Mittens & the Binder of Women

Oh, Mittens...  You make it to easy.  You and your binder of women for political appointments is going to live on and on and on.   I helped the meme a little:

Narrative Masturbation

One part of blogging that challenges me on occasion is coming up with a good title.  I am pretty sure I have Adult Onset ADD (Squirrel!), but in my quiet times, usually when I am walking my 30 minutes to and from work, I set my mind out into the ether to figure things out.   I actually gathered the idea for this post a week or so ago, but I because of my busy week AND because of the lack of a title, I kept putting it off.  However, I've decided to just go with the original one I had, which you can see above...

Anyway, while I think this has always been an issue in elections, I just feel like it is much more blatant this  year, and I am talking about over-dramatizing by the media - that every machination is a turn of the dramatic screw.  Mitt Risks Everything at Convention!  Fails!  Obama's Convention is a Slam Dunk! Insurmountable Lead! Obama will Kick Romney's Ass in the First Debate!  Obama Fails!  Polls Drop!  Dead Heat!  Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah!  This is narrative masturbation at its finest.  The creation of drama for your entertainment and no one else... (though this is really untrue...I'm pretty entertained).

The press gets whipped up into such a fervor over the narrative that, unfortunately, they become the propulsion behind it.  All things being equal, Obama did have a much better convention experience than Romney, with a gigantic assist from Bill Clinton.  Obama got an awesome bounce out of this, which is pretty amazing when you think about it.  While Bill did outpace the NFL opening game, the ratings were still pretty paltry across the board.  So, the "bounce" can really only be attributed to the media buzz afterwards.  However, what the media giveth, they taketh away, and after Obama's lackluster debate performance, they pulled the rug out from under the coverage.  This not to say that Obama was not terrible. He really, truly was, but in the the building up of the plot point that Romney prevailed with his strong delivery and presence, the media neglected the fact that nearly everything he said was a reversal of a previous stance or a blatant lie.  Granted, Obama should have called him on it, but what does it say that we consider someone a winner for the utmost level of deception?  It is really quite ridiculous.

Which brings us to the debate tonight...  The story now is that Obama has been shamed, and while last time he was talking about how much of drag debate prep was, he has now turned into a happy warrior ready to reclaim the vim and vigor for which he is known.  Romney is the conquering hero, waiting to put the final nail his win over Obama.  Obviously, the media hope here is that Obama over-performs  so that the narrative tomorrow will be "Obama Overcomes Adversity to Beat Romney."  I can only hope this is how it happens, because I am really starting to feel like this is a goner for us.  Of course, this is what the media wants me to feel, even though there is empirical evidence to the contrary.  There is still that final debate, but I am sure in the media's "heart of hearts" they would want an Obama win here and a draw in the final.

I guess we will see how tonight turns out.  If nothing else, I suppose "Hillary will Come to the Rescue in 2016."  (And so it beings...)

Pants on Fire

Anyone who has followed this blog knows that I am political.  I was a political nerd in high school, majored in Political Science in College, was President of College Democrats, and interned at the Democratic National Committee during the second election of Bill Clinton in 1996.  So, obviously, I am for Mitt Romney.

That's a lie, but apparently lying through your teeth is what it takes to "win" a Presidential Debate.

I am a Clinton Democrat.  I've become more overtly liberal over the years mainly because I  believe in the government's role of helping people.  I was very much for Hillary in 2008, and I often consider "what might have been."  However, I am a strong supporter of President Obama, and while I think he has made some rookie errors, I think he has generally done a great job with the hand that has been dealt him (crippling economy, do nothing congress, etc.).  While I consider him an extremely intelligent man, I never considered the debates a slam dunk.  Obama becomes way too professorial during debates, and while it says more about the American people than anything else, it ends up looking smug.  He can also be quite sarcastic, which, obviously, I appreciate, but from the "You're nice enough" comment to Hillary in New Hampshire to some of the quips on Wednesday, I think it can sound rather abrasive.

If you want to go mainly on style points, then Romney comported himself well.  I personally hate his voice, and he gets this vacant look in his eyes when he speaks.  However, he "seemed" more on the ball than Obama, even though Romney made statements that would make Pinocchio blush, and this has lead to the widely considered notion that he "won."  He didn't.  It seems that Republicans do not realize the age we live in, where fact checking has become an art and can be done almost simultaneously.  Why would you lie so much?  Why would you contradict your own stances so much?  Do you think we wouldn't notice?

