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: 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: 6% [?]

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% [?]

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% [?]

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% [?]

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% [?]