Very cool to know the meaning/pronunciation of Cairo - it's a nickname a friend gave me for my real name (Carolyn). I, like you, am very hopeful that in the end the Democrats will come together because we've got at least 8 years of clean up of all the damage done by Bush et al. The campaign issues betweein Obama and Clinton are minute compared to the real problems we are all facing - they essentially stand for the same ideals and ideas - and I have confidence that the Clintons - being the smart, dedicated politicians they are - will start the march to victory for Democrats and all forward thinking people in November - and thanks to Joan for giving us a forum to express our many opinions - she's a very patient person!

Peace!

Look, I don't believe the Clintons are racist -- at least not to any greater extent that any white person who carries around unconscious, unacknowledged racism.

What I do believe is that after Iowa and New Hampshire, they decided the only way they could stop Obama was to pull out every dogwhistle and coded attack they could think of, on the theory that if they won, all would be forgiven -- and hey, if you can't take the rough stuff, you don't deserve to win. I think they prided themselves on their "realism" and ruthlessness (no way in hell would they let themselves be beaten like those chumps Gore and Kerry).

Well, they were called on it, it backfired in a BIG way in South Carolina, and now they were stuck with the dirt on their hands. Sorry, but they're the ones who need to get over this. I hope and feel sure that Obama will do what he needs to do to ensure that the party is united -- but this burden doesn't just fall to him.

Feel free to pithily summarize that mess of a post I just made.

It feels surreal to read statements like this, "I too wish Obama hadn't introduced race into the campaign." It has become conventional wisdom among many HRC supporters that this is so, but there is simply no rational basis for it. Since when does responding to admittedly subjective but still potentially racist remarks constitute "introducing" racism? By nature, isn't the response NOT the introduction? The absolutely only evidence used to support the notion that it was BO who "introduced race" is that poorly written and clearly non-Axelrod-approved memo leaked by a low-level staffer in direct response to a request for how the Clintons were using race.

1. If a reporter was asking for it, then there was already "racism" in the primary season, now wasn't there?

2. Considering that there were several potentially race-baiting items to include on the memo, it can't have been the initial racial reference in the season, now can it? Whether those items were in fact deliberate strategy or not, reasonable people could construe them as such. And even if not, the media already had, so the statements "shuck and jive", Jesse Jackson, LBJ/MLK, etc., whether intended as racial or not, were already being seen so by the media.

3. The media had already covered everything on the memo; there were no revelations, and therefore no "introductions."

I agree with everyone out there who says there is a difference between being a racist and using others' racial fears to your advantage. I don't even know if I think the Clintons did that. I do know, however, that Barack Obama's campaign did not start the racial innuendo. It has done him nothing but harm as soon as it came out. It is a bad rewriting of history to suggest that this helped him early on and only now he wants to be postracial. It's clear that from the moment race became an issue he has lost steam with certain populations.

Watching Obama directly, following the campaign closely, it is crystal clear to me that he has NOT wanted race to be an issue in this campaign from the beginning. Being the "black candidate" (which, necessarily, involves throwing out racism charges against opponents) does not get one elected in this country. The "white guilt" argument is completely bogus b/c nobody follows racists into the voting booth. There may be higher claims of support for the black candidate out of white guilt but nobody stops anyone from voting their racial fears in the privacy of the booth.

If Obama did not sufficiently directly lay the racial charges to rest for the Clintons, I believe it was because he was not entirely convinced himself that the Clintons were completely clear of the charges. Even a doubt would prevent him from categorically denying that they were using people's racial fears to win. And for the record, it was never Obama's job to "clear" the Clintons of any charges. That the Clintons continued to make impolitic remarks was entirely their responsibility, a calculation perhaps that might have paid off (much like Hillary's calculation that a vote for war in Iraq would pay off politically). In fact, it might actually BE paying off, what with the self-absorbed victim game stirring up trouble in general for Obama by complicating his choices for VP and much of anything he says so as not to piss off 18 million voters. The presidency will offer much the same kind of negotiation down dicey paths, so I am not altogether unhappy that he's been forced to deal with this intraparty problem. Unlike some on both sides, I have not conflated my personal life with that of my candidate's. I am interested to see how well BO gets himself out of this mess; it's a good test and will be a good indication of how he will handle himself in the presidency.

I apologize if I sounded insensitive regarding what you experienced during the Vietnam War. I will admit that the war occurred before my time, and, unfortunately, I sometimes fall into the trap of being one of those post-baby-boomers who think that older people persist in fighting the 60s battles ad infinitum. I should not forget how significant many of those battles were, and I definitely should not, and do not mean to, minimize the significance of that war. I do think that LBJ's legacy would be so much greater were it not for the War, but I hope you dont feel that I was dismissing the War.