Post debate analysis …

With what experts have described as political D-Day for Sen. Clinton fast approaching, this debate tonight was an opportunity for both candidates look Presidential.  Each candidate played it fairly safe, the difference being that one candidate appeared more focused on the attack while the other candidate deflected and focused more on appearing Presidential and more competitive against the presumptive Republican nominee.  With that said, there wasn’t any real exuberance in this debate, nothing to really energize voters beyond the wave of enthusiasm we’ve been seeing throughout this primary.  It was a very technical back-and-forth, an effort by both camps to maintain their ground. 
 
Senator Obama needed only to continue appearing dominant, and to both focus on issues and deflect criticism in such a way that made him look like the nominee.  He was fairly successful at doing just that, while at the same time carefully avoiding any statements that would raise serious controversy. There was also an opportunity for Senator Clinton to find a key, central message that could finally resonate with voters in such a way that made her competitive.  That didn’t appear to happen for her tonight, as she struggled to portray herself as a fighter, hoping to strike a chord with blue-collar Ohio voters.  That tactic may have actually backfired to a degree, particularly at that point where she complained to both MSNBC moderators about tonight’s and previous debate formats.  Once again, Clinton got booed in a critical primary state where she really needs the votes to keep her in the race.  The “Saturday Night Live” comment about Obama needing pillows actually confused the audience and was seen as somewhat petty.  Clearly, the Clinton strategy tonight was to paint herself as “scrappy” and “relentless” – something that she feels could connect with the challenges of working class, union ”Rust Belt” citizens in a state like Ohio.
 
It was the first debate in some time where the very complex issue of race was injected in a very direct way by MSNBC’s Tim Russert.  Russert’s question was clearly timed and planned to throw the typically unflappable Obama off. Russert, and the entire, mostly White male line-up that constitutes MSNBC’s political talk – should already understand the dynamics involving the perceived and real impact of Min. Louis Farrakhan in the African American community.  Hence, one can argue that Russert – mangling “Reverend Farra-”KAN’s” name in a moment of ignorance – played on that, attempting a classic “divide-and-conquer” move to see if Obama would go far enough in a denunciation of Farrakhan.  That was an interesting moment. Even more interesting was Sen. Clinton’s sudden entrance into that conversation, struggling to find a way in which she could tactically undermine a slice of his African American support while simultaneously painting him as being indirect or weak.  Instead, Obama was able to, again, deflect it, speaking in larger platitudes about the legacy of the African American and Jewish relationship.     

One final note on the Russert question. Perhaps a noted Black journalist should ask him about his frequent appearances on the Don Imus show during its run on MSNBC, since we’re getting into a discussion on major public figures who make what are perceived as controversial or racially volatile statements for a living.  Russert knew about Imus’ reputation, but he still chose to occassionally participate on the show, thereby further validating Don Imus.    Will Russert “reject” Imus or “denounce” his old friend? 

In addition, why not ask Obama about the recent endorsement from the Ku Klux Klan, which claims to have donated up to $250,000 to his campaign.  Not blaming Obama for that, but come on – can you say “double standard?”  What’s up with that?  It’s not like Farrakhan is contributing anything to Obama’s campaign; Members of the Nation of Islam don’t even vote.  Russert was just straight up wrong.  Somebody needs to call him out on it.

Quick Sunday Thoughts – Reflections on Bush Africa Trip; Clinton’s New Rage; The Racial Code behind Plagiarism …

Attempting to treat this blog like a routing blog, here are a few thoughts while running on the Sunday circuit:

- Not surprisingly, the election appears to absorb the most media energy at the moment, taking away from the historic significance of President Bush’s 6-day, 5-country Africa tour. As expected, one could draw a bit of neo-colonial missionary vibe from this trip; Bush replaying a bit of Kipling in an effort to regain some sort of legacy – an interesting sort of irony that he is more warmly received by Blacks in Africa than Blacks in America. We caught that. But, unlike President Clinton before (who actually didn’t have much of an Africa policy), Bush brings some cash with him – of course it’s not enough to mend all of Africa’s ill, but it was there – still, note the “missionary” in all of this. Note that much of the HIV/AIDS prevention money contributed to the continent funnels through Christian aid organizations. The real question is: why? Bush fervently dismisses any notion of U.S. military bases being built on the continent – calling it “bull” – but, he didn’t say the U.S. couldn’t or hasn’t already created a military presence through special forces operations, carrier groups or by funding and training of military forces in African countries. Bases are the old way of doing things; proxy is the more agreeable and efficient way of reaching objectives. Once you link the religious tone of the mission with the military activities already occurring with the hungry eyes of American policy makers and corporate operatives looking to tap new oil reserves, history repeats itself in an ugly way.

