goat you like to keep in the stable back on the farm, man, Bill, how do you do it?"

Oh, sure, of course, we're all down with that. I mean, us dumb Negroes never could pick up on patterns you know, since we're underevolved monkeys just like the Clinton campaign team has picked up on, without the frontal lobar capacity to realize when we're being played for fools and when the Clintons, desperate for a nice Black lawn jockey to decorate their campaign pictures but determined never to allow a Black executive, put up their best Jim Crow routine since some Klan regulars started moonlighting in Blackface on the vaudeville circuit.

Switching to somewhat less sardonic mode now:
Oliver, I'm tellin' you it's about to get damn nasty, there are Black communities already smoldering and about to explode with anger at the Clintons for this, and I'm not talking calm cool protests, I'm talking the cities burning down like Detroit and Watts kind. The rage in the air is so palpable you can cut it with a knife.

The fix is already in for the South Carolina primaries-- there are no paper ballots there and no paper trail, just those touch-screen tailor-made vote-riggers with no audits feasible, something that a starting tech at Radio Shack could hack in under 5 minutes, they also showed this on HBO not too many moons ago. I took some programming classes for my accounting training back in the day, and even then, it's as simple as inserting an easy loop code "For every G number of votes for Candidate A, change the Gth vote to one for Candidate B." And since the source code is proprietary, there is no method to check it at any point. The Clintons are preparing to rig the whole thing.

For those of us in South Carolina in nationwide, that's why it's essential to insist on
1. Paper ballots only like they use in every other country, multiple-counted by independent as well as campaign reps to ensure accuracy and
2. More importantly, that every single eligible African-American in South Carolina go out and vote, just go and vote like you've never voted before or if you've never voted before, because your voting slip and your communications to exit pollsters are the only means we have available to call BS on the fraud that the Clintons are preparing to perpetrate with the hackable machines.

Along similar lines, never, ever cast a vote for Bill or Hillary Clinton, ever again, in a primary or in any type of election. They are a dangerous disease for this country with their naked ambition and resort to open racism to split the country apart for their own personal gain, and they're cursed with some nasty consequences for perpetrating this. If Hillary Clinton gets nominated with the stench of this fraud in the air and the racism they're manifestly using against Obama, all hell is gonna break loose. The country's gonna burn, burn, burn, from sea to gleaming shining sea.

Welcome to the club, Oliver. There are those of us who've known this about the Clintons for... let's see... carry the seven... yup, nigh on forever.

You're just seeing it now because YOUR candidate is on the receiving end of the Clinton Steamroller. Obama's getting the same treatment the McDougals got, Paula Jones got, that Monica Lewinsky would have got had she not saved a certain blue dress, and so on, and so on.

Well, better late than never. Congratulations on your awakening, Oliver.

J.

What about all the racist comments about Fred Thompson? They called him lazy too.

Obviously he doesn't play basketball, though, being white. So confusing.

Gee, maybe an anonymous comment made by an unidentified "Clinton Adviser" to a British reporter for a British Newsrag thousands of miles from a campaign shouldn't be taken as Gospel?

Unless you're LOOKING for a reason to believe?

Just sayin'.

"You're just seeing it now because YOUR candidate is on the receiving end of the Clinton Steamroller. Obama's getting the same treatment the McDougals got, Paula Jones got, that Monica Lewinsky would have got had she not saved a certain blue dress, and so on, and so on."

Um, Jay, are telling us that the McDougals, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky were candidates for some office?

When Hillary Clinton wins, African Americans need to take a step back and think about our position in the Democratic party. We deliver votes but where is our power? We are the evangelicals of the Democratic party.

It breaks my heart to see Bill Clinton's rage at the prospect of Obama beating his wife. He was incredulous!

After he cheated on his wife and humiliated her & the press ad Republicans piled on, it was black Americans who were the most steadfast. It was black women in the Congress who literally shouted for Bob Livingston to resign after his attacks on Bill.

