If all you're going to do is kill the messenger, please don't read this...

Trust me, there's no one who despises this man more than I...still this is an
interesting analysis, IMHO...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: January 28, 2008
In the run-up to Saturday’s South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton repeatedly denounced racial divisions in American politics. Indeed, he said Friday in Spartanburg, Americans are “literally aching to live in a post-racial future.”

Times Topics: William Kristol
Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the WebBut Clinton certainly hasn’t been hastening that day. Quite the contrary. In Charleston, on Wednesday, he disingenuously remarked: “As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that’s why people tell me Hillary doesn’t have a chance of winning here.”

Really? Who was telling him that?

Hillary was ahead in South Carolina polls as recently as early December. And in fact, women made up 61 percent of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina, blacks 55 percent. If Obama was getting votes because of race and Hillary because of gender, Hillary had a perfectly good chance to win. Bill Clinton’s excuse is unconvincing and unseemly.

Then on Saturday, in Columbia, pre-spinning his wife’s imminent defeat, Clinton reminded reporters out of the blue that “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.”

What do Jesse Jackson’s victories two decades ago have to do with this year’s Obama-Clinton race? The Obama campaign is nothing like Jackson’s. Obama isn’t running on Jackson-like themes. Obama rarely refers to Jackson.

Clinton’s comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton’s comment is that Obama’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn’t mean any more than Jackson’s did.

But of course — as Clinton knows very well — Jesse Jackson didn’t win (almost all-white) Iowa. He didn’t come within a couple of points of prevailing in (almost all-white) New Hampshire. Nor did he, as Obama did, carry white voters in rural Nevada. And Saturday, in South Carolina, even after Bill Clinton tried to turn Obama into Jackson, Hillary defeated Obama by just three to two among white voters

So Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards? He wasn’t supposed to be in the game. But just as Hillary was supposed to be finding her own voice, Bill decided to barge in, and to do so with a vengeance. This has been no favor to Hillary.

The proof is in the South Carolina results. Bill Clinton became the dominant story in the last few days of that campaign. According to the exit polls, about one in five South Carolina Democrats decided whom to vote for in the last three days. Among those late deciders, Hillary Clinton received only 21 percent of the vote compared with 27 percent overall. In South Carolina, many of those falling off from Clinton seemed to go to Edwards. Next week, with Edwards much less of a factor, won’t many such voters go all the way to Obama?

Right now, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls in almost all the big states voting. She is a tough and capable campaigner, and she may be able to hold on to those leads. But it is now clear that putting her in the White House brings a hyperactive Bill back in with her. Who needs it? Liberals and Democrats can get basically the same policies without the Clinton baggage, and in choosing Obama, they can nominate a more electable candidate.

So Hillary’s advantage in the polls will, I suspect, erode. The erosion could be hastened by the expected endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy on Monday. It could be helped further along if Al Gore hops aboard the Obama bandwagon later in the week. Meanwhile, Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader during most of the Clinton presidency, is actively supporting Obama. Talk to Democrats in D.C., and it’s amazing how many who know the Clintons well — many of whom worked in the Clinton administration — are eager that they not return to the White House.

This week, the Clinton team will dump every bit of opposition research it has on Obama. We’ll see how Obama responds.

But the moment of truth could come at the Democratic debate Thursday, in Los Angeles. Edwards may have dropped out by then. If so, it will be a one-on-one showdown. Even if he’s there, he’ll be effectively a bystander. Will Obama hold his own?

I’d say that even if you’ve (understandably) skipped the previous debates, this is one to tune into. I had a dinner scheduled Thursday night. I’m canceling it. The Giants probably won’t beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. But this could be the week Obama upsets the Clintons.

"A stopped clock is right twice a day."

:shrug:

And I'm shocked!

Shocked, I tell ya!

:rofl:

Won't happen.

are very savy politicians and have good insight. I disagree with their ideology 100% but that doesn't preclude them having interesting things to say, IMHO. (Two that come to mind a Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich).

Whenever anyone tries to post anything like that - you end up with a zillion - instant jabs - against the author and no intelligent discourse about what the person actually said. Just because we hate these people doesn't automatically mean that every single thing they talk or write about is worthless information.

Just me.

