"(as did his supporters' robotic doublespeak chanting of 'race doesn't matter' last night).

You pretty much lost me here. When does supporters' chanting -- for any candidate -- not sound like robotic doublespeak?

By the way, ncsteve: Great post. Star-worthy, even.

"It's impossible to know but saying that Obama won the women's vote is misleading."

From CNN's exit poll:

Women were 61% of the Democratic electorate.

Obama won 54% of women, to Clinton's 30% to Edwards' 16%.

Now this is a strange side road to have to go down, but the point should be made clear: Obama won the women's vote.

He did come in third among white women, but that, of course, is a separate question.

I'm sorry if someone already posted this -- I've only waded 10 or so pages into the backlog -- but could someone please post a video link to this rumored "longer" version of the Clinton-Jesse Jackson video that kicked off today's discussion? Or, barring that, a transcript? Much obliged...more information is always good.

Regarding Nader, since he seems to have come up a few times, I have to admit: Even notwithstanding Al Gore's many dumb tactical decisions in 2000 (running away from the still popular Clinton and his record, not sending Clinton to Arkansas or WV, not winning his home state, turning in two legendarily bad debate performances, etc.), I never understood the argument that Ralph Nader caused Al Gore's loss. Why would you blame the 2% of people who followed the process enough to vote third-party, rather than the 40% of people who didn't even bother to vote?

They, for whatever reason, chose to vote for Nader. So, put simply, they weren't Gore's votes. It's just as reasonable to assume that many of those voters, had they not voted for Nader, would not have voted at all...like the 40% of Americans who didn't even bother to show up.

This is pretty far off topic, so I won't belabor the point. Still, it never made much sense to me, other than Nader made a convenient scapegoat for a lot of angry Gore-backing folk.

Still hoping to see that "longer" version of the Clinton remarks...

It's probably a bad idea to insert myself into this discussion, but oh well...

Your timeline of Obama using the race card doesn't make much sense. By the time of the LBJ remarks, which were not racist but readily misconstruable, we already had Mark Penn doing the "cocaine" dance and Billy Shaheen "accidentally" bringing up questions about Obama's drug use and religious history. We had Senator Clinton proclaim herself the most "innocent" candidate and her campaign attack Obama as soft on mandatory minimums. (See Dukakis, Horton.) I refer you to the NY Times, a paper that recently strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton:

"By the time the campaigns got to New Hampshire, the Clinton team was panicking...It was clearly her side that first stoked the race and gender issue."

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/opinion/17thu3.html)

The larger point that Clinton supporters can't seem to grasp when it comes to the race card is that it'd be political suicide for Obama to invoke it, as the Clintons well know. A good rule of thumb when wondering about a given tactic is: Who benefits? When the race card is played, the answer is obviously the Clintons. (Which is part of the point driving Glenn's entire post today.)

Finally, regarding the Bhutto assassination bit, here's what David Axelrod said:

"Bhutto’s death will 'call into issue the judgment: who’s made the right judgments,' [Obama campaign manager David] Axelrod said. 'Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it’s in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that’s a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That’s a serious difference between these candidates and I’m sure that people will take that into consideration.'...'She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend,' Axelrod said."

So it's a bit more complicated, although I'll grant you, Axelrod's comments were definitely out of line given the tenor of the moment. Strange you can't seem to say the same of Clinton's Jesse Jackson remarks. Given that you excoriate Obama supporters as "freeper adulators," I don't expect to change your mind. But, frankly, your answers have their own touch of the zealot about them.

"Not former President Bill Clinton, just Bill Clinton, much like Barack describes his wife as Hillary, instead of Sen. Hillary Clinton."

I don't understand the point here at all. All three of the candidates have been calling each other by their first names, as they should. They're Senate colleagues. (Yes, Hillary calls Barack "Barack." Watch the debate.)

And Senator Obama has definitely been calling Bill Clinton "President Clinton". How many times have you heard him say "both Senator Clinton and President Clinton" (a somewhat unwieldy phrase, which is why it's noticeable) lately? If anything, Obama has been more respectful of the office of the presidency than Bill Clinton has the past week.

Finally, I would agree that referring to Hillary as "Hillary" while the rest of the candidates go by "Obama" or "Edwards" had a whiff of sexism to it...if Hillary Clinton's own campaign didn't explicitly encourage everyone to think of her as "Hillary." Look at the signs, or go peruse her campaign's store: http://www.hillarystore.com/ (Not Clinton store, I might add.)