I just hope that the Obama Team, now that they know how Romney is going to play, comes back big in the second and third debate.  Obama will excel at the second debate town hall format with CNN's Candy Crowley, and I am sure Bob Schieffer will do a better job than Jim Lehrer for the final, foreign policy themed debate.  Let's face it, Romney has no foreign policy stances.  So, it is a great way to end up.  I have to say I am a little worried about the VP debate.  Hopefully, Biden will not say anything stupid, but that is a topic for another day...

Wednesday, October 22nd - Something Poltiical This Way Comes...

It's been a while since I've written anything political here, mainly because my fire has been at a low since Hillary conceded the primary battle to Barack Obama.  It has been a LONG time since I have thrown so much support behind someone, and it was the first time that I ever put any financial backing (which I probably could not afford) towards a major political candidate.  So, I was invested....very invested...in my gal.

Because of my support of Hillary, I never bought into the "myth" of Barack Obama.  Do I think he'll be a good president?  Yes, I do.  Do I think he'll be able solve all the problems we are facing right now?  No, I do not.  Do I think Hillary could have solved everything?  No, I do not.  Does that make me some sort of cynical idiot?  No, it makes me a pragmatist, and I think pragmatism is STILL something missing in a lot of the Barack Obama supporters out there.  This focus on "hope," while a fabulous idea and buzzword, is still nothing tangible.  You cannot legislate "HOPE."  If elected, the harsh reality is that Barack Obama has a very hard four years ahead of him.  Is it wrong to hope he can do better?  Absolutely not!  However, I think it is woefully misguided to think he is going to deliver us from every evil.  He will fail at something.  Every President has failed in some portion of their agenda, and I fear the "hopeful" will quickly become the "hopeless" if a President Obama does not deliver early and often.

The last president to run on "hope" was Bill Clinton, and if anyone cares to recall, his first 100 days were an utter disaster.  From Lani Guinier, to Zoe Baird, to gays in the military, Bill Clinton made one misstep after another. However, disregarding that and the "constitutional crisis" of his second term, I still believe Bill Clinton to be a good president, because his policies were fair and he balanced the budget, which is something no one thought a Democrat could do.  If Obama has a disastrous 100 days (which, honestly, I think he is too smart to let happen...but hypothetically), how many of his supporters will shut off their burgeoning political activism?  My fear is they have invested in the myth, not the details.  For instance, how many of them can recite what exactly Obama is going to do to create green jobs of the future, and how many realize it will take a lot more than waving a rhetorical wand to make it happen?

Lately, even I have been swept up in the hopefulness of the prospects of an Obama presidency.  However, the egoism and sore winner aspect of some of his supporters quickly knock me off from ascending the pedestal. I still have people commenting, anonymously mind you, on non-political posts or posts I made back in August and even before that, questioning my patriotism and wherewithal because I do not deem to throw my wholehearted support behind Barack Obama. I really have to wonder what the point of this is? Is their psyche so fragile that if someone dares to question them they need to continue to attack and belittle? It is these people that make me fear when the reality of politics sets in for them. As we're on the verge of what appears to be a victory, we need to start pulling back from the competition aspect of this election and start to open our eyes to the reality of what we will be facing -- together.

P.S. I have turned off Anonymous comments.  My blog; my choice, and if you're going to bomb me, you're going to at least declare yourself.

Second Post - In Case You Missed It...

Here is the biography of Obama that was shown before his speech last night.

Okay, no, it's from the Daily Show

Thursday, July 10th - Back to Politics - That Sinking Feeling

It has been a long time since I have blogged about politics, mainly because it is still kind of painful for me to think about "what might have been" with Hillary as our presumptive nominee. Yes, I still have the "Out for Hillary" button on my blog and I still have my Hillary signs up on my balcony (though they are starting to look pretty ragged). However, make no mistake, when November rolls around, I'll be voting Democratic.

