a reference to Obama's cocaine use was not what caused stirrings of "race". It was the allegation that he would be labeled as a drug dealer, when he had never discussed drug dealing, and this allegation seemed to have racial overtones as no one ever thought that Bush would be considered a cocaine dealer. And it wasn't the Clintons personally that were implicated here, but people associated with their campaign.

If Willentz or anyone else is changing the basic facts of the story in order to support his ideas, this amounts to cheating.

Shaheen used the term "selling drugs" he didn't say "drug dealer". Here is that reference:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/13/clinton_apologizes_to_obama_fo_1.html

and if you google "drug dealer + Obama" you will get this:

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=obama+%2B+drug+dealer

which supports your thesis that the media created the flap more than either candidate.

Interesting how memory works....I did think I "remembered" that it was Clinton's campaign person that had used the term "drug dealer." My mistake. But to be fair, Obama and his people never used it either. The reporters--or not even the reporters--the headline writers used it first.

to make the story pop.

if there was a concerted effort to race-bait as the article alleges, shouldn't there be more than one statement by Jackson Jr. that was....I think at least....ill advised?

All the other "evidence" in that article amounted to blaming without showing who had begun the conversation, whether it was the media or what the media was saying about the Clintons or the Clintons.

I have to admit that I was personally disappointed by Hillary's LBJ remarks. Not because I thought they were racist or she is racist. But it was a strange place to put emphasis. I thought if a man were saying that women receiving the vote was dependent on a man putting through the legislative can-do, while technically correct (because women weren't in office how could they for themselves), it would have seemed like a strange place to put emphasis.

Personally, I didn't think Clinton's comments about Jesse Jackson were so terrible. But the point is that how people respond to these remarks cannot be in any way entirely Obama's fault...people had time to respond before Obama or his surrogates had any opportunity to intervene publically....many people feel like they "know" the clintons, so they wouldn't be so easily manipulated by Obama's spin on things. People responded directly, and maybe because the bar was high, they were a little disappointed.

However, how many people in this country switched their vote to Obama because they think that the Clintons are racists? Is this really the case? You would have to speak with such people. I felt a little bit disappointed in their campaign, but I didn't think, well, this settles it. Now I'm voting for someone else. There have been many issues....the war...health care....race is only one piece of the puzzle. And for those who switched their support, I wonder if it was because of Obama manipulation or because their support wasn't strong to begin with.

It's starting to sound like a conspiracy theory, that every time race is brought up that it must be a manipulation on the part of Obama. I have the feeling that he would have been happier if no one brought it up at all. But once they did, he couldn't wave a wand and make it disappear. He responded with dignity and a calm spirit each time. When you go back to look at the record, other than Jesse Jackson Jr.'s statement, there have not been stirrings of this pot like there could have been over a black candidate.

My seventy five cents at least.

for the record. Why would I say that? I said that Shehan referred to Obama "selling drugs" ...yes in terms of the Republicans....but this was also interpreted as having a racial slant because dealing is different than taking.

In Obama's book where does he mention drug dealing?

Shehan made a mistake. I don't think he was a horrible person, but Clinton said it was a mistake. And so it is over. Except that now this has to be Obama's shame?? Obama shouldn't bear that "shame" either...he didn't make a mistake in calling himself a drug dealer or alleging that he "sold drugs"...? So...?

all of this is nuance...but how can it be reduced to Obama's responsibility? I don't understand.

I still think its funny about the "fluffers" and I know that Joan Walsh didn't mean to imply it...but when I heard it--I didn't remember the other meaning--and no I'm no expert in that either--until someone mentioned it in the posts. In fact, it is a very revolting (but almost humorously revolting) idea.

Okay. Sorry for the disgusting moment. For the other nuance I'm not an expert in but have only glancing knowledge...hard-core drug dealers are (in movies at least) supposed to be black. I don't know that Shehan should have been scapegoated since he was referencing the Republicans...but the question became whether or not people were going to accept a black drug user candidate (ie call him a dealer) rather than just a regular drug user candidate...like Bush. So race came into the picture.

Anyway, I agree with your comments about legalization etc.

Back to work.