South Carolina Exit Polls: Even Hillary Voters Say She Unfairly Attacked Obama
The Associated Press has some interesting exit poll data that sheds a bit of light on which candidate is seen by voters as the aggressor in the South Carolina race and which is seen as the victim.
The AP finds that Obama voters are decidedly more aggrieved than Hillary ones are. Not only that, but large percentages of Hillary voters say she attacked him unfairly:
After the contentious Democratic debate Monday night, three in four Obama voters said Clinton had attacked Obama unfairly and slightly fewer than half accused their own candidate of attacking Clinton unfairly. Two-thirds of Clinton voters said Obama attacked her unfairly and nearly as many said she attacked him unfairly.
Meanwhile, the AP gives us this rather inconclusive data about Bill's impact on the race:
Nearly six in 10 of those voting said former President Clinton's campaigning in the state was an important factor for them, including a quarter who called it very important.
Right, Bill's campaigning was important in shaping voter attitudes, but how exactly? Did it help Hillary or hurt her? Hopefully we'll get a bit more data on this later.
Comments (70)
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:26 PM:Obama supporters, you can keep whining, whining your way to convention. Unfortunately for you, there is no higher authority than the people, the people who vote in the primaries and caucuses!
Mike wrote on January 26, 2008 6:27 PM:I'm not surprised with the Obama numbers, but I'm surprised to see so many Clinton supporters agree that Clinton unfairly attacked Obama.
As far as Bill, he probably came out a net positive just because so many Hillary supporters see him as an important factor in her favor.
john mccutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 6:29 PM:Obama Field Factoids
* Offices opened in California: 13 (highest among other candidates: 3)
* California newspaper endorsements: 15*
* Volunteers trained at Camp Obama sessions across the state: 2,000
* California members of the campaign's online organizing tool, my.BarackObama.com: 50,000
* California volunteer groups created on my.BarackObama.com: 800
* Precinct captains who galvanize their friends and neighbors to spread Senator Obama's message: 5,000
* Volunteers organizing Congressional Districts: 1,500
* Congressional Districts those volunteers cover: 53 (out of 53)
* Homes canvassed: 48,000
* Phone calls made by California volunteers: 550,000
Phone calls we're hoping to make this Saturday, January 26th: 100,000 (help us!)
Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 6:30 PM:Mike, I was surprised by the numbers of Hillary supporters saying this too.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:30 PM:Tweedy missing from MSNBC coverage.
jose wrote on January 26, 2008 6:31 PM:"Shame on you" Clintons. Time for a new direction.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:31 PM:I commented first, and I'm gay.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:32 PM:I expected this of the misogynist Obamasexuals, but Hillary voters using the CWord!
Where's the outrage!
Obama supporters, you can keep whining, whining your way to convention.
typo -- you obviously meant "winning our way to convention." like today.
john mccutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 6:34 PM:I am not only gay
I am hopelessly infatuated with Eric Kleefeld
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:37 PM:It is a problem when 2/3 of your supporters say you attached the opposition unfairly.
You! Go, Girl!!!!!!!!
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:39 PM:benjoya wrote on January 26, 2008 6:32 PM:
Obama supporters
---Don't be stupid. I know what I was writing. You have done nothing but whinning since Iowa. You thought you would win NH and NV, not happenning. don't be too sure about tonight either.
anonymous said:
Unfortunately for you, there is no higher authority than the people, the people who vote in the primaries and caucuses!
this makes absolutely no sense in the context of the above exit polls.
great coding, dude
lombard wrote on January 26, 2008 6:41 PM:Mike wrote on January 26, 2008 6:27 PM:
"I'm not surprised with the Obama numbers, but I'm surprised to see so many Clinton supporters agree that Clinton unfairly attacked Obama."
Mike, I guess I'm not surprised by that because I share that view. But, the description of the poll indicates that Clinton voters also thought Obama attacked her unfairly. So, if her supporters thought both were guilty, they are likely to be relatively unmoved by her hardball.