It seems that the Clintons are only interested in Black people as subservient I'm so disappointed.

Black Americans also need to think about our coalitions. How do we benefit from them?

Well said. I'm really disappointed in this stuff, and surprised they think it will play. Hello, backlash!

fafaroo, the emphasis was on the "your." But the common thread remains -- Obama, like the people I cited, are perceived as threats to the Clintons' ambitions. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Kay, the Clintons have always been good at wringing every last bit of use out of their supporters, then tossing them aside when they've proven no longer of use.

Detractors of the Clintons (and I cheerfully count myself in their ranks) have said the very same things about them for years that you're saying now. This is WHAT THEY DO. This is HOW THEY OPERATE.

And don't get too comfortable. They've been easy on Obama. Let him beat Hillary once or twice more, and they'll pull out the REALLY big guns.

I wrote about this a while ago -- it seems that the Clintons are engaging in "kamikaze politics." Oliver cited the Bill Shaheen "Obama the crackhead" bit. Don't forget Bob Kerrey -- a big Hillary supporter -- tossing around the "Obama the Manchurian Muslim" bit. Both of them pretty much went down in flames, but their attacks left their marks. Toss in the campaign staffers who had to resign after passing around the "Obama the secret Muslim" rumors, and you have what appears to be a well-orchestrated campaign of Hillary supporters launching political suicide attacks, destroying their own careers while inflicting damage on Obama.

I repeat: this is nothing new. The only new thing is that Oliver -- and a lot of others -- are seeing it now because it's being turned on someone they support.

As I said before, welcome to the club. If you ask me nicely, I'll show you the secret handshake.

J.

I repeat: this is nothing new. The only new thing is that Oliver -- and a lot of others -- are seeing it now because it's being turned on someone they support.

And now that Jay Tea is tuned in to racist rhetoric, maybe he'll speak out against it even when it's coming from somewhere other than the Clintons, like Drudge or Limbaugh or Fox. Ya think? Nah, me neither.

Wilbur, you're making a fundamental mistake. The Clintons aren't using racism because they're necessarily racist. They're using racism because they think that is the best tactic to destroy someone they see as a threat to their ambitions. I suspect they don't really care that Obama is black (or, technically, half-black); they just know that a racist attack will energize a lot of people (consciously or not) to do their bidding against him.

It's a tactic, not an end unto itself. If you go after the racist aspect, all you do is encourage them to find other tactics to go after Obama.

I find myself considering casting my vote for Obama if he goes up against certain Republicans in November. I find him preferable to McCain, Huckabee, or Paul, just to name a few, and would vote for him before any of those three. And that he's so soon being savaged by the Clinton attack machine rouses a bit of sympathy in me for him.

Again, don't get wrapped up in the racial angle here. It's just a tool of convenience in this case. If you go after the Clintons for using the tool, they'll just drop it and find another one. They need to be stopped, not just denied one weapon.

J.

As someone firmly in the Obama camp, I say it's well worth noting all this. Point it out and make them look like idiots, every time they say it. It helps when the perpetrator is Andrew "My career is just as much a product of my old man as W's ever was' Cuomo, I must say.

But, eyes on the prize, it's not the main issue.

Scratch: no sane person thinks Obama or, for that matter, HRC, are remotely lazy. Fred, on the other hand? It's an observable fact.

Spot on Oliver.

I have to say I was listening to Mark Thompson's Make it Plain program on Sirius radio the other night where Bill Clinton was being interviewed and while he did a good job of explaining away the "fairytale" comment, Hilary's campaign is more than walking a fine line. These attacks don't help her cause. I also question a staffer being quoted by a British rag, because while thier journalists are not lapdogs like our shitty media, they also revel in destructive gossip.
I am already in the Obama camp, but Hilary's tatics will PALE in comparison to the Republican slime machine. If Obama wins, Republicans will resort to new lows. Willie Horton, JOhn McCains black baby, madrassa, will be childs play in thier book. Rove is already labeling him the "lazy" "trash talking" candidate.