- Struggling to “find” herself and salvage what she can of her fledgling campaign (or so we think), Sen. Clinton gets angry all over again. But, the fact remains that she’s failed to find a consistent message that contains a euphoria of its own; this is the only way she can expect to combat the tide of excitement that seems to follow Sen. Obama. At this stage, the “let’s get real” argument Clinton makes to voters feels like a scolding mother chastising her clueless kids. Perhaps it’s not about going negative, perhaps it’s not about destroying “hope” – perhaps it’s about creating a “hope” paradigm of her own. But, Clinton’s gaining quite a bit of media steam and analysis from recent comments and rage, which paints her as the under-dog candidate – don’t think the seemingly conciliatory tone of the Texas debate was the first stage of an exit strategy; feigning “under-dog” and showing “love” is something that could resonate again with women – especially White women in places like Ohio, shades of New Hampshire tears. It’s also sucking up quite a bit of media air from Obama; the hype surrounding Clinton’s failing campaign could actually work to her advantage as it lowers expectations in a big way. Still, Clinton has to realize that this campaign is not about her or her marriage to her husband – it’s about something much larger than all of that. She can’t seem to break out of that mold.

- Clinton’s accusation that Obama is a pathological “plagiarist” and rhyme-biter has gained much more media steam than the recent New York Times article alleging Sen. McCain’s alleged inappropriate relationship with a female D.C. lobbyist. We sense a tinge of racial code in this. Politicians have been lifting passages, verses, rhymes and words since politics can remember – especially American politics. President Kennedy famous “what you can do for your country” line appeared inspired by early 20th century Lebanese poet Khalil Gibran. Not that there is anything wrong with this; it just is. Politics is not only the art of making policy ideals possible, but it’s the art of persuasion and inspiration.

This controversy over Obama’s borrowing of phrases from his surrogate Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick (D) has been ongoing for nearly two weeks now. Suddenly, the notion that politicians are lifting phrases is the headline of the ages, as if it’s never done. But, many politicians have speech writers, and their words aren’t really their words in the first place. Bottom line is that there is an implication and resurfacing of the stereotype of the “slick” and “articulate” Black man with cool pose, good looks and great speeches “con-ning” his way to success and riches. This could be a subtle reason behind the media’s incessant driving of the story; there are many White pundits and observers who are not so much bothered by Clinton’s “petty” assertion as they are by Obama’s ability to accumulate massive support through rhetorical force.  It plays into the other image or long-held concept of Black public figures having no substance beyond their great orations – that African Americans have not accomplished anything other than offering great speeches and sermons. Since we are witnessing an unprecedented situation here with the potential of a Black President looming, rather petty questions and discussions surface to the bubbling top of our society’s bigoted cauldron.

Maggie Williams – More than Meets the Eye on this One …

Correct assumption – word on the street is that Sen. Clinton’s new campaign manager (after sacking the former one, Patty Solis Doyle) Maggie Williams is a sister.  True.  Which brings up some very interesting racial dynamics.  As we’ve seen, the Clintons aren’t past playing that game, so we also have to assume that Williams new appointment is about something larger than a simple campaign shake-up. 

First question looks into how Doyle’s replacement by a Black woman will impact Clinton’s leverage with Latino voters – that’s a key question.  What does that signal?  Insiders say that Obama could do better in Latino-rich Texas than expected; maybe the Clinton camp caught wind of that and is looking for a new hustle; can’t get the states and the vote – but, maybe they can get what really matters in all of this: delegates.  Maybe it’s time to tap Williams, who in turn will tap the Black political community for more institutional support in the play for delegates.  Divide and conquer style.   

