This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

And..........a heartfelt apology would have gone a long way after that photo BS. It may have even smoothed over hurt feelings after the S.C. comments.......

Fool us once, that's one thing. But we covered Bill's backside after he got caught with is damn pants down......

Why doesn't she start by apologizing for taking a day to make a half-ass comment about that N.C. GOP ad that was going to run.

But why should she or Bill have to apologize for the turban photo? They had nothing to do with sending it out.

I am not doubting that the black community really supported Bill during the impeachment trial and that was awesome.

So what if she took a day to make a comment? She does have a life that is quite busy at this time so she cannot get to all urgent things right away. I think taking a day is rather good of her as compared to possibly a week to speak out against that ad.

I have heard much worse things said against the black community than what either Bill or Hillary said...I think we should just all move on from them (that starts with a serious apology from either Bill or Hillary or both) and focus on winning this November because we are going to need the black community's votes to get a Democrat in The White House.

Ok.

Forget it.

We see this completely different. And we always will.

You know.......

Seems to me that the only time the black community is ever thought of....

Is around election time.

Interesting.

Seems to me that the only time the black community is ever thought of....

Is around election time.

And Black History Month .....but I always admire the history and culture of the black community because it is very fascinating....so it is a year around appreciation for me

Yes. Black History Month.

Relegated to the shortest month of the year.

I know but hey at least they have a month to honor the achievements that have been made by the community over the years. I tend to post articles of famous African Americans each week at the politics board I post at so we can all share memories of how much each person has done.

I make no hints about it here about how much I loved my African American studies course in college...and we may just be on the way to electing the first African American to president

Yes. Black History Month.

Relegated to the shortest month of the year.

I'm sorry but I can't resist this bit of silliness.....I mean you know it's 29 days every leap year. This reminds me of when I worked at a government agency and some of the black employees on one of the teams wanted to have a black history luncheon and their team supervisor (who is black) told them they no and that they get MLK day off. They were pissed and rightfully so but they also didn't see things the way she does as a black woman fighting against stereotypes as she was attempting to climb up the ladder. I don't agree with how she goes about things but I understand that she falls into the category of those who allow society to make them so self conscious of being black that they are afraid of falling into the stereotypes of eating fried chicken and listening to hip hop music. My philosophy is if you like fried chicken then don't let someone else with a small mind cause you not to eat it because you're compromising who you are to satisfy someone who is not smart enough to see that you're more than skin eating fried chicken.

My question on this "debate with the black community" is why should Barack Obama be responsible for fixing a mess that Bill and Hilary Clinton made? I should hope he wouldn't be foolish enough to attempt such a thing because that's like taking ownership of their ignorance. It's bad enough that he had to take responsibility for Rev Wright's sermon with the media generated disaster and he shouldn't have to help them out of anything. Let Bob Johnson who claims they've done more for the "black community" than Obama help them fix their mess.

The Democrats can thank Bill and Hilary Clinton for successfully opening up a wound. I have no doubt that a band aid is going to be put on it as it festers. What happens with the nomination will be a sign of whether the wound will rupture sooner than later. Even if enough people are convinced to tow the party line for now, I think that there will eventually be a shift from it being a sure thing that black voters are Democrats as there will be a shift towards independent voting. The Republicans are unlikely to benefit from the shift because they don't seem to have any progressive thinkers to steer them towards capitalizing.

No,no,no.

You miss my point. Or maybe I'm missing yours.

Unfortunately, there will always be members of the black community who will always find something wrong no matter what is said. They will always question the motivation, rightly or wrongfully.

But to just say that a speech or a debate or a "I'm sorry" will smooth over what has happened......I'm the one that's sorry, but that will just not occur.

My question on this "debate with the black community" is why should Barack Obama be responsible for fixing a mess that Bill and Hilary Clinton made? I should hope he wouldn't be foolish enough to attempt such a thing because that's like taking ownership of their ignorance. It's bad enough that he had to take responsibility for Rev Wright's sermon with the media generated disaster and he shouldn't have to help them out of anything. Let Bob Johnson who claims they've done more for the "black community" than Obama help them fix their mess.

The Democrats can thank Bill and Hilary Clinton for successfully opening up a wound. I have no doubt that a band aid is going to be put on it as it festers. What happens with the nomination will be a sign of whether the wound will rupture sooner than later. Even if enough people are convinced to tow the party line for now, I think that there will eventually be a shift from it being a sure thing that black voters are Democrats as there will be a shift towards independent voting. The Republicans are unlikely to benefit from the shift because they don't seem to have any progressive thinkers to steer them towards capitalizing.

And that is also part of the problem. When Hillary came out and made that comment about "If Rev. Wright were my pastor, I wuld gotten up and walked out" she stepped right inot this entire situation and truly gave her ok to use it against Obama.

That is part of the reason why, not just the black community, but Obama supporters regardless of race or gender are so pissed off.........they feel that she didn't have to do what she has done and keeps doingif she cared so much about the Democratic party.......

But now Obama has to be the one to go to her or she should jst say I'm sorry and, as Kevin Bacon said in Animal House "Fear not........all is well"?

And that is also part of the problem. When Hillary came out and made that comment about "If Rev. Wright were my pastor, I wuld gotten up and walked out" she stepped right inot this entire situation and truly gave her ok to use it against Obama.

That is part of the reason why, not just the black community, but Obama supporters regardless of race or gender are so pissed off.........they feel that she didn't have to do what she has done and keeps doingif she cared so much about the Democratic party.......

But now Obama has to be the one to go to her or she should jst say I'm sorry and, as Kevin Bacon said in Animal House "Fear not........all is well"?

IA that she's sent out the message that she doesn't care about the party as much as she cares about winning at all costs. She's 60 and comes from an era where black people just took things because that's the way it is. She's walking around saying Obama is elitist and out of touch but she and some of the black supporters she has out of that era are out of touch with the way of thinking of young people who don't accept that's the way it is. This pretty much a simplified reason why the Democratic party is going to suffer in the long run.

I agree.

And if, as a very astute poster told me today, Bill and Hillary are telling SDs that Obama is not electable simply because he's black.....

I would LOVE for someone to try and explain that one away.

Perhaps the democratic nom should be determined by a pick-up game of basketball.

Obama would smoke hillary

I agree.

And if, as a very astute poster told me today, Bill and Hillary are telling SDs that Obama is not electable simply because he's black.....

I would LOVE for someone to try and explain that one away.

Since this is probably being done behind closed doors then unless someone tells, they're safe. The closest this comes to the public is when a super delegate says that either of them used the argument that Obama can't win as a reason for voting for Hilary Clinton. I believe that Bill Richardson said that Bill Clinton told him he was making a mistake because Obama can't win. He didn't share the reason(s) he was given for why Obama can't win so it's easy to conclude what was implied. The whole thing may backfire anyway.

Last week when Bill Clinton accused Obama of playing the race card on him, he tried to win people over by saying that the reaction to his statement was disrespectful to Jesse Jackson. I guess black people were supposed to ignore everything else and just become outraged that Jesse Jackson was being put down. It's not like Bill Clinton tried to marginalize Obama's victory by saying in a covert way, that he only won because he's black. It's not as if John Edwards hadn't won those states last time around. He brought Jesse Jackson up all on his own.

From ABC News.com:

Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004

April 26, 2008 5:33 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National Committee rules.

What's so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign's most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these states should abide by the DNC's instructions -- even if that meant stripping them of their delegates.

In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.

Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted -- along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee -- to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.

Ickes now is a leader of the "count Michigan and Florida" rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.

Now comes this curious find, on Daily Kos.

It turns out that irrepressible Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe once -- when he was DNC chairman -- threatened to strip Michigan of delegates if that state's Democrats carried out their long-time goal of disobeying the DNC calendar.

In his lively book, "What A Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals," McAuliffe tells the tale. If you're an Amazon.com member, you can read the passage for yourself on pages 324 and 325.

McAuliffe at the time had been pushing for early contests for South Carolina and a Western state with a large Latino population, perhaps Arizona or New Mexico.

"Our plan became very controversial," McAuliffe writes. "Some people thought any change was bad. Others thought we were not shaking things up enough. Leading the charge for more radical alterations in the primary calendar was Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who thought Iowa and New Hampshire should not have exclusive rights on voting first and that it was time for other states to have a turn. He had pushed unsuccessfully for change before the 2000 elections and was back in full force this election cycle. He made it very clear on the telephone that if I allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, then Michigan was going to act on its own and put its primary first."

McAuliffe invited Levin to make his argument before the full DNC meeting on Jan. 19, 2002. Levin did, and his motion was defeated by a unanimous vote.

"After the vote, the issue was settled in my mind -- however, not in Carl's," McAuliffe writes.

On Feb. 1, 2003, Levin, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Dingell's wife Debbie (a DNC member and power broker unto herself) called McAuliffe.

"They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire's," McAuliffe writes, "which would have led to complete chaos since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.

"'If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,' I told him.

"They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority...The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I'd had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl's Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all...

"Soon Carl and I were going at it.

"'I'm going outside the primary window,' he told me definitively.

"'If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,' I said. 'We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost.'

"He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"'You won't deny us seats at the convention,' he said.

"'Carl, take it to the bank,' I said. 'They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.'

"We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it."

Clinton herself said, in October 2007, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." She said she was keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored the state.

It wasn't until Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses in January that she acted as if the Florida and Michigan contests had any meaning at all. As Tallahassee political journalist S.V. Dáte recently wrote in Slate, "Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it."

As for Ickes and McAuliffe -- they have exercised a great deal of clout. But it has been in the name of preserving order, even if that meant stripping recalcitrant state Democrats of their delegates.

As McAuliffe said then -- "the rules are the rules."

Why? "For the good of the party," he wrote (then).

- jpt