Thursday, January 31, 2008
For just over three minutes on Saturday morning, TV talk show host Montel Williams owned the hosts of Fox and Friends. A former Marine and Naval officer, Montel lectured the stunned hosts on the stupidity of spending air time on the death of Heath Ledger, rather than covering the war in Iraq. It was a spectacle rarely seen on live cable television, as Montel exposed and condemned both tabloid "news" shows and much of American culture for what they have each become: shallow and greedy.
Three minutes into this awkward segment on Fox, one host cut off Montel in order to go to a commercial. Montel did not return after the break. Four days later, after 17 years as a television host, Montel lost his job.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
We all know the Post hates Hillary and Bill. According to them, Hillary stands for a "return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency."
But this is how they endorse Obama:
"For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation."
"His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator."
Who are they trying to kid? The endorsement is a rallying cry for Democrats to vote Obama on February 5, hopefully delivering to him the nomination. The reason? The Post editorial board doesn't think he is electable. Now that it looks like McCain will be the Republican candidate, they want Obama to be the Democrat for McCain to beat.
I guess they are discounting the fact that when McCain won South Carolina he got as many votes as Hillary Clinton did in South Carolina. But she came in second...
Senate President Richard Codey is expected to endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to sources close to Codey, who had served as New Jersey Chairman of John Edwards’ campaign.
The Obama people have been working hard for Codey's endorsement ever since Edwards placed a distant second behind Obama in Iowa. Their state campaign office is in Codey's home town of West Orange and one of their key endorsers, former Sen. Bill Bradley, was Codey's pick for president in 2000.
The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
There is also a story this morning that says Obama would love Edwards support. We will see where this goes. On a personal note Edwards campaign has been just what the democratic party needed. He has been the true democratic message voice in this campaign. Not to take anything away from Obama or Clinton for that matter, but Edwards message of corporate greed and labor rights is where our democratic party needs to go.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Three more Senators Need to flip so they can vote down this horrible FISA bill. Here is an analysis from again, Daily Kos and Glenn Greenwald.
Even just a two-week or one-month extension will allow more time to marshall the opposition to telecom immunity and a new FISA bill and to do what's possible to encourage the House to stand firm behind their bill -- in exactly the way that the Dodd Delay in December prevented quick and easy resolution. The longer this drags on without resolution, the more possible it is to push the opposition to a tipping point, and sometimes unexpected developments or even some luck (such as McConnell's overplaying his hand on Thursday) can prevent it all from happening.
As the events of the last two months demonstrate, if citizen opposition is channeled the right way, it can make a genuine difference in affecting the course of events in Washington. Defeating telecom immunity will keep alive the lawsuits that will almost certainly reveal to some extent what the Government did in illegally spying on Americans over the last six years or, at the very least, produce a judicial adjudication as to its illegality. And, in turn, the effects from that could be extremely significant. Because victories are so rare, it's easy to get lulled into believing that none of these campaigns are ever effective and that citizens can never affect any of it, which is precisely why it's so important to remind ourselves periodically of how untrue that proposition is.
Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison -- who famously declared Bill Clinton to be the nation's "first black president" -- is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president today, according to ABC News.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Update: With 52% reporting it is Obama wins big. Very impressive.
And if this is not the race card, nothing is:
Friday, January 25, 2008
2. Number of years since accurate record-keeping began in 1981 that the rate was as high: 0
3. Chance that an Iraq war veteran who has served two or more tours now has post-traumatic stress disorder: 1 in 4
4. Percentage of Democrats in 2006 who said they supported the Iraq war when it began: 21
5. Percentage of Democrats in March 2003 who said they supported the war: 46
This information is the latest available as of December 2007. Stats from Harper's Index
Note: The criminal invasion and occupation of a sovereign state is still an issue. Our economy, and bloated debts do not exactly lighten when we spend almost $500 billion on a lie, and continue to do so. How we will end the travesty must be discussed. How a government can "inject" life into a failing economy and still throw it away in Iraq is beyond me.
It looks like it is going to be a long winter.
I have been away from the computer for a few weeks, visiting family in NJ. I went and saw There Will Be Blood when I was up, at the Claridge in Montclair, and here is a clip from the movie. Enjoy! Amazing stuff, if you haven't seen it yet.
Yesterday, we noted a couple polls that showed John Edwards surging in South Carolina. Today's Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll finds even more proof.The survey finds Sen. Barack Obama leading with 38%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 25% and John Edwards at 21%.Said pollster John Zogby:
"The real movement here is by John Edwards, who is the only one who continues to gain ground in our three-day tracking poll. His increase appears to be coming from African American voters who are slowly making up their minds."The State: "Watch John Edwards. With only a day left before Saturday’s S.C. Democratic presidential primary, the former U.S. senator from North Carolina and S.C. native is making a move."