We can’t ignore the subliminals, themes and stories coming out of this.  How the Clintons are very skillful at using pretty damn near most of the most powerful Black women in politics to endorse Hillary as they publicly (and unapologetically) campaign against their only Black colleague in the Senate who happens to be a Black man.  Which is why we posed the question some time ago in this blog and on SUNDAY NITE TALK: the dichotomy of wanting or complaining about the lack of “successful” or “together” Black men, yet making an all-out effort to derail the efforts of a brother who is at the top of his game. Make up your mind, sistrens.  That’s another conversation …

The symbolism in this is troubling.  It doesn’t add up when considering that the overwhelming majority of their Black constituents support Obama.  Not certain what Virgin Islands Delegate, CBC Member and Clinton endorser Donna Christian-Christensen (D) will do after 90% of the primary vote in the VI went to Obama this past weekend.   That’s got to sting.

Maggie Williams completes the circle on this effort, an attempt to solidify support from the African American political vanguard that is still in shock that Sen. Obama is doing so well without their consent.  One: the psychological game is apparent – put out more Black women against Obama and you can potentially get Black women voters more torn up about who to vote for.  Two: Even though Clinton can’t secure the Black popular vote, she may be very effective at snagging Black super delegates.  Watch carefully how this plays out.  Something shady about to go down …

Arianna Huffington reminds us of an old 1997 piece she did titled Who is Maggie Williams?

The Numbers Game …

Big up to The Wall Street Journal for bringing this issue up, because we were just as confused as anybody else about why the delegate counts are all over the damn place.  In fact, the editors over at Blackpolicy.org got a little slick and creative with it: they just started averaging it all out to come up with as close to an accurate estimate of delegate counts as possible. 

Here’s The Numbers Guy in WSJ: “At least five different news organizations are tracking delegate counts, and the numbers have been all over the map,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

“By Friday, the Associated Press’s count was scoring Clinton ahead, 1,045 to 960. CBS News had a Clinton lead of 1,069 to 1,001; at ABC News, it was 1,069 to 990; and CNN called it 1,037 to 933. Meanwhile, NBC News had Obama in the lead, 861 to 855. More discrepancies are likely to arise after tomorrow’s votes in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington state and the Virgin Islands.”

“The biggest discrepancy is between NBC and its competitors, both in the margin and in the total. That’s because it’s the only outlet of the five to exclude so-called superdelegates, whose votes aren’t pledged based on outcomes of state votes. Most who have expressed a preference have pledged support for Ms. Clinton, but they can change their minds until the party convention.”

Finally: Somebody Other than Us Keeps it Real on the Latino Vote preference for Clinton …

We’ve been arguing, somewhat pointedly, on this blog and on our XM Radio program and other programs, that the overwhelming Latino vote preference for the Clintons is not just about better campaign organizing.  Sure: Obama should do a better job with his Latino ground game.  But, ever think why he’s not? Or why he may actually be trying to solicit favorable Latino response, but just can’t get it? 

Ever think that this explanation as the only explanation is something of a lame, cop-out excuse?

We’ve been saying for some time now that one should look to anti-Black racism that has lay dormant within Latino communities for some time, particularly amongst Central American Hispanics and especially Mexicans who are from societies where class and color stratification defines privilege, status or treatment.  Hispanics from the Caribbean, long association themselves with the African Diaspora, may actually be somewhat inclined to vote for Obama based on cultural affinity.

Few want to talk about that – sure: it’s an ugly conversation.  And, we don’t suggest that all Hispanics harbor these attitudes.  But, one can’t help but contemplate momentarily passing George Lopez stand-up jokes about how he remembers growing up in a household where prejudices against Blacks were commonplace.  That’s not an isolated experience in many Latino communities; and such attitudes have been known to foment into violence against African Americans.

On the flip side, African Americans can’t be absolved of any guilt in this equation.  Hispanics surely hear Black leaders complain of growing Latino population numbers outdoing them in Census counts and leading to gaps in Black political leverage.  In addition, Hispanics may be somewhat put off and unnerved by Black discourse over immigration issues: the “they are taking jobs from us” or “driving wages down.”  Voting against Obama may be seen as payback for that conversation.  A big question in examining that argument is: why would you want those jobs in the first place?  If you’ve been here longer in the U.S., then your chances of being more skilled to secure better jobs are higher – why worry about the manual labor crumbs at the bottom of the economic totem pole?

We know, we know – it’s a complicated situation underscored by the larger role racism (both subtle and seen) plays in instigating Black unemployment ad under-employment.  But, we are in a slightly better spot now than we were 40 years before. 

Still, these high Latino numbers for Clinton are no accident. And, say all you want to say about Obama’s poor performance in Latino outreach, only someone truly out of touch with reality hasn’t heard Obama’s name mentioned at least once or twice during the course of a day; name recognition has nothing to do with it.  These numbers suggest something else. 

Now, of course, when Black political experts talk about this, no one hears it.  It gets little play.  We don’t know what we’re talking about, etc. … You know how it goes: this is the White man’s game – what we know about politics.  But, it takes a Washington Post columnist to put it out there and Susan Jacoby truly does it with style:

“Many political commentators, on television and in the press, are dancing around the white elephant in the room in discussing the overwhelming Hispanic preference for Clinton. Although Hispanics (especially first-generation immigrants) have experienced severe discrimination in the U.S.—especially in the Southwest—they can hardly be unaware that America treats light-skinned immigrant better than the dark-skinned ones.  Immigrants from Latin American come in all colors, from coal-black to caramel to white, and many class distinctions within their former countries are based on shades of  color. Add that to American racism, and it is easy to see why many Latinos would not want to identify themselves with a black candidate.”

Initial Thoughts on Super Tuesday …

On the Democratic side, it’s the type of night Sen. Obama needed to show that he is a national candidate.  He has to be pleased that he actually won states and absorbed delegates in every region of the country.  On the flip side, Sen. Clinton won the two biggest prizes: New York and California.  She won New York because it’s her “home state” – but, she still won by a smaller margin in her state than Obama did in his base of Illinois since African Americans in New York clearly bolted for Barack. The edge she got in California was due to overwhelming support from women (primarily White women) and Latinos.   However, one key electorate few are talking about is the Asian vote in California which may clearly broke for Clinton.

The issue for Obama is how he deals with the Latino vote in places like Texas. He has to find a way to solidify his Latino support in the Lone Star state. He did well in Colorado where Latinos are 20 percent of the population, so that could help boost his chances of better performance in the Southwest.   

Still trying to figure out exactly what happened to the Black vote in Tennessee. Shades of the Harold Ford fiasco where Black voters still couldn’t vote for Ford strong enough to carry him against the Republican candidate?  We don’t know, but it’s fairly compelling that the Obama camp couldn’t draw that much of a significant African American vote to outdo Clinton.  It could have also been that the state is so segregated along racial lines that it couldn’t go for the Black candidate.

There’s no way McCain and Huckabee campaigns didn’t work together in West Virginia – perhaps McCain and Huckabee didn’t know anything, but their campaigns in West Virginia sure did in an effort to block Romney.  There are clear indications that Huckabee played defense to McCain’s quaterbacking.   The problem with Huckabee is that all his wins are in the South, which marginalizes him as the “Southern” candidate – he’s through.  It’s probably between McCain and Romney if this goes beyond tonight, with Romney not getting much support from the Republican ranks or grassroots.” 

50 Cents the Penny. Delegates?? What the …

Time to get educated.  Everybody’s talking about Super Tuesday like it’s the Super Bowl, but few (besides us political junkies and pundits) truly understand what the hell is going on.  On a quick note about knowing stuff, another top reason why buying a 50 Cent album is bad for your health (fortunately, these pockets never lifted a dime for one): notes 50 Cent on his internalized racist rant: “I want Hillary Clinton to be our next President. Americans aren’t ready yet for a black President. Obama would probably be killed if elected.”  Interesting thing is quite a few Black folks outside of 50 Dense are actually rambling in barely audible syllables about Black Presidential conspiracy theories, etc., etc.  Sit down, read a book and get your head out of Internet message boards and chat rooms. “The Miseducation of the Negro” combined with complex self hate continues.  Dude should stick to what he doesn’t know best and disintegrate into obscurity like every other “rapper” that was but really wasn’t.  Bottom line is every President runs the risk of an attempt on their lives – regardless of who’s in the White House, there will always be a fanatic (or group of fanatics) who prefer violence to make a point rather than policy.  We digress here ….

