on the points about being underwhelmed thus far by the criticisms of the Clintons (media-driven, hypersensitive, etc.) but feeling somehow that things have changed in the last few days.

What's interesting is that I wondered if this exact issue--the Clintons' painting Obama as the Black Candidate--wasn't itself initiated by the Republicans as a diabolical double-triple psych. That's because I first began hearing strains of it yesterday, all from conservatives. It culminated in Pat Buchanan's remarks after Obama's decisive victory among blacks in SC last night: He said something along the line of "Their plan worked. This is playing right into their hand." It took me a while to realize that he was suggesting that the Clintons, in Machiavellian fashion, WANTED to lose the black vote by 80% because of a racist America who wouldn't vote for THEM if they were supported by blacks and further who would eschew the black candidate who is now officially The Black Candidate (in keeping with a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton).

I found the whole thing both outrageous and brilliant--again, assuming it was coming from conservatives to begin with rather than being based in some truth about the Clintons--because it impugned both Clinton (as Machiavellian, dirty-politics-as-usual, not to mention racist) and Obama (as being, gasp, Black, something conservatives want an excuse to keep reminding Americans of. See, this gets them to play the race card, but ostensibly on the Clintons' part so it makes the CLINTONS seem like racists.)

Ugh. Did anybody follow that?

So, Glenn, what I'm asking is, Are we certain this whole line of thinking, while certainly being exploited by Republicans, wasn't in fact cooked up in some back room by them as well? I realize they couldn't do it without the unfortunate comments made by the Clintons, but given all the negative stuff going around everywhere, is there cherry picking going on to play out this scheme?

I don't know what to think anymore.

PS Now, I'll read everybody's comments. Maybe somebody has already brought this up.

I see the ideas in my previous post are not original. Carry on, then.

Sigh. Late again.

That's all.

"They repealed the law requiring you to read every word I write, so feel free to skip the topics you don't like."

OK, I mean except for that. :)

OK, so I looked up the clip of the actual Bill Clinton making his JJ remark. I'm underwhelmed at the sinister nature of the plot, although my husband thinks the JJ comparison is a "line he'd carried around for a while, looking for a place to use it." Maybe. Who knows?

But here's what I want to talk about. Andrew Sullivan clearly sees the statement as an indication of a racial strategy (which is what GG is saying) but HE SAYS THE STRATEGY DIDN'T WORK based on the SC outcome. Here's the quote by AS introducing the Clinton clip:

"I don't think there can be any doubt about the Clintons' racial strategy now. The people of South Carolina just rejected that logic by voting for Obama -" ~Andrew Sullivan

This CLEARLY DIFFERS with the Republican punditocracy last night, who said CLINTON'S STRATEGY WORKED, meaning the Clintons WANTED to lose 80% of blacks in SC to hand the (losing) mantle of "the black president" over to Obama. Does any of you who are on record as thinking Clinton's JJ remark (and others) indicate a clear and divisive "racial strategy" believe the Clintons are that diabolical? Or do you think, like me, that the Republicans are seizing this opportunity to make the Clintons (who, along with Obama, seem to be playing the race game in some capacity) more evil than they are? By playing this theme over and over, they will serve the secondary purpose of reminding all their viewers and listeners that Barack Obama is .....Black.

Responses please.

I'm liking your posts here. I'm sort of with you about GG being defensive (hence my sarcasm post). I like when GG responds earnestly to the specific question or concern raised. Come to think about it, I'm not sure I've ever seen GG acknowledge that he's wrong about something. I'm sure he must have, but seriously I have not personally seen it. Like you, I'm not a particular fan of Clinton, and I am not someone who thinks GG has been "in the closet" in support of or against any of the candidates. I'm just surprised at another piece on identity politics, when every OTHER piece is a tirade against the media's emphasis on identity politics.

At the risk of sounding like a DCLaw1-obot, I agree completely. Assuming that anyone here who supports Obama or, for that matter, who rejects the Clinton racial conspiracy, is some kind of knee-jerk mindless groupie is indulging in the kind of reductive thinking that I usually associate with Republicans. Given the profile of the average salon reader, as a matter of fact, I usually assume there is some nuance and sophistication involved in the views of the other letter-writers, even those I disagree with.