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Children and Families announced his resignation Thursday, after two years of leading a court-ordered overhaul of the state’s embattled child welfare system.
Mr. Ryan, 41, the state’s former Child Advocate, plans to continue as commissioner through the end of February and begin working in March at the Amelior and MCJ Foundations, which serves impoverished children in Newark and Africa.
Several advocates for children reacted to his announcement with dismay. He is the third head of the state’s child welfare system to leave office in the past four years. Read the rest of the story.
Now, as a liberal person, I cannot choose for a republican candidate (and please excuse me all my fellow republicans – but some of their major beliefs are beyond my capability to accept), and since an independent candidate has a zero chance of actually winning the sought title, I am left with the democratic candidates.
Having a woman candidate against a black one already makes this election interesting. Although I have doubts about the country’s readiness to accept either as a worthy future president within the history of a white male president past, it is about time that a country that is based on diversity would allow diversity within its leaders. It is about time to get rid of those old habits and embrace the idea that the gender of a candidate nor his skin color does not affect his/her abilities and capabilities.
Watching this duo closely, I got the feeling that the political ideas and agenda of both are almost indistinct and can probably become one solid policy after a day or two of negotiating, which leaves us with the different approach for the presidential role in these two candidates (as was written in the recent New Yorker).
It seems that the real difference between the two has to do with their view of the position which both seek. An organized, well experienced bureaucracy manager as opposed to a young and fresh soul who believes in affecting the future by entering a fresh and positive vision into the system, over the pompous old bureaucracy spirit.
The choice is not easy. It is very tempting to choose the young blood that calls up to shake the old foundation and create an emotional positive wave around everything that he says (Barack) over the much less likable personality of the woman who has mastered the old foundation and might know how to run them but have a very little thrilling energy to offer (Hillary). But then, the memory of another Barack comes to my mind, the one who ran for the prime minister position in Israel with the same positive spiritual energy over any experience in politics. I admit that I was swept by his model and celebrated his victory just to see him falling in every little trap that the political world is very good in putting in front of you, and making the biggest mistakes possible over his (very good) intentions.
Suddenly it hit me, my perfect candidate is someone in between the two options, which is very rare to find in one person, but as a combination….
If I could vote, I would vote for the first of these two candidates that would go up publicly and invite the other one to co-operate together (as a vice president), a perfect combination of vision and experience. The first person to realize that as much as he lacks qualities which his opponent has and that acknowledging together they can offer a better future for everyone, is my Perfect Candidate.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Substance abuse takes far too many people in this country. It is an epidemic that is avoidable. Here is the latest on his death.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
After Obama said in the debate last night to Senator Clinton that she worked as a corporate lawyer at Walmart it got me to thinking. Why is Mrs. Clinton painting herself as a bastion for the poor, the dispossessed; "thirty-five years of helping families." She certainly may say she is "working for change" if she likes and stands for the dispossessed. But, it simply is not true. Below are the facts. She is standard fare for what the Democrats and Republicans have offered up as candidates for the past 20 years. Standard fare.
I was sent this article this morning much to my chagrin. It was written one week ago on January 14, 2008. As someone who has spent their professional life working for the poor and the dispossessed I find her presentation of herself to be beyond the pale and feel the need to correct the facts. Here is the article in its entirety:
Rather than attempt to sway votes, I want to discuss what it means when people who have put personal ambitions ahead of principles suddenly re imagine their life histories to achieve immediate goals. Hillary Clinton not only has not spent the majority of her life “working for poor families,” but she used her sizable clout as First Lady to defeat, suppress and ultimately disempower those dedicating their lives to this cause. Her supposed mentor, Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund, was among those pleading with Ms. Clinton to oppose welfare “reform” in 1996 -- to no avail.
The historical record shows that Clinton has not spent her life working for poor families, poor children, or fighting for King’s principles; rather, she chose to lend her considerable talents to a six-year stint on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors, and as an attorney represented banks, Wal-Mart and other corporate interests with the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas. Granting Senator Clinton this fictional and reimagined personal history as a poor person’s advocate demeans those who actually have spent their lives working for the poor. It is particularly outrageous when federally funded legal service programs -- upon whom the poor depend -- were slashed to the bone during the Clinton presidency.
One can debate Hillary Clinton’s commitment to “change”or her actual level of political experience, but her personal history is a matter of public record. And this history finds her pursuing a career representing and embracing corporate America, not “fighting for the principles that Martin Luther King stood for.”