Yet more evidence of the Clinton willingness to "go red state" if it means the only option for victory -

"A version of this story is already in print. In 2004, Newsweek reported, without a named source, that Bill Clinton had suggested Kerry "to back local bans on gay marriage."

Shrum has more, and different, detail:

..."Kerry, Clinton ventured, should consider defying Democratic interest groups by endorsing the Bush proposal for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage." Shrum reports that "this was a flip-flop too far for Kerry."

"Kay, the Clintons have always been good at wringing every last bit of use out of their supporters, then tossing them aside when they've proven no longer of use."

Hmmmm ... There's never been a conservative strategist or candidate who did the same thing to both their supporters and their enemies? Rove and Bush come to mind. They didn't seem to mind taking sleazy potshots at McCain when he posed a threat after NH in 2000. Which is not to excuse the behavior of the Clintons, to the extent that they are doing the same thing, but let's not pretend that they are some kind of exception to the rule in high stakes power politics. They aren't. They are creatures of a political culture that has been fostered by people on both sides of the
ideological divide. Sadly, these kind of tactics work. They certainly worked for Bush and Rove.

No, Kay-- do not even start up with those delusions. Hillary Clinton, if she is nominated, is going to be utterly destroyed in the general election, because the Clintons have shown their true colors and they are not colors of friendship, they are of arrogance, scorn and division toward the Black community and others in the supposed Democratic base.

The problem is, you and many like you are counting on the notion that the Clintons can put up the repulsive racist invective in decades to hurt Obama's image among primary voters, blow the doggy-whistle and cause tremendous damage and resentment within the African-American community-- and then, if these tactics work in the primaries, to just be forgiven for them later?

No, Kay, you are living in a fantasy world-- we will never forgive, and we will never forget.

Politicians like any other people respond to the consequences of their behavior-- if there are no consequences and even the filthiest racist rhetoric is excused, then there are no consequences and little to push changes in behavior. Thus we would be condoning this sort of thing for any politician to do to us again-- insult us and use racially-charged code words against prominent Black political figures while belittling the legacy of our most important civil rights leader, as Hillary Clinton herself did with MLK.

That is what we absolutely cannot do. For any lesson to be learned from this, the Clintons have to pay a very severe price and suffer horrible consequences for it. That means losing our crucial support, permanently, for the Clintons no matter what office any of them might be seeking.

Just like others have been writing, the Clintons have now unequivocally made it obvious that they are the enemies of the African-American population, as much or even worse than the Republicans are.

I'll add to that:

I, too, fear the prospect of civil unrest in the wake of this. Even aside from the prospects of electoral fraud and false tabulations of the vote in NH (the Diebold ballots vs the hand-counted ballots and the exit poll data), there is now unequivocal evidence that the Clintons took part in massive, coordinated and flatly illegal voter suppression and voter fraud in New Hampshire:

http://tinyurl.com/2xbbqh
http://tinyurl.com/2y9bsg

As Garrisonny pointed out, South Carolina does not have much in the way of paper ballots and a paper trail that can be audited, it's electronic voting that experts across the country have shown can be easily hacked. Thus there is little trust in the voting system there, and I agree fully: There must be strong and vocal demands to institute paper ballots in South Carolina and ensure an extremely high Black voter turnout in South Carolina, since the voters will communicate with the exit pollsters. High African-American voter participation in Nevada and South Carolina is the strongest statement we can make that we will stand up for ourselves and our communities!

The Clintons have even been trying to suppress voters in Nevada:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063499.php

Thus you have a horribly poisonous brew being cooked up by the Clintons, and aimed squarely at the African-American community in particular:
belittlement of our most important leaders, outright voter fraud and electoral fraud, and a tactic of using racist statements with the doggy-whistle technique that they think we're too stupid to grasp, but which we do very well.

