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: 2% [?]

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% [?]

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% [?]

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% [?]

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% [?]

Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News weighed in on last night’s debates and he let the moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanapoulos have it with both barrels.

I gather that Bunch’s beef with them, while similar to my own, also, has some marked differences. Bunch refers to how this debate had been billed as a debate dealing with the issues of Pennsylvania voters but, largely, the questions ignored this very group.

In no uncertain terms, Bunch talks about what he and others, as Pennsylvania voters, are really concerned about:

You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I’m a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues — trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn’t enough space — and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited — to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans’ benefits to improving education. You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.

You asked about gun control — phrased to try for a “gotcha” in a state where that’s such a divisive issue — but not about what we really care about, which is how to reduce crime. You pressed and pressed on those capital gains taxes, but Senators Clinton and Obama were forced to bring up the housing crisis on their own initiative.

Instead, you wasted more than half of the debate — a full hour — on tabloid trivia that for the most part wasn’t even that interesting, because most of it was infertile ground that has already been covered again and again and again. I’m not saying that Rev. Wright and Bosnia sniper fire and “bitter” were never newsworthy — I myself wrote about all of these for the Philadelphia Daily News or my Attytood blog, back when they were more relevant — but the questions were stale yet clearly intended to gin up controversy (they didn’t, by the way, other than the controversy over you.) The final questions of that section, asking Obama whether he thought Rev. Wright “loved America” and then suggesting that Obama himself is somehow a hater of the American flag, or worse, were flat-out repulsive.

Are you even thinking when simply echo some of the vilest talking points from far-right talk radio? What are actually getting at — do you honestly believe that someone with a solid track record as a lawmaker in a Heartland state which elected him to the U.S. Senate, who is now seeking to make some positive American history as our first black president, is somehow un-American, or unpatriotic? Does that even make any sense? Question his policies, or question his leadership. because that is your job as a journalist. But don’t insult our intelligence by questioning his patriotism.

Here’s a question for you, George. Is it true that yesterday you appeared on the radio with conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, and that you said you were “taking notes” when he urged you to ask a question about Obama’s supposed ties to a former member of the Weather Underground — which in fact you did? With all the fabulous resources of ABC News at your disposal, is that an appropriate way for a supposed journalist to come up with debate questions - by pandering to divisive radio shows?

And Charlie…could you be any more out of touch with your viewers? Most people aren’t millionaires like you, and if Pennsylvanians are losing sleep over economic matters, it is not over whether the capital gains tax will go back up again. I was a little shocked when you pressed and pressed on that back-burner issue and left almost no time for high gas prices, but then I learned tonight that you did the same thing in the last debate, that you fretted over that middle-class family that made $200,000 a year. Charlie, the nicest way that I can put this is that you need to get out more.

Go get ‘em, WIll.

Popularity: 70% [?]

I was watching Lou Dobbs last night and caught his segment regarding the “controversy” behind Barack Obama’s “bitter” comments.  A couple of his guests were telling him that people are bitter at what they are dealing with in this country.

Of course, because Dobbs knows everything, he tells them that he’s right and people are not bitter.  Then, he puts a poll with loaded answers.  I think the response he was hoping for was “Independent and Proud” but, as you can tell, that’s not what won.

I guess people are more “bitter” than he wanted to believe.

Popularity: 70% [?]

Bob Johnson is a shining example of unintentional self-parody.

Here’s a man who became a multi-billionaire by peddling black stereotypes, trying to tell the rest of us about the minds of black people.

Here’s a guy who should be calling shots playing foot soldier for a presidential candidate.

Here’s a voice for the Clinton 2008 campaign.

For people who are supposed to know black folks so well, the Clintons sure don’t know how to pick black folks to help them in their outreach to Black America.

Or, could it be that they are trying to marginalize black voters and are looking for a black hired gun to do the job?

I believe the latter to be the case.

Bob Johnson has decided to open his mouth again and make us wonder just how it is that he became so financially successful.

Channeling Geraldine Ferraro, Bob Johnson said that Barack Obama has only been successful in this presidential campaign because he’s black.

“What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith’ and he says I’m going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?” Johnson said. “And the answer is, probably not… .”

“Geraldine Ferraro said it right. The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair-trigger on anything racial … it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything.”

Wow!

Where do I even begin with this. First of all, black people comprise about 13-14% of the population while white people comprise some 70+% of the population. Now, let’s look at the last presidential cycle. There were over five times as many white voters as there are black. So, let’s say that Obama would get 90% of the black vote. That would mean that he would have won many fewer contests because, with the exception of a few places, there simply aren’t enough black people to comprise a majority of voters.

Secondly, Obama didn’t start off with 90% of the black vote. The Clintons, primarily Bill Clinton, managed to drive black voters away in droves. In fact, for much of last year, the conventional wisdom was that Clinton would run away with the black vote (see here, here and here). So, no, the black vote was not a given for Obama.

Finally, as in the case with Ferraro statements, when has it been a given that a black man will attain easy success in the field of politics? In the entire history of the Senate, for example, there has only been 5 black senators (4 men, 1 woman). How many white women are there in the Senate right now? I believe the number is 16. I am not saying this to spark a debate on whether racism or sexism is the greater evil I am just saying that, in the Congress, black men don’t exactly dominate.

However, what Bob Johnson is doing is what you would expect from Republican politicians — painting Obama as some affirmative-action hire in order to scare off working-class white voters.

Well, I’ve given Bob Johnson much more consideration that he deserves…

Popularity: 77% [?]

I am 38 years old and don’t put up with being called ‘boy’. You see, I know the history behind how it was used to demean grown black men, telling them that they were not to be considered equal to white men but, instead, subservient.

Now, imagine that you are a 47-year-old black man, who happens to be a U.S. Senator and running for President, and some ignorant fool refers to you as a ‘boy’. How does that play out?

Republican representative Geoff Davis (KY) found himself eating a little crow and apologizing after some remarks he made at a fundraiser last Saturday.

Davis, in referring to what he feels are Obama’s lack of qualifications to be President, said the following:

“I’m gonna tell you something. That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button.”

The most telling part about this was not his comment but, the response to it:

The comment, which was first reported by the Lexington Herald-Leader’s blog Pol Watchers, was met by laughter and applause.

After word of the comment got out, Davis was forced to apologize and did so in a handwritten letter delivered to Obama’s Senate office.

There is a bit of irony to this, though. In this same speech, Davis chastised Obama over his “bitter” comments and made reference to the fact that his comments were recorded at a private fundraiser, presumably accusing him of playing games behind closed doors.

Well, Davis’ comments were made at a Republican fundraiser and managed to get into the wild, as well.

Something tells me Davis will measure his criticisms much better in the future.

Popularity: 39% [?]