The real game will be in the delegates, and a lot of cats will be seriously vexed after voting to only hear the next morning – in the postmortem – that it was all about this thing called “delegates.”  Who gets the most delegates is who wins this thing.  We’ve been hearing it buzzed about, but few folks know what’s happening with that.  It’s unfortunate how the system won’t fully educate the folks that are supposed to participate in it; but, it’s also unfortunate that many voters care little about the process beyond the ballot. 

Here’s a really good overview of how the primary system will work by George Washington University’s Eric Appleman:  The Frontloaded Primary Schedule.  We also dig Congressional Quarterly’s Eight Questions and Answers on Super Tuesday.  CQ gets live with its 2008 Primary Guide by keeping it simple.  That’s what’s up.  We’ll try to condense it all for you at Blackpolicy.org.  Stay tuned.  We don’t think there will be any clear winners tonight on the Democratic side; McCain’s on top though.  We’ll talk about McCain later, and the fact that he’s looking ever so old school, grumpy and downright fogey these days with the bad campaign trail jokes …

SUNDAY’S SECOND THOUGHTS: On Delegates; On Kenya

Sunday is the chosen day for spiritual fulfillment, but it’s also the prime day for political reflection.  We have Sunday Nite Talk, but let’s enter the fray with a few quick thoughts every early Sunday morn:

1) This thing called “delegates.”

The much more complicated “delegate” game played on the Democratic side of the primaries could potentially lead to a rather debilitating base uprising within the party.  With the race already tightened down to two, it’s ever more caustic only a few days before Super Tuesday. But voters are hearing much chatter amongst pundits, experts and analysts alike that it’s not the votes being counted, it’s the delegates.  And, with Democrats, there’s this thing called Super Delegates.  Huh?

New America Foundation fellow Steven Hill writes a great, basics piece on the delegate process in The Washington Post titled: Why Super Tuesday Won’t Be So Super?  This is a must read for anyone who doesn’t understand what’s up with the primary process and why there’s a feeling in the pit of the American voting stomach that says its votes don’t count – the delegates do.  That seems to contradict the elementary civics lessons we’ve been fed over the years and our primal understandings of the Constitution. 

There are big risks in playing the delegate game into the Denver convention come August.  Big risks as far as African American voters are concerned.  The Clinton camp ought to be careful when placing all their bets on a brokered convention in which delegate chips are negotiated behind closed doors.  Such brokering will raise the ire of Black voters as politics is all about perception – few voters truly understand the intricate science of delegate counting.  All we need is conspiracy theories about how the White woman stole the election from the Black man. It’ll raise shades of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.  The sense that, once again, Black voters are being disenfranchised because their moment was squandered by the Clintons.  Privately, some major Black politicos who are banking on an Obama win are seething at the “race card” game being played by the former “first black president” and his ambitious wife – some are saying they aren’t lifting a finger to help Hillary in November.  The feeling is that if Obama doesn’t get the nomination or, at least, a VP spot, then what difference does it make who’s in the White House: they always end up being White and nothing ever changes.  Don’t be surprised if many Black voters sit it out in the general election if Clinton becomes the nominee and decides to pick some obscure White male as her running mate; she might want to talk to 2000 Democratic Gubernatorial nominee Kathleen Kennedy Townsend about that move.  Her best bet is to set aside the grudge and pick her primary arch rival as her general election partner.   

 2)  Is Kenya really about ”tribal conflict?”

As a once stable Kenya spirals into maddening violence over a disputed presidential election, there are calls from the opposition leader (Raila Odinga, who just so happens to be Obama’s paternal counsin) for African Union peacekeepers – already stretched thin in other parts of Eastern Africa. 

Eastern African, strangely enough, is on fire during the present “War on Terror” and the use of East African nations as staging bases for U.S. military operations against growing Islamic fundamentalist influence and terrorism activities in that region.  We saw how Islam invaded and spread through East Africa centuries before.  Are Kenya’s strings being pulled in ways we’re not seeing – or aren’t being reported? 

Still, we are increasingly vexed by this rather simplistic and a-intellectual notion that Kenya’s problems are rooted in Kenya’s “tribal” rivalries.  It trivializes the issue at hand, and – as with every other conflict in Africa – there is a sense of a completely backward continent racked by tribal rivalries.  But few want to talk about the role poverty and neo-colonialism play in triggering these conflicts; yes, there are many ongoing inner-conflicts that have simmered along tribal lines – but, let’s not devalue Africa’s problems and lazily grasp onto long held racist assumptions.    