King died while in Memphis seeking economic justice for garbage workers. Clinton could have lent her talents to working for low-income workers, but instead chose to use her intelligence and legal skills to benefit Wal-Mart, likely the nation’s leading exploiter of low-income families.
Clinton earned $18,000 a year on the Wal-Mart Board, plus $1500 per meeting. That’s nearly as much as the full time salary of legal services attorneys in Arkansas in those days -- and this was on top of Clinton’s salary with the Rose Law Firm, for whom she performed legal work for Wal-Mart.
As recently as 2004, Hillary Clinton described her years on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors as “a great experience in every respect." Lending one’s talents to Wal-Mart is a strange route toward a goal of helping working families or poor children.
In fact, Clinton’s career biography does not reflect someone primarily dedicated to using her talent to help low-income families and children. The fact that her campaign wants voters to believe otherwise, and has reimagined an entire fictional career history for Clinton, does not make it so.
While First Lady of Arkansas, Clinton served on the Board of both the Children Defense Fund and Legal Services in Arkansas. She no doubt helped both organizations. But such Board service hardly qualifies her as someone who has spent the majority of her life “working” for poor families and children.
Is Senator Clinton’s reimagined past mere campaign puffery? Don’t politicians always put the best light on their life histories, and isn’t Clinton simply following this tradition? Yes and no.
There is a difference between a frequent and questionable Clinton statement like -- “I’ve been fighting for change for 35 years” -- and the more easily refutable claim that she has been working for the poor.
Because that is flatly untrue. And worse, it conflicts with Clinton’s performance as First Lady, in which she had an opportunity to stop attacks on the poor but -- based on who you believe -- she either did nothing or encouraged her husband’s worst instincts.The first fact about Clinton that I recall learning was that President Carter had appointed her to the Board of the federal Legal Service Corporation. The legal services community felt that her husband’s election meant that we finally had a legal services ally in the White House.
We sure were wrong. After withstanding the attacks on legal services during Reagan-Bush, federal funding for legal aid to the poor was not only decimated under President Clinton, but so many limitations were placed on who could be served and how that the Clinton years destroyed the effectiveness of federally funded legal services.Where was Hillary Clinton when poor families and children lost their access to legal representation? She was missing from the fight. And given her husband was President, her failure to intervene to save legal services speaks volumes as to willingness to “work” on behalf of the poor.
Clinton’s role in the abolition of the federal welfare entitlement puts her personal history even more at odds with the legacy of Dr. King. Depending on who you believe, Clinton either ignored the pleadings of Marian Wright Edelman and others urging President Clinton to veto the so-called welfare “reform” bill -- or she actively encouraged her husband to sign it. Peter Edelman, Marian’s husband, resigned from the Clinton Administration in disgust at the President’s enactment of a welfare measure that would subsequently increase hunger, homelessness, and poverty among low-income families and children.
Clinton may truly believe she has dedicated her life to working for poor families and children, but her actions speak for themselves:
She freely chose to work for Wal-Mart at a time when that company was profiting by denying health insurance to its low-wage, employees. She freely chose to put her intellect and legal skills at the service of banks and major corporations at the Rose Law Firm. She freely chose to remain silent, if not complicit, when her husband’s administration was making life worse for poor families and children.
Unlike thousands in her generation who sought to organize among the poor to fulfill Dr. King’s legacy, or who joined Cesar Chavez working for economic justice for farm workers, or who worked to unionize low-income women, or who worked for legal services or in civil rights law firms, Hillary Clinton pursued a corporate path.
That was certainly her right. But having taken that path, Senator Clinton has no right to sell an imaginary version of herself as having dedicated her life toward working for poor people. For Hillary Clinton, that was the road not taken.
I have decided one thing. I will vote for Senator Clinton if she is the nominee. But, that is all I will do. I will not work for her, I will not serve as a challenger (as I have done in four successive election cycles), I will not speak of her candidacy as a candidacy I support. I will vote in November and that is it.
NARAL Pro-Choice America is calling on bloggers to discuss why it's important to vote pro-choice in honor of the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which is today.
So why vote pro-choice?
Because of your future.
Because of your right to comprehensive health care.
Because of your right to economic and social equality.
Because of your self-empowerment.
Because of your children, mother, sister, friends.
Because no woman can succeed without full control of her body.
Because women’s lives are on the line.
It’s not simply about access to abortion anymore. It’s about reproductive justice.
So vote for whomever you want this election cycle. But remember, if you choose to ignore their stance on choice, you are voting against women. It’s truly that simple.
Monday, January 21, 2008
"Unity is the great need of the hour - the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.