Even though I despise these people, they cannot be ignored. Of course I must be in the right frame of mind to read the hatred they spew or it will drive me crazy. Besides, you know what they say about "keeping your friends close and your enemies closer"!!

who are characterizing Clinton's comments as insulting or racist. Of course, that gets no play in the media. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/jackson-not-upset-by-clinton-remarks/?hp

I actually agreed with most of a column by Kristol. I'm amazed and horrified all at the same time.

:wow:

bits of Fox News lately - and something weird has changed about them - it's almost like
they are looking at sides (Obama/Clinton/Edwards) in a rather rational way.

Why would anyone pay attention to him on this?

Is there any neocon suck up to Obama or slam on Clinton that Obama supporters WON'T post?

:puke:

the right wingnuts WANTED Hillary to win so they could beat her - has now changed and they want Obama to win because they think they can beat him even more easily? Just trying to understand the motive you are implying....

To paint her as unelectable.

I think the mindset "oh they're attacking so and so so they are for the other guy" is black & white bullshit.

My motive? Not seeing right wing garbage posted on DU attacking Democrats, is that so fucking hard to understand?

and I actualy do think that Clinton IS unelectable and I actually do think that they used slimy tactics in SC. It doesn't matter who wrote this article (hence my tag about not reading the post if all you can add is an attack on the author). I agree with most of it no matter who wrote it.

Last I heard, there is still a race between three people. What this means is that you can say whatever you want in defense of the person you like and why they would be better than the other candidate. If we couldn't do that - hell, might as well have a static board with each person's position papers and call it a day.

Yes, I "fucking" understand. You don't want to see anything posted that reminds people that Clinton is not a good choice. It's just easier to get that point across if you are lucky enough to have the OP quote someone in the opposition - so you can use that as an excuse to attack.

It is human nature to forgive the faults of the person you like. If you think Bill acted perfectly in line with your expectations - so be it, it is your perfect right to pick anyone you want to vote for. But, it doesn't mean that everyone else has to agree with you.

It was at UChicago, a few months after Kerry's loss in '04. He was talking about the future of the Democratic party. He (and his liberal counterpart) agreed that the party was moribund, that it would have to reposition itself by appealing to the West, possibly by abandoning abortion rights and taking up gun rights, and that it would have to wait for major demographic shifts in order to win anything. He predicted that they'd take the Senate no earlier than 2012, the House maybe 2016-2020, and the Presidency possibly in 2008, but more likely 2012.

We all know what happened the next election.

So, er, yeah. It's an interesting article, but Kristol's predictions aren't worth much.

he thought. I mean, how much have you seen the Dems talk about abortion rights and gun control lately? We haven't switch on these issue - but we sure haven't played them up either.

I am so sick of the media/neo-con fake "outrage" over Clinton's "playing the race card." These people have never once been the least bit concerned about the racist, coded language used by their brethren against blacks for years - and, in fact, they have fallen all over themselves to DEFEND such people and done their best to slap the power of speech out of those of us who had the temerity to point out such racist tactics, accusing US of "playing the race card."

Apparently, according to these people, unless a person donned a pointed hood, pledged allegiance to the United WHITE States of America, and spit the N-word into a black person's face at least three times, it was not only inaccurate, but grossly unfair to even suggest that they might be less than sensitive on the issue of race.

Now, all of a sudden, Kristol and his ilk are experts at detecting racially-coded language and deign to analyze and instruct the rest of us about the intricacies of the racial dynamics in America?

Remember back a few years ago when Bill Bennett claimed that aborting black babies would reduce the crime rate? Remember the response from white conservatives when African Americans and others objected?

Bill Kristol's own National Review took off after anyone who dared to criticize Bennett:

Assuming Bennett was speaking of per capita crime rates, his claim that aborting black babies would reduce them is nearly incontrovertible. It is sadly true that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Predictably, Bennett has been made out to be a cross burner. Senator Kennedy denounced Bennett's "racist comments," Nancy Pelosi said they were "a direct hit at our children," and Howard Dean called them "hateful, inflammatory," and "simply inexcusable." The White House piled on, calling Bennett's remarks "inappropriate." The near-universal assumption in this phony controversy is that it is worse to discuss the killing of unborn blacks than it is actually to kill them. Bennett is opposed to the aborting of black babies -- which is more than you can say about Dean, Kennedy, and Pelosi.