Skeptical Brotha: “Hillary’s Handkerchief Heads: Call Them Out …”

Funny, provocative stuff on the Skeptical Brotha blog that we just couldn’t pass over. Take what you want from it. Still, we kind of understand where the NY CBC Members are coming from because it’s all politics. They’re a part of the same Congressional delegation as Sen. Clinton, so that’s a tough call. Sometimes, we shouldn’t expect “Black” politicians to be “Black” – ultimately, they’re politicians looking to get re-elected just like their peers. But, big ups to Skeptical Brotha for stepping out there with this – somebody had to point it out. We’re certain that after the South Carolina win and growing African American support for Obama, some of the peeps on the list below will begin re-considering or altogether reversing their endorsements … if not, they’ll risk the ire of their majority Black districts.

 

Our biggest beef, at this stage, falls with Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). We don’t understand how this cat gets the beatdown of a lifetime at the Selma March, gets a speech impediment as a result, all for the cause of getting us to the point where we could potentially see a Black man as President – or, so we thought. But, Lewis’ cajoling, clapping and spectacled seat-jumping for Clinton at the recent South Carolina debate (clearly dissing his ONLY CBC colleague in the Senate) vexed us to no end. For some reason, Lewis doesn’t much care for young brothers running for office – he obviously had a problem with young, energetic Keith Leaphart in Philly running against White incumbent and Hill colleague Rep. Bill Brady (D-PA).  

 

On to Skeptical Brotha’s blog ….

“Hillary’s Handkerchief Heads: Call Them Out …”

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.)
Del. Donna Christensen (D-V.I.)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.)
Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.)
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-Ohio)
Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)

If any of the listed Negro members of Congress supporting Hillary belongs to you, they need to hear a word from the people. I propose the following letter.

Dear Handkerchief Head:

You have been unconscionably silent in the face of Bill Clinton’s racially divisive tactics on behalf of Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign. I can only surmise from your silence that you either approve of Bill Clinton’s tactics or are too gutless to publicly register your opposition. Whatever the case may be, I have taken the liberty of writing to formally register my unbridled indignation and to withdraw whatever support I may have given to your re-election campaign. Pretending that the President’s comments were somehow taken out of context or don’t mean what they plainly imply simply will not do. Burying your head in the sand or defending the indefensible won’t do either. It’s time to do-you know what-or get off the pot. You can delay addressing these comments if you want to, but you do so at your peril. The Sunday morning talk shows were universally caustic against the Clintons.

On “Meet the Press,” Byron York of the right-wing National Review said, “You know, I don’t think you can overstate the amount of, of anger in–created in Democrats by Bill Clinton’s tactics. I mean, they were very, very unhappy with him. I was talking to a Democratic strategist the other day who said, “My wife just got in the car. She’s driving to South Carolina to volunteer for Obama.” They were that angry at what Clinton had done. And he also said, you know, Clinton is trying to turn him into Jesse Jackson. And sure enough, after Obama wins big, what does Bill Clinton say about it? “Well, you know, Jesse Jackson won here, too.”

Neo-Con Fox News Contributor and NY Times Columnist Bill Kristol wrote, “What do Jesse Jackson’s victories two decades ago have to do with this year’s Obama-Clinton race? The Obama campaign is nothing like Jackson’s. Obama isn’t running on Jackson-like themes. Obama rarely refers to Jackson.” “Clinton’s comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton’s comment is that Obama’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn’t mean any more than Jackson’s did.” “But of course — as Clinton knows very well — Jesse Jackson didn’t win (almost all-white) Iowa. He didn’t come within a couple of points of prevailing in (almost all-white) New Hampshire. Nor did he, as Obama did, carry white voters in rural Nevada. And Saturday, in South Carolina, even after Bill Clinton tried to turn Obama into Jackson, Hillary defeated Obama by just three to two among white voters. So Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards?”

On “Meet the Press,” Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director, provides a blunt answer to Kristol’s rhetorical question, “But, you know, it does feel like, though, that what Bill Clinton is doing is he read a poll, and he said, “OK, when am–how am I going to get her to 51 percent. OK. We’ve got to figure out how to drive white men away from Barack Obama. We’ve got to figure out how to drive Latinos away from Barack Obama.” That’s what works on February 5th. And, you know, he may not ever say that, but it feels like it’s a very tactical thing that they’ve done, and I think that’s what, you know, is going to offend the Beltway corridor, the Amtrak corridor, and, and you’re seeing a lot of, sort of, the New York and Washington Democrats who are probably going to keep coming out against Clinton on this….”

