There are valid reasons not to support Hillary; but questioning her commitment to civil rights and the civil rights movement just can not be one (unless, I guess, you don't like civil rights. In which case,  you're already for Ron Paul. Bazing!).

I don't know, guys, I think it is precisely the "purity" of their hearts that they have brought into question with the conduct of this campaign in the last month or so.  (Beginning with the "drug dealer" insinuations.)

There is more than a whiff of condescension, to say the least, about their attitude about Barack's "uppity" presumption to challenge their right to lead the Democratic party, and something a lot worse than condescension in their willingness to trade in racial insinuation and innuendo as they try to smear him and bring him down.

And the belittling of Kings lifelong work and elevation of Johnson's legislative skills is more than condescending, it's a paternalistic (maternalistic?) version of history.

Smiling faces, Smiling faces.  Sometimes they don't tell the truth.

adam -

I don't think anyone is questioning Hillary's commitment to civil rights.

I think they're questioning whether, in her pursuit of power, she would try to take advantage of Obama's race.

This repetition of the funny-at-first-but-not-really description of Bill Clinton as the first black President is really insulting to Barack Obama.

It's cowardly for our leaders to continue denying that America still has serious deep-rooted problems with race, ethnicity and gender.  The question of race specifically continues to be an enormous overriding problem here in the 21st-century, and we need leaders who are willing to address prejudice and racism head-on, instead of sweeping it under the rug and pretending like it doesn't exist, as we've been doing for how many generations now?  America has always taken one step back for every two steps forward on this issue.

Race and racial issues taint everything in America, all you have to do is look at the blogs and the comments people make to realize how entrenched racism still lives in people's minds and hearts .

 It's one of those core issues that needs to be addressed in the context of the political campaign, because this is a seminal cornerstone of democracy, facing who and what you and your candidates really are underneath the veneer.  If Obama gets the nomination what do you think the Republicans will do, you think they won't use race against him, you think they won't use Hillary Clinton's sex against her?  

Of course many Democrats will support Clinton specifically because they fear the race question far more than the gender question, and in the back of their minds believe that Obama is not electable because many white folks just won't be able to bring themselves to vote for a Black man.  They may not talk about these concerns openly, but rest assured they're having them.

 I'm sure that many who read this magazine have had such concerns about Obama's race. They would be foolish not to have these thoughts, and to not take the impact of his race into consideration.  For it remains an undeniable reality of the human condition that only fools and those who live in denial would try and refute.

The question remains, will America elect a person with dark skin, and I believe when it comes down to a basic choice between a White woman and a Black man, many White, Hispanic and even Black voters, specifically those who are less educated and less politically involved, will opt for a white woman, setting aside almost every other consideration.  I don't like it but there is

There is a way to perhaps lessen the impact of prejudice.  Hillary should come out and address at least the possibility that racism is having an effect on the race, and Obama should come out and similarly address the possible impact of sexism on the race.  That's how you deal with these issues, it's very simple.  We need to start asking more of those would become our representatives.  Genuine progressives don't need to run elections that must rely upon fear, misunderstanding and ignorance in order to win.  If you get these issues out in the open, you take away the power they have over us.  

Some things are more important than winning elections, and if we are ever to live out the true meaning of this nation's creed, that all men and women were created equal, then we must push those who place themselves before us as presidential candidates, to find the strength to come together and banish this stain on our nation's character, once and for all.

"And the belittling of Kings lifelong work and elevation of Johnson's legislative skills is more than condescending, it's a paternalistic (maternalistic?) version of history."

What strikes about all of the comments about the civil rights movement is the massive ignorance in which it is grounded. The idea of presenting the civil rights movement as a struggle between the oratory of Dr. King and the legislative legerdemain of LBJ is absurd. What about the efforts of all those young activists--white and black-- who organized protests AND worked to register voters across the South? They did the real work. People in SNCC and CORE and (together) COFO ran protests and registered blacks to vote at a time when undertaking that work meant risking their lives and the lives of others. Led by Ella Baker, people like John Lewis, Bob Moses, James Bevel, James Farmer, Diane Nash, and a host of forgotten local people did what was necessary to put black votes into circulation for the first time since Reconstruction.  If Obama wants to evoke change and talk about how it is done, he needs to talk about those people. He needs to appear with those people and let them talk. Clinton would never have the nerve--even if she were as evil and cynical and Don Imus and Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove like to think--to attack those people. What's John Lewis up to these days anyway? HIS endorsement might actually mean something to southern blacks. I'd be seeking him out.

propositionjoe? are you taking your name from a notorious drug dealer from the series the Wire? if so don't you think it a tad ironic to lecture about race? if not, I apologize about that. I am also not so sure people are as ignorant as you imagine either. Obama can not make his campaign a history lesson of the civil rights movement, if he wants to win he has to stay focused on the future as counterpoint to Hillarys desire to return to the 90s.