Even though I have not been paying the level of attention to the campaign as I was in the first part of the year, I like to think I'm staying reasonably informed, but I honestly began to feel yesterday the tug of losing that I felt with Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004. Yes, I know that the polls show Obama winning right now, and frankly, I think it will probably take a miracle for McCain to win (more on that in a minute), especially in light of Bob Barr being a pretty strong Libertarian candidate in the South. However, why am I feeling like Obama could tank? Is it still some sore loserness from the Primary? Maybe, but I like to think that I am being analytical here.

I have two reasons for this. The first is the most egregious one. Obama switched his view on amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which passed the Senate with his support yesterday. It's really just a fancy way of saying that the government is now going to wiretap us without judicial oversight and the telecom industry cannot be held accountable retroactively for allowing warrentless wiretapping post-9/11. I've been against these types of infringements on our civil liberties since the Patriot Act bubbled up after 9/11, and this is just the next step. Obama said in October that he would not support any bill or end any filibuster of said bill if it included any sort of retroactive immunity to the telecom industry, who basically broke the law to provide wiretapping to the Bush Administration. Well, it's interesting to see what becoming the presumptive nominee can do to your principles. He not only voted for cloture (to end the filibuster of Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold), but he also voted to pass the bill, which did provide retroactive immunity. Way to go Barack! You just pissed off the left. For the record, Hillary voted against cloture and against the amendments.

The second issue that is making me feel like Barack is sinking and could be the McCain Miracle is the situation in Iran. Israel is rattling their sabers, and Iran just test launched missiles that can hit Israel. If war breaks out between these two and we get sucked into it, do you really think the American public is going to want to vote for an untested Senator who's only major foreign policy stance is to get out of Iraq? Yeah, I thought not. Don't you think Hillary would have been more capable to handle this? Yes, I think so.

Things are not dire yet, but so help me Barack Obama, if you lose this thing, you had better just retire from the Senate and go back to "community organizing."

Tuesday, April 29th - With a Week to Go...

The world has changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air.
- Galadriel (The Fellowship of the Ring [Movie Edition])

Yes, I know. I'm using a quote from The Lord of the Rings to start out a political blog, but I have to tell you, it is the first thing that came to my mind when doing my usual political readings on the web yesterday. The world HAS changed, or at least the political narrative has, and right now, with a week to go before the Indiana and North Carolina primary, the landscape is quite different than what is has been for many months. Will it hold? As crazy as this cycle has been, I do not think anyone can say for sure, but as it stands right now, I feel it in my bones that Hillary Clinton has both Indiana and North Carolina in her grasp.

Since Pennsylvania, Barack Obama has seemed to be a shell of his former self. He seems spent and just ready for this entire thing to be over with. This has only been made more prominent by the fact that Hillary Clinton, 15 years his senior, seems to be completely energized and ready to take on the world (literally). Obama's attempts to energize the blue collar base of this party have been lackluster at best, and probably his greatest attempt, a three-on-three basketball game that he played in Kokomo, Indiana on Friday, got lost in the weekend newscycle. I am loathe to say that any of the remaining primaries are "make or break" because that has been the meme way too many times in the past few months, but if Hillary Clinton can win by double digits in Indiana and come close or even win in North Carolina, then it is going to be a very rough path for Obama to take the nomination, even with a delegate lead.

Of course, the biggest problem for the Obama campaign at the moment isn't their base issues, it is the fact that Rev. Jeremiah Wright decided now was a good time to go on a PR-apolooza, which has done nothing more than pick the scab on the wound that might have healed eventually. I do not know if it is just unmitigated ego or borderline insanity, but I simply do not understand why this man would throw Obama under the bus like this. Divorcing myself from my opinions on his message, I can certainly understand why Rev. Wright might feel it neccisary to strike back against the media that has maligned him, but why now? It almost (ALMOST) makes me feel sorry for the Obama campaign, but it also reinforces my main argument about why Obama is not ready to be President. Allowing Wright free reign to control the headlines a week before crucial primaries is just a laughable rookie error.

Outside of a few people with severe cases of CDS on DailyKos and MyDD who actually are trying to find a connection between Wright's current eruptions and the Clinton campaign, the overall feeling I am getting in the blogsphere and in the mainstream media (MSM) is that Obama is clearly damaged and is continually taking on more water as the Wright saga continues to play out. Even Howard Dean and Donna Brazile, who have stated that this needs to end soon, have retreated a bit behind the veil of electibility to state that Superdelegates should now be more concerned with who will be the strongest candidate in November. This is a shocking reversal and a clear indication of how badly things have gone for Obama lately. Even the MSM, which for so long seemed to be in the tank for Obama, have started to question whether he is reaching the point of no return. Again, it is an absolute disaster for this change in the narrative to happen in a week building up to a Tuesday with the largest remaining amount of delegates at stake.