I share this view with other Clinton supporters. I acknowledge that her attacks at the debate appeared to be harsher and more jarring (in a bad way) but he started the attack ball rolling.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:43 PM:Anonymous you are not going to out Anonymous, anonymously!
STICK TO FACTS, IF UNSTUCK FROM MUCK!
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:46 PM:"I don't feel the candidates are being bloodied up. This is good practice for me for me so, you know, when I take on these Republicans I'll be accustomed to it."
And asked specifically whether he worried that Clinton's criticisms of him might come back to haunt the Democrats in the form of diminished black voter turnout in November, if Clinton is the nominee, Obama demurred. "Black voters shouldn't blame senator Clinton for running a vigorous campaign against me," he said. "That should be a source of pride. It means I might win this thing. When I was 20 points down I was a 'person of good character' and my health care plan was 'universal.' The fact that we've got this fierce contest indicates I'm doing well and I don't think there's anything wrong with that."
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:47 PM:Interesting to look at the latest Rasmussen polls at the right. Obama and Clinton each beating both Romney and McCain, but the GOP candidate gains 4 points in each instance against Clinton.
Seems like there's a pretty healthy 5% of the electorate--coming, I'd say, from the swing/indie vote--that automatically votes "no" to HRC. Doesn't bode well for the general.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:48 PM:How dare you post anything that makes Obama look like the classy good sport that he is!
ChangeNow wrote on January 26, 2008 6:48 PM:Question for Anonymous: Are you a Freeper or have Clinton supporters simply become indistinguishable from Freepers?
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:50 PM:this is freaking unfair. If Carville and Paugala should be banned from CNN, why not Donna Brazile and Rolland Martin black guy? they are clearly sympathesizers of Obama. Let's not go to the loser Carl Bernstein who had done nothing since got off the banwagon of Bob Woodward.
eorse wrote on January 26, 2008 6:53 PM:The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) by the two Clintons' attack machine is embedded in our blood stream. We cannot have a blood transfer now. Obama (my candidate) is in for a long surprise. I continue to be puzzled as to when the press is going to zero-in on Clintons' experiences.
The essay by Colbert I. King (washingtonpost.com) today, 1/26, is a terrific start. But, I do not see it referred to any where.
How come? Is the press or blogging world (mostly by white people) afraid to dissect a white woman? I say being an African American today in work force is harder than most people realize. HRC has gotten a free ride all her life. Is there any justice in this world where the press is supposedly free?
Rose Hann wrote on January 26, 2008 6:56 PM:You are wrong about voters in SC who said 50/50 blame with arguments. Just in from CNN. Why is Hillary a villin ans Obama a king? He was and has consistantly picked at her record. She finally defends herself and it's ALL her fault. This is the typical spin from the media. Leave her alone and get your facts straight. 50/50!
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 7:00 PM:Next on TPM: liveblogging a Yankees-Red Sox game! Just picture the scintillating comment threads!
ARodRules: RedSux are teh suck
MannyBeingManny: in ur face yankmes
JeterLover: gr8 play!!!11!
MannyBeingManny: Jeter looks like a muppet
ARodRules: Sux fans r racist!
"Seems like there's a pretty healthy 5% of the electorate--coming, I'd say, from the swing/indie vote--that automatically votes "no" to HRC. Doesn't bode well for the general."
I wouldn't be too certain about predicting anything in November from a blip in a poll during January.
Perhaps this poll may indicate that she soured some voters. Perhaps not. Even so, we don't know how long those voters will remain soured.
Rose Hann wrote on January 26, 2008 7:01 PM:I think CNN has to check over what they claim to be "The Best Political Team on Television". Bill Bennet is a Clinton hater, Carl Berstein is the same. Roland Martin is an Obama fan. How can you be fair and balanced with all this bias? They should re-think "Best" what?