Some of us were raised to believe that members of the Congressional Black Caucus were among the best Black public servants in the country. Your actions belie that notion and constitute a slap in the face to those that came before you in the Reconstruction era. They fought valiantly for a seat at the table for African Americans before they were disenfranchised through the white supremacist tactics of mob violence, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, and poll taxes. Continuing to languish on the Clinton plantation in light of these racially divisive tactics is a betrayal of the progressive ideals of the Democratic Party and to the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement who fought to make America a functioning and pluralistic democracy. As for me, I am through with the Clintons and I am too through with you.

Brooks: The Power Behind Obama’s Purple Revolution …

Aware of the richness of political and public policy thought out there in the Black blogosphere, we’ll now be throwing a guest/republished blog (with credit) at you everyday we’re not doing one ourselves – blogging is a tough, time-consuming business, so we’re not going to front like it’s a walk in the park.  We like it, but we just can’t seem to maintain the sedentary lifestyle required to do one everyday.  So, why not highlight all the other brethren and sistren out there mulling politics on the daily.  In the meantime, if you’ve got something to say or write, feel free to become a Blackpolicy.org Guest Blogger – who knows, if you keep at it, find some juice and do it on the regular, we’ll throw in a free email account for you. 

Anyway, we dig our friend Webster Brooks observation that Obama has sparked a “Purple Revolution” (much like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine we saw a couple years back):

GUEST BLOG: Webster Brooks, Chief Editor of the U.S.-Iran Peace Project & former Independent Vice-Presidential Candidate writes:

As we predicted last week, Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama not only needed to win the South Carolina primary, but win it big with 80% of the Black vote. Obama did just that; stunning the nation by winning 55% of the total vote compared to Hillary Clinton’s anemic 27%. Obama’s victory has sent shock waves through the Democratic Party establishment controlled by the Clintons, as evidenced by Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama on Sunday; a defection that may open the floodgates in the weeks to come of establishment Democrats jettisoning the Clinton’s divisive and retrograde “Co-Presidency” campaign.

In carrying 80% of the Black vote Obama accomplished a key strategic goal; solidifying Blacks as a reliable voting constituency in his growing Purple Revolution comprised of moderate Democrats, Independents and disaffected Republicans.  Obama goes into the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries in 20 states with the winds of momentum in his sails. 

The South Carolina primary demonstrated in brilliant fashion that Barak Obama is the only Democratic candidate capable of building a coalition of voters across demographic lines to defeat the Republicans in the November general election. South Carolina was the first contest in which African-American voters played a major role and despite the Clinton’s success in racially polarizing the contest, Obama’s victory far exceeded the boundaries of racial and gender politics. South Carolina’s white voters are the most ideologically and politically conservative voters in America, and made up half of the state’s electorate. Nevertheless, Obama won 25% of the white vote, even with native South Carolinian John Edwards in the contest. Moreover, 61% of South Carolina’s voters were women. Obama won 54% of the women’s vote. The fact that Southern white men did not and will not vote for Hillary does not augur well for the Clinton’s on Super Tuesday.  . 

The slash and burn campaign against Obama, so typical of the Clinton’s has ignited a fire storm that Democratic Party leaders find deeply troublesome. If Hillary Clinton manages to win the Democratic Party nomination, Black voters will not enthusiastically embrace her campaign. Even the chief firefighters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will have a difficult time hawking Clinton’s wares. In an election year that Republicans are in serious disfavor with the American public, Democrats feel the White House belongs to them; they do not want another presidential candidate meltdown.

Increasingly, Hillary and Bill Clinton are being exposed for the politically toxic mix that they truly are. Should John McCain win the January 29 Florida Republican primary and emerge as the clear GOP front runner, the Democratic Party establishment will be forced to confront the reality that it must have a candidate with broad appeal to combat McCain’s popularity among Independents, moderates and centrist voters. That candidate is Barak Obama, and the politics of addition and victory in November is Obama’s Purple Revolution!