Is this the end for Obama? I will not answer that. If this election cycle has taught me anything, it is that it does not take very long for a new page to be written. I will not tap dance on anyone's grave at this point, but I cannot sit here and deny that I am shocked and ultimately happy with current change in the world. If nothing else, it is going to be an exciting week for Indiana and for the Nation.

Wednesday, April 23rd - The Numbers 26 and 19

Way to go Hillary!

Since everyone is saying this nomination is a question of math and a "numbers game." I thought it might be fun to throw out some numbers of my own.

• $11 million+ - the amount of money that Barack Obama spent on media advertisements in Pennsylvania, which is a record for a primary election. If his message is so resonant, shouldn't this have sealed the deal for him?
  
• $2.5 million+ - the amount of money that Hillary raised from the point of the announcement of her win in Pennsylvania until just before midnight. Plus, 80% of it was from new donors. So, the American people want this to end? SHUT UP Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann!
  
• 121,943 - This is the popular vote lead that Hillary now has if you do not disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida. Say what you will about the delegates being seated, but you cannot disavow these voters. It was Barack Obama's choice to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, and he should pay the price for the political short sidedness.
  
• 2,024 - The amount of delegates either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton need to clinch the nomination. Yup, neither of them are going to get it. Which means it is up to the superdelegates, whether we like it or not. Obama wants the supers to vote with the winners of the popular vote (though he hasn't really told John Kerry or Teddy Kennedy to vote for Hillary). To have them vote with the popular vote is changing the rules, and if I had my druthers, I'd rather change the rules to get rid of proportional delegation, because life is winner take all, people! Democratic Party - Find your SPINE!
  
• 55-45 - The margin of victory for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania (with 99% reporting). This is the same 10% that Hillary won by in Ohio, which basically points to Obama being absolutely incapable of mobilizing the Democratic base. Considering that the culmination of the Reverend Wright saga and "bitter" comments really did hurt him amongst "lunch bucket, gun toting, and religious" dems, we could loose large chunks of this group to McCain.
• The Numbers 26 and 19 - These two numbers should strike fear in the hearts of decided and undecided superdelegates everywhere. From the exit polls (which, btw, were skewed in Obama's favor, so one would think these might actually be worse) 26% is the amount of Clinton voters that will support McCain in November if Obama is the nominee, and 19% is the number of people who will not vote at all. Only 50% said they would vote for Obama (by the way, that would be 600,000 votes...lost). On the flip side, 67% of Obama's supporters would vote for Clinton in November. Obviously, fences can be mended, but if you think Obama will have a cake walk to the White House, you are mistaken.
• 13 Days - the amount of time left to campaign before Indiana and North Carolina. I am in political heaven, and Blanche and I are walking down to a Hillary Clinton rally right in the heart of Indianapolis today at 11. Indianapolis will probably go for Obama, but I think it is huge that Hillary is choosing to kick off her major Indiana campaign here.
• 1 (Elizabeth Edwards edition) - Howard Fineman reported on MSNBC that Elizabeth Edwards might be making campaign stops with Hillary in North Carolina, which is odd because the one reason bandied about that John Edwards hadn't endorsed Hillary is that Elisabeth can't stand her. Does this reversal mean Edwards might endorse outright? Will it have an effect in North Carolina? If Hillary can win both Indiana and North Carolina, it is going to look very very bad for Obama
• 1 (John Mellencamp edition) - I do not have a link for it, but I heard Suzanne Malveax report that because John Mellencamp was performing at Obama's rally in Evansville that he was endorsing the candidate. However, what they didn't state is that he is also going to be performing with Hillary Clinton, too. Could he be the smartest one of us all?

Last night was actually quite interesting for me. I have to say I was a bit scared that Obama would eek out a win or that Hillary would win by a slim margin. If she had won by less than 5 points, even I would have been hard pressed to support her moving forward. Luckily, I never had to deal with this scenario, and I was happy, once again, to see the exit poll watchers eat crow. I wish I could have withstood MSNBC to see Olbermann's head explode, but alas, I stuck with CNN, which gave excellent and pragmatic analysis from both sides.

