Debate Wrapup

I'll admit to not having paid very close attention to this one. I don't think the mandates argument broke any new ground -- Clinton has me convinced that she's right on the policy, but doesn't have me convinced that this is significant enough to make up for the other problems with her candidacy. The way Russert handled the Louis Farrakhan issue was, I thought, pretty egregious but about what I expect from him. Clinton's classless handling of the aftermath was also about what I expect from her at this point. Beyond that, I just don't know. Through my own eyes, i.e. those of a person who's watched about a million Democratic primary debates at this point, the whole thing seems tedious. How does it seem to voters in Ohio and Texas who are watching these two go at it for a first or a second time? I don't know.

I will give props to the moderators for the what can you tell me about Russia's new leader question. I thought that was a good one. Out of left field questions are fun because the candidates don't have canned responses, but you need to find one that's legitimate and substantive and I think that one was. It reminded me, actually, that there are a whole host of things -- our relationship with India, for example -- I wish I'd seen the candidates debate in more detail during this long process.

Comments

Whoever the Democratic candidate in the fall is (likely Obama), he/she needs to make damn sure Russert is nowhere near the debates with McCain.

Posted by ChuckE | February 27, 2008 12:03 AM

God, I loved Obama on the Farrakhan bit. Substantively, he said everything he needed to say and more. He even made a point of flattering the vanity of babyboomer Jews (like my parents), who are somehow convinced that they personally delivered civil rights to blacks in the 60s and will not listen to what any black person says who doesn't admit that up front.

But it was also clear from his tone that he found the implicit premises of the question so offensive that he utterly refused to deliver the self-righteous Sister Souljah moment being tee-ed up for him. You can tell from Andrew Sullivan's reaction to that exchange that, despite his love of Obama, he is still, in temperament, a McCarthyite, the kind of man who think it is the height of moral courage to score cheap rhetorical points by denouncing easy targets.

Posted by pjs | February 27, 2008 12:11 AM

Russert asks questions in a weirdly animated and intense way, as though he thinks he is posing a major challenge, and pushing the candidates into a tight spot. But actually the questions are generally very easy to answer for any reasonably well-prepared debater. They're softballs gussied up as hardballs.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 27, 2008 12:15 AM

>>You can tell from Andrew Sullivan's reaction

Sullivan has a penchant for hysteria. He subsequently calms down and sobs over his hysteria. It gets quite tiring.

The one thing this debate proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Tim Russert is a pathetic hack. Ann Coulter says she is supporting Hillary. He should have put up her quotes on "faggots" and "ragheads" and demanded that Hillary reject and denounce them, no?

Posted by jim | February 27, 2008 12:21 AM

I thought the "driving the bus into the ditch" metaphor was pitch-perfect.

Posted by Jake | February 27, 2008 12:22 AM

I'm really surprised Clinton has continued to go after Obama on the "bombing Pakistan" thing. What is her point here? Is Clinton really saying that if she received actionable intelligence on the location of Bin Laden or high level Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, and Musharraf was unwilling to act, then she wouldn't strike them?

It seems to me that ever since the CIA took out alleged al-Qaeda number three al-Libi in Pakistan a couple of weeks ago, with no apparent adverse consequences for our relationship with Pakistan, Obama's original answer has been fully vindicated. Why does Clinton still try to use that answer against Obama when it is so easy for him to knock it out of the park, and gives him an tailor-made opportunity to look presidential and firm?

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 27, 2008 12:23 AM

Would you like a pillow, Matthew?

Posted by jbryan | February 27, 2008 12:29 AM

"Why does Clinton still try to use that answer against Obama when it is so easy for him to knock it out of the park, and gives him an tailor-made opportunity to look presidential and firm?"

i wondered about that, too--i assume its because her campaign is in freefall, and she's getting told 1000 different things by 1000 different people all believing they can Turn It All Around after one debate.

so she's flailing about, jumping on anything that her frontal lobe tells her is an opening, even if moments later he slams it back on her. Obama actually THINKS before he speaks, so he (generally) doesn't get caught in traps like that.

Posted by rob! | February 27, 2008 12:30 AM

pjs,

I liked Obama's answer too, and he was nimble in his response to Hillary in a way that made her seem petty.

But it seems to me that, whether or not the "Sista Souljah moment" was a cheap ploy by Bill Clinton or not, it was not obviously a bad thing.

Getting middle America to sign on to progressivism will include assuring them that obviously ridiculous crap from both sides are denounced. If Don Imus and Golf Channel people get skewered before the public on a regular basis (which may be deserved, depending on your POV) yet rap culture gets a free pass, and white progressive politicians are seen as complicit in this arrangement, then it will hurt Democrats chances to govern. Sista Soujah's approach came in the context of the L.A. Riots, and the gang activity which was raging in the early 1990's.

Now if we hope for poor whites support, then we may want to distance ourselves form people who say stuff like, "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people."

Some (like Bill Cosby) believe that culture makes a difference to the way people behave, and that hostility and violent rhetoric actually serve to keep communities mired in unhealthy social patterns.

No one is under any obligation to agree with that, but if it's true, then why in the abstract is it wrong to critique someone who is obviously and blatantly wrong?

Posted by Jay J | February 27, 2008 12:31 AM

Matt,

Why on Earth are you convinced that Hillary has the policy right on Health Care?

Posted by Jay J | February 27, 2008 12:34 AM

Why on Earth are you convinced that Hillary has the policy right on Health Care?

It was the easiest way to shut Petey up.

Posted by jbryan | February 27, 2008 12:37 AM

I actually hate the pop quiz questions. They have no notable resemblance to real life tasks ("Quick, name the President of X--no asking or looking it up, that wouldn't be Presidential!").

Posted by DTM | February 27, 2008 12:43 AM

Thanks, Matt.

http://www.swanpoliticsblog.blogspot.com

Posted by Swan | February 27, 2008 12:44 AM

BTW,

Once again I thought Obama's response was good.

I went over and saw what Andrew wrote, and it struck me as odd, since I thought Obama disassociated himself from Farrakhan just fine, and his demeanor showed that he wasn't desperate about it, which was also good.

Perhaps I just have a different memory about the old "Sista Soujah moment." I wouldn't be shocked if I got into Bill Clinton's head, and found out that the whole thing was cynical.

But that doesn't stop me from judging the matter in the abstract. And when I do that, it doesn't strike me as obviously bad, and I lean toward thinking it was pretty good.

Posted by Jay J | February 27, 2008 12:49 AM

"It seems to me that ever since the CIA took out alleged al-Qaeda number three al-Libi in Pakistan a couple of weeks ago, with no apparent adverse consequences for our relationship with Pakistan, Obama's original answer has been fully vindicated."

The problem with Obama's notion is that this is some kind of useful approach to the overall problem. It isn't.

As one military type said a week or so ago, you get maybe one or two opportunities like that a year. And he pointed out, so what? It does nothing to address the overall problem and indeed tends to tamp down the discussion about that with all the "goal line" juvenile football cheering.

It's like the idiots who think the Mughniyeh hit meant something. What it means is eventual Hizballah retaliation - and it probably means that Israel intends that retaliation to justify another war on Lebanon and/or Syria.

Is Obama willing to put up one billion dollars (or even less - I can be dickered with to some degree) so I can get bin Laden captured or killed in ninety days? Of course not. And what would it matter other than a psychological "victory" which would be irrelevant in all other respects. The "Number Two" becomes "Number One" and the movement rolls on. bin Laden isn't some kind of "Emperor Palpatine" who only takes one apprentice, so if he's taken out, the war is over. That's juvenile movie bullshit.

And, yes, these sorts of things DO have negative effects in the perception of the US in Pakistan. The idea that there are none, just because the Pakistani government doesn't cut off relations with the US over it, isn't the issue. The issue is the perception on the ground among the Pakistani population - which already despises the US and it's "war on terror". That fuels the growth of the very movement whose leader you just took out.

Obama doesn't understand this. Neither does Clinton or McCain.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 27, 2008 12:58 AM

The problem with Obama's notion is that this is some kind of useful approach to the overall problem. It isn't.

He didn't say it was a useful approach to any overall problem. He was asked a very specific hypothetical question about a very specific circumstance that amounted to little more than this: "You have Osama bin Laden in the sights of your CIA gun, and he happens to be sitting in Pakistan. Do you pull the trigger?" Frankly, this seems like a no-brainer "yes" answer question.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 27, 2008 1:10 AM

Hillary's attempt to think of the new Russian president's name -- "Whatever" -- was pretty sad, but may in fact play well with the Ohioans.

Posted by nbt | February 27, 2008 1:29 AM

I found a number of comments on various blogs and news outlets arguing that Obama's first answer on Farrakhan was weak and that by saying he couldn't stop Farrakhan from praising him, he was "trying to have it both ways".

That struck me as a really bizarre reaction, until I realized that it is probably fairly consistent with current media attitudes to expect a presidential candidate to rail against the First Amendment rights of any offensive fringe character that pops up in the news. But Obama is better than that, and that's one of the things I really like about him. He doesn't fell the need to grandstand and take cheap shots for public amusement.

I also really loved the ditch analogy as a response to Hillary's claim that they have been the same on the war since Obama came to the Senate. ("Once you've driven the bus into the ditch, there are only so many ways to get it out.")

Posted by rr18 | February 27, 2008 1:58 AM

Richard Steven Hack: "Is Obama willing to put up one billion dollars (or even less - I can be dickered with to some degree) so I can get bin Laden captured or killed in ninety days?"

Why not? $1 billion to capture bin Laden alive (presumably along with the rest of the crew that follows him around) seems like a solid deal to me. I'd pay more.

Posted by Korha | February 27, 2008 2:33 AM

I'm very impressed with the quality of the posts on this blog. No shrill back-and-forth sparring, just reasoned analysis backed by evidence.

Posted by Bluestatelib | February 27, 2008 3:31 AM

Now if we hope for poor whites support, then we may want to distance ourselves form people who say stuff like, "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people."

The real point of that confrontation was for Bill Clinton to distance himself from Jesse Jackson, part of the same strategy that included going back to Arkansas and personally approving the execution of a retarded man, Rickey Ray Rector. Anyway, Sista Souljah says that quote was taken out-of-context:

"The context in which my statements were made in the Washington Post was this, and I paraphrase speaking in the mind-set and in the mind of a gang member: Were you surprised at what happened in L.A.? No, I was not, White people should not have been surprised either; they knew that Black people were dying everyday in the streets of Los Angeles to gang violence created by poverty and social chaos, but they did not care. If young Black men in L.A. would kill their own kind, their own Brothers and Sisters, what would make White people think they wouldn’t kill them too? Do White people think they’re better, or is it that White death means so much more than Black death?"

Posted by Peter H | February 27, 2008 4:13 AM

Hillary's attempt to think of the new Russian president's name -- "Whatever" -- was pretty sad, but may in fact play well with the Ohioans.

WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you from the east coast? Are you a latte drinking Prius driver, and therefore magically qualified to comment on "the Ohioans" overall lack of sophistication? Spare us the bullshit punditry. I guarantee Hillary's "whatever" would "play well" with just as many doofuses in whatever state you happen to be from.

Posted by Bill | February 27, 2008 7:30 AM

It always struck me as odd that the Sistah Souljah thing became iconic. For me, the key moment in that campaign which revealed how far Clinton would go was the execution of Ricky Rector. The guy was so brain damaged he didn't understand he was going to die, but Clinton returned to Arkansas to sigb his death warrant. The lethal injection took hours.

That always struck me as the prefect metonym for Clinton, just as mimicking Karla Tucker was for Bush. Two sociopaths. Thank god it looks like we are done with both of them soon.

Posted by Pithlord | February 27, 2008 7:30 AM

I actually liked Clinton stumbling over his name and then saying "whatever". Again, though, that is because I think these pop quiz questions are stupid, and so I like her implication to that effect.

Posted by DTM | February 27, 2008 7:40 AM

I think Atrios nailed it with his comment this morning:

If Obama is the candidate, he'll get to denounce the actions of every black person in the country.

We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg as the GOP and the centrist media work to figure out exactly how much racism they can inject into our discourse.

Posted by DivGuy | February 27, 2008 7:59 AM

Re Matthew's comment "Out of left field questions are fun because the candidates don't have canned responses, but you need to find one that's legitimate and substantive and I think that one was "
------------
Oh , bullshit. As if someone who's trying to run an effective campaign should read the Newspapers' bullshit instead of waiting for the CIA's briefing when they get elected.

A REALLY "out of left field question" of SUBSTANCE would have been:

"Who are your major financial backers, what do they want for their money, and what are you willing to give them??"

Follow up to Hillary: "Self-made Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban thinks you will be "good for Israel". Did Haim get rich by making bad investments??"

Posted by Don Williams | February 27, 2008 8:02 AM

Bill 7:30am - WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you from the east coast?

I grew up in the midwest, went to school in the east coast for many years, and now live in the midwest again. (I have not been to Russia though. :> ) Does that properly inoculate my comment?

