""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." -- NYT editorial, 1/17/08

"We seem to be at the point where there are now two credible possibilities. One is that the Clinton campaign is intentionally pursuing a strategy of using surrogates to hit Obama with racially-charged language or with charges that while not directly tied to race nonetheless play to stereotypes about black men. The other possibility is that the Clinton campaign is extraordinarily unlucky and continually finds its surrogates stumbling on to racially-charged or denigrating language when discussing Obama." -- TPM's Josh Marshall, 1/13/08

"I think that the Clintons' anti-Obama strategy is more subtle than commentators are realizing. It is in the nature of a 'provokatsiia', as the Russians say...Such comments are a provocation, waving a red cloak in front of the Obama people. When they respond angrily with charges of racism, suddenly they look like Jesse Jackson redux...just the kind of angry, militant black folks who scare white people...The whole point was to get the Obama people to respond angrily, which they did. Clintons win." -- TPM, 1/13/08

"Is it possible that accusing Obama and his campaign of playing the race card might create doubt in the minds of the moderate, independent white voters who now seem so enamored of the young, black senator? Might that be the idea?" -- WP's Eugene Robinson, 1/14/08

"While it isn't clear from whose sleeve the card was pulled, it is likely it wasn't from the person with the most to lose. If Hillary Clinton's campaign had taken only one shot at Obama, it might have been blown off as a mistake. But four shots constitutes a pattern." -- Margaret Carlson, 1/17/08

This makes no sense at all. What kind of strategy would dictate that you publicly denigrate blacks - some of your very strongest supporters, thus almost instantly mobilizing them for your black opponent? C'mon, the Clintons might be a lot of things, but they are hardly dim.

The obvious reality that African-Americans are a minority in this country, and in the Democratic party, and that many African-Americans might be intrigued by an Obama candidacy regardless. If Obama ends up being perceived as the exclusively "black" candidate, it hurts him with the white/latino/asian population at large. Please, if you're from the south as you say, try not to be so willfully obtuse. It's just not plausible.

If you don't take my word for it, ask Dick Morris. Yes, he's an unsavory character and no mistake. But he's also an unsavory character whom the Clintons ran all their politicking by for over a decade: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/in_contrast_to_obama_hillary_p.html

The question isn't whether the Clintons are racists. The question is whether they are political opportunists, and would resort to playing the race card if it thought it would benefit them. The answer, pretty clearly, is yes.

As for Sen. Jesse Jackson, he -- to his credit -- has been trying to stay above the fray and be a peacemaker between the two camps. It's in his nature to be forgiving. See also his response to Geraldine Ferraro twenty years ago, when she made the exact same comment of Jackson she yesterday made of Obama.

Do not attempt to adjust your computer monitor.

"You just don't get it, do you? She didn't. He did. Sorry, but that's what the history books are going to say. Guarantee it.

Actually, I'm positive that's wrong, and not only because any impartial look at the record will put the Clintons at fault here. In any case, I'm finishing up a PhD in US History, and I don't know anyone here in my program who doesn't think the Clinton campaign went hog-wild with the race card. For that matter, I don't know anyone who thinks that across the entire profession, with the sole exception of Sean Wilentz, who's been prostrating himself as Clinton's court historian since the election began.

Sorry, we write the history books. As do these folks:

Historians for Obama: http://hnn.us/articles/44958.html

And, blame for the race card strategy will go where it is deserved: with the Clinton campaign.

Lt. Gov Paterson is already a superdelegate. He has endorsed Sen. Clinton. So, he's already spoken for.

When Spitzer resigns and Paterson becomes Gov., a Republican (head of the State House, I think) becomes Lt. Gov.

This means Spitzer's superdelegate vote simply ceases to exist, as the DNC confirmed today. If you'd prefer, you can say it went to Bill Foster, the Obama superdelegate who won Hastert's district last Tuesday.

Just to clarify, Sen. Clinton's March 4 margins had already been wiped out, thanks to Obama picking up 4 delegates (and Clinton losing 4) when California certified last Tuesday.

They were looking into that particular escort service because Spitzer led them to it -- he was making questionably-sized money transfers which the bank (likely no fan of Spitzer) tipped the IRS off to.

He's confessed to the crime, and it's something he clearly should not have been engaged in. In fact, he's that much more of an idiot for sleeping with a prostitute, when it was beyond obvious that there were people gunning for him.

According to this ABC News story, federal prosecutors didn't intend to go after a prostitution ring. They were pulling a Lester Freamon and following what looked to be illegal wire transfers (i.e. possible bribes)

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1

As it turns out, they were the payments for the girl.