Good comments from Obama, I think. It takes away Clinton's talking point that she's vetted, because now Obama has been vetted by the Clinton machine, "and he's still standing."

In fact, I'd say the Clintons are more cutthroat than Rove or Atwater ever were. They may have come up with an idea liket using African-Americans to create a divide in the party, thus making a likely Obama win in South Carolina look like a Jackson win in Michigan, thus putting an asterik next to that win and simultaneously pushing whites into the Clinton camp. They may have come up with the notion, but I don't think they would have tried to execute it - not because they're better people, but because they'd suspect everyone would see what they were doing.

Everyone does see what the Clintons are doing, and the Clintons don't care. Truly shameless. At least Rove and Atwater kept their dirty games at the level where they thought they might get away with them.

For someone who is innocent of everything that has been said since, well,since forever, and for someone who doesn't start attacks, Obama is STILL talking about Iowa? He cracks about Wal-Mart while his wife takes $168K from Treehouse - whose largest and best customer - IS WAL-MART. He claims he spent about '5 hours' of billed time in some contact with Rezko? He's known him for 15 years, taken money from him in ALL of his campaigns and during the entire time, Rezko has been in trouble and anyone in Illinois knew it, including Obama.

So when we lose the election because white southern republicans will not vote for a black democrat who believes in late term abortion (and they will run ads that will make Rosemary's Baby look like Sunday School ads) we will be camped out under YOUR bridge, looking for an extra blanket and a shot of whiskey.

This guy is crying NOW about a tough, ugly campaign? The Republicans will eat him ALIVE and all his demanding apologies will be laughed at. This guy is naive beyond sense and is a divider from day one. He has brought race up every time he is criticized on issues

The Clinton's were right Obama cannot waive a magic wond and make everyone get along. But by that same token, they cannot waive a magic wond and take us back to the 1990's. This is a whole new Millenium. Clinton was the right person for that time. Obama is the right one for this time! Please lets keep it on he issues. Go Obama!

Mason Dixon Poll Out on CNN @ 10:32am just now:

Black Vote White Vote
Obama 59% 10%
Clinton 25% 36%
Edwards **% 40%

Now, let's say there are 2,000,000 votes to be made. 50% are black voters.

Obama 59% of black vote = 590,000
Obama 10% of white vote = 10,000
Obama = 600,000 votes (which is a LOT)

Clinton 25% of black vote = 250,000
Clinton 36% of white vote = 360,000
Clinton = 610,000 votes (which is a LOT)

now I am not thinking Clinton is going to win anyway, despite this math. What I am pointing at is the subtle twisting of the MLK remark which was about Presidents needing to be on board not that marchers and MLK had nothing to do with Civil Rights. Obama knows that, and so does an awful lot of people who were there at the time. So Clinton tried to say she would be a president like Johnson that would take all that good effort and make it law. Only a president can sign law. Not marchers. Not Figureheads of absolute dignity and grace, like MLK. But Obama saw a chance to pretend to respond, when it was really an attack. So now, if these figures continue, this 10% of the white vote and 59% of black vote, look how THAT plays out nationally

There are about 28,000,000 people still to vote out of the 33,000,000 democrats who voted last time.

The black vote in America is between 5 and 7% because they make up about 13% of the population and at least 1% may vote republican and about 5% don't vote.

Obama = 28M X 7% X 59% = 1,156,400
Obama = 28M X 7% X 10% = 196,000
Obama = 75% Edwards Vot e=2,940,000
Obama Total = 4,292,000

White population is about 78% (really about 85% but lets keep it lower)

Clinton will get about 25% of Edwards voters. And about 80% of Latino voters but I haven't put this in.

Clinton=28Mx78%(wht)X36%=7,862,400
Clinton=28Mx7%x25% = 490,000
Clinton=28Mx14%(Ed)x25%=980,000
Clinton Total = 9,332,400

I know that is a lot but look.

By slipping in that crack about MLK and making it race.
By Obama and Oprah changing their voice boxes, getting ghetto and faking the MLK PoerTAY, LiberTAY, AdversiTAY, they turned folks off.
By whining about not knowing who you are running against, demanding apologies every 18 hours, they have turned people off.

And the numbers, without counting Latinos who voted about 80-20 Clinton, show that in a race vote, because the black vote is not large enough, he is crushed, not just barely beat. So it was a bad decision to try and change your voice, pretend you were a civil right sufferer, make yourself more than you are, give yourself experience where there isn't any. It is a mess and that is the factual truth.

This general election will come down to independents and swing republicans. Hills is divisive. She vilifies anyone and everyone who she believes has wronged her. I don't know if the people who supported obama will vote for her. If she gets the nom, he is obligated to do the photo-ops to try and bring things together, but I think it will be obvious that his heart won't be in it, and he knows that he will get the cold shoulder from her. Hillary is a candidate that will continue the polarization of this country. She uses it as another tool in her arsenal. She andher husband lie, and obfuscate as needed to manipulate the people, just like Bush. I don't know about everyone else, but I have had enough of that. He isn't perfect, I don't agree with everything he says, but at least he has convinced me that, he understands that while the phiosophies differ, the ultimate goal of both parties is to make the country stronger and more prosperous. He needs to name Biden as his VP and let him deal with Bill so he can stay on message. Obama/Biden '08

Wasn't Obama outrage with Edwards campaign also when the group 527 were promoting Edwards in Iowa: where is Obama now that the 527 groups are doing the same for in in California???
The so called campaign of HOPE and CHANGE is all a Big Hypocrisy!!!!