I would advise anyone here to turn on Black radio wherever you are, in Newark, New York City, Seattle, Milwaukee, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Jackson, St. Louis, Birmingham in Alabama, many other places-- the level of roiling anger and resentment is not something that is ever going to be contained.

Just like people are saying, if Hillary Clinton is nominated, we're going to have our cities ablaze. I've never been the worrying type, but the real prospect of this is worrying enough that I'm seriously starting to do those "contingency plans" that authorities often talk about, making sure the family stays together and in contact. There's just too much anger about the disenfranchisement and the racist tactics to be merely bottled up. If Hillary were nominated, it's all going to spill out on the streets and lead to a wave of wrath in fire as we've never seen before.

"Just like people are saying, if Hillary Clinton is nominated, we're going to have our cities ablaze."

Talk about race baiting. This is just not productive.

Hmmmm ... There's never been a conservative strategist or candidate who did the same thing to both their supporters and their enemies?

Nice red herring. Except Jay Tea never said a conservative strategist or candidate has never done it. Saying, "But Rove and Bush did it" doesn't make Jay Tea's observation wrong.

You know, I so want to be a believer in Obama, but every time I turn around he is telling me he doesn't want me.

I strongly dislike the idea of Hillary being the nominee, not just because I think she'll be the easiest for the Republicans to beat, but because she is just so totally DLC.

But then Obama says all these DLC things about how teachers are just a "special interest", or he just generally disses progressives, and, you know, I just don't feel all this love for Obama.

And I want to. I think the Democratic Party does owe the black community.

But one of the things they owe the black community for is the lousy way they've treated black legislators who weren't quite as pretty and DLC as Obama. Remember what they did to Cynthia McKinney after she had the temerity to suggest that some people were profiteering off of 9/11?

And much as I dislike Clinton, I read what she said and I didn't see her dismissing MLK, I saw her saying that MLK did a lot of hard, important stuff, he wasn't just an inspirational speaker talking about hope and dreams.

And I don't think there's anything racist about calling one of the youngest presidential candidates in modern history a "kid". You're out of your mind if you don't think white people talk about other white people that way.

Also, just as a note, and whether or not you regard it as racist, the "shuck and jive" quote is a misquote - he was saying you CAN just shuck and jive at a press conference, as opposed to dealing with voters face-to-face where it's harder to snow them - and he was speaking generally, not about Obama. (In any case, where I came out of the house, which is Washington, DC, absolutely everyone, of both colors, used "shuck and jive" to mean, basically, to BS people. It wasn't regarded as racist to use that phrase, about anyone.)

Just for the record, as someone who is frequently misquoted in the British press, let me assure you that you cannot believe any of their quotes - they rephrase everything for their own comfort, even if they agree with you. If you said, "shuck and jive" to them, they change it to "waver and haver" and change your wording enough to have you saying something very different from what you said. I've often written to MPs and asked if they said something that was quoted in the paper, because even if they really are idiots, they've often been made to sound even more idiotic by the press.

They also put words in your mouth. They'll say something like, "Would you agree that xxx?" And you'll say, "Well, I'd really say xyz." But they'll write, "She believes that xxx." And so on.

OW, I think Clinton surrogates have said lots of stupid things. So why do you feel the need to improve on the story?

Billy Shaheen did NOT insinuate that Obama is or was a "crackhead."

He said that in a general election, the Republican noise machine would play up Obama's admitted drug use which includes the use of cocaine. (He went on to make other observations about what the GOP might do--all ill-advised.)

In "Dreams from My Father," Obama admitted to occasional cocaine use long ago. Shaheen didn't invent that. The intent of his remarks is debatable.

Quaker in a Basement, I'm not so sure about that, I really do think some of HRC's advisors are deliberately saying stupid things. She may or may not approve of it, but I want to smack them.

