Sixteen, in answer to your question:

Amaya Smith

South Carolina Press Secretary

Obama for America

the link to the memo is here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

As you can see, the race issues raised by the memo are for the most part spurious. If this was a rogue campaign staffer, this was Obama's chance to stand up and say the Clintons are not racist. Instead, we have this, as reported by the Huffingtonpost in the same article:

"The Obama camp did not return repeated requests for comment. But campaign spokesperson Candice Tolliver told Politico that, in regards to the race-based comment: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?"

This was a deliberate attempt to paint the Clintons as racist by pointing to what they perceived as a pattern. And it ultimately succeeded.

I can respect your feelings regarding the Clintons' statements later in the campaign, and your decision to hold them accountable for their statements.

However, I hold Obama accountable for this.

Bill Clinton was seduced, bribed in the last 8 years for his silence. and George HP Bush made sure of that. Tell us it ain't so Bill, the reason why Hilary lost? FOIA/PA.

"But Vice-President Gore, using the pretext that the American people cared more about a blowjob than a paycheck, knew better.

Gore, I hope has learned from his mistakes; you apparently learned nothing"

The problem with Gore is that he listened more to the media than his instinct and political acumen that made him successful (sound familiar?)The problem with Democrats except Clinton is that they let these shallow and lazy pundits in the media with their own agendas dictate their political campaigns. The result is Joe Liebermann as V.P in response to media's call for Gore to distance himself from the "damaged" Clinton.

It is another political season, another cycle and the political nominee is called upon by the same shallow media to distance himself from the Clintons not only in the selection of V.P but from their legacy all together. Hence, a Democrat nominee will praise Reagan and the Republicans and their ideas than the achievement of a two term Democratic President. An unknown in terms of national stature will be chosen over Hillary Clinton who the media hates for V.P. We will end up with a V.P the media has selected (a conservative in the mold of liebermann, like Kane, Nunn, Bayh etc ostensibly to balance the liberalism of Obama)and it is Gore all over again. They say history does not repeat istelf, but it does rhyme.

Joan,

In my post to you, I was trying to make two points:

1) Explain why, in part because of Salon's coverage of the primary, this blog is no longer a "must read' for me (and I can't emphasize the 'me' enough).

2) Explain why in my interpretation (and again, I can't emphasize the word "my" enough) you and others (the Clintons) are not blameless victims. I agree that it is hurtful and unfair to call you racist, but I believe that in your writing and in Salon's coverage of Obama, there were a number of missteps that you are responsible for, and that could lead to the accusation.

I do not want to argue with you. Again, I am presenting my interpretations.

However, I do not like being called a liar any more that you do. I believe that it is disingenuous of you to say that you only posted 5 articles on Rev. Wright. You brought Rev. Wright into numerous other posts; posts that seemed to start by discussing completely different topics.

Case in point: in your post of March 28th, 2008 titled "Michelle Obama on 'ignorant America'", you wrote:

"Barack Obama is not out of the woods yet on these issues, especially because of newly discovered, archaic slurs by his pastor Jeremiah Wright about Italians' "garlic noses," as well as some one-sided remarks he published on his "pastor's page" in the church bulletin about Israel. That controversy might not go away."

This is the reference to Rev. Wright and Israel that I was making. No, you did not directly say that Rev. Wright was anti-semitic or anti-Isreal. But (again, for me) the implication was clear. I thought I was being charitable when I interpreted this as you implying that Obama will have a problem with Jewish voters. In a more cynical moment, I would have said that you were trying to exploit the lingering tension between some evangelical blacks and some Jews in America in order to advance the idea that Clinton was the more electable candidate.

Nor in this quotation did you directly say that Obama has to answer for everything that Wright may or may not have said, but by saying that Obama is not "out of the woods yet" and then providing an unsubstantiated rumor about Rev. Wright's comments about Israel and Italians as more that Obama will have to content with, the implication (once again, for me) was made.

While it is already clear to me that you have decided that my interpretations are incorrect and dismissed me, I think it is worth pointing out that Glenn Greenwald, who is perhaps harder for you to dismiss, made the same point about the mainstream media's obsession with Rev. Wright that I did and that I applied to your writings. In his post of March 18th, titled: "The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers," He wrote:

"The Republican Party long ago adopted as a central strategy aligning itself with, and granting great influence to, the most radical, "America-hating" white evangelical Christian ministers in the country. They're given a complete pass on that because political orthodoxy mandates that white evangelical Christian ministers are inherently worthy of respect, no matter how extreme and noxious are their views. That orthodoxy stands in stark contrast to the universally enraged reaction to a few selected snippets from the angry rantings of a black Christian Minister. What accounts for that glaring disparity?"

The obvious (although,still clearly implied) answer is racism. The fact that you did not think it appropriate to pay the same amount of attention to Hagee or to Falwell or as you did to Rev. Wright is troubling for me.

I think that it is odd that in your response to me you did not address my criticism of your coverage of the Ferraro controversy or my criticisms of your using some very faulty polls on compare racism and sexism. For me these issues are as important as the Rev, Wright issue; for me Ferraro was Clinton's Rev. Wright, and yet you never once felt it was important to discuss Ferraro.

Finally, when I said that Hillary made a mistake by claiming that MLK was less important to civil rights legislation than LBJ, I was not quoting her. I was, again, providing my interpretation of her comments. It turns out, my interpretation was similar to that of other African Americans. Repeating her direct quotation does not diminish the impact or change my interpretation of her words. It is clear that you were able interpret her words as benign and factual. I, and others like me, interpreted her words as perplexing, especially in a primary where she was running against a formidable African American candidate who was solidifying his support among African Americans. As the campaign continued, I, and others, came to see this comment as the first in a series of gaffes, misspeaks and mistakes in understanding the view points and importance of African American voters. Perhaps having a woman of color on your staff would have helped you to see this point of view and helped you to not be so dismissive of it.

Again, I do not want to argue with you. I do not envy you your position, nor would I ever hope to diminish your right to write and publish whatever you see fit. Your response to me, however, does not change my opinion of what Salon has become and the audience that it is trying to reach.

Sincerely, Ama