ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

I agree with both of you.

PDXMike | 02/28/08

Well, Obamas campeign really pushing the racism car didn't really help either. When Hillary cried they actually said she was being racist, because she didn't cry like that for Katrina victims. Then, they claimed she was a racist for stating historical facts about LBJ, because they saw it as anti-MLK. So, was it any surprise when they saw Bill Clinton attacking the media for not scrutinizing Obamas record more as racist? He did not mention race or even hint at it, but the Obama campaign still managed to peg him as a racist. Then with the Jesse Jackson comment was another attempt to inaccurately peg him as racist. There were 3 names he could have chosen. His own, John Edwards (who was still in the race), and Jesse Jackson. Out of those 3 Jesse Jacksons numbers most closely matched those of Obama in South Carolina and he was the only name not in the race. There were other correlations in the percentages they got from the various racial communities. So, for being historically accurate he was branded a racist. No matter how well you put forth your message once you are branded a racist you will lose votes. The Obama campaign has been fighting hard to put the racist label on the Clintons for even the most mundane things, yet the American people bought it. That is why her campaign hit a screeching halt.

Eveas | 02/28/08

I have to say, I don't think the race card accounts for Clinton's slide much at all. Clinton's campaign simply assumed she'd crush the rest of the Democratic field. Her strategists spent so much time thinking about the general election that they didn't even stop to think about the primary one. There's plenty of proof on that one. In Ohio, by the time the first Obama office opened, there were already HUNDREDS of Obama supporters on the ground. They even had a volunteer whose only job was to coordinate the 60 or so other volunteers who would take care of feeding all the volunteers, each day. Clinton's "machine" approach, on the other hand, didn't even get started until a few weeks ago. By then, many of the legislators who supported her had to switch to Obama - they went to talk to their constituents, and saw their successors walking on their graves if they didn't vote as their voters would. In Pennsylvania, Clinton doesn't even have a full slate of delegates - despite Gov. Rendell, a Clinton backer, extending the filing deadline just so she could get a full slate in. They spent over $25 million on the Iowa primary, but were no match for Obama's foot soldiers. In Kansas - a state deemed "unimportant" by Mark Penn - there were 3 Obama staffers working that state all by themselves! In Vermont, Clinton recently opened offices there after having to be begged by her main backer in the state to at least try and campaign there. Not only is her "strategy" insulting to about 4/5ths of the Union, but her financial mismanagement and elitist thought process casts serious doubt on whether she could show the fiscal prudence and coalition building skills necessary to implement most of her proposals.

eside1993 | 02/28/08

Oh wait - there's more :) In Texas, Clinton admitted just before the debate that she had "no idea" about how the state's complex system of awarding delegates worked. Obama, however, clearly knew exactly how to get votes. He concentrated on the bigger state districts (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin), and as a result, could actually lose the state overall but still come out with a healthy delegate majority. Courting Chris Dodd (a known commodity on trade, and a fluent Spanish speaker) was also brilliant, as was getting John Kerry to stump throughout South Texas. Hillary's inexperience in difficult political races has been fully exposed. The difference between the two campaigns can be boiled down to one sentence. Obama knows this is a competition; Clinton thought it was a coronation.

eside1993 | 02/28/08

There is no denying the overwhelming shift in the black vote after the race card was played. She was actually ahead, then within days she was behind by double digits. Now, she is struggling for 10%.

Eveas | 02/28/08

I have more than one friend who, prior to our primary, told me that they were voting for "The Clintons"; I think he's helped her, for what it's worth, by simply being.

IamFry | 02/28/08

I don't think it's right to say that Black voters were swayed by the "race card". In fact, it's somewhat insulting to that voting bloc to insinuate that they are so easily swayed by a matter of race. They didn't vote for either Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Why not? Simply, because neither of those candidates had a realistic chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Black voters have a good memory, and many of them remember Bill Clinton and his inclusive administration. It's not that Clinton has been portrayed as a racist; the fact is that she has a lot of supporters among Black lawmakers. Rather, the swing can be explained by saying that there is a Black candidate who actually appears to be real Presidential timber - an accusation never leveled at Jackson or Sharpton. The real voting swing happened after Super Tuesday, when Blacks around the country woke up, saw that Obama had performed well, and actually began to believe he really could win not only the nomination, but also the general election.

eside1993 | 02/28/08