"Saying, "But Rove and Bush did it" doesn't make Jay Tea's observation wrong."

No it doesn't. But he goes on to add that the Clintons "need to be stopped, not just denied one weapon." I'd like to know if Jay felt that Rove and Bush needed to be stopped at any point during, oh, you know, the last eight years. Or in Rove's case, his entire career. It isn't his "observation" I'm challenging here. It's righteous indignation and his truly dazzling ability to include himself among the victims of the horrible Clintons, i.e.: "As I said before, welcome to the club. If you ask me nicely, I'll show you the secret handshake."

And, of course, Jay, I'm not sure what leg you have to stand on here as you seem to have little problem with race baiting yourself. Case in point:

... what will it say about Democratic voters should they choose the white candidate over the black one in the primaries? The question I have been seeing is, "Is America ready for a black President?" The real question is, "Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a black presidential candidate?"

Avedon, like Oliver said in his title, you have to look at the patterns. In fairly short order, four members of Clinton's campaign all took shots at Obama. First, a low-level volunteer. Then a county chairman. Then Bill Shaheen, NH co-chair and national advisor. Then Bob Kerrey, one of her most prominent backers.

The official story: all acted independently, all were removed from the campaign. (With the possible exception of Kerrey -- I don't recall what the resolution of his cheap shot was.) But you'd think that after the first (or second, or third) incident, the word would get around to NOT pull this shit.

Unless it was intended to be pulled...

J.

It isn't his "observation" I'm challenging here. It's righteous indignation

You must be reading something else. I don't see Jay Tea getting indignant on his part. I see him stating what is pretty common knowledge. You bringing up Rove is merely deflection. Do you approve of what Hillary's campaign is doing (whether directly or indirectly) or not?

I'm not sure what leg you have to stand on here as you seem to have little problem with race baiting yourself. Case in point:

Oh puh-lease. Attempting to use what I said as an example of race baiting is laughable.

"Do you approve of what Hillary's campaign is doing (whether directly or indirectly) or not?"

Of course not. I'd just like to know if Jay Tea so thoroughly dissaproves of such tactics when conservatives employ them against their political enemies.

As for your own comments, you spent an entire thread insinuating that Hillary Clinton's win in NH was the result of racist Dem primary voters. Why? Who knows. There's certainly no evidence of that. What's clear is that when employing race and accusations of racism serve your political purpose, you have no qualms doing so.

fafaroo, please stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

The "welcome to the club" is the club of people who see the Clintons as they are, NOT victims of the Clintons. It was addressed to Oliver and the rest, NOT Obama.

And righteous indignation? Sorry, I used all that up over at Wizbang today, with the absolutely appalling treatment of Ezra Levant up in Canada, where we see just where "hate speech" laws ultimately lead. By the time I was making comments here, I was plumb out of righteous indignation, and had to substitute wry collegiality. Hope you didn't mind the switch.

As far as Rove goes... I don't see the relevance in discussing the internecine warfare that's coming out of the Democratic primary process, so I'll pass.

I will say, though, that I am NOT relishing the chances of a MAD scenario between the Clintons and Obama. While overall it would be good for the eventual Republican nominee, I actually prefer Obama over several of the Republican candidates -- I'd vote for him over Huckabee or Paul, and possibly over McCain. So while it's entertaining as all heck, I don't think it's good for the country in the long run.

J.

"I don't see the relevance in discussing the internecine warfare that's coming out of the Democratic primary process, so I'll pass."

Naturally. Because Bush and Rove starting a whispering campaign against McCain coming out of NH in 2001 -- insinuating that he was a crazy war vet with an illegitimate black child -- is so totally different than Hillary in 2008.

I guess that's because beating McCain in 2001 by any means necessary was good for the country in the long run.

by which i mean 2000.

And righteous indignation? Sorry, I used all that up over at Wizbang today, with the absolutely appalling treatment of Ezra Levant up in Canada, where we see just where "hate speech" laws ultimately lead. By the time I was making comments here, I was plumb out of righteous indignation, and had to substitute wry collegiality. Hope you didn't mind the switch.

You suffered righteous indignation from a goddamned poster site? The hell?

Zython, in case you missed it, a Canadian publisher is currently being "investigated" by Canadian Human Rights Council for publishing the infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons. In an absolute kangaroo court (the accused has almost NO legal rights, and the Commission has NEVER found for the defendant in a single case), Ezra Levant could be compelled to publicly apologize and banned from ever publishing those cartoons or anything else "offensive to Islam" ever again.

Levant has been posting videos from his hearing (which the government asked to remain confidential, but he and his lawyer had informed them over a year ago that they would treat every single communication as public, and Levant arranged to have the hearing videotaped for his "appeal" -- meaning, in this case, his appeal to the court of public opinion worldwide) over at YouTube, and it's a terrifying glimpse into just where "hate speech" laws end up, and a sad, sad commentary on the true banality of evil.

There's this bland, gray lawyer/bureaucrat who has the power to strip Levant of his rights to free speech and free press, just because some people got their panties in a wad over some stupid cartoons. They have the authority to compel him to apologize and not do the same thing -- with the threat that if he doesn't comply, they can fine and even imprison him.

Compared to that, whatever the Clinton smear machine could say about Obama doesn't mean that much at all.

Oh, and fafaroo: I kind of dropped a couple of words there. I meant "I don't see what relevance Karl Rove has on the current Democratic primary." Apart to say that it's not surprising that some of the people who howled about his past deeds are so eager to emulate the sorts of things he's allegedly done in hopes of winning.

J.

"I kind of dropped a couple of words there."

I think your meaning was still clear: 'I don't want to talk about Rove because it doesn't allow me to isolate the Clintons as an abomination unique to liberal political culture.'

Now you're attacking the Clintons for hypocrisy in emulating Rove while still refusing to acknowledge that Rove was a major architect of modern ratfuck politics and Bush his most major benefactor. I suppose that's typical.

"Apart to say that it's not surprising that some of the people who howled about his past deeds are so eager to emulate the sorts of things he's allegedly done in hopes of winning."

To parse this a little closer, it's neat how Rove's sins are all "past deeds" but the Clintons' deeds, past and present, represent an unbroken chain of evil born from deep, eternal character flaws. It's even neater how you find the courage to drop in the phrase "allegedly done" with regards to Rove in the same thread in which you refuse to grant the Clintons' the same benefit of the doubt: "Avedon, like Oliver said in his title, you have to look at the patterns." There's no damning "patterns" in Rove's career that would allow us to skip straight to impugning the man's character? Really? None?

As for your own comments, you spent an entire thread insinuating that Hillary Clinton's win in NH was the result of racist Dem primary voters.

Oh bullshit.

What's clear is that when employing race and accusations of racism serve your political purpose, you have no qualms doing so.

My political purpose? It's not about me. Or Karl Rove. It's about the Clinton campaign doing anything to win even it means racial demagoguery no matter how subtle. (Her recent comment about "spade work" is a pretty good example).

Yeah. It's total bullshit. Clinton's win in NH prompted you to ask the question "Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a black presidential candidate?" but you weren't implying anything about race. Not at all. You were just asking out of a completely unbiased curiosity.

It's interesting. In that thread you were at pains to paint Obama as the paragon of progressivism because you wanted to isolate race as the reason why he didn't win NH. In the quote that Oliver cites above, you have a supposed Clinton insider arguing exactly the opposite: People voted for Obama because they like idea of a black nominee but real progressives will vote for Hillary.

In both instances, you and this insider want to isolate race as the key factor in Obama's fate as opposed to his actual political philosophy and politics. Why is that?