Rose Hann wrote on January 26, 2008 7:01 PM:I think CNN has to check over what they claim to be "The Best Political Team on Television". Bill Bennet is a Clinton hater, Carl Berstein is the same. Roland Martin is an Obama fan. How can you be fair and balanced with all this bias? They should re-think "Best" what?
Dan wrote on January 26, 2008 7:02 PM:Check out attempt to portray a racial confrontation when a closer look at their graphic reveals that they are all Edwards supporters.
Tony Rezko wrote on January 26, 2008 7:03 PM:swing/indie vote--that automatically votes "no" to HRC. Doesn't bode well for the general.
Any Democrat would have about the same levels of support come November. Obama just hasn't been through the Republican attack machine. After the rather mild treatment from the Clintons, I seriously doubt he could withstand the attacks. But we don't have to worry about that because he's not going to be the nominee.
Obama wins.
Please SC
Send that woman back to New York for good
Stop Billary
End the Bush-Clinton era of politiccs
Dirtiest campaign ever run by a Democratic candidate.
The Clintons are slimy compulsive liars
MSNBC calls it 1 minute after the polls close in SC.
Obermann characterized it as a "substantial" margin.
Meredith wrote on January 26, 2008 7:05 PM:The Clinton's have badly miscalculated this S.C. primary. The data is going to be very hard to spin. Look at this data! Obama proves he's the coalition candidate! HRC cannot win the South!
hello_world wrote on January 26, 2008 7:05 PM:Olbermann. Sorry Keith.
john mccutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 7:05 PM:Today Obama volunteers across California are calling 100,000 decline to state voters
Here are the talking points for the undecided:
[IF LEANING OR UNDECIDED, PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING TALKING POINTS] * Obama has never been the type of politician who changes his answers based on his audience. That’s why he went to Detroit to tell the automakers it’s time to stop blocking higher fuel standards and he went to Wall Street to talk about economic fairness. * Obama knows that it’s easy to propose plans and policies when you’re on the campaign trail. You can make all sorts of promises and tell people what they want to hear. But in this time of economic anxiety and uncertainty, what this country needs is a President who says what he means and means what he says; a President who won’t just do what’s right when the politics are easy, but when the politics are hard; a President who’s not just in it to win it; but in it for you. * In Obama’s twenty-five years of public service, his positions haven’t changed when the politics got hard, and neither will the policies he pursues as President. The same can’t be said about Senator Clinton. * In the debate the other night, the candidates spent some time talking about the economy. And one of the things Obama brought up was that when Senator Clinton first released her economic stimulus plan, she didn’t think that workers or seniors needed immediate tax relief. She thought it could wait until things got worse. Five days later, the economy didn’t really change, but the politics apparently did, because she changed her plan to look just like Obama’s.Clayton wrote on January 26, 2008 7:07 PM:
Hillary Clinton has a new problem. She is now running against two candidates.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 7:09 PM:But, Ross!
Fair and Balanced? Do you mean Fox!
U-R a bit too much of a name dropper:
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:50 PM:
this is freaking unfair. If Carville and Paugala should be banned from CNN, why not Donna Brazile and Rolland Martin black guy? they are clearly sympathesizers of Obama. Let's not go to the loser Carl Bernstein who had done nothing since got off the banwagon of Bob Woodward.
Count the post: you missed Anderson Cooper interview of Carl Bernstein. This one tells all!!!
rg wrote on January 26, 2008 7:10 PM:The Rasmussen polls to the right - and the exit polling narrative coming out of SC is good news. Much better news than what we have been getting. I am hoping that this influences how the Clintons behave. As much as I am working for an Obama victory, if Clinton wins - I really don't want to be so disgusted as to not want to vote for her.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 7:13 PM:MSNBC Says Obama got 81% of the black vote. And, according to MSNBC, he got 25% of the white vote, which is higher than polls were indicating.
Well so much for the race card!