I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.
I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.
We have an empathy deficit when we're still sending our children down corridors of shame - schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education."
Sunday, January 20, 2008
As “members of a messianic cult and Iraqi troops” continued fighting for a second day, the death toll “in two predominantly Shiite southern cities rose from 50 to at least 68“
Iraqi authorities said at least 36 people were reported killed in Basra, Iraq’s second largest city, and at least 32 in Nasiriyah, including Iraqi security forces, civilians and gunmen. At least 10 people were reported slain in Nasiriyah Friday.
Another bombing in Northern Iraq is also threatening to shred the fragile security situation in Iraq. Meanwhile, Muqtadah Al Sadr is threatening to not extend the cease fire he declared six months ago that U.S. officials agree has curbed much of the violence. Tensions are rising.
In other Iraq news, the winter is becoming troubling. Discontent across the country is "surging" to do lack of heat and no electricity. That there is no electricity in this country for the people of Iraq is a failure of epic proportions by America. Who else is to blame?
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Update: 41% of the precincts reporting and the same holds true. 50-45-5 for Clinton, Obama and Edwards.
With 87% reporting Clinton wins 51-45. Close. Two weeks ago, Clinton would have won by double digits. It is, however do or die in South Carolina for Barack. I don't know where Edwards goes from here. It is at this point he should put his considerable weight behind Obama in my opinion.
The Obama campaign has released a recording (mp3) it says came from a Nevadan's answering machine of an anonymous robocall that criticizes Obama for taking money from special interests while repeating, four times, his rarely used middle name: "Hussein."
"I'm calling with some important information about Barack Hussein Obama," the call begins, before saying that "Barack Hussein Obama says he doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest groups but the record is clear that he does."
Update: Obama won the delegate count in Nevada. And some are saying he won the popular vote count as well. I am not sure about that, but this sure causes confusion. On to South Carolina I say.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Clinton had a strong lead among women, with 46% of their number supporting her, compared with 36% for Obama and 12% for Edwards, the telephone survey shows. Obama and Clinton were just a point apart among male supporters, him winning 39% and her 38%. The two top candidates’ performance among different age groups were virtual mirror images of one another, with Obama dominating 54% to 28% among the 18-29 bracket and Clinton winning a hefty 57% of those over age 65 to Obama’s 25%. Clinton had more support from those aged 50 to 64, while Obama led among voters aged 30 to 49.
Zogby on Nevada said: “Clinton holds a slight lead in Nevada but it will all depend on organization. Nevada Democrats have no real history for us to go on, so we will have to see how powerful the unions, civil rights, and other organizations are in bringing out their constituencies. Noteworthy is the tale of Black America vs. White America. Obama leads among African Americans 81% to 16%, while Clinton leads among whites 46% to 31%. What this portends for other states we will have to wait and see.
Significantly, Clinton leads among Hispanics 51% to 27%. Clinton also leads among Moderates. The two top candidates are battling it out among union members.
“A majority of Democratic caucus voters say that they favor a candidate who represents change (53%) rather than experience (36%). Among those who cite change, Obama wins 50% to Clinton’s 29%. Among those who cite experience, Clinton receives 64% to Obama’s meager 10%.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Though, in fairness the Clintons liked him too.
Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook.
"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere," their statement said.
The agency that coordinates free legal help for people with civil problems ranging from housing disputes to divorce is facing a potential budget shortfall, officials said yesterday.
The primary funding source for the nonprofit Legal Services of New Jersey has dropped off in recent months, threatening the agency's ability to take cases, said Melville Miller, president of the organization. Legal Services runs a network of legal assistance offices around the state and represented more than 55,000 poor clients in the past two years.
"If these revenue drops persist, or worse, it will lead to crippling staff reductions and severely diminished client services," said Miller.
The December figures were down 20 percent, said Miller. That follows declines of 9 percent in November and 6 percent in October.
For the past two years, the legal aid agency has gotten more than half its $72 million annual budget through interest earned on certain accounts lawyers keep for clients, called the New Jersey Supreme Court Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts program. The funds are administered through an independent agency in New Brunswick, said Ellen Ferrise, the executive director of the IOLTA Fund of the Bar of New Jersey.
The funding has fluctuated over recent years, Ferrise said. While it is too early to tell what 2008 might bring, she said market indicators signal that it could be a down year.
The accounts depend largely on the strength of the real estate market, Federal Reserve interest rates and the overall economy.
"All three are in decline, with no end in sight -- a kind of terrible perfect storm for our funding," said Miller. "We did not really foresee the depth and suddenness of this drop."
