This is such a non-story:

 

"And in Winston-Salem she poked a little fun.

"Just kidding."(MO).
***

Jack Kennedy said the same thing; that he was an accessory of Jackie's.

 

"I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris, and I have enjoyed it, (JFK)."

 

If a black man says something bad about America, all the devil breaks loose; yet John a foreign white man can say anything he wants bad about America, and the "double standards-Clinton's" say nothing.

***

Elton John was a bit edgier:

"I never cease to be amazed at the misogynist attitude of some of the people in this country," he said. "I say to hell with them."
***

 

 

 

Al Gore on C-SPAN in 1992 or 1996 on a walking tour, said, "I'm in search of white male votes."

 

So it is inflammatory and incindiary to try and pretend that an Obama advance person has said something that has never been said before.

***

Obama advance: 'Get me more white people'

From the account in Carnegie Mellon's paper, the Tartan, of a Michelle Obama event in Pittsburgh:

While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama.

The Tartan’s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, “Get me more white people, we need more white people.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.”

“I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”

I'm not sure there's any real reason for outrage here; every campaign, at least implicitly, includes race in the staging of events like this -- even a campaign whose supporters chant "race doesn't matter." But they don't usually get caught doing it this explicitly.

And (if you didn't pick it up from the bowling) it does give you a sense of the community Obama's trying to reach in Pennsylvania: whitefolks.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_advance_Get_me_more_white_people.html

 

 

 

 

This is a non-story.  It's called "the Powell Effect."

 

Powell, at 90% approval rating while contemplating running for President many years ago, said "90% now means nothing; everybody likes me now; but as soon as announce that I'm running, 50% of the nation will hate me."

****

 

"Writing at Politico.com, (Costas Panagopoulos), he suggests the aging empress of TV has paid a price for getting into the dirty business of politics with and for her man Barack. By August last year, a CBS poll found her favorable rating had plunged from 74% to 61%, still twice as good as the president but nearly a 20% drop."

 

 

 Clinton went to Scaife her arch enemy because she was royally ticked that the Wright thing did not ping Obama more.  She was hoping that Scaife would pick up the Wright mantle; he will if he can; but she continues to push.

 

So now Lanny Davis will ramp it up again.  Just because he says that he will be accused of playing the race card, doesn't mean that that is not what they are doing.

 

They are.

 

They will play the race card over and over and over again.

 

It's all they know.

***

  

Obama's Minister Problem

By LANNY J. DAVIS
April 9, 2008; Page A15

I have tried to get over my unease surrounding Barack Obama's response to the sermons and writings of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But the unanswered questions remain.

I am a strong supporter of and a substantial fundraiser for Hillary Clinton for president (though in this column I speak only for myself). I still believe she should and will be the Democratic nominee. But if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, he needs to understand that this issue goes well beyond Clinton partisans. Now is the time to address these questions, not later.

Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue. The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?

My concerns were retriggered when I read for the first time three excerpts from Rev. Wright's sermons published several weeks ago in a national news magazine:

- "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
-- Sept. 16, 2001 (the first Sunday after 9/11)

- "The government . . . wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no. God damn America; that's in the bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human."
-- 2003

- "The United States of White America."
-- July 22, 2007

As I read and reread these words, I keep thinking: If my rabbi ever uttered such hateful words from the pulpit about America and declared all Palestinians to be terrorists, I have no doubt I would have withdrawn immediately from his congregation.

In his eloquent Philadelphia speech, Mr. Obama likened Rev. Wright to a beloved, but politically extremist, family member with whom one profoundly disagrees but whose rage one understands.

But this comparison just doesn't work for me. I don't get a chance to choose my family members. I do get a chance to choose my spiritual or religious leader and my congregation. And I do not have to remain silent or, more importantly, expose my children to the spiritual leader of my congregation who spews hate that offends my conscience.

Mr. Obama made a choice to join the church and to ask Rev. Wright to marry him and his bride. He said for the first time a few weeks ago that had Rev. Wright not recently resigned as pastor of the church, he would have withdrawn. But that only reraised the same questions: Why didn't he act before the resignation?

If he did not want to withdraw from the church – and I truly try to understand his personal difficulty doing so – then why not at least speak out publicly and say, in the famous phrase of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: "No – this is unacceptable."

Furthermore, after knowing about some of these sermons and having serious problems with some of their messages, why did Mr. Obama still decide to appoint Rev. Wright to his official presidential campaign religious advisory committee?

Some have suggested that any Clinton supporters who continue to raise this issue are "playing the race card" or taking the "low" road.

When I said on CNN recently that concerns about the Wright-Obama issue were "appropriate" to continue to be discussed, my friend Joe Klein of Time Magazine said, "Lanny, Lanny, you're spreading the poison right now" and that an "honorable person" would "stay away from this stuff."

Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters – soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans – who will decide the 2008 election.

