Surprise — more race-baiting from the Clinton campaign!

This time, it’s from the candidate herself.

In attempts to make her case for the nomination (though her chances are currently slim), she wants to remind us that she is the candidate of white voters.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

Now, how is it that you have a much broader coalition when Obama has some of those same working-class white voters, some of those white women voters you tout, a solid majority of the black vote, a solid majority of the youth vote and more independent voters.

That, to me, is quite a broad base.

However, what Clinton is really doing is trying to remind white voters that Obama is the “black candidate” and insinuate that white America may not vote for a black guy.

Obviously, desperation is kicking in because, the kitchen sink strategy just went into overdrive.

Popularity: 3% [?]

If you’re not a politics geek like me, you might not know the two players in this scene. Donna Brazile has a long, distinguished resume but, many know her as a long-time Democratic insider who has held such high positions as campaign manager for Al Gore’s 2000 presidential run and head of the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute. Lately, she’s be working as a political contributor for CNN.

Paul Begala, on the other hand, is one of those people who seems to see politics more as a business and a game so, he is always in spin mode. So, a few hours ago, he tried to put words in Ms. Brazile’s mouth by saying she was advocating that the Democratic party abandon white, working-class voters. Well, Ms. Brazile proceeded to remind him of her credentials in campaigning for the votes of working-class whites and checked him on his attempts to drive wedges between the constituencies that comprise the Democratic party.

Popularity: 5% [?]

As expected, Obama took North Carolina but, it was not as close as some in the Clinton camp had predicted.

However, the big story of the night is Indiana. After the Rev. Wright drama, the Clinton camp had been saying that Obama was the weaker candidate and unable to win in “states that mattered”. In looking at the early returns, I thought Clinton would coast to an easy victory in Indiana and that she would be able to push this argument further. I flipped back and forth between MSNBC and CNN and watched a high double-digit Clinton lead shrink to 8 points, then to 6 points, then to 4. As I sit here at 12:17am EDT, 92% of the Indiana vote is in and Clinton is only up by 2%.

So, there is another possibility for Indiana. There are some areas where Obama was expected to perform well that haven’t turned in their numbers yet. What this could mean is that an expected Clinton victory could turn out to be an Obama victory. Or, nearly as bad for Clinton, she squeaks out a win in an area that should have been a sure thing for her, casting serious doubts on her claims that Obama couldn’t win in states with predominately white, working-class voters.

So, I’m going to stay up a little while longer to see how this turns out. I feel that I might be witnessing the transition of Barack Obama from Democratic primary contender to Democratic presidential nominee.

UPDATE: At about 1:15am, CNN projected Hillary Clinton the winner in Indiana. It looks like it will be a 51%-49% victory for Clinton. However, even with this victory, her argument to the superdelegates has been weakened. She has said that the delegate count and popular vote should be what matters. Well, Obama has increased his delegate lead and moved his popular vote lead from over 500,000 to over 700,000. The next two weeks should be very telling.

Popularity: 4% [?]

So, as we go into what seems to be the umpteenth week of talking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I want to know why white preachers associated with other politicians aren’t receiving this same level of scrutiny.

For example, John McCain sought out and got the endorsement of John Hagee. Hagee runs a church with over 17,000 members and is a televangelist. However, Hagee also has some views that many would consider extreme. But — surprise — there is no call for McCain to reject and denounce Hagee.

I have added a couple of clips at the end. The first is where Hagee refers to the Catholic church as “the great whore”, a “false cult system” and quotes Hitler as a way of likening the actions of the Catholic church to some of Hitler’s atrocities.

The second clip shows Hagee hawking a book (”In Defense of Israel”) in which Hagee says that Jesus never saw himself as a Messiah. In other words, he is saying that Jesus never saw himself as the Christ, which I would say is pretty interesting for a Christian minister.

Rest assured, there’s much more on this guy out there and I intend to share it with you. As I understand it, he has made some very interesting statements about why Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and a “slave sale” fundraiser he held in 1996.

At any rate, here are the clips so you can see for yourselves.

Also, here’s a sort of rebuttal of Hagee’s book by a member of the same Christian United for Israel group as John Hagee:

Popularity: 5% [?]

Well, Democrats, you just might have done it.

You find yourself on the precipice of losing your black supporters during this year’s election cycle. If you do, you will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

McClatchy News Service has run a story about black voters and their possibility of staying home if they feel Obama is cheated out of the nomination. I can’t lie — I know I can’t stand McCain but, with Hillary Clinton trying to be Republican-light, I ain’t feelin’ her too tough, either.

Though they get the views of,primarily, voters in Indiana, I hear people from all over the country expressing similar disdain for the way things are going down in this election. Some might call it bitter or sour grapes but, when black people have so greatly supported a party for so long, to get slighted will turn a lot of folks off.

We also see how the so-called big tent of the Democrats really doesn’t have room for opinionated black people so, this is also leaving many to wonder where we really stand with them.

Democrats, the race is your to lose. If Clinton gets the nod, it better be because she flat-out won and not because of political gaming on the part of the party. Otherwise, you might have to kiss the black vote goodbye.

Popularity: 7% [?]

I’m not willing to play “YouTube gotcha” with this one so, I’ll let people decide what Hillary Clinton meant on this one. Is she saying, “God bless us — we’re rich and I want to preserve that for us rich folks” or is she saying “God has blessed rich people and we need to use our wealth to help”?

I’ll let the reader decide.

Popularity: 7% [?]

If you do a search for “Obama” on this site, you’ll that I have had a lot of good things to say about Barack Obama but, I’ve also levied some criticisms against him, as well.

Over a year ago, I raised a question in a post titled “Obama: Who are you?”, where I pondered what type of person he was when he dis-invited his then-pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, from delivering the invocation when Obama announced is candidacy for President.

You see, for me, it was not particularly about religion or the church. My questions were best summed up in this part of my post:

So, upon word from his handlers, Obama has begun distancing himself from the person he calls his spiritual advisor.

In regards to this, I have heard some discuss how, if he wants to be President, Obama needs to do this. However, I know a lot of black folks with whom this won’t sit well. For one, many in the churchgoing crowd will ask what type of man turns his back on his pastor for political reasons? For those not in this group, some will ask, “if he is willing to compromise on this, what else is negotiable?”

When snippets of a couple of Rev. Wright’s sermons were released, Obama showed me that he could distance himself from some of Rev. Wrights comments (which, in context, I couldn’t really find issue with) without throwing Rev. Wright under the bus. I respected that.

Fast-forward a few weeks and Rev. Wright is doing speaking engagements and Barack Obama is campaigning. Rev. Wright continues to speak his mind and, the press being the press, focuses on tabloid issues versus any real issues affecting Americans. So, all yesterday, I hear pundits, both white and black, talking about how terrible it is that Wright is speaking, that he should go off quietly and that, if he won’t, Obama should publicly repudiate Wright.

(As an aside — isn’t it funny that white politicians can have associations with some highly-controversial figures and not be held accountable for their statements/actions? But, I digress.)

Well, Obama folded and publicly repudiated Jeremiah Wright.

The video of this should be up soon on this link but, here’s a passage that I found kind of disturbing:

“People want some help in stabilizing their lives, and securing a better future for themselves and their children. And that’s what we should be talking about,” Obama said. “The fact that Rev. Wright would think that somehow it was approriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate is something that not only makes me angry but also saddens me.”

Maybe I just gleaned something different from it but, very little has been said about any policy matters for months, now, and Rev. Wright was far from the only “distraction”. Rev. Wright just chose a time to speak that the Obama campaign found politically inopportune. Obama seemed to be saying that Wright is speaking at a time that was bad for his campaign. Next, I expect Obama to announce a complete break from his church in order to attend a church that the white establishment would approve of him going.

Barack Obama might say he is saddened by his pastor but, I think something else is saddening him — he just finished becoming the politician that he told us he wouldn’t. For his sake, I hope he wins the Presidency because, otherwise, he will have abandoned his principles for nothing.

Popularity: 8% [?]

In looking at the candidacy of Barack Obama, I am reminded of something that I once read from author Amos Wilson. In his book, Black-On-Black Violence: The Psychodynamics of Black Self-Annihilation in Service of White Domination, Wilson referred to what being a black man is in America. To paraphrase him, a big part of our experience is that no matter how one might adjust one’s dress, tone or mannerisms, because you are a black man you are always going to be seen as foreign and, possibly, as a threat.

So, it was of little surprise to hear that, in Pennsylvania, the issue of race was glossed over, though it was clear that a significant number of white voters indicated that race was a factor in voting for Clinton. Granted, black turnout for Obama is extremely high, too but, most would agree that this tide did not turn his way until what was construed as race-baiting began in the Clinton camp (a charge I believe true). Prior to that, Sen. Clinton enjoyed an advantage among black voters.

Whatever the reason, a question is now coming forward: How big a role will race play in Obama’s march toward the White House? In the wake of large, majority-white, working-class states, there is a concern that Obama’s race may be factoring into the votes for these states. Okay, let’s step back for a minute. We know that Hillary Clinton will have to deal with sexism and, to a certain extent, McCain will deal with ageism. However, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have advantages — they are white. Sorry to be blunt, but, it’s true. No one will question their patriotism out of hand (for example, how many questions do Clinton or McCain get about lapel flag pins, though I rarely see either wearing one). No one will tell Clinton or McCain who they can or cannot associate with if they want to be serious Presidential candidates (i.e. pastors) or, even more importantly, no one will ask either McCain or Clinton to “reject” or “denounce” people with whom they have no association (i.e. Minister Louis Farrakhan). However, when you’re black, your job becomes one of not only showing whether or not you’re qualified but, also, whether or not you’re “safe”. It’s as if there is some fear that if a black person is in charge, they’d look for retribution or revenge for past injustices.