The next two weeks are going to be CRAZY in Indiana, and I am looking forward to it like a crack whore needing a fix!

Thursday, March 13th - Off to the Races!

Okay...breathe....

After taking some time to cool down this morning, I have taken down my original post (but I saved it in draft, in case I ever need it).

However, I will post a link to the article that set me off in the first place. It still infuriates me... Wright on Video (beware that someone posted a long link on the comments, so the formatting is wonky now, and oddly, this sermon is NSFW)

The issue of race will never be an easy one for us to talk about. The fact that deep seeded prejudices are still front and center today is really just an indicator of a larger problem that no one has been able to address well enough to actually heal the wound, not just let it scab over. NYCweboy in his post today entitled "Words Fail Me. And You" really makes this point much more eloquently than I can. Unfortunately, nothing will be fixed during a presidential election. Especially one where race has been played deceptively by all parties involved, and thinly veiled misogyny has been aided, abetted, facilitated, and accepted by a willing media. There are really no winners in this tact.

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, she is going to have to come up with a way to appeal to African American voters again, if that means Barack Obama needs to be VP, then they need to put aside their animosity ala JFK and LBJ for the good of the party and the good of the country.

If Barack Obama gets the nomination, then he is going to have to find some way to appeal to the much larger voting blocks of women and Latinos. He will also need to address the hatred and misogyny of Reverend Wright with more gumption than (paraphrasing) "Well, he is just like that crazy uncle we all have. Sometimes he spouts off and you don't always listen to him." The fact that this inflammatory bigot has been your spiritual adviser and "moral compass" for 20 years, does not bode well for your spirituality, whether the good reverend is trying to be provocative to prove a point or otherwise.

You see, because Barack has stayed above the fray for so long, he is still pretty illdefined as a candidate, and the Republicans are salivating at the opportunity to define him. This stuff like the video linked above and the others that have come to light, will be used effectively to prove that you are a radical, America hating candidate. It is not true, but then again John Kerry wasn't a war criminal either.

I'm just going to close this down now, or maybe I'll just go off and donate more money to Hillary...

Wednesday, March 5th - Sealing the Deal

What a night! To say that I am thrilled with how the Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island primaries went would probably be the understatement of the year. Even though I have been a Clinton true believer from the start, I was really starting to fear the oncoming tsunami of Obama inevitability, but as has been proven many times in this campaign, inevitability should not be something assumed or taken for granted.

Yes, I know Obama won big in Vermont, but let's face it, Vermont is filled with crazy socialists and Ben & Jerry. Vermont did have the best headline of the night: Vermont towns vote to arrest Bush and Cheney.

Instead of focusing on narrative here, I'm going to break it down to a list of thoughts that I had last night and comment about them extemporaneously. Bear with me....

Obama Can't Seal The Deal - This is the third time this election cycle that it looked like Obama would vanquish Clinton, and it is the third time that he has not been able to do it. I'm not going to dig deep here, though I heard some of the Obamadroids talking about the 20% of people in Ohio who considered race to be a big issue. The fact is that the bigots are probably just as chauvinistic to women, too. So, I would consider that 20% to be General Election wash. Anyway, this shows a real electibility problem for Obama. If Obama cannot muster to beat Clinton when it matters, then how is he going to beat a strong Republican? Also, I am not going to accept the meme of "Well, Obama was behind 20% not too long ago." If I see that posted one more time on a message board, I may scream. Yeah, Clinton used to be trouncing Obama, but the fact that she was ahead 20% has everything to do with name recognition and nothing to do with policy. As has been the trend in every state, as Obama has gone in to campaign and people have been able to sample him, then he was able to close the gap and even get ahead. The fact of the matter is that Obama was ahead in Ohio and Texas, and he lost it. This is not some sort of Pyhrric Victory for Clinton where the real story is that he closed a 20 point gap from last month. No, the headline is he lost. That's it. Oh, don't forget that Obama outspent Clinton over 3 or 4 to 1 in both states. This really should have been a slam dunk for him.

Delgates Schmelegates - Pardon the language, but the delegate thing is fucked up. Since the Democrats have proportional delegation that awards delegates by the vote totals in a congressional district and because Obama trounced Clinton in the population centers, there is a distinct possibility that Obama could end up getting more delegates out of Texas, even though Clinton will win the popular vote by nearly 100,000 votes. That is absolutely asinine and undemocratic. I'm all for proportionally awarding, but it clearly should be based on the popular vote of the entire state, not by congressional district. We screamed after Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College in 2000, and now we, as a party, are screwing things up as well. The story out of the Obama camp is that they still have an insurmountable delegate lead, and that the math just does not add up for Hillary. Well, the real story is that NEITHER of them will get the majority of the delegates, which means the ultimate decision is going to be made by superdelegates, whether we like it or not.

Look, Up in the Sky .... - Superdelegates have been around for 30 or so years, but they really haven't been an issue until this election. You can whine all you want about them being undemocratic, but let's face it, they are pretty indicative of American Democracy. The House of Representatives is considered the "masses," and the Senate is there to slow down the exuberance of the masses. Your vote in the General Election is not direct democracy, it empowers the Electoral College to actually choose the President, which, by the way, the Electors can vote for whomever they want even if it is against the popular vote of their state (sounds like a superdelegate, huh?). So, you see, our democracy is all about slowing down the whims of the people, though I think this is eventually going to change. Anyway, the rules state that superdelegates are unencumbered by electoral mandate, and this is how they should proceed. If you want to change the rules, then you it will have to wait for 2012. The Obama campaign would like for the superdelegates to vote the will of the people, but I really don't see him telling John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy (both supers from Massachusetts) to vote for Hillary. So, it is kind of an intellectually retarded argument. Plus, if you really want to cook your noodle, then consider that the regular delegates really aren't forced to vote for the winner in their state, especially after the first ballot does not result in a nominee. So, frankly, this just points to the single most exciting convention of my lifetime. Road trip to Denver!

Does Barak Obama have a Glass Jaw? - One of the talking heads on CNN used this question last night, and I wasn't looking at the TV to jot down his name. It is a legitimate question, which basically boils down to whether Obama can take a punch without completely shattering. Between the NAFTA kerfluffle, the Rezko trial, and questions about national security credentials, this has been the toughest week for Obama in the press. Maybe it took Saturday Night Live to finally hold up the mirror to the way the press has been handling him with kid gloves, but he would have to be crazy to think it would last. What the press giveth, the press taketh away, and between his growing aloofness with answering questions to badgering of the press by his people, he was really just daring them to stick a pin in his bubble. When the postmortem is written on this campaign, I will be intrigued to see how the faux outrage by the Obama campaign and the swallowing of it hook, line, and sinker by the press will play out. From making Bill Clinton out to be a racist, complaining about people using his middle name, and the "release" of a picture of him in Somali traditional garb (that has actually been available on the net for over a year) the pattern of Obama and his surrogates to play the race and religion card and blame it on other people is pretty disingenuous and dirty. Then, when someone has the audacity to question him, he completely falls apart. This is not the actions of someone who will survive a general election against the Republican machine. Hillary has NOT thrown anything at him that is truly negative, and even knowing that, he shattered into pieces and lost Texas and Ohio.

Okay, I've talked way too much. If you're still with me, I thank you! The scary thing is that I cut out some other things that I wanted to talk about, but hey, I got the topic of another blog out of it. Expect some "puffery" today as a reward for bearing with me.

Tuesday, March 4th - Obligatory Political Post

Okay, so this is now the THIRD entry I have started for today, and the other two may never see the light of day. I am so unfocused in what I have to say....this sucks. It might be my first instance of blogger's block.

So I will simply say this:

Thursday, February 28th - How Barack Obama Played the Race Card and Blamed Hillary Clinton

I was planning on doing a more general post today, but I saw this and I had to post it. This is something I've thought for a very long time, but of course, no one can bring it up without being labeled a race baiter. Ah, I am sure Martin Luther King would be so proud of this moment and this candidate.

The fact that the story originated in The New Republic (liberal) and is being discussed on Tucker (conservative) just makes it all the more interesting. Where are you Keith Olbermann?

Here is the text: Race Man: How Barack Obama Played the Race Card and Blamed Hillary Clinton