One thing is for sure: If Mr. Obama doesn't show a willingness to try to answer all the questions now, John McCain and the Republican attack machine will not waste a minute pressuring him to do so if he is the Democratic Party's choice in the fall.

But by then, it may be too late.

Mr. Davis, a Washington, D.C. attorney, is former special counsel to President Clinton.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770107738700007.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Jonathan Martin

 

April 08, 2008
Categories: HRC

Howell Raines said tonight that Bill Clinton has engaged in a subtle race-baiting campaign against Barack Obama.

"He has sought to, in a low key way, remind people, 'Hey, this guy is black,'" Raines said of Clinton during a panel discussion at a journalism awards banquet sponsored by The Week magazine.

As editorial page editor of the New York Times in the 90s, Raines frequently penned scathing attacks on the former president.

But since resigning as the paper's top editor in 2003 amid the Jayson Blair scandal, he has kept a low profile, living in relative seclusion in Pennsylvania.

Tonight, though, speaking before a room full of Washington reporters and politicos, Raines picked up where he left off last decade.

"Absolute fatigue with Bill Clinton is [Hillary's] biggest liability right now," he declared.  

Hillary has run a very negative campaign, Raines said, but he did offer the former first lady a note of praise -- by way of lashing her husband a bit more.

"She's the person in the family who can take a punch," he quipped.

For all his frank talk about the campaign, Raines was more guarded when asked a question about his old employer.

He declined to say whether he would have, had he still been editor, run the Times story in February tying John McCain to a female lobbyist.

To do so, he said, would only feed a perception of bitterness and Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

 

 

 

Exclusive: Ambassador Crocker Says Ready to Talk to Iran Again

"But he also added that "we don't want to have just what you describe as a proxy war with Iran inside Iraq, and that is why we are willing to sit down with Iran face to face for talks on Iraqi security at the invitation of the Iraqi government. We've had three rounds of those talks and we've told them we are ready to again."

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/Story?id=4612088&page=2

 

Side 1:  Obama, is taller than both McCain and Clinton, but they are virtually tied in height in this picture.  How is that racist?  Here's how: Some whites have this fear of being dominated by blacks, so when they have the power to do so, as in photo editing, they cut us down to size.

 

Side 2: Clinton and McCain are perfectly coiffed, but Obama's head is unevenly squared.  How's that racist?  Here's how: Some whites can't stand to have blacks look better than them, so they are not as careful with the air-brush. 

 

Side 3: The distance between Clinton and McCain is less than the distance between Clinton and Obama; as if Obama has the plague.  How's that racist?  Here's how: The Clinton -McCain distance says "we're friends, we're white; Obama is not.  He's an outsider; he's not one of us."

 

Jack Kennedy said "Law alone will not make men see right."

 

No civil rights law will make the editor show the truth, that Obama is taller than Clinton and McCain.

 

No executive order will hold the editors hand steady so that he/she perfects Obama's picture the same as Clinton's and McCain's.

 

No presidential edict will make white America include blacks into their hearts.

 

These pics favor McCain and Clinton, especially Clinton.  So don't tell me the media is unfair to Clinton, or that women have a bigger barrier to climb than blacks.

 

It's simply not true, and I wish Steinem, Clinton, McGovern and NOW would stop lying about it.

 

 

 

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Cliton has 30 Flag and General Officers, and McCain has 130, AND THEY BOTH STILL GOT THE IRAQ VOTE WRONG!!!!

 

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   "); //-->

 

Obama, the black man is taller than both white people, Senators Clinton and McCain, yet both McCain and Clinton appear taller than Obama in this picture.

 

So in this case, the press, The Hill favors McCain and Clinton, and especially Clinton.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

 

 

 

 

"For example, Mr. Clinton raked in as much as $15 million working as an adviser and rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa firm. We're not sure what advice Mr. Clinton gave but it must have been fabulous. The former President also took in $3.3 million in consulting fees from InfoUSA CEO Vinod Gupta, who has also helped fund Mrs. Clinton's White House bid. These are not opportunities that fall into every American's lap.

 

 

 

The rightwing always said that blacks whine; are too sensitive and play the race card.

 

Now the world can see that it is not blacks who play the race card, who are too sensitive and who whine all the time; it's Senator Clinton.

 

(Spade work)

(Crying on que)

(Complaining the press is unfair.)

 

Not one time has Obama said that the press is unfair, even after being pilloried over Rev Wright, by Hannity and other media 24/7 over a three week period.

 

Not one time has Obama blamed his loss in New Hampshire on race; eventhough the Clintons played the race card against him.

 

For that, the rightwing owes blacks an apology.

 

 

I never believed anything the rightwing said about the Clintons in 1990s.

 

Now after seeing them play the race card, re-institute the Southern Strategy, trash Obama below the belt, trash black people after Iowa, in favor of Hispanics and white women, have Ferraro, Steinem, McGovern, and Rendell play the race card, I believe some of what the Rightwing said about the Clintons in the 1990s.

 

For that I owe the Rightwing an apology.