Clinton's win in NH prompted you to ask the question "Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a black presidential candidate?" but you weren't implying anything about race. Not at all.

You need to keep your accusations in line. You just claimed that I "insinuated that Hillary Clinton's win in NH was the result of racist Dem primary voters." I called bullshit. Now you're saying that a question about race is "implying" something about race. I didn't imply anything. The question was pretty clear.

It's interesting. In that thread you were at pains to paint Obama as the paragon of progressivism because you wanted to isolate race as the reason why he didn't win NH.

More of your bullshit. I didn't paint Obama as anything. I merely repeated what others had been saying about him vs. Hillary with regard to their progressive bonafides.

In the quote that Oliver cites above, you have a supposed Clinton insider arguing exactly the opposite: People voted for Obama because they like idea of a black nominee but real progressives will vote for Hillary.

Gee, a Clinton insider arguing the opposite of what the conventional wisdom is. I'm stunned.

In both instances, you and this insider want to isolate race as the key factor in Obama's fate as opposed to his actual political philosophy and politics. Why is that?

That's the wrong question. If it's all about actual political philosophy and politics as you say, then the Clinton campaign wouldn't be throwing out these little barbs.

Wait a second. Are you suggesting that the conventional wisdom says Obama's race is a negative with Democratic primary voters?

Maybe a better question is, what the hell is it that you are trying to say, Jay? You seem unable or unwilling to take responsibility for anything you actually write.

You asked the question "Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a black presidential candidate?"

The simple and obvious answer to that question is yes, they are. I'm wondering when you're ever going to get around to explaining why you felt there was a need to ask that question in the first place. Care to offer an explanation?

Even better, would you care to answer your own question? Do you think that the Democratic Party is ready to nominate a black candidate? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting that the conventional wisdom says Obama's race is a negative with Democratic primary voters?

No, the conventional wisdom is that Obama is the more progressive of the two. This guy is saying otherwise.

You seem unable or unwilling to take responsibility for anything you actually write.

Not at all. What I won't do is allow people like you to take what I have written and then twist it to arrive at conclusions that are based on your own biases.

The simple and obvious answer to that question is yes, they are. I'm wondering when you're ever going to get around to explaining why you felt there was a need to ask that question in the first place. Care to offer an explanation?

Actually, I've explained it plenty of times. I'm through repeating myself. Learn to read for content.

Do you think that the Democratic Party is ready to nominate a black candidate?

We'll certainly find out, won't we? It brings me back to the question of "Why Hillary and not Obama?" A few people I know have come straight out and told me they believe Hillary has a better chance of winning.

Just what I expected. You simply haven't the courage to state plainly what you would rather imply.

You are, in other words, playing the same game as this "Clinton insider" you would condemn.

I didn't imply anything. Asking a question doesn't 'imply' anything. If I ask, "Can the Giants beat the Packers in Green Bay next week?", it doesn't mean I'm implying the Giants will win or lose.

It's funny. People can ask all day long, "Is America ready to elect a Black President?" and it's merely a question that is put forth to spur a discussion. Ask, "Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a Black President?" and suddenly it's out of bounds and an example of "race baiting."

I think you sort of give the game away here, Jay.

Let's rephrase your sports example to better illustrate the point. It's one thing to ask "Can the Giants beat the Packers in Green Bay next week?" It's quite another to ask, "Can Team A beat Team B if Team B has a black quarter back?"

One is a simple question. The other is loaded and highly charged. A person asking the second question is either totally naive or they are trying to elicit a certain charged response.

Your second paragraph basically says it all. You want to tag some portion of the Democratic voting base as racist. Simple as that but you don't have the courage to come out and say what you think.

I've answered your question quite plainly: Yes, the Democratic Party is ready to nominate a black candidate. You refuse to answer either way your own question. You simply want to imply something without having the guts to state it.

Here's another way of looking at it.

If you asked, "Do you think the Green Bay can beat the Giants?" you leave open any number of avenues of discussion including everything from statistical match-ups to homefield advantage etc. etc.