DTM 7:40am - I actually liked Clinton stumbling over his name and then saying "whatever". Again, though, that is because I think these pop quiz questions are stupid, and so I like her implication to that effect.

Agree that the pop quiz gotcha question was lame, but Clinton shouldn't be disrespecting the future Russian president like that.

Posted by nbt | February 27, 2008 8:11 AM

Re Don Williams

Gee, old Don Williams surfacing his favorite target, appeaser Hiam Saban whose foreign policy ideas fit more closely with Senator Obamas then Senator Clinton. Talk to Hamas, talk to Hizbollah, talk to Syria, talk to Iran, Dubya is too pro-Israel. I certainly hope that President Clinton or President Obama will ignore any advice he provides.

Posted by SLC | February 27, 2008 8:21 AM

The question is why was Obama a member of a church led by an outspoken anti-semite. Would someone who truly found anti-semitism repulsive be in that church? Jeremiah Wright apparently doesn't like white people in general too much either.

Obama's actions don't match his words on this. The issue is not going away.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 27, 2008 8:29 AM

I seem to be in the minority here, but I didn't see the Farrakhan question as a "gotcha". More of a softball, which Obama (typically) hit out of the park.

"Senator, could you please take a moment to denounce someone we all despise? Thank you very much. We love you."

Peter,

Is SS's clarification all that much better than her original statement? She's not advocating violence any more, but the underlying sentiment is unchanged: "The probelm with black violence is that not enough of it is directed at white people. They deserve it, those goddamn racist crackers."
Not that we should expect much wisdom from a third-rate musician, but this is disgusting even by those standards.

Posted by heedless | February 27, 2008 8:34 AM

I thought this was Hillary's worst debate (although I missed her last worst debate) and Obama's best. Russert was despicable and treated Hillary badly, but she completely blew her opportunity to show class on the Farrakhan issue. She could have said, "I know Senator Obama, and the suggestion that he is an anti-Semite is scurrilous and untrue. I've been a target of character assassination from the right; we Democrats reject such tactics...". Instead, she opportunistically exploited a cheap shot against Obama by advertising her moral superiority, and it rightly backfired.

That together with her whining about SNL and a pillow for Obama was offputting and embarrassing.

Posted by Lucy | February 27, 2008 8:56 AM

Re Allegedly Still Undecided's comment "The question is why was Obama a member of a church led by an outspoken anti-semite. Would someone who truly found anti-semitism repulsive be in that church? Jeremiah Wright apparently doesn't like white people in general too much either.

Obama's actions don't match his words on this. The issue is not going away."
---------------
Is that you, Hillary??

Here is what the New York Times reported:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all

" For its part, the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright. "

Posted by Don Williams | February 27, 2008 9:07 AM

Through my own eyes, i.e. those of a person who's watched about a million Democratic primary debates at this point, the whole thing seems tedious. How does it seem to voters in Ohio and Texas who are watching these two go at it for a first or a second time? I don't know.

What we need is a strategic pundit reserve. At the beginning of a campaign, we send pundits on vacation somewhere in the Yukon where they can't get wi-fi, so we can get a fresh perspective at times like this.

Posted by Boring Commenter | February 27, 2008 9:12 AM

Ugh, enough of Russert already. I would have love to have heard this response:

On whether we'd re-invade Iraq:

"Tim, you're presenting me with a hypothetical, and as President it wouldn't be prudent to box myself into one answer. A commander in chief needs to remain flexible and keep all options on the table."

On the new Russian President:

"The new Russian President is Dmitri Medvedev, and I really don't appreciate your attempts to catch us in a 'gotcha' moment. I am running for President of the United States Tim, not president of the geography club."

On whether Barack wants to reject support from Louis Farrakhan:

"Get bent Tim."

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 27, 2008 9:36 AM

Lucy said but she completely blew her opportunity to show class on the Farrakhan issue.

I think this is exactly right. Hillary wins points every time she surprises people by being gracious, a facility that Obama is not exactly over-endowed with. It reminds us (foools us into thinking?) that her campaign is not just about her but about the things she believes in and wants to accomplish. Which reassures those of us who are discomfitted by the resemblance between the Obamoids devotion to their "I am the light" candidate and evangelicals' fervor for W.

Posted by Gene | February 27, 2008 9:51 AM

I noticed a pattern in Hillary's responses that I haven't seen before. On Iraq she has always said she wouldn't have voted to authorize the use of force if she had known how George Bush was going to use the authorization. Last night she replied similarly when Russert held up a copy of her economic plan and questioned her about a claim she made during her Senate campaign regarding a promise of jobs that would be created in upstate New York if she won, a promise that was not fulfilled. She said that in making that promise she had assumed that Al Gore would be president and that Democrats would be in control of Congress. The pattern is one of wishful thinking, and of reacting with indignation - also a kind of generalized blame and resentment - when events do not pan out as she optimistically hoped.

Posted by ballpointbob | February 27, 2008 10:12 AM

I noticed a pattern in Hillary's responses that I haven't seen before. On Iraq she has always said she wouldn't have voted to authorize the use of force if she had known how George Bush was going to use the authorization. Last night she replied similarly when Russert held up a copy of her economic plan and questioned her about a claim she made during her Senate campaign regarding a promise of jobs that would be created in upstate New York if she won, a promise that was not fulfilled. She said that in making that promise she had assumed that Al Gore would be president and that Democrats would be in control of Congress. The pattern is one of wishful thinking, and of reacting with indignation - also a kind of generalized blame and resentment - when events do not pan out as she optimistically hoped.

Posted by ballpointbob | February 27, 2008 10:13 AM

Just so I won't be accused of just bashing Senator Obama all the time, attached is an op-ed by Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, who is strongly pro-Israel, despite being a left winger

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203847477582&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | February 27, 2008 10:18 AM

The question is why was Obama a member of a church led by an outspoken anti-semite. Would someone who truly found anti-semitism repulsive be in that church? Jeremiah Wright apparently doesn't like white people in general too much either.

Obama's actions don't match his words on this. The issue is not going away.

I'm afraid this may be the case. We need to look ahead at what Obama's biggest weaknesses are, and this may be it. In a way, Obama was lucky that Russert focused so much on Farrakhan, so that Obama could address only Farrakhan in his reply and not deal with the issue of his pastor.

In the interest of fairness, it would be nice if Russert would ask GOP candidates whether they would denounce or reject equally abhorrent individuals on their side, such as Pat Robertson.

Posted by Jim W | February 27, 2008 10:30 AM

Did anybody read Sean Wilentz's insane screed in the New Republic? Apparently, Barack Obama is winning the nomination not because of the Clinton campaign's ineptitude and lack of foresight but because of...race-baiting. And he says, without a shred of evidence, that the Obama campaign deliberately leaked the Somalia photo just to make the Clintons look bad. WTF?

Posted by Abby | February 27, 2008 10:40 AM

On the pop quiz / Dmitry Medvedev thing:

Even if pop quiz-like questions have the potential to be ridiculous, this one wasn't: There have been articles about Medvedev and the Russian power change in all of the major newspapers and news mags in the last week, we're talking about RUSSIA here, and- to top it off- Medvedev was in Serbia this week as the soon-to-be Russian PM extending Russia's support to Serbia against Kosovo's declaration of independence. If Clinton didn’t know about Medvedev for any other reason, given the US's involvement in Kosovo she should have know his name because of that.

To me, this was like Huckabee not knowing about the NIE and in some ways worse, since it happened during a national debate and Clinton has been running on the idea that she's ready, experienced, and knowledgeable. She should at least have known that it started with "M"! I guess the one thing we don't know for sure is whether or not Obama could have answered the question...

Posted by MF | February 27, 2008 10:46 AM

Yes, Gene, you're being a foool.

Posted by Lucy | February 27, 2008 12:03 PM

Her insistence on pointing out her incredibly brave stance against anti-semitic political support (while running for office in New York) was not that she was wanted Obama to choose rejection over denunciation. It was yet another bundling of all black people into one. Hello, she name checked the Independence Party because she wanted the link to be made to Dr. Fulani who is african american.

That's right, Obama has to answer for every bigoted comment that any black person has ever made in public. Didn't they teach that in Racism 101? I know they covered it along with "blacks hate jews" and "mexicans hate blacks" along with "asians are the white meat" in my textbook.

Just like we expect George Bush to answer for every white racist ever. Oh, wait.

See, it's this sort of conflation that people do and then are completely shocked when they're called on the racism of their thought process. I have no doubt that the Clintons are still reeling from the charges of racism by their dear, dear supporters in the african american community but it's fair to point out the inherent racism in sandbagging Jesse Jackson and other civil rights leaders with the Sistah Soujah slapdown.

