So you can't name an Obama campaign official who said that NH voters are racists, can you?
No, I didn't think so. Because it isn't true.
I suppose that Clinton's supporters don't get their talking points from the campaign?!? I'll accept your (inaccurate) claim that somehow Obama campaign fed the Bradley effect line if you're willing to admit that Billy Shaheen, Bob Johnson, Bob Kerrey, Andy Young, and every other Clinton supporter who has made offensive comments has gotten their talking points directly from Mark Penn/ Howard Wolfsohn.
Can you produce a single quote where the Obama campaign called NH voters racists? (And I don't mean the ranting of some free-lance supporter on a blog or talk show, but an actual official campaign spokesperson.) You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.
It was the media that stirred up that after NH --Andy Kohut trying to explain away the inaccurate poll results by claiming a bogus "Bradley effect", or Chris Matthews and his ilk trying blow up big news controversies to drive their narrative of the race.
But obviously it serves your political purposes to keep pushing the idea that Obama decided to "play the race card" and therefore he is running a racist, anti-white campaign, no matter what the facts say. I can't respect anyone who keeps repeating such an ugly and inaccurate lie.
So we shouldn't pay attention to SC because Obama will win? That makes it (and the Democratic primary voters there) irrelevant?
If that's the rule, then obviously we shouldn't be paying any attention to any state that Clinton is likely to win (after all, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut don't matter -- they're just full of women and white people who will vote for Hillary so it doesn't matter.... I don't think that would fly).
SC matters because the largest number of Democratic voters in any primary or caucus so far this year will turn out to vote for their choice for the Democratic nomination. In my version of democracy, that is worth paying attention to.
Did Jackson win in lily white Iowa? Did Jackson come within 3 % of winning 96% white New Hampshire? I don't think Jesse got 45% in Nevada either... or the endorsement of 8 (white) US Senators, or lead the Republican leading candidate in general election polls?
Attempting to dismiss Obama's wins in some states as "tailor-made for him to win" is a not so clever way of saying that he can only win in black states -- and cushioning HRC's likely losses there.
The continuing effort of Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign to marginalize Obama's serious campaign for the nomination as limited to an exercise in African-American pride is incredibly inaccurate, distasteful, and feeds directly into the political race war that the media is looking for. I'm looking forward to your reaction on Feb 5th when Obama wins in places far outside the deep south and the Clintonites have to find some other spin to discount his appeal.
As for Obama's "platform of explicit racial group identity" -- you should be posting on some freeper site instead of here with b.s. comments like that.
A couple of months ago the blogs (ncluding MyDD) were full of attacks on Chavez -- claiming he was a right winger unworthy of being a Democrat, that he was in the pocket of developers in ABQ, that he would lose the open NM Senate seat for us if he was the nominee, that he was trashing Tom Udall with lots of unfair attacks, etc...
I'm not sure I'd be terribly proud of that kind of endorsement -- especially following all the postings here criticizing Obama for getting endorsements from more conservative Dems like Ben Nelson. So it is okay for HRC to get endorsements from right wing Dems, but when Obama gets them it is a sign that he is a closet Republican?
Ah consistency, it sure can be a tough thing in a campaign, can't it?
Not sure exactly how far it goes in interpretation -- I've been to plenty of poltical fundraisers in DC that were chock full of people working for organizations and companies that had federal contracts -- maybe it only applies to people who had a direct individual federal contract?
If you go to the Obama website to make a donation, you have to check a box to confirm:
" Check this box to confirm that the following statements are true and accurate:
1. I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident.
I am at least 16 years old.
This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.
This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.
This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.
The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution."
#4 - clearly says no PAC money
#5 - no federal contractors
#6 - no lobbyist or foreign agents
The clear campaign policy is not to take PAC or lobbyist money - it requires the person making the contribution to confirm that they are not.
My understanding is that, like all campaigns, Obama relies on donor self-disclosure and vetting by campaign finance staff. If a donation gets through that violates these policies, it is returned once it is detected.
(This refers to his Presidential campaign funds. I'm not sure what policy he followed in his Senate campaign or his "leadership" PAC.)
Hopefully this provides a factual answer to your question.
The Nevada Democratic Party (very very friendly to HRC) included the caucus at worksites in their delegate selection plan that was submitted and approved by the DNC well over 6 months ago. The sites were put there so that working people had a better chance of actually attending a caucus. That decision was made months and months before Culinary endorsed Obama -- no one objected then, but suddenly after the union endorsed, Clinton supporters went to court to keep that from happening.
After Iowa, I heard HRC herself complain how unfair the caucus system was because it kept people who had to work from attending - so the Nevada Democratic Party took an innovative step to allow the thousands of Democrats working on the strip to be able to attend, and suddenly it is a conspiracy to help Obama.? Ah, consistency...
I guess making it harder for working people to caucus is okay if it helps Clinton win, eh?
If you read the NYTimes story, they never claim that Obama is going to challenge Clinton for a win in NY -- but rather that his campaign is organizing to get enough votes to pick up a boat load of delegates and keep HRC from running away with it. But if you want to be so Nixonian, sure, the media is all against you and biased in favor of Obama.
Finally, I just need to say that the continued use of "Barry" to refer to Barack Obama is nothing more a childish, playground taunt - you sound exactly like the Republicans who persist in using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" -- not very becoming. But hey, if that's the image you want to project, keep it up.
one (myself) has already read those articles and watched those clips
the only tendentious behavior I've seen anywhere is the loud voices of the Clinton supporters claiming that pushing back against them is "race baiting"
But of course you're the only ones who would know whether they are racially insensitive or not -- I wouldn't want you to have to actually listen to what people of color thought about those remarks -- because YOU know they aren't racially insensitive-- so how James Clyburn, Donna Brazile, Eugene Robinson, countless local activists, or the black blogosphere receive those remarks doesn't matter (because you know they aren't racially insensitive)
thanks for making it clear to me that the remarks aren't racially insensitive -- after all, YOU've decided they aren't, and that must be the "truth" since you're the "truthteller". Black and brown people must just be thin skinned and over reacting when we don't see your "trutrh"