like Hillary did when she was "snubbed."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BFvP55PjwQE

Wallace: "Senator Obama, there's some controversy suggesting that the Clinton campaign is baiting bigoted Americans by making you look darker than you are. What do you say to the charge that Hillary Clinton is a racist?"

Obama: "Well, Chris, I'm hoping the Clintons can accept me as a black man. I know that they're familiar with my heritage, that my mother was white. I'm just hoping that they can come around to my African American roots and see that I'm as capable of being President as anyone..."

For the record, I think this charge is nonsense. Sure there are oversensitive Obama supporters who look for this kind of thing. Like every sinister sexist charge by Clinton fans holds up to scrutiny? Both sides are hypervigilant for "goods," but I think it's limited to the supporters and not so much an indictment on the campaigns themselves.

A relevant question is if and when the candidate him/herself comes out and puts it to rest. Needless to say, there is a tipping point, a place before which it's not a good idea to legitimize it or bring it more attention. That's probably why Obama will lie low on this. Nothing like bringing it to the attention of the actual bigots out there who might actually be swayed.

In advance of the criticism that Obama should have addressed this earlier or declared it nonsense, I offer Clinton's coy fueling of the snub fire. Where she could and should have laid a ridiculous charge to rest, she allowed it to continue.

I'm merely making the point that both sides' supporters are a little bit crazy, which then requires both candidates to calculate in a political sense how to deal with the fallout. In my opinion, both have made mistakes in this area.

you can say anything you want about the troops. ;)

(It's great insurance.)

Before you go off on "Obama supporters," (and I'm not saying you have yet), why don't you wait and see if there's anyone here on salon who actually thinks the Clintons are racist? I'll have to go back and read the letters, but I think there's only that one who said the whole ad was made to look darker for the express purpose of darkening his skin. I can't remember who that was, but, really, most of us don't agree. I think that's how stories get traction: literally one person (albeit somebody with a famous blog) thinks something and the next thing you know people are accusing everyone of thinking it, all evidence to the contrary. This entire story might be just one big giant straw blow-up doll.

that these 90 million bucks are being used against Democrats.

So, what did Lazio's tax return show? I'm just curious: Was he in fact hiding something? That should be in the article, Alex.

I actually had a quick image of Jack Black when I read that--you know in his SCHOOL OF ROCK where he taught the kids about The Man? Somehow I sort of thought you really meant Uncle Man--in that vein.

Never mind.

You know, I've been thinking about this very issue--"working the refs"--since the election in Ohio. Here in Cleveland, it's common knowledge that many Republicans voted for Hillary so they can turn around and beat her in the fall (per Rush's instructions). I mentioned in another thread that the Plain Dealer reported on Wednesday that more than a few Republican-dominated precincts (Chagrin Falls, Hyde Park) handed out Democratic ballots in a proportion precisely reverse their normal Repub/Dem distribution. Furthermore, an assistant executive editor who writes for the paper--and is very right wing--wrote a snarky column about his now being a member of the Democratic party (an obvious reference to his vote for Hillary).

When my husband asked why nobody was reporting this story, or even looking into it by trying to put a number on the crossovers, it occurred to both of us simultaneously that the media has been cowed by Hillary's claims of media bias. Remember how the MSM reacted to Republicans' claims that there was a liberal media bias? They became more biased than ever against liberals to "show them" they weren't biased!

I totally understand the frustration that Clinton fans would feel if people were undermining her victory by claiming it came at the hands of crossovers, but

1. The job of the media is to uncover the truth, not to protect somebody's candidacy.

2. I actually think a real investigation wouldn't turn up nearly as much as the speculation stirs up.

3. What if it did? That's kind of relevant, isn't it? Let's face it, at the end of the day it's a horse race. The DNC needs to know precisely where her and his support are coming from.

Anyway, it only harms us when the media is cowed by anyone or anything.

LOL @ little lord baltimore:

I expected your post "answer" to be an answer to my "curious" question, so I thought your beginning paragraph was from a different publication. I got to that confounded Uncle Man suit and thought for one insane moment Wow, it really was an Uncle Man, not an Uncle Sam, hounding Lazio.

@juneausmog:

First of all, I actually think this is a "negative Obama story" rather than a "negative HRC story." It vindicates her supporters and shows extremism on the part of his.

Second of all, your demand for "equality" in stories smacks of the kind of false balance that media fell for upon righties' demands that they tell the "good" about Iraq as well as the bad. A reporter's job is to tell the truth, not keep tabs on whose side its exposure benefits.