JimS wrote on January 26, 2008 7:14 PM:All of CNN and MSNBC and the blatant media bias will not capture this nomination for Obama. People see him for the empty talker he is. You'll see.
Helena Montana wrote on January 26, 2008 7:15 PM:I don't care for either Clinton or Obama, although the Clintons have been disgusting me at a geometrically increasing rate with their ugly antics. Words just cannot express how disappointed I am in Bill Clinton.
I have observed that that nasty tone of the Clinton campaign seems prevalent in many of their supporters also. They tend to sound a lot like the more vituperative Bush supporters of yesteryear.
jay wrote on January 26, 2008 7:27 PM:FlipYrWhig: Best comment on the whole schmeer yet. And nice Husker Du reference --
looks like the big media attempt to paint Obama as the "black" candidate has been repudiated by the good folks of SC...
Helena, if you haven't lately, check out DailyKos on a typical day, and gauge which candidates are handled most roughly. I think you'll find that nastiness isn't quite so one-sided as that.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 7:31 PM:Jay, thank you! You got it. All did not like the crap! The ....."good folks of SC..."
John Huang wrote on January 26, 2008 7:32 PM:Great victory for Obama! Did better with the white vote than expected... oh well, guess the Clintons can go back to clamoring for the Michigan and Florida delegates that the DNC stripped. Bill and Hillary, always thinking of the party before themselves...NOT.
I voted for Bill twice but will not vote for him a third time--know what I mean?
mary wrote on January 26, 2008 7:36 PM:I'm not surprised that Hillary is being criticized for attacking Obama. I thought it was a big mistake when she did it -- because, fair or not, people are uncomfortable when women show that kind of aggression.
Obama's campaign style is passive-aggressive, but for most of the campaign she hasn't risen to the bait. What finally really got to her was his attack on Bill in the Reno Sun. It was one of the most elegant passive aggressive political attacks I've ever seen; hiding his complete dismissal of the Clinton administration and Bill's political legacy in a bouquet of praise for Ronald Reagan.
You could tell during the SC debate that she was genuinely and deeply angry -- as I think women tend to especially be when it isn't them directly, but rather their loved ones, who have been or are being attacked.
Nonetheless, it was the kind of lack of control and aggressive anger that she, as a woman, especially can't afford.
People don't care "who started it" or whether or not it is justified, they are just made very uncomfortable seeing women acting with overt aggression.
Obama may win the nomination because of it. But this is one voter who is very sad to admit that he won't win it with my respect for him intact.
I also don't believe his passive aggressive style will work in the general election against a male candidate who will be able to, and will, respond very directly and aggressively.
joe in oklahoma wrote on January 26, 2008 7:43 PM:i am with you john mccutchen...
on both Obama and Eric!
(well i really want Edwards but will settle for Obama)
John Huang wrote on January 26, 2008 7:44 PM:Oh, these SC results--gotta run and raise more $$$ for the Clintons!
RonJon wrote on January 26, 2008 7:45 PM:Hillary would be the absolutely worst thing that could happen to this country (short of a Guiliani White House). She will do nothing besides divide this country in ways that even Karl Rove could not have dreamed up. And in all honesty, do we really need a big business, free trade Democrat in the White House. How has Democratic economic policy almost become a mirror of Republican economic policy, while Republican economic policy is nowhere near conservative? The only difference is the Republicans like to
sling bombs and corporate tax cuts instead of food stamps. They're both interested in outrageous government spending (which would be fine if they occasionally put the money to some type of good use). How hard is it to build schools, roads, power plants, updated data networks? Have we forgot how to do that? By the way, have we all become bored with the fact that we're occupying a middle eastern oil kingdom? Or is that sooo yesterdays news. We're pushing ahead with agreements for a permanent security presence and American only infrastructure contracts. Is this not an issue which deserves recognition in the debates and in the news. Whatever, I'm rambling...I just wish the key focus in this primary wasn't squabbling bullshit.
p.s. Clinton's a two-faced, power hungry, warmonger. Obama '08.....at least he's better than Hillary.
example wrote on January 26, 2008 8:10 PM:mmm...
Enjoy the taste of defeat, Hillbots.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 8:14 PM:Mary,
You hit the nail on the head - passive aggressive. I couldn't put my finger on the correct term to describe his style.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 8:17 PM:example wrote on January 26, 2008 8:10 PM:
"mmm...
Enjoy the taste of defeat, Hillbots."
Thanks for your best wishes. I will make sure that I am equally as gracious after each of the contests over the next two weeks.
WAY TO GO SOUTH CAROLINA!!!!
OBAMA EDWARDS '08
Mark F wrote on January 26, 2008 8:43 PM:Obama didn't just beat Hillary. It was a rout. Hillary Clinton won ONE county: Myrtle Beach. Obama won every single age demographic, and he won by a such an overwhelming margin that it leaves no doubt that he the one who can win against the Republicans in November.
Tellingly, Caroline Kennedy just endorsed him.
Obama just resoundingly defeated one of the toughest and most ruthless political teams in America, and he didn't just beat them, he blew them out of the water.
Mark F wrote on January 26, 2008 8:50 PM:CNN just updated their demographic info. Obama won every age group except 65 and older. He also won every income group.
NCSteve wrote on January 26, 2008 8:51 PM:JimS wrote on January 26, 2008 7:14 PM: All of CNN and MSNBC and the blatant media bias will not capture this nomination for Obama. People see him for the empty talker he is. You'll see.
Yep. Voters like John Kerry, Theodore Sorenson, Lawrence Tribe, Lawrence Lessig, Patrick Leahy, and,as of tonight, now Caroline Kennedy. All just a bunch of dumb, deluded youthful idealists easily swayed by empty rhetoric.
But hey, once they find out some guy commenting on TPMEC thinks Obama's an empty suit, I'm sure they'll all repent.
Mark F wrote on January 26, 2008 8:52 PM:A prediction: The Clintons will now steal Edwards' message of inequality to try to knock him out of the race. They already tried stealing Obama's message of change and it bombed. Big time.
old dem wrote on January 26, 2008 11:05 PM:Edwards was endorsed by 34 leading economists, yet this has received little notice.
BTW, Obama is my senator and I don't believe that he is an empty suit-- just a half-empty one. I'm greatly amused by the feud between Clinton and Obama supporters because their voting records are virtually identical. Obama is running slightly to the right of Clinton, yet he is portrayed as the more progressive candidate. For an insight into how effective Obama's post partisan ways were in the Illinois Senate, the Boston Globe published an article about an Obama-led effort:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/
Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides..
The bill originally called for a "Bipartisan Health Care Reform Commission" to implement a program reaching all 12.4 million Illinois residents.
Most significant, universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy - the proposed commission, renamed the Adequate Health Care Task Force, was charged only with studying how to expand healthcare access.
Yep, after 15 months of Obama-led efforts, the people of Illinois got zilch.
Mary wrote on January 26, 2008 11:06 PM:MSNBC numbers as follows:
56% of South Carolinians--black and white--thought Hillary was unfairly and nastily attacked.
50% thought BOTH candidates attacked unfairly using race.
I find THOSE numbers fascinating. Obama AND Hillary were judged as dirty campaigners, and South Carolinians didn't like it one bit.
I DO hope both candidates will get better control of their campaign staff.....most of the hostility occurs between the staffs, who go running to the media to "tattle," and the media whips that nonsense into a frenzy, on purpose.
Obama will need to beef up his support amongst Hispanics---who haven't supported him so far.
If he comes off as using his race to his advantage in a slimy way, as the South Carolinians in the MSNBC poll seemed to think he did just as much as Hillary, Hispanics won't support him.
THINK, Obama. Get your campaign staff under control this time.
old dem wrote on January 26, 2008 11:08 PM:Edwards was endorsed by 34 leading economists, yet this received little notice.
BTW, Obama is my senator and I don't believe that he is an empty suit-- just a half-empty one. I'm greatly amused by the feud between Clinton and Obama supporters because their voting records are virtually identical. Obama is running slightly to the right of Clinton, yet he is portrayed as the more progressive candidate. For an insight into how effective Obama's post partisan ways were in the Illinois Senate, the Boston Globe published an article about an Obama-led effort:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/
Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides..
The bill originally called for a "Bipartisan Health Care Reform Commission" to implement a program reaching all 12.4 million Illinois residents.
Most significant, universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy - the proposed commission, renamed the Adequate Health Care Task Force, was charged only with studying how to expand healthcare access.
Yep, after 15 months of Obama-led efforts, the people of Illinois got zilch.
Mary wrote on January 26, 2008 11:14 PM:Actually, the only poll that showed Obama's support among whites had gone down from "race-baiting" the week before, was the internal MSNBC poll, which said 10%.
But Rasmussen predicted 21%.
And Mason-Dixon predicted 20%.
Several others predicted close to same.
So, actually his true 24% is statistically close to exactly what was predicted.
The only people who got it wrong were the guys on MSNBC.
joe in oklahoma wrote on January 26, 2008 11:23 PM:Mart do u have a link for those poll numbers? cant find it on msnbc, and i heard opposite numbers just 4 hours ago....not that you are wrong, and the important number is the one condemning both.
stellaa wrote on January 26, 2008 11:26 PM:To Josh's hysteria about Hillary leaving, what did Obama do last week in Nevada? He left, did not call and did not right.
@Old dem, thank you.
To the Obamabods: Tell me now that you are inspired how will you transcend your race and gender and change America? Tell me one thing (other than your obligation as a citizen to vote) that all these inspirational speeches have done to change you? Change your life? Tell me how beyond playing fantasy politics with your friends, will you change America?
http://clintonattacksobama.pbwiki.com/
The Clinton's attempts to cause a white backlash against Obama by playing the race card has backfired.
Obama is "Passive Aggressive"? Get real, please. If Obama came out and responded to the Clintons in kind, you'd call him an "angry black man". Obama is not that stupid to fall for these bush league tricks.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 11:43 PM:African-Americans
Obama 81%, Clinton 17%, Edwards 1%
African-American women
Obama 82%, Clinton 17%, Edwards 0%
Whites
Edwards 39%, Clinton 36%, Obama 24%
Edwards winning white men, Clinton white women.
yes,isn't it race issue?...
Spotty Dog wrote on January 27, 2008 12:02 AM:Stellas, a gentle note:
Since I might fall into your "Obamabot" category, let me say that my life has always been dedicated to working to "win some victory for humanity" so that I "will not be ashamed to die." So while you might find it comforting to believe that I or my fellow Obama supporters are simply "playing fantasy politics" the truth is that many of us have always been involved in the sometimes difficult, always hopeful, and often poorly paid (or frankly unpaid) work of seeking economic, racial, and social justice for all Americans. For some of us, Obama's message is an extension of our own life work.
"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity." Horace Mann
After Caroline's endorsement of Barak this evening, I cannot wait to see Oliphant's next cartoon!
stellaa wrote on January 27, 2008 12:31 AM:spotty dog, ok then you can explain to me how Obama blamed the tenants and the neighborhood for Rezko's buildings failing? Now remember Obama was working for the law firm that represented the non profit partner and Rezko. Would you ever feel comfortable with losing over 1200 units of affordable housing ? Would you not have any compassion for the tenants? I am assuming you are a community activist. Familiar with your community, walking the streets, knowing what is going on. You would know, if you were doing your job, where the buildings are that are being run down? Would you brush off the disaster by saying no one complained to me? Maybe people feared retribution from the landlord.
Please remember the low income housing tax credit projects rarely fail. They are designed to be in low income neighborhoods? Don't you think a NIMBY would say this? Thousands of units were developed by non profits through out the country in some of the most challenging neighborhoods and they are beacons of excellent development, management and dedication to the community.
A: Housing partnerships in which low-income-housing tax credits are syndicated frequently struggle financially. The reasons for the problems such partnerships struggle are complex but frequently include urban crime, demographic changes and social factors outside the control of any developer or owner. Senator Obama was not otherwise aware of financial and physical problems attributable to misconduct by Mr. Rezko
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353786,CST-NWS-rezquestions23.article
As someone who has worked for 30 years to rebuild communities from within the communities I find his relationship and this particular comment unforgivable. It shows a cruel, callous and opportunistic aspect of his personality.
"this is freaking unfair. If Carville and Paugala should be banned from CNN, why not Donna Brazile and Rolland Martin black guy?"
Both Carville and Begala were removed because they are open supporters of Hillary Clinton. Brazile and Martin have not made any such endorsement or public statement of support, however.
Why are you giving Donna Brazile such a hard time anyway? She was a Clinton campaign advisor in both 1992 and in 1996. She's also black.
If she went after Bill for his remarks...well.. perhaps she felt that his remarks were negative, potentially racially provocative, and hurtful both for the Democratic Party and for his own reputation.
BTW, Rolland Martin is a journalist, a radio talk show host... and he too is black. Got a problem with that?!
Obviously, we need to make things fair though... so no more blacks on television! And while we're at it, no more whites too!
Frankly, a better question is, why are so many Clinton supporters (and fellow Democrats) acting like a bunch of race baiters?
ChrisO wrote on January 27, 2008 2:26 PM:The last comment by anonymous neatly sums up my problems with Obama supporters. I too have been disgusted by Donna Brazile's comments. It's clear that she supports Obama, whether she has publicly declared for him or not (of course she hasn't; whe wants to keep the TV gig.) But when her objectivity is questioned, what do we hear?
"... and he too is black. Got a problem with that?!
Obviously, we need to make things fair though... so no more blacks on television!"
No opne remotely suggested that the problem with those two is their race, yet the race card gets played immediately. I'm not suprised the polls found that people thought Hillary attacked Obama unfairly. That's all the press and the Obama campaign have been talking about. It still boggles my mind that the Obama campaign is pretending that no one would be aware of Obama's race if the Clinton's didn't keep "injecting" race into the campaign. How silly. Obama said last year that if he was nominated, black voter turnout would increase by 30 percent. What do you suppose he meant by that? It must have been a reference to his policies, because as the Obama campaign has reminded us many times, it's racist to even mention that he's a black candidate.
South Carolina is one of the few states to have gone for a black candidate in previous primaries. But if Bill Clinton mentions that, along with the fact that the majority of the Democratic electorate is black, he's being a racist. The Obama campaign has managed to successfully put itself in the position of declaring when it's OK to talk about race, and when it's not. But I don't think that's going to wear well with the voters. Spending the whole campaign whining and complaining about "unfair attacks" may help in the short run, but it's not a trait that Americans find terribly attractive over the course of a campaign.
John wrote on January 29, 2008 4:38 PM:As much as I would like to ignore the press, it is very difficult to remain
positive about the HRC campaign, when the American media is trying so
vigorously to destroy it. Their coronation of BHO signifies that the press
learned nothing in 2000 when they did the exact same thing for John McCain.
They were obsessed with the "maverick canidate" and praised and
drooled over him constantly. Americans couldn't care less about the
"endorsement" of the elderly and out-of-touch Teddy Kennedy for the
arrogant and patronizing Barack Obama. It's disappointing that no one in MA
has had the political courage to mount a campaign to put him out to pasture.
Not only will Hillary win the nomination, but she will excel in the role of
commander-in-chief, and will be elected to a second term.
