Me neither.

Hat tip to Pamela Leavey, who has sage counsel for these folks.

Yep.

TBogg...

America doesn't need a woman president any more than it needs a black president, a Mexican president, or a gay president. We don't need to prove anything to anyone, we don't need a trophy. We don't need to point out how far we have come as much as we need to decide how far we want to go. What we need is good president or two. That would suffice.

Personally, I think either Barack or Hillary would make a perfectly good President, particularly in light of the precedents. But which isn't the question anymore. We know which.

How, that's the question. Those 75,000 souls in Portland are part of the answer.

Songs were sung,,,

…pints of Ireland's fine brown brew were drunk and somewhere an election was held. Where It Stands sums it up...


Hillary apparently got her double-digit win, picking up a net ten delegates and closing the fabled "popular vote" margin by a couple hundred thousand. That leaves her about 150 delegates and a half a million votes behind. She reportedly raised $2.5 million dollars within 3 hours of the outcome being called, which sounds a little short of coverning the deficit she's run up. She'll need more. I doubt that political vendors will be extending any more credit to Clinton. Losers - and she's lost - pay cash.

All that, then, for 10 delegates. Less than 10% of the delegates she trails by, with precious few left to be had.

What have we learned? That white women of a certain age tend to prefer, when given the opportunity to vote for a white woman of similar vintage? That black folk, given the chance, tend to vote for black candidates? How many millions of dollars were spent, how much intra-Party blood splilled to learn what we already knew, lessons that likely have little to do with the final exam in November?

All that, then, for nothing.

Heh™.

Jeff Fecke…

You know, if Barack Obama is where he is based on his race, and Hillary Clinton is where she is based on her gender, then Cynthia McKinney should be an unstoppable force come election day.

Ya' think?

Anonymous Liberal weighs in on Bill Clinton and the Obama/Jackson comparison...

The goal has been to transport us back in time 20 years, to turn what had begun as an almost post-racial election into a replay of 1988...

"Post-racial"? Ya' think? I mean, I would hope, but I don't believe it. Does anyone, really? I mean, does anyone think we're going to elect a black man President of the United States without noticing that he's black?

There certainly seems to be an element of Obama's support for whom that may ring true. It's heartening to believe, and there's evidence to sustain the belief, that there is a politically aware and active generation who judge candidates from a post-racial perspective. That's been a goal of a lot of folks for a long time, and if I'm living to see it come to fruition, I count myself a very lucky man.

That's only part of America, though. There's still a lot of America where race matters. Just as he's racked up impressive percentages among young voters, Obama has as consistently registered his poorest performances among the oldest voters. Does anyone really believe that that has nothing to do with race? That his overwhelming support among African American voters in South Carolina had nothing to do with his race?

Barack Obama's race will be a benefit with some folks, a detriment for others. It will be meaningless to some, but not, I fear, most. I can't say it's meaningless to me. If he becomes our nominee, it will be a historic cause for celebration for reasons that, in my mind, certainly include his race. I concede that that disqualifies me for membership in the "post-racial" caucus. In Senator Clinton's case, there will be similar cause for celebration for reasons that would certainly include her gender. Gender still matters in America, too. Even, I admit, to me. It would, I believe, be a great thing to elect a woman to the White House, and perhaps a greater thing to elect an African American. (Best of all? Both of them serving us ably in a Senate busy implementing President Edwards' agenda.)

A word, too, about the backhanded treatment Jesse Jackson has received in this affair. Jesse Jackson never ran as 'the black candidate,' and considerable effort was put into the Rainbow Coalition brand to make exactly that point. Jackson took his platform far beyond the parochial concerns of the black community to build a coalition based on class consciousness and progressive concerns that created new coalitions in the Democratic Party and spawned a generation of consultants, candidates and activists who are making an impact to this day. Bill Clinton certainly remembers that at the 1992 convention, without a delegate on the floor, Jesse Jackson still held a constituency that earned him a place at the podium. I don't think Bill would intend any slight in referencing Jesse Jackson, who, whatever he may be today, was a major Democratic power broker during Bill Clinton's own political ascendancy.

OK.

Josh Marshall drops the gauntlet...

Try To Explain This

…he inveighs, offering a video link. Since I'm a dial-up kind of guy (the tip jar is to your right), I prefer transcripts, which Steve Benen obligingly provides...

...the video shows a report asking the former president earlier today, “What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?”

Bill Clinton responds, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88, and he ran a good campaign. And Sen. Obama’s run a good campaign here; he’s run a good campaign everywhere. He’s a good candidate with a good organization.”

Explain that? I think it's pretty clear. Bill Clinton is saying that in the fairly brief history of the modern Democratic delegate selection process, serious African American candidates who wage serious campaigns in South Carolina have done very well. If there's an implication that because there are so many black voters in the South Carolina Democratic Party, and because historically black folk seem likely to vote for good black candidates with good organizations, a good black candidate might have and advantage in South Carolina, well, that seems to be a fact in light of experience.

A fact worth celebrating, it seems to me. Lot of folks voting who not so many years ago wouldn't be permitted at the polls for a fellow whose name would certainly not have appeared on the ballot. Yep. Worth celebrating. Democrats did that, you know.

If there's any "discounting" being done, I think it's by inference, not implication.

Of course, the comparison rest on recognizing that Barack Obama is, in fact, an African American candidate, thus raising the spectre of "misuse" of race in the campaign. But Barack Obama is an African American candidate, and a lot of smart money's saying he's going to be the next President of the United States of America. That's worth celebrating, too.

And if it happens, it'll be Democrats that do it.

Meanwhile, deep breaths everyone, for the jump from pan to fire. Whee...

Since you asked...

Buckarooskidoo's got questions...

First, I wonder if it is true, as pundits suggest, that the Clintons have succeeded in defining Obama as the "African-American" candidate in the race and somehow marginalized him?

Since you asked, no. As it turns out, Barack Obama's been an African American candidate all along. The Clinton's had nothing to do with it. They weren't even the first to notice.

Second, maybe basic tribalism kicked in again here. I think you could say women were outraged in New Hampshire by the admittedly misogynist coverage of Hillary Clinton in the media after Iowa...Could it be that we've seen the same reaction among African-Americans re some of the punches the Clintons and their surrogates threw at Barack Obama?

Maybe. I'd say probably, except that it's more likely that those African American folks who noticed Barack was one of 'em are just naturally pretty, ahem, fired up about voting him. Same folks voted for Jesse. Attacks? I figure they figure that's bound to happen. Might make voting for him seem just a bit more righteous, though.

And if the latter interpretation is on the mark, can we now move beyond race and gender and get some serious discussion of where the two leading contenders stand on the key issues, namely the ones Tomcat reiterates all the time on politics plus--the ones that never seem to get asked in the lust for horserace gossip?

Umm, no. I don't suppose so.

Of course, the third candidate talks about 'em all the time.