And check out this interesting back-and-forth on Fox News Sunday, October 2, 2005, when Kristol's buddies discussed the issue:

CHRIS WALLACE: Brit, is this much ado about something or about nothing?

BRIT HUME: Well, I think it's much ado, that's for sure. My sense is that it's much ado about not very much. It's not entirely clear to me what exactly his—the point he was making was if somebody argues is false—if somebody can help me with that, I might be able to comment better. What was false?

MARA LIASSON: False was saying that blacks are responsible for the crime rate.

HUME: Well, as a matter of fact, is it not the case that the per capita crime rate among African Americans in this country is higher than other groups? If that's true, then it seems to me that's the point he was making. The only thing I would think would be problematic about that is if it carries a suggestion that every black baby in the country is going to grow up and participate in crime at that same rate. That's an arguable point, it seems to me, at best.

LIASSON: I think the linking of race and crime in such a sweeping way is what caused the controversy. And everybody, from the White House on down, has separated themselves from those comments.

HUME: Right. But what is false here?

LIASSON: The linking of African-American babies and their later maturation as criminals.

HUME: I see.
...
JUAN WILLIAMS: You know, Brit, it really speaks to a deeply racist mindset to imagine America somehow as better off if we didn't have those black people around and all those racial issues and all these—you know, so many of these blacks end up in jail, as if they're criminals because they're black.

HUME: Juan, he didn't say that.

WILLIAMS: He certainly said it to me. That's what...

HUME: Excuse me.

WILLIAMS: ... I heard, Brit.

HUME: Excuse me. What he said was not that we should do that, but he said it would be morally reprehensible, impossible thing to do.

WILLIAMS: Right. Well, Brit...

HUME: He condemned that as an action.

WILLIAMS: Brit, if I'm sitting here on a national talk show and I say, you know, maybe if we killed off these white people, we wouldn't have so many mass murders in America, you'd say, Juan, are you out of your mind?
...

HUME: But here's the point about this. This is very important. There is a consensus in America, reached with great difficulty and after a long struggle over many years, that racial discrimination and especially, because of the history of this country, discrimination against African Americans, is a moral wrong. The country agrees with that, which is why the charge of racist carries so much potential power against somebody. It is a potentially lethal weapon when wielded. And it is, in my view, a very reprehensible thing to do, to come along and take a man like Bill Bennett … and suggest that because he does what clearly was a thought experiment, that he is racist. This is a cheap exploitation of the political circumstance in America which regards racism as utterly taboo and rightly so.

WILLIAMS: But he didn't just simply state it as a theory, Brit. I mean, when you have his standing in America, when you have a talk show, when you're speaking to an audience and make that suggestion out of the blue, as a non-sequitur to a question about Social Security, it strikes me as giving power to a deeply offensive idea and one that you point out, given our history in America with regard to race, has extraordinary power.

HUME: What the critics of him are doing is they're taking the hypothetical that he set up and condemned and denounced as if he had never condemned it. He did condemn it, and those words should have power, too.

WILLIAMS: No, I think what you're misunderstanding is it's the idea that he gave voice to this notion. If you were in a Nazi regime and said you know, gee, you know, a lot of these Jewish people have businesses and they dominate the academy, and therefore wouldn't it be better—that's not a good idea, Brit. Not a good idea to give voice to. You could say, oh, it’s my theory and it should be defensible as theory, but it has real power in a sociopolitical system.

HUME: It has power, but it doesn't have the kind of power you think it does. It has power to be used...

WILLIAMS: Well, as a black person, let me tell you, if you...

HUME: ... as a cudgel.

WILLIAMS: … start talking about going after black people, it has power and impact on my life, Brit.

So, Bill Kristol and his crowd are the LAST people to be lecturing anyone about race, racism and the race card.

But let's save this Op-Ed piece - it will be useful to bring up this fall if Obama is the nominee. Ther is no doubt that Kristol and his buddies will go to the mat defending (and probably launching) racist attacks - coded or not - against him.

tactics - his duplicity.

But they're not. They are accusing Clinton of "playing the race card" when he has done and said far less than the people they consistently defend.

Typical of race-baiting hypocrits.

Bill refused. So yeah, I would kill the messenger here.

It's amazing how many Republican asses
are pouring gasoline on the "Bill plays the race card" theme.

of Obama's campaign manager, JJJ.