Propjoe, Lewis endorsed Clinton.

Purity of heart: I endorse VAcentrist's take -  that they may not be racist themselves, but have no problem exploiting the racism of others. To the tangible detriment of black people, in fact. For example - Hillary's opposition to retroactivity for crack/powder sentencing disparity reform. Did I mention that I hate her?

Propjoe...

To quote Hillary..."you kinda hurt my feelings."

The quotation you lifted from my comment is, indeed, a  shorthand description of the civil rights movement (I'm not AaronBBrown, after all, I'm not writing my doctorate thesis...).  On another thread over at The Plank (devoted to South Carolina as well) I had a slightly longer one that may address your concerns about my ignorance.

"Johnson did indeed work his legislative magic to pass the Civil Rights legislation that Kennedy couldn't do.  But King's lifelong work and the power of "people standing up" (to quote somebody recent...) transformed the political realities "on the ground".  One had to preceed the the other."

The issue at question is whether Hillary dissed not only Martin, but all those folks who stood up and  braved dogs and fire hoses and risked their jobs and homes (if they had landlords who could evict them for their political activities or foreclose on them...) and sometimes even their lives to change history.  In an academic sense, her point is well taken, and one of the intentions of the folks who marched and sat in and protested was to move the conscience of the nation to create a different and more hospitable political and legislative climate that sympathetic leaders like Johnson could exploit to change the laws.  It was the work of many, including the "transactional" politicians and the "transformational" leaders back in the towns and villages of the south.  And the ordinary people who grasped the moral arc of ther universe and bent it toward justice.  I don't know about anybody else blogging here, but I do know something about this.  I saw it and participated in it.

I think Barack Obama knows it better than Hillary.  I think he knows where change begins and the essential prerequisite of real, "can't take it away because you didn't give it to me (I took it...)" change.  Change at the bottom that manifests in change at the top.  Community Organizer change.

It's about empowering people to change the world themselves.  Not asking for power so that you can do it for them.  That's the difference between Barack's theory of change and Hillary's theory of change.  I'll take my stand with Barack.

(John Lewis, by the way, as has been pointed out above, decided to throw in with Hillary. For whatever reasons.  I respect him and honor him, but I respectfully disagree with him on this.)

psantillana, I hate her too. She is literally the first democrat I will not vote for unless Guiliani is against her that is. And this is from a person who voted for Toricelli in New Jersey so you know my threshold is very low.

Some apologies are in order. First, to blackton: I do take the name from The Wire, not because I glorify drug dealing but because I find Prop Joe's character to be wonderfully portrayed. Furthermore, I did not mean to lecture or denigrate any commenter. I was simply commenting on what I believe to be a simple-minded view of the civil rights movement in that the discussions referred to are elite driven and (to my mind) misguided. I was attacking the discourse, not the commenters, and I did not intend to be condescending, far from it. vanwurs :I did not mean to offend or denigrate. I am sincerely sorry if I did. I was discussing your thread and the ideas implicit within it, not you.

The news that Lewis has sided with Hillary is news to me, so thanks all for the heads up.  If I were her, I would speak beside him every chance I got. What about Bob Moses? The last I knew (2--3 years ago), he was teaching math in Mississippi. Maybe Obama could tour with him. Even Lewis would defer to Bob Moses, although I doubt he would ever partake in raw politics.

Again: I didn't mean to put people off or condescend. Sorry.

I might be accused of stretching for this a bit, but is it possible that the Clinton's are engaged in reverse dog-whistle politics?  Could it be that they are dropping the  odd racially insensitive remark here and there that the typical non-black voter will not be sensitive enough to pick up on but that will be very noticible to black people who are more sensitive to subtle racial slights in an effort to get black activists riled up so that they rally to Obama's defense with loud and angry denunciations thus helping to create the impression that Obama is "playing the race card" and is too angry and race obsessed for your typical white or latino to support.  Sort of a racist, dirty pool bank shot.