The past two years have seen record revenues for the fund, and much of that extra money went to Legal Services, allowing it to take on more cases and hire staff. If the financial woes continue, those gains will be cut, said Miller.
Judiciary officials, who appoint the trustees to the fund but are not involved in its day-to-day management, said they are always concerned with the financial well-being of the agency.
"The courts certainly have confidence that the trustees who manage this money are managing it well in these difficult times," said Winnie Comfort, a judiciary spokeswoman.
Legal Services isn't the only agency that gets funding from the trust accounts. The New Jersey State Bar Association's foundation also gets about 12 percent of its annual funding from the accounts, said Angela Scheck, the bar's executive director. But the foundation anticipated the money might fluctuate and established a reserve to cover possible shortfalls.
A federal judge on Thursday allowed Nevada's Democratic Party to conduct voting to choose a U.S. presidential nominee in casino hotels on the Las Vegas Strip, a decision likely to boost Sen. Barack Obama.
"For the first time, Nevada Democrats planned to set up nine locations for Saturday's vote so casino shift workers -- who are largely represented by a union that endorsed Obama -- could express their preference for a Democratic Party candidate before the November presidential election."
Whether you support Clinton, Obama or Edwards this is good news. Disenfranchising voters is repugnant and should be left to those who are repugnant like the Republican party. There is no place for vote suppressors in the Democratic party.
The reasoning: Mahan said the Nevada Democratic Party had a constitutional right to write its rules for nominating its candidates.
"State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said.
"I don’t want to set a precedent that is not warranted."
"The parties have a right to determine how they’ll apportion delegates to their conventions."
For more go to Daily Kos.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
Here's the story on this craziness.
I think that sentence speaks volumes as to why Mike Huckabee is scary and should not be president.
On a related note, I leave you with the words of Matthew McConaughy: “Wish us the best, keep us in your prayers, and God bless evolution…”
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Barack in october, 2002
Who is distorting who's record? Pathetic.
To use this guy and then have him attack Obama on drug use. Don't believe me - watch for yourself. Will we really get anything different from the Clinton Campaing then what we have right now?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Please join Governor Jon Corzine, Senator Robert Menendez, Congressman Albio Sires, Congressman Donald Payne, and County Executive Tom DeGise at a press conference for Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton. The press conference will take place at the Turning Point Restaurant 1440 Sinatra Drive in Hoboken this Monday, January 14th at 3 PM. Please make every effort to attend.
Like I am some party hack who is supposed to get in line with the party. This is how the democratic party works in New Jersey. Get in line, wait your turn (nationally too, why do we think Hillary is so mad at Barack? He didn't wait his turn) and support who we say you should support. This is why progressive politics never takes place in New Jersey and all of the northeast for that matter because it is run by party bosses and the democratic establishment of which we (the establishment) should get in line and support Hillary.
We need to take our party back from the good ol boys who want to run things like they have always been run, like a fucking golf tournament. No one steps out, play by the rules and if you need to speak wait your fucking turn. I am tired of this and I am tired of Hillary Clinton. I respect her and it is high time a woman was President, that is for sure, but fuck this party establishment bullshit. How do we expect things to change if we do not respect the new leadership rising?
I support Barack Obama and I am proud of it. See what the party establishment in Nevada is doing and know why if we listen to these people as democrats we as a party are doomed.
The lawsuit was filed by the firm Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Senior partners Michael Bonner and Christian Kaempfer have donated money to Clinton in the past, and Clinton ally and former Rep. James H. Bilbray, D-Nev., is an attorney at that firm.
The state party approved the at-large precincts at its Nevada State Democratic Party's State Central Committee meeting on March 31, 2007.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), "the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he was rethinking his neutral stance in his state’s presidential primary out of disappointment at comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that he saw as diminishing the historic role of civil rights activists," the New York Times reports."
Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights movement and a power in state Democratic politics, put himself on the sidelines more than a year ago to help secure an early primary for South Carolina, saying he wanted to encourage all candidates to take part. But he said recent remarks by the Clintons that he saw as distorting civil rights history could change his mind."
This is troubling. And this is precisely why this race can quickly devolve into a race about race and gender. Clearly, both candidates are suffering from both the presented sexism and racism so intransigent in the politics of our day (see karl rove yesterday). However, the Clintons are being accused of this and I have noticed a jarring tone playing the race card with them. After Iowa, Clinton clearly was playing up this point when saying Barack isn't tough on crime, etc. The African-American community will notice and it seems they are beginning to notice.
To Obama's credit he has not done so (although Jesse Jackson, jr. came close when describing Clinton's tears), but John Edwards seemed to misstep when he pounced on Clinton.