Heh™.

Matt Bors at Daily Kos...

From the "Me too" file.

Florida attorney Ben Crump...

“Everybody in America is asking, ‘When are they going to arrest Zimmerman for killing this kid in cold blood?’”

I know that if "everybody in America" is asking (and I hope they are) it's redundant, but me too.

What digby said…

…here.

"Playing the race card" has a very specific meaning. It means mentioning Republican racism.

From the "Not exactly news" file.

Liars lie.

Sleet? Snow? Dark of night? Trifles. Money, on the other hand...

They're crazy.

All things being equal, things aren't...

From the "Since you asked…" file.

Pondering Iowa, the WaPo wonders...

How relevant are the preferences of 200,000 or so caucusgoers in a rural state that is overwhelmingly white and significantly older than average?

Since you asked, that seems like a pretty fair representation of the Republican base, so, for Republicans anyway, pretty relevant, I suppose.

From the "Since you asked…" file.

South Carolina State Senator Glenn McConnell wonders…

“Why was the war fought — was it about slavery or states’ rights?”

Since you asked, slavery, but just to make sure, let's ask Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States Of America…

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

So, slavery it is.

Stuff I know…

…regardless of - or despite - the internet...

You might be - I am - but the country is not broke.

There is no "the" Tea Party.

President Obama was born in Hawaii, U.S.A.

There has always been class war. My side has been losing for quite awhile.

If they say it isn't about race, it's about race.

And, of course...

What digby said.

All of this, but especially this...

In the 1960s they burned black churches. Now it's mosques. But it comes from exactly the same impulse.

I take some small comfort in remembering that we beat them back the last time.

There is always, however, work to do.

From the "Eyes on the prize" file.

Joe Sudbay…

It's mind-boggling that Democratic Senators still worry about bi-partisanship. They act like bi-partisanship is the ultimate goal. That's so wrong. It may come in handy sometimes as a tactic, but, the goal is good legislation.

Sometimes it may be better to do nothing than the wrong thing. Best always, of course, is to do the right thing. Remember that the seeds of failure were written into some Great Society programs through compromise. AFDC was critically flawed in its execution, for instance, to satisfy conservative (including conservative Democratic) demands that welfare not be used to support "able-bodied men." This forced the dispruption, at best, or destruction of the poor families who applied for aid. Having the "man of the house" ducking out the back door when the welfare worker knocked on the front became fodder for sketch comedy, but the real destruction to families (which were disproportionately black, since black families were disproportionately poor) by the attempt to carve out a program acceptable to conservatives continues to haunt our society.

Better, perhaps, as I said, to have done nothing until the right thing could be done, and the right thing is never compromise with the right wing.

From the "That's a fact, Jack" file.

SamGrace...

The only thing that talking about a post-racial society does is prevents us from talking about real issues. Like a racist society.

I hope they're right...

WASHINGTON (CNN) — More than two-thirds of African-Americans believe Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision for race relations has been fulfilled, a CNN poll found — a figure up sharply from a survey in early 2008.

...but I still have my doubts.

On the other hand, I admit that a year ago today I didn't imagine tomorrow would be possible. Whether the dream is fulfilled or not, the fact that I was wrong makes this the happiest MLK Day of 'em all.

'Course, I still have to go to work, but I'm not even going to grumble about it.

Declined.

Hat tip to Oliver.

Is it possible? Can it be?

McCain campaign aims even lower...

Oh yes. Oh yes indeed.

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.

Good question…

…from litbrit.

What If Geraldine Ferraro's Convicted-Felon Son Had Been Black?

'Cause, you know, black guys get all the breaks.

Will Clinton do anything to get elected?

I dunno. Seems people will say anything to get her nominated, though. Clinton surrogate Geraldine Ferarro, for instance...

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

A snide racial slur wrapped in an insult to the whole country. Heckuva job, Gerry…

Hat tip to Todd at The Blue State.

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...

From the "Glimmers of hope" file.

CNN readers respond angrily to 'race or gender' story

Good on 'em.