Hillary attacked Barack for his obscure "link" to Rezko. Now comes the photo on the Drudge Report of Hillary, Bill and Rezko posing for a picture. Those pictures are taken at fund raising events to reward large contributors.
*HYPOCRITE*
--> a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue
--> a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Well, Gorgon, Obama's link to Rezko is a little bit more than something I'd characterize as obscure. When Hillary attacked Obama for representing Rezko, that was poor op research, because he hadn't. I'm guessing Obama's account of the five hours billed as basically a legal proofreader is accurate. But Obama has had some ties to the guy that go beyond this.

Don't get me wrong. If we want to start comparing Obama's and Clinton's respective relationships with shady characters, Obama comes out smelling like a rose. Likewise if we want to compare their respective degrees of sleaze with regard to fundraising.

As for Clinton's photo with Rezko, who knows? It does show that Rezko probably was involved with a lot of Democrats beyond Obama, and probably donated a lot of money to multiple Democrats. I don't think small contributors are invited to have pictures taken with them quite so often.

Is there more of a relationship than Clinton says? Maybe. She might be telling the truth or she might be lying. As we've seen, both her and her husband are more than capable of doing either with a straight face.

I'll bet they'd do great on lie detector tests. I think you need to have a conscience for the machine to pick up the stresses associated with lying.

Okay, Okay, Iowa was a big win for you. We get, really, we get it!

Thanks, Paul. However, you must admit that Hillary was programmed to slip the Rezko "zinger" into the mix in an attempt to raise his negatives. Unfortunately, this strategy has now raised questions about the Clintons own relationship with yet another sketchy figure... and she's been caught red handed. I'm guessing that hundreds of reporters are already combing fundraising records to find the direct/indirect connection.
Remember, the definition of a con artist is someone who can perfectly imitate the actions of an honest person. This time she's become tangled in her own web. Let's see how this plays out.

Yes Obama? Now what did the big, bad Clintons do to you? Run a race to win the nomination with accusations of lying from someone who apparently, according to himself and his supporters; never lies? Yeah, we heard that from Nixon too. We saw the end result of those claims was a WHOPPER of a lie. Hmmmmmmm. Wonder what lying skeletons lay in your closet? Karl Rove knows....bet you anything...Must be a whopper! Are you ready Obama? Are you really?

Man, you Obama supporters talk way too much about how anything the Clintons say about Obama is a lie. He swung first with Wal-mart (for which his wife has connections) Hillary hit back with Rezko. Rezko....Rezko. Now everyone knows that he is like the rest of us; a human being who does in fact LIE! Obama is a LIAR! Go ahead people...get defensively freaked out. It's the Obama campaign strategy right?

2009 Where Are You: Your calculations may be correct, but your conclusion that Obama played the race card is just plain wrong.

Do you think the Obama campaign hasn't sat down and done the exact same calculations? Do you honestly think that they're focused so much on winning SC that they haven't thought about the repercussions for Super Tuesday? Do you think they don't realize that once the race card is out, Obama loses? Don't you wonder why Obama refused to run as the black candidate all through 2007 just to whip out the race card after he won Iowa? Do you think they're stupid?

Read Dick Morris, Bill Clinton's old political adviser. This guy knows how the Clintons approach their political strategy, and one thing he says loud and clear: The camp that played the race card is the one that stands to gain the most: The Clintons.

Your own back-of-the-envelope calculations prove the point.

Dick Morris who sees the world through his evil eyes. I would never want that man analyzing anything anybody does. He can't separate his devious thinking from everyone else’s. We would all hate each other.

Plum - you might want to take a closer look at those calculations. Ten percent of 1 million isn't 10,000. In his initial analysis, he miscalculated Obama's numbers by 90,000 votes.

I do agree with you about Clinton playing the race card. Its exceedingly clear both in my memory of who said what when, and as you said, by the likely result of it benefitting the Clintons, unless the backlash against such tactics were to grow larger.

My guess is it could.

The fact that Obama is black, immediately brought race into the picture. I mean, are you kidding me? Anything anyone would say would play into that trap. Remember, the Republicans brought in Alan Keyes at the last minute to beat Obama for senator. People kinda notice. No matter how much you try not to discuss your race; it’s there. The fear, pride and prejudice; especially for those of us who have been made to feel defensive. I don’t feel that the Clintons or Obamas are using race in a negative way, they are trying to use it to their advantage. They both want to be black.....what’s wrong with that? Black is cool. We and the media are keeping race alive in the negative, not the candidates. Whites were pushed away with the whole Black Pride behavior; because they felt hurt, rejected and uncomfortable, who can blame them? No one likes to be in a constant state of having to prove that they are not racist. The moment in the debates that I really hated, had nothing to do with the comments. Obama hits Hillary with Wal-Mart. He gets overwhelming cheers. Hillary hits back with Rezco and she gets jeered. What they said was legit. The audience reaction was disturbing. The media seized on the tension, sticking in their unqualified assessment as usual, one in which they invoked race again. They didn’t have to. We saw. We know.

sorry plum and all, I was trying to type fast and got a few figures crocked up.