Black leaders are expected to wholesale denounce and reject any black person who makes public statements that are threatening to whites but white politicians can speak at Bob Jones University and go on to lead the country.

Think about how bewildering and offensive it was to hear "all men are potential rapists" and feel as though you had to defend men from potential "he said, she said" rape charges. Or maybe not.

Anyways, that was what Hillary and her people keep doing, conflating all into one while whining that their intent is not racially divisive.

Posted by Lolo | February 27, 2008 12:53 PM

Needless, I know I'm posting too late to make any difference in this discussion. But, for those who may pull this up from a search:

Sista Souljah said:
"If young Black men in L.A. would kill their own kind, their own Brothers and Sisters, what would make White people think they wouldn’t kill them too? Do White people think they’re better, or is it that White death means so much more than Black death?"

Needless elects to paraphrase it as:
"The problem with black violence is that not enough of it is directed at white people. They deserve it, those goddamn racist crackers."

WTF? When I read her comment, I parsed it as:
"The problem with black violence is that not much of it is directed at white people, so white people don't care. They should care, rather than waiting to react if it *does* become directed at white people."

Feel free to provide substantive reasons why my paraphrase isn't more accurate than yours.

Posted by cmholm | February 27, 2008 3:14 PM

First, I don't necessary read SS's comments the way heedless does.

It seems like pointing out that white people fail to notice the fact that we're interdependent and that black on black violence is a problem for everyone, not just the black community.

That doesn't sound nearly as bad as the soundbite, but it does seem to say that white people are largely responsible for the problem. Not necessarily just colonialism, slavery, segregation and the like., but TODAY'S white people. More of that, "if you're not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem" bullshit.

And in order to think that way, you must be saying that white people are failing black people somehow.

Plus, she did say,

"If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?"

I'm not suggesting that she was literally proposing such a thing, and that's why I don't need to know the whole context. It's just that the comment is bad enough, regardless of the context. And it was made in such a way that we can't imagine a white person being able to get away with saying something like that, regardless of context.

And I think many poor whites (Reagan Democrats) resent that. If Democrats want to attract these people, they should not be seen as complicit in this arrangement.

So I don't think the only way to support what Clinton did is to think he was only responding to a person literally calling for the murder of white people.

And I mean, is there any doubt as to the quality of "Sista Soujah's" contribution to our discourse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpiD5H3KCE

You don't have to watch very long to realize that she believes I have a "low down, dirty nature."

I can't help but to say that it's very disheartening to me that it's controversial at all in polite society to challenge a person like Sista Souljah.

Posted by Jay J | February 27, 2008 4:49 PM

BTW,

We seem to have a couple of different ways (from the left) to respond to the Sista Souljah thing.

A) Complain that Clinton was opportunistically attacking an easy target, a target that isn't representative of a large enough portion of black people to be important. Therefore it's very cheap way to score political points.

B) Say that Sista Soujah's words weren't all that bad, were taken out of context, etc.

People can certainly disagree with one another, but these responses seem different, and it seems that people who believe A have a disagreement with people who believe B, and vice versa.

Posted by Jay J | February 27, 2008 4:57 PM

While I don't read SS's words the way heedless does, I do see the Russert thing the way he does, though I thought Russert was a little excessive by not stopping once Obama denounced.

And I really don't see it as trying to get Obama to denounce black people so whites can feel good about it.

I mean, if Hillary Clinton had a minister who praised David Duke, and had traveled to a country like Libya with David Duke to meet a sworn enemy of the United States (in 1984), then Hillary would have to answer for it, especially if David Duke endorsed her on top of all that.

And I would be fine with that, meaning, I would be fine with Hillary having to denounce David Duke, or reject him, or whatever.

Though I see that support for Louis Farrakhan in the black community may be complicated, I see no reason why we should use a different standard.

If you're associated with wackos, or if a wacko supports endorsed you, we're gonna ask you about it.

I was satisfied with Obama's first answer, and thought he made Hillary look a little obsessive with his comment "If Senator Clinton thinks the word reject is stronger than the word denounce, then I'll be happy to concede the point."

The subtly incredulous way he emphasized the word "denounce" was funny too.

Posted by Jay J | February 27, 2008 5:11 PM

Is Matt's blog where you have to come to comment on Andrew's blog? I guess so, as Sullivan permits no comments except those he accepts from a short list of friends. Jim 12:21's comment was droll, on this and on the substance of Russert's question.

Posted by Addison DeWitt | February 27, 2008 7:21 PM