If you rephrased the question: 'Do you think Brett Favre's age will be a factor in the game against the Giants?" You have radically limited the range of answers to a include some discussion of age.

If someone answers the question, "I don't think Favre's age has anything to do with it," would you immediately respond, "Well you're just afraid to talk about age"?

That's exactly what you did in the other thread. When people stated plainly that yes, the democratic party is ready to nominate a balck candidate, you accused them of being afraid to discuss race. Then you changed the question but presented this new question in such a context as to all but eliminate every factor but race as a possible answer.

As a hack you are completely transparent.

As Oliver says, after a while, a certain pattern emerges.

Just to add, while I procrastinate, I don't know if the country as a whole is ready to elect a black president because i still believe there's a lot of racism at work in this country.

That said, and understanding that the Democratic Party is made up of a portion of those same Americans, I have no doubt that there are racists in the democratic party, that is people whose claim to democratic party values may stop when it comes to race.

Do I think that this portion of the democratic voters is enough to derail Obama's candidacy? No, not by a long shot. There is no need in my mind to even ask the question.

Even if Clinton gets the nomination, I think anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that it came down to race as the deciding factor.

If you think I'm wrong, tell me why. Or else just say you don't know and shut the fuck up.

If you rephrased the question: 'Do you think Brett Favre's age will be a factor in the game against the Giants?" You have radically limited the range of answers to a include some discussion of age.

No shit Sherlock. And my question did exactly that. It was designed to include some discussion about race. But that's not what you just accused me of. First you claimed I said Hillary's win was the result of racist Democratic voters. Then you said I was "implying" something wit the question I asked. Now you're saying that asking a question a certain way is done to include discussion about that particular factor (be it Brett Favre's age or Barack Obama's race), and you're right. Like I said, there doesn't seem to be any problem with asking, "Is America ready for a Black President?" but you have your panties in a wad because I had the gall to ask, "Is the Democratic Party ready to nominate a Black President?"

That's exactly what you did in the other thread. When people stated plainly that yes, the democratic party is ready to nominate a balck candidate, you accused them of being afraid to discuss race.

Wrong yet again. Nobody plainly stated anything like that (the thread is right here) Point me to where ONE person said, "Yes the Democratic party is ready to nominate a Black President" You won't find it because it isn't there. I said people were afraid to talk about it because all they (and you) were doing were questioning my motives for asking and using deflection ("Look at the GOP!!") as a way of avoiding it.

What kills me is the way so many are tip-toeing around what Hillary and her campaign have been doing - again, whether directly or indirectly. Who do you think they're trying to appeal to with these racially tinged comments anyway? Does it mean I think she's a racist? Not at all. But her self-interest trumps everything else.

Jay, the very first post in that thread was from a white male democrat who said that Obama's race was only tangential in his decision to vote for him, and to the extent that it was a factor, it was a positive factor. You read that post, I assume, and still felt the need to ask your question.

As to that question, let me clarify. If you had simply wanted to start a discussion about race in the primaries you might have asked, "How do you guys think Obama's race will play in the primaries?" (which is closer to the hypothetical Favre question)

You would got a lot more tempered responses.

But you didn't ask that. You asked "Do you think Democratic voters are ready to elect a black candidate?" The very nature and phrasing of the question implies that there is a possibility that Dem voters are not ready to elect a black candidate. People responded to the loaded nature of the question a response you knew you were going to get and then acted all huffy about it when you got it.

"Who do you think they're trying to appeal to with these racially tinged comments anyway?"

How about if you answer this one.

Any Democrat that votes for Hillary is voting for a racsist power hungry gargoyle.

Hillary's campaign is now being run by Karl Rove, the devil himself.

I am white, progressive, lifetime Dem. I will vote for any Republican before I vote for Hillary.

And if anyone has a soul, they will too.