As for the race card, Clinton said it takes a president to SIGN a law, to make all the marching count in the end. Obama said THAT was reducing MLK's effort. That is not true. If English is your first language, then you know what she said is plain. No presidential signature, no law. Marching, death, destruction, prayers, hopes - all means very little if you have a President that won't sign the law. I will redo the figures in a few minutes and get them down better. I also made an error in the Clinton part, with 7% and then 36%. Give me a bit and I will fix this.

If the S. Carolina polling numbers hold for the U.S.
These are the breakdowns:

28,000,000 out of 33,000,000 Democrats haven't voted yet.
South Carolina poll says

Obama gets 59% of the Black Vote
Obama gets 10% of the White Vote
Obama would get 75% of Edward's voters
Edwards gets about 14 - 19% of the vote.

Clinton gets 25% of the Black Vote
Clinton gets 36% of the White vote (with Edwards in)
Edwards gets 40% of the White Vote
Clinton gets 25% of Edward's voters if he is out.

Black population in the U.S. is about 13%
Black population that votes is about 7%
Black population votes Democratic 98%
Black population votes Republican 2%

Latinos are about 15% of the U.S. population
Latinos vote democratic about 75%
Latinos vote Republican about 25%

White population is about 75% in the U.S.
White population votes about 50% Democratic
White polulation votes about 50% Repulican

Now we have 33M Democratic voters and 28M left to vote.

Obama = 28Mx7%(black voter pop)x59%(his share of black vote)=1,156,400

Obama = 28Mx75%(white voter pop)X10%(his share of white vote)=2,100,000

Obama = 28Mx15%(latino voter pop)X20%(his share of Latino vote)=840,000

Obama = 28Mx19%(Edwards voter pop)x75%(his share of edwards)=3,990,000

Obama Total Votes In This Example Based On S. Car. Polling=8,086,400

Clinton = 28Mx7%(black voter pop)X25%(her share of black vote)=490,000

Clinton = 28Mx75%(white voter pop)x36%(her share with Edwards in)=7,560,000

Clinton = 28Mx15%(latino voter pop)x80%(her share of Latino vote)=3,360,000

Clinton = 28Mx19%(Edwards voter pop)x25%(her share of Edwards vote)=1,330,000

Clinton Total Votes In This Example Based On S. Car. Polling=12,740,000

Clinton = 12,740,000 out of the remaining 28,000,000 Democratic Vote
Obama = 8,086,400 out of the remaining 28,000,000 Democratic vote
Edwards = 5,320,000 out of the remaining 28,000,000 Democratic vote
Total= 26,146,400 (the rest would be all other votes or no votes)
I know that I awarded Edwards votes to the other candidates and the numbers are a bit off from the totals,
in keeping with the spread that they have shown in all states so far,
this example is pretty close to that spread, using South Carolina numbers.

Maybe I have some of it wrong, but you can see the percentages are on and the totals are there. Maybe someone can perfect my math, please!!

I just don't think a race war vote is a good idea based on these numbers.
Race Votes will not work for minority candidates because their numbers, even
if united, are too small to overcome a united majority. And the gap is big enough that
even if 33% side with Obama he still loses by a slim 1%. Right now based
on the above figures divided into each other the results are:

Clinton 60%
Obama 36%
Edwards 04%

It would take an extra 14% to side with Obama to break an even election.

2009 Where are you - That's a lot of math, and not to seem rude, but it's self-serving math. SC may vote in that split, so the first calculation may be correct. However, black and white voters are not split in the same proportions in all states, or in all precincts. Some states also run caucuses which hamper that math (see Nevada).
So, now with that said, it would seem to be a likely scenario that Clinton can win more delegates than Obama by the convention using this math. The question is whether the Clintons ran this same math and felt that by polarizing the Democratic base into black/white camps felt like this played out in their favor, and thus manipulated it into happening (see Primary Colors). They have been known to exploit polarizing attitudes before (see Vast Right-Wing conspiracy).

Thus, if Obama cannot shift the focus away from race (the elephant in the room), he will get beaten for the nomination thanks to calculated math, and not a triumph of vision.

I would find that unfortunate, but would vote for Clinton (though unenthusiastically)in Nov. But, I'm afraid it will not be enough (see 2000, 2004 - stolen or not, the Dems lost).
If Obama's enthusiastic new voters get disillusioned, that's a real possibility again.

"The result of a vast right-wing conspiracy"
-- Hillary Clinton before the Blue Dress

Question: Was she then in denial, or lying?

Was she manipulating us then, or now?

Has Bill reversed roles, and now lies about who is attacking her? Hey, it worked until the DNA on that little blue dress.

Where's checkmate, 2008?