To bring it down a notch, let’s focus on the Democratic party. For my entire life, Democrats have enjoyed the reliable loyalty of black people. Though I lean left, I still consider myself an Independent. (In fact, until this year, I would get issues-only ballots in primaries because I refused to be tied down to a party. I only declared this year in order to vote for Obama.) The reason why my independent streak kicked in was due to Clinton’s behavior in the White House in 1998. You see, I am not condemning the man for his sexual indiscretions. Instead, it was the actions of the Democrats that really bothered me. Nearly all we heard was spin and excuses but, what we should have been hearing was a clamor for President Clinton to simply tell the truth and put it behind him before things got out of hand. Because they did not, we ended up with President Bush and, a short while later, the Senate fell into Republican hands, which gave them a lock on the Executive and Legislative branches. This, in turn, allowed them to appoint the judges that favored their positions and allowed them to put total incompetents into positions overseeing the most major crises our nation has felt (ex. Donald Rumsfeld overseeing the Iraq War, Michael Brown overseeing FEMA after Hurricane Katrina and Alphonso Jackson overseeing HUD in our current mortgage crisis).

Also, let’s not forget that it was also Bill Clinton who brought us NAFTA, which further exacerbated our problems with lopsided trade policies, and brought us further deregulation in telecommunications which is all but killing independent and small media outlets.

But, even after all this, black people continued supporting the Democratic party, though the party continued to move further from our interests.

Today, I think we stand facing of a truth that we’ve been trying to ignore for a long time–the Democratic party and black folks may need to part company. Don’t get me wrong–unlike Republicans, there is at least an acknowledgment on the Democratic side that there are issues of concern that are particular to black people but, that’s not good enough any longer. If, after all our support, white Democrats feel comfortable saying that not wanting to vote for a candidate simply because of skin color is an acceptable criterion to use in voting, we, as black people, need to reevaluate our associations. Trust me, as my vote for John Kerry proves, I can hold my nose to vote for certain Democrats because, in my mind, George Bush’s presidency has been nothing short of a nightmare. But, if what I am reading is true, there are white Democrats out there willing to risk a continuation of Bush policies (via McCain) because they can’t bring themselves to vote for a black candidate.

I don’t know what the future will bring. However, at least for this cycle, the Democrats face a major quandary. They obviously need white voters but, are they willing to lose their black constituency because they are willing to cater to the racist elements within their white constituency? If so, they run the risk of alienating a group of voters who have been largely responsible for the electoral successes they’ve enjoyed for the last four decades.

Popularity: 9% [?]

The results of the Pennsylvania primary are rolling in and the networks are calling it for Hillary Clinton. The question is now how tight the race will or will not be. Right now, MSNBC has her up 53% to 47%.

I’ll keep you posted.

Update #1: (10:57pm EDT): MSNBC has Clinton up by 10 (55% to 45%)

Popularity: 10% [?]

Bill Clinton asks, “Who are you going to believe? Me or you lying ears?”

Here’s an exchange he had with an NBC Reporter today:

NBC/NJ: “Sir, what did you mean yesterday when you said that the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?”

CLINTON: “When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?”

NBC/NJ: “On WHYY radio yesterday”

CLINTON: “No, no, no. That’s not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day.”

NBC/NJ: “Respectfully sir, though, you did say …”

CLINTON: “Have a nice day.” [continues shaking hands with supporters]. I said what I said, you can go and look at the interview. And if you’ll be real honest, you’ll also report what the question was and what the answer was.”

However, Clinton did accuse the Obama camp of just that:

INTERVIEWER (RE: Jackson comment): “Do you think that was a mistake, and would you do that again?”

CLINTON: “No. I think that they played the race card on me. And we now know, from memos from the campaign and everything, that they planned to do it along.

So, why is this a big deal? Well, once you hear the interview in which he said the race card was played on him, it might put things in perspective but, honestly, it’s too late to be a big deal in Pennsylvania but, in other places it could cause problems because:

1. Bill Clinton has been caught playing with race already so, he keeps resurrecting this a big issue for his wife’s campaign.
2. He and Sen. Clinton have talked about how, if a candidate can’t take the heat, that person shouldn’t be in politics. Well, isn’t he crying, now?

At the end of the day, Bill has to deal with his own words. They are below:

Popularity: 12% [?]