Why is it "racist" to speak what everybody knows is the truth? Jesse Jackson did indeed win the SC primary twice. Everyone knew he would because half the Democratic Party in SC is black.

Yet, saying either one of those statements of fact out loud will get you branded a racist by the High Liberals supporting Obama, who are never happier than when they're accusing someone of racism.

The other winners of the SC primary in recent years were John Edwards and Bill Clinton. In Clinton's famed taped remarks, he didn't mention John Edwards because Edwards barely won, and he didn't want to mention himself because then he would have caught heat for bragging.

You're forgetting that we're talking about a Democratic primary. It does not help you to dogwhistle whites on race in the Democratic Party which is a party of liberals and minorities, and the Clintons are not stupid.

Good night, you'd think people would know that much anyway.

Which, unfortunately, is rather typical. We have had roll calls since 1884, and we should continue to have them.

I can understand that the Obama campaign would like to dispense with the roll call since they think (wrongly) that having a roll call will merely show the nation how close the nomination race really was.

Actually, it would be better for them to puff Clinton up and make her look good. It would make Obama's achievement look more impressive.

It appears that some in the Obama camp--represented, for example, by some of the letters here and by Alex--think they can win by continuing to diss the Clintons.

They're wrong, but they're also pretty young, and apparently haven't been around politics for very long.

which would not look good on national television, just keep dissing the candidate who received more nominating votes than any Democrat in history.

Some of you haven't been in politics very long, have you?

Ridiculous post.

You seem to think the Obama campaign is about ousting the Clintons, which is weird. If the campaign is not about winning, why are they wasting our time, and if the campaign wants to win, why not have the Clintons on your side?

Clinton was thinking of who had won the SC primary big. Naturally, he thought of Jesse Jackson. Other winners include John Edwards and himself. Edwards didn't win it big, although Clinton did. He could have also referenced himself, but then people would have said he was egotistical.

The remark, incidentally, was made on the day of the SC primary, hardly the best time for a dogwhistle--which, as Clinton himself surely knows, wouldn't have worked anyway. This is the Democratic Party. You don't get votes by dogwhistling to whites. You might get them by dogwhistling to blacks, which James Clyburn then did.

What's racist about stating a simple fact, i.e. that two black candidates score very well in South Carolina, which is not surprising considering that half the Dem Party in SC is black?

is not racist, and neither is black liberationist theology.

Sure, you can cherry-pick some quote from Jeremiah Wright, who has been much and unfairly maligned, but then you could do that with almost anybody.

In fact, black liberationist theology is about the liberation and empowerment of all people, not blacks alone.

I'm wondering: Do Americans love calling each other racists more than other people do?

I would attend Trinity UCC--and I'm white. I also know several white people who attend church there. If it was "racist," they wouldn't.

Good night, white American churches have been racist for centuries. MLK once called 11:00 Sunday morning "the most segregated hour in America." But that was all right because white people were doing it.

Unlike some of your posters, I have actually read liberation theology, both the Latin American variety and the black variety. Liberation theology reads the Bible from the "underside," and sees God on the side of the disenfranchised and poor--which, once you've had your eyes cleared of pietistic propaganda, is quite obvious and all over the Bible in both the New and Old Testaments.

that, as a Clinton supporter, I didn't always appreciate your plumping for Sen. Obama.

However, on this one, you've absolutely nailed it. Great post.

Sounds pretty mild to me.

Sadly, some people would rather make a point than win.

I've seen this election year compared to 2004, 1992, 1988, 1980, 1976, and 1948. I wonder if these comparisons really mean anything. Isn't the set of circumstances that forms the background of an election pretty much unique each time? Aren't the characters, and the electorate, at least somewhat different each time?

Obama made immediate, tangible, graceful and multiple efforts to reach out to her, and to her supporters. Ask yourself if this has happened to this degree in the last several elections.

How was that exactly?

You might be interested to know that African-American delegates responded to Hillary's speech the same as everyone else in the convention hall, i.e. rapturous cheering and applause.

And never tell them they have no place else to go. Could you guys be any less gracious in victory?

It's that he hasn't done much to try to bring in Hillary's supporters. He could have done that in one stroke by picking Hillary, but he didn't do that, and he didn't do anything else either, except that his supporters kept telling women they didn't have any place else to go.

It was dumb to leave Hillary's voters sitting out there, doing nothing to bring them in, and then bitching because McCain picks a woman. Please, examine your misogyny, liberals.