The Clinton's are phenomenonally ruthless politicians.  They will use any and all means to destroy Obama if he threatens their restoration to the White House throne.  

And that includes crypto-racist innuendo, which they have been disingenuously slipping into the campaign cocktail for the last six weeks.

They're being busted now by various blacks, and backpedaling, finessing and denying.

I LOVE IT.  What better spectacle for someone on the other side of the aisle then to watch the Clintons eviscerate other Democrats.

seanwright - Too Sense suspected the same, and the NYT quoted him:

halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/.../too-sense-times.html

I think the theory totally checks out, since that's what ended up happening. Obama hasn't said anything but the surrogates are howling. Even people who haven't endorsed him. On the other hand, I also think that - especially between IA and NH - the Clintons were just losing it and saying some stupid crazy stuff.  Not all of it racist.

Propjoe - I love Bob Moses! I learned about him from the documenary "Freedom on My Mind" about SNCC. And then in Parade magazine, I think, years later, there he is talking about teaching math. He is my idol.

blackton, I know, me too, and that is one reason I'm really happy that Rudy is tanking! But I'm also afraid of Romney. I should probably be afraid of Huckabee, but I'm not, and that's probably why I should most of all. Oh, bother!

I have noticed an interesting, if somewhat obvious, trend in web-postings on the dem primary. This trend is exemplified by the anti-Hillary posts by psantillana and blackton here, and by others on TNR, and many many others on other blogs (Andrew Sullivan, for example, likes to post such notes from his readers on the Daily Dish - a much more widely-read blog, I might add).

A lot of people who are sympathetic to the Dems, including many self-proclaimed independents, are becoming increasingly upset at the tactical execution of the Clinton campaign's attempts to take down Obama (full disclosure - I have contributed similar postings myself). This is noteworthy, because my feeling is that only 2 or 3 months ago, many of us were over-flowing with good feelings generally about the Democratic party. "Obama, Clinton, or Edwards (or Biden, or Dodd, or Richardson)? We have to choose? Awesome! This is going to be fun! Everything is going to be ok!"

And then suddenly an eruption of hate and misinformation began spewing from Hillaryland. I don't think I need to chronicle all of the things that have been said by Hillary and her surrogates, especially her new attack-dog, William Jefferson,  about Obama (I particularly dislike her asides against Edwards claiming that he lied in the Jan 5th debate when he said he passed the Patients' Bill of Rights - it passed the senate, and he was a senator. as far as I can tell, he did as much as a senator can do to pass a bill. and if a bill passes the senate, is it truthful to state that the bill did not pass?).

My point is that Hillary is potentially destroying the good faith and feeling of a generation of new voters who were prepared to support any candidate on the democratic ticket. That no longer seems to be true. So she'll win the support of the democratic base, and that base will vote for her in November, but will that be enough to elect her?

Also, all of the boomers-vs-their-children talk is also potentially very damaging to the future of the Democratic party. The boomer era is almost over. They need to recruit a new generation. A recent survey of 18-25 year olds ("Generation Next") by the Pew Research Center found that this demographic is the first cohort of young adults to prefer democrats in something like 15 years. I do not think it is a coincidence that this is also the demographic that routinely hands a majority of its votes to Obama...

Clinton keeps bearing out the Obama message about "politics as usual" - divisive, calculating, niche-targeting crap. I'm so sick of this stuff - it's all I've ever known. I want it to stop. The least Hillary could do would be to toss a few crumbs in the direction of folks like me and be just a tiny bit nicer to her fellow democrats.

I think what you're hinting at here is that, by raising this issue, Obama will remind white voters that he's black, arousing hidden racism and doubts about electing a black president.  If this is true, we haven't made the strides we thought we had.

How about that Wilentz article?

www.tnr.com/.../story.html

hayleykelse, I think that Americans are much more likely to elect a smart, attractive, optimistic black man, than a smart, somewhat unattractive, bitter (and not hiding it well) woman.

Not to mention, in regard to Obama, what Colin Powell said of himself, "I ain't that black."

From The Caucus : At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent