All politicians talk about jobs, but these days Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton does it with tactile, almost sensuous detail. She began a rally here on Saturday morning with memories of her father’s fabric-printing business, feeling aloud the cloth, the silk screen and the squeegee he used to create patterns that would decorate strangers’ drapes.

“I’m trying to paint a word picture, and when I think about helping my dad at his print plant, it’s very physical, the memories,” she recalled in an interview after the crowds had dispersed.

Mrs. Clinton has spent her whole life climbing the ladders of education, wealth and power. Now, as part of her effort to hold off Senator Barack Obama and claim the Democratic presidential nomination, she is climbing back down them, sounding less like a Wellesley alumna than Roseanne Barr’s old sitcom character, the den mother of her factory floor.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has hung on in part by asserting that Mr. Obama cannot win the crucial category of white working-class Democrats. Those men and women won her the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, and for the logic of her campaign to hold, they must again side with her in Indiana, where polls suggest the race could be tight.

So every speech she gave in Indiana on Friday and Saturday had the same topic sentence. “My campaign is about jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs,” she said, always to thunderous applause.

In Bloomington, she promised to bring nothing less than economic revolution to the decaying Rust Belt. “You’ve heard of white-collar jobs and blue-collar jobs,” she told her Fort Wayne audience, setting up a line about how efforts to address global warming and other environmental problems could spawn new industries. “We’re going to create green-collar jobs.”

At a union hall in garbage-strewn Gary, Mrs. Clinton began her early-evening speech looking wan. But as she began talking about magnets and wheel bases, her eyes grew rounder and her small hands danced with expressive energy. She sounded as if, once she is done with the presidency business, she might like to try the steel one, joining those in the audience wearing “Women of Steel” T-shirts.

Since the race started, Mrs. Clinton has cycled through several political personas: the battle-tested White House veteran, the fighter, the girl — her word — tougher than any boy. Now she is the Dream Boss: the one who will give you a job and provide health insurance, but also understand just how hard you work and the mundane details of what you do. Mrs. Clinton has a reputation as an effective listener, and she is finally putting that skill to full use in her appearances, showing her audiences how closely she tracks their concerns.

“Most people get a lot of meaning in their life from the work that they do,” she said in the interview. “People want to be seen, they want to be appreciated, they want to be acknowledged.”

At the union hall in Gary, she grew so animated in describing the plight of old-line industrial workers that she described them in language from the oft-repeated poem, attributed to the German pastor Martin Niemöller, about the victims of Nazism. “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist,” goes the version inscribed on a wall at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. After coming for the trade unionists, it continues, “they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.”

In Mrs. Clinton’s version, she intoned: “They came for the steel companies and nobody said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said anything. They came for the office companies, people who did white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said anything.”

“So this is not just about steel,” she finished.

Next, she shared the alarming news that American radiologists are losing jobs because X-rays are being sent electronically to India. But according to Frank Levy, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there is only one firm in India that reads American images. The overseas radiologists who read American images are generally United States citizens themselves, Mr. Levy said, because doctors who have not passed American boards cannot be insured against malpractice.

In these speeches, Mrs. Clinton moves smoothly from her audience’s job concerns to her own.

“Think about other important personnel decisions you have made,” Mrs. Clinton urges, like choosing a surgeon to operate on a loved one or a negotiator for a new union contract.

She never mentions just who the Democrats should be having second thoughts about. Instead she talks about her husband’s years in office, playing on the prosperity that most voters enjoyed during the 1990s.

“Each time a Bush became president, I was laid off,” said Bill Campbell, 42, a machine operator who came to hear Mrs. Clinton speak in Bloomington. “When Bill was president, I did well.”

Mr. Campbell was far from the only man in the crowd, but in Bloomington and elsewhere, the men were significantly outnumbered. In particular, nurses and teachers flooded Mrs. Clinton’s events. “I’m a schoolteacher and she does her homework,” said Nancy White, 69, in Bloomington.

Nearly all the crowds were large — several seemed to cross the thousand-person mark — and noisily appreciative.

After the event in Fort Wayne, Mrs. Clinton greeted supporter after ardent supporter waiting in the chilly wind, her quilted black Chanel-style coat and subtly highlighted hairdo contrasting with the many untended dye jobs and chapped, makeup-less faces.

“I was going to go to Wellesley, but I was going to have to pay back so much,” a young woman told her.

Another locked eyes with the candidate and mouthed a message: You’re going to win, she said silently.

By Jodi Kantor, New York Times

OP-ED by Elizabeth Edwards

For the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?

Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.

Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.

But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.

It is not a new phenomenon. In 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings — an important if painful part of our history — were televised, but by only one network, ABC. NBC and CBS covered a few minutes, snippets on the evening news, but continued to broadcast soap operas in order, I suspect, not to invite complaints from those whose days centered on the drama of “The Guiding Light.”

The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.

Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.

What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.

And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.

But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record, received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in Hartford than of any other single event during his run other than his entering and leaving the campaign.

Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate. Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was running second in the national polls for the Republican nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr. Thompson on its cover, asking — honestly! — whether the absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.

I’m not the only one who noticed this shallow news coverage. A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and proposals.

Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign, searching out characters as if for a novel: on one side, a self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a former senator who had played a president in the movies, a genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor and even a former senator from the South standing loyally beside his ill wife. Issues that could make a difference in the lives of Americans didn’t fit into the narrative template and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities.

News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates “sells,” we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve.

And the future of news is not bright. Indeed, we’ve heard that CBS may cut its news division, and media consolidation is leading to one-size-fits-all journalism. The state of political campaigning is no better: without a press to push them, candidates whose proposals are not workable avoid the tough questions. All of this leaves voters uncertain about what approach makes the most sense for them. Worse still, it gives us permission to ignore issues and concentrate on things that don’t matter. (Look, the press doesn’t even think there is a difference!)

I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in this campaign — to see all this, to get my information firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about what these men and this woman would do as president.

If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie “Network” but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can — as voters — do ours.

Did Barack Obama make a payoff to a campaign contributor with a state grant? The Los Angeles Times reports on a one-hand-washing-the-other relationship with Robert Blackwell Jr, who employed Obama as an advisor while he served in the Illinois state senate. In return, Obama pushed the state tourism board to send a $50,000 grant to Blackwell’s company (via Rick Moran):

After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client — a longtime political supporter.

Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell’s firm that eventually totaled $112,000.

A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.

Killerspin specializes in table tennis, running tournaments nationwide and selling its own line of equipment and apparel and DVD recordings of the competitions. With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.

Obama’s staff said the senator advocated only for the first year’s grant — which ended up being $20,000, not $50,000. The day after Obama wrote his letter urging the awarding of the state funds, Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.

This looks like a rather obvious quid pro quo. Coming from someone who casts himself as a representative of a new brand of politics, the Blackwell connection — especially the campaign donation — reveals something much less new and much more Chicago about Obama’s politics. In exchange for $118,000 in salary, Blackwell received $320,000 in state taxpayer money and influence at the highest level of state politics.

And it recalls another Chicago connection for Obama, his relationship with Tony Rezko and the purchase of his house. When Obama wanted to buy his current residence, he needed another buyer to come in with him to purchase an adjoining lot. Enter indicted fixer Rezko, who despite having all sorts of legal and financial problems at the time, comes up with $125,000 in a down payment and qualifies for a $500,000 mortgage in order for the Obamas to get their home. It turns out that Rezko got the money from shady Iraqi financier Nadmhi Auchi, after meeting Obama at a reception thrown by Rezko for Auchi to meet the power clique in Illinois.

The media has apparently just decided to start vetting Obama, fifteen months after his entry into the presidential campaign as a neophyte and a political cipher. Better late than never, but unfortunately for Obama, they have plenty of time to keep digging into his political connections.

By Ed Morrissey, HotAir.com

This is an absolutely blatant attempt to rewrite history by Barack Obama, documented at ABC News Political Punch.

First, I honestly don’t care much whether a person wears a flag pin, and you can certainly be a patriot without wearing a badge proclaiming it. The issue for me: Obama’s reasons for taking off that pin.

Barack Obama on his refusal to wear a flag pin, now:

Obama then referred to the time last October, when a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, TV reporter asked him why he didn’t wear a flag pin.

“Then I was asked about this in Iowa,” Obama said. “And somebody said ‘Why don’t you wear a flag pin?’ I said, well, sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. I said, although I will say that sometimes I notice that they’re people who wear flag pins but they don’t always act patriotic. And I was specifically referring to politicians, not individuals who wear flag pins, but politicians who you see wearing flag pins and then vote against funding for veterans, saying we can’t afford it.”

Barack Obama on his refusal to wear a flag pin, then:

(What Obama said last October was: “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”)

Obama then proceeds, in a magnificent example of hypocritical chutzpah, to call bloggers who accurately reported his words liars.

Obama continued, saying “so I make this comment. suddenly a bunch of these, you know, TV commentators and bloggers (say) ‘Obama is disrespecting people who wear flag pins.’ Well, that’s just not true. Also, another way of saying it is, it’s a lie.”

Obama’s two radically different versions of his reasons for not wearing the pin are there for you to read.

At Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s headquarters here the other day, the campaign staff was brainstorming about ways to reach beyond the voters who appear on traditionalDemocratic Party lists. Did anyone know fathers able to distribute flyers at Little League practice? When do the farmers markets open?

“We spend a lot of time trying to find new people and get them plugged in,” said Clinton regional field director Pete Hackeman.

That has not always been the case. As it continues to refine its tactics, the Clinton campaign is devoting far more energy to on-the-ground efforts in Indiana than it did in many of the early states she lost to Sen. Barack Obama, who deployed scores of young staffers to unlikely places and profited from the power of grass-roots organizing.

Driven by strategy and necessity as the New York Democrat’s advertising budget runs low, the Clinton campaign has opened 28 offices in Indiana, where she faces another critical test on May 6. With 72 delegates at stake in Indiana, the Clinton family has made more than 50 stops in the state already, far more than Obama and his wife, Michelle.

“They’ve gotten religion in terms of on-the-streets activism and the importance of it,” said South Bend Mayor Steve Luecke, an Obama supporter, of the Clintons. “They’re working the streets a lot harder, and to their credit. It will help with her campaign in the final vote total here.”

Clinton learned the hard way when the candidate who marketed herself as the inevitable nominee failed to knock Obama out of the race in its early stages.

The campaign erred, some strategists acknowledged, in assuming that name recognition, television advertisements and endorsements would be enough to put away Obama.

“A lot of those assumptions have been put aside, and that puts us in a more aggressive posture,” said Indiana state director Robby Mook, who led the victorious Clinton effort in Ohio, where the dueling ground organizations neared parity. “It’s a whole new ballgame.”

The two campaigns each have four paid workers and an array of volunteers in South Bend, the heart of a region rich in Democratic votes about 90 miles from Obama’s home turf of Chicago. The area features a diverse electorate that propelled a Democratic upset in 2006 when Rep. Joe Donnelly won Indiana’s 2nd District over incumbent Republican Chris Chocola.

Obama carries key advantages in the state — most notably his familiarity to voters in northwestern Indiana who receive Chicago television signals. Supporters are driving across the border by the carload to knock on doors for the freshman senator, who hopes to make up for his April 22 loss in Pennsylvania with wins here and in North Carolina.

Clinton, boosted in Ohio and Pennsylvania by support from popular governors, is tapping networks of Democratic activists loyal to Sen. Evan Bayh, the state’s best-known Democrat and, briefly, a presidential candidate. Beyond introducing Clinton at rallies, Bayh has traveled the state on his own to build a small army of supporters.

“It was not a hard sell. He said, ‘Here’s why. This is her skill set,’ ” recalled Butch Morgan, the St. Joseph County party chairman, who received a call from Bayh, the two-term senator and former governor. “He is the most respected and successful Democrat we have had in Indiana for a long, long time.”

Morgan signed on and soon showed why Bayh wanted him. In March, he gathered 60 to 70 people to hear Bayh’s pitch for Clinton. The next morning, Bayh addressed a group of local mayors at breakfast. As Morgan put it, “He’d been ginning it up all over the state.”

Details and door-knocking count, Morgan said, in a race that polls show is deadlocked: “There have been people I talked to last month who were solid Obama and are now for Hillary, and vice versa. There are households that are split.”

As Morgan spoke, Gina Piraccini arrived with a cardboard box filled with the makings of campaign buttons and 500 circles snipped by hand from colored paper. She was getting ready for Saturday’s Clinton rally at the local minor league baseball stadium.

One by one, Piraccini placed a round metal backing on a heavy press, then aligned a circle of paper on top. She leaned her weight into a long lever and produced buttons that said, “Homerun Hillary” and, especially for Michigan supporters, “My Vote for Hillary Should Count.”

Piraccini, a school psychologist, finished one badge and said, “Green. Very grass-rooty.”

Estelle Olson is the sort of campaign volunteer more typically found in the Obama camp. A Minnesota community college student, she is working in her fourth state as a Clinton road warrior. She started in Minnesota, then moved to Ohio and Pennsylvania before arriving in South Bend last week.

“My poor husband, he thought I was coming home after Pennsylvania,” Olson said between telephone calls at the Clinton campaign’s storefront office. “Once I saw how drawn along gender lines this campaign had become, I barraged my professors to please give me my finals online.”

Olson comes from a conservative Christian household near Minneapolis. Her mother, she said, “is ashamed of me for being here.” As she made calls asking people to attend Saturday’s rally, she recorded successes and failures on an automated telephone system.

From offices in the likes of Fort Wayne, Kokomo and Evansville, staffers and volunteers focus on telling Clinton’s story and trying to convince voters that she is best positioned to win in November and solve their problems. They run door-knocking operations to deliver early voters and produce crowds for Clinton and her surrogates.

Yet for all the recent effort by the Clinton campaign, Obama’s campaign has broken more fresh ground in building grass-roots operations throughout the country. Obama’s staff has harnessed the Internet to link supporters by shared interest and geography while giving them license to shape their own tactics.

“The Obama movement pushes local people to take the active role,” said Oliver Davis, a South Bend city council member who drafted his supporters to campaign for Obama. “We went after the everyday Joe.”

Davis, one of at least five Obama supporters on the nine-member council, credits ground-level organizing for his own victory. While he says Clinton’s campaign “is catching up in terms of the ground game,” he contends that Obama will benefit from a head start here.

While the Clinton campaign advertised 30 organized canvassing expeditions this weekend, the Obama team said it put together 55 “block parties” for supporters and undecided voters on Saturday, complete with food and music. At each, voters were encouraged to go straight to nearby government offices and cast their ballots.

Troy Watson fits the Obama campaign mold. A union electrician, he backed Obama early last year “when most people thought I was nuts.” He printed literature from Obama’s Web site and kept it with him wherever he went. He held his first meeting in August, when Obama was nowhere in the polls.

“We started doing events and putting them in the paper,” Watson said. When Obama campaign workers arrived in mid-March, he was ready with names and ideas.

Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s deputy communications director, disputes the idea that Clinton’s organization here is comparable to Obama’s, calling it “a classic case of the machine versus the movement.”

“The Clinton campaign has the entire establishment on its side, including the Bayh machine, which is legendary in Indiana,” Pfeiffer said in an e-mail. “Barack Obama has thousands of grass-roots supporters who desperately want change and are willing to work their hearts out for it.”

In South Bend, the Clinton team is feeling encouraged, despite the difficult delegate math and the vast gap in campaign funds. It helps that staffers and volunteers sense their ground game is humming.

“We’d like to have all the TV ads and the yard signs we could have,” one staff member said, “but we think we can win with the volunteers we have.”

By Peter Slevin, WaPo

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton put new pressure on her Democratic rival for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama, to agree to a debate, but for now the only debating taking place is long-distance.

Winning Indiana is crucial to keeping her presidential campaign alive, and Clinton is clearly hoping another debate will help make the difference.

Her campaign manager, Maggie Williams, sent a letter Saturday to Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, calling for a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate, with no moderator or panel of journalists asking questions, just the two candidates taking turns speaking for two minutes each in a no-holds-barred face-off.

Speaking at a rally in South Bend, Clinton practically drew a line in the sand, noting Indiana’s renewed influence in the presidential nominating process this year.

“I’ve said I’ll be anywhere anytime in order to debate because I think the people of Indiana, after having wandered in the wilderness of American politics for 40 years, deserve a debate,” Clinton said.

Obama’s campaign, though, didn’t bite.

“We have participated in 21 nationally televised debates, the most in primary history, including four exclusively with Senator Clinton,” Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

He added that Clinton earlier turned down a debate in North Carolina, a state where Obama has been leading in the polls.

Now, he said, “we believe it’s important to talk directly to the voters of Indiana and North Carolina” about the economy, health care and the war.

Saturday, speaking at a Marion town hall meeting before Clinton’s debate challenge was made public, Obama told the 2,000 people there that he isn’t going to get dragged into any more political bickering, which he said is distracting from the issues people care about.

“All the reporting is about the latest negative ad, the latest gaffe, who’s saying what about who,” Obama said. “That’s not helping you. That’s not making your lives better. That may be boosting television ratings. It may be giving the chattering class something to chatter about.”

Obama told the crowd in Marion, and 1,200 people later in Anderson, that in the days between now and the May 6 primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina, he’s going to focus on issues such as putting people back to work, providing health care, improving schools and ending the war, and not “back-and-forth, tit-and-tat bickering.”

That didn’t mean Obama didn’t throw some elbow jabs Saturday, mostly at Sen. John McCain, who has already clinched the Republican nomination for president.

In Anderson, Obama, laying out his plans to raise fuel-efficiency standards for cars to reduce the nation’s dependency on foreign oil and bring down gas prices, told people that gas prices won’t come down overnight despite political promises.

“It’s one of John McCain’s latest schemes,” he said, referring to McCain’s proposal for the federal government to suspend the gasoline tax from Memorial Day through Labor Day this year.

That, Obama said, will save people about $25 but will take needed revenue from the federal fund used to build roads and bridges.

“Remember that bridge in Minneapolis?” he asked, citing last year’s fatal bridge collapse. “We’re already short on money in terms of investing, and for what? For 25 bucks?”

McCain’s campaign fired back in an e-mail statement noting that Obama voted to suspend Illinois’ sales tax on gasoline in 2000 while he was in the state Senate there.

“Americans are clearly hurting by increased costs at the pump, and John McCain has proposed tax relief that will help Indiana drivers immediately as they head into the summer driving season,” McCain spokesman Jeff Sadosky said.

Both Obama and Clinton spent most of the day Saturday appealing for the votes of working-class Hoosiers.

Clinton, who campaigned with Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh before 2,500 in Fort Wayne and 4,000 in South Bend, talked about reviving the industrial economy.

“We can do that again, but we need, as Senator Bayh said, a president who doesn’t just talk about it but who actually rolls up her sleeves and gets to work,” Clinton said.

Obama — the sleeves of his white shirt literally rolled up as he talked to the crowds in Marion and Anderson — noted the manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas during the years President Bush has been in the White House.

Both cities, he said, have unemployment rates of about 7 percent, much higher than the national average, and with family incomes several thousand dollars lower than the typical family makes nationwide.

McCain, he said, had recently praised the “great progress” the economy had made under Bush.

Those words brought derisive laughter from the crowd at Anderson High School.

“If he thinks that’s great progress, he must not be talking to the people of Anderson,” Obama said.

By Mary Beth Schneider, Indystar.com

The old tale is a personal favorite for its insight into racial and ethnic calculation in politics. It goes like this: A fictitious town whose population is 90% Irish Catholic and 10% Jewish is electing a mayor and there are two candidates, one Irish and one Jewish.

The Irish candidate wins 90% of the vote, to 10% for the Jewish candidate. The winner begins his victory speech by praising his Irish Catholic supporters, then deplores the clannishness of the Jews!

Fast forward to the presidential race, where reality imitates comedy. With Barack Obama routinely getting 90% of the black vote, but only about 35% of the white vote, his top campaign aides are suggesting white racism is a problem.“I’m sure there is some of that,” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, told The New York Times about the impact of race after Obama lost Pennsylvania by 10 points. Axelrod added: “Here’s a guy named Barack Obama, an African-American guy, relatively new. That’s a lot of change.”

David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, sees white racism as a problem in the general election. “The vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain’s camp already,” he told the National Journal.

You knew it had to come to this, but you hoped it wouldn’t. “Race doesn’t matter” was the chant of many Obama supporters when he was winning. But now that he has hit a wall with many voters on legitimate issues, race does matter, his supporters claim.

Never mind Obama’s long relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose anti-American and anti-Semitic ties raise questions about Obama’s willingness to confront bigotry. Never mind Obama’s sneering comments that small-town Americans “cling to guns and religion” out of economic frustration. Never mind that Obama’s plans for tax hikes and blame-America-first foreign policy fall on the left side of the political spectrum.

No, none of that could possibly matter.

For his campaign to blame voter prejudice is a poor excuse and a worse strategy. It also misses the point of Obama’s stall.

After all, he is the same man who won in lily-white states like Iowa, Kansas, Idahoand Colorado. Are Ohio and Pennsylvania white voters more racist?

Also, whites have been more willing to vote for Obama than blacks have been to vote for Hillary Clinton. To liberals, blacks voting for Obama are expressing pride; whites voting for Clinton harbor racial prejudice, not gender pride or legitimate preference.

None of this is to suggest race relations aren’t an issue. Race matters to blacks and to whites in all kinds of ways. It is no accident that, in almost every professional field outside of sports, including politics, blacks remain underrepresented two generations after civil rights laws were passed.

But Obama knew all that going into the campaign, which is presumably why he holds himself out as a postracial candidate and cites his biracial ancestry to argue he is best equipped to bridge the historic divide.

Moreover, Axelrod knows the danger of stoking us-against-them divisions. He ranFernando Ferrer’s 2001 campaign for New York mayor with an overt ethnic appeal as Ferrer sought to become the city’s first Hispanic mayor. But his scolding tone of “Two New Yorks” was divisive and fell flat.

Three years later, Axelrod ran John Edwards‘ first presidential race, where he vowed to end the “Two Americas” in everything from health care to retirement. It smelled of class warfare, and Edwards was ineffective as John Kerry’s running mate.

In this campaign, Obama has taken a more positive view. Instead of dwelling on our divisions, he promises to unite us across them. The idealism, combined with his charismatic eloquence, has gotten him where he is. It would be a copout if, failing to win over key voters, he suddenly decided his skin color was their problem.

By Michael Goodwin, The NY Daily News

Let’s begin with one paramount fact: The superdelegates will determine the Democratic nomination. Neither candidate will capture enough pledged delegates to win without them. The contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton will not be settled by purely democratic means.

The common misconception is that superdelegates are basically like jurors: They listen to each side’s case and then apply a specific set of instructions and a strict legal framework to make their evaluation. But superdelegates don’t work that way. They’re more like the College of Cardinals: They decide by feeling their way through moral and political, not legal, claims. And as in electing a pope, there is no right or wrong. At some point the superdelegates will send up the white smoke, and their decision will be, by definition, legitimate.

So instead of debating the “legitimacy” of their decision, it’s more useful to ask how they’ll do the deciding.

I have long believed that at the end of the day, the superdelegates will be swayed more by the popular vote count than by the pledged delegate count. What complicates matters is that there will be at least three different versions of the popular vote: total Democratic National Committee-sanctioned votes, and then votes including Florida and/or Michigan.

After Tuesday’s primary, Clinton leads Obama in the most inclusive category, which includes the Florida and Michigan results. She has now received more primary votes than anyone who’s ever run for president. 

If, by the end of the primary season, Obama leads in this count, then he will almost certainly be the nominee. It is very possible, however, that Clinton will retain this lead and also capture the lead in the popular vote count in Florida, but excluding Michigan. 

And there is a smaller, but real, chance that she will lead in the popular vote minus both Florida and Michigan.

Which leads us to the next problem - Puerto Rico.

If Clinton is to overtake Obama in the popular vote that excludes Michigan and Florida, she will need a big victory in Puerto Rico’s primary. You didn’t know Puerto Rico had one? Well, it didn’t – until last month, when it swapped its caucus process for a primary election.

No one knows what to expect in that contest on June 1. Puerto Ricans are quite participatory. In their 2004 government elections, 52 percent of them voted, which translates to two million voters.

But let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Clinton were to win such an overwhelming victory that the Puerto Rican vote became the margin that put her ahead of Obama, even without Florida and Michigan. What would the superdelegates make of that? Remember, Puerto Ricans don’t have a say in the general election; they only get to vote in the primary.

If it looks as though I’m stacking the deck against Obama, it’s because I am, but only to illustrate a point: Obama is in a strong position and may well be the nominee. But he needs to win at least one of the popular vote tabulations. And to the extent that he is forced to make the case that the votes of various groups shouldn’t count – Michiganders, Floridians, Puerto Ricans – then his moral claim will be weakened.

But who knows? Maybe Obama will win the total popular vote outright, and all of this will be academic.

One last lesson from the Pennsylvania result: The most interesting aspect of this race is how little events have mattered.

Elections are usually fluid processes greatly influenced by external events. Yet nearly every primary result in this cycle has conformed to a demographic model that evidenced itself shortly after New Hampshire: Obama wins blacks, the young, the wealthy, educated whites, and racially segregated whites. Clinton wins Hispanics, women, Jews, union voters, seniors, and racially integrated blue-collar whites.

Those constituencies have been so constant that if you had used them as rules to predict outcomes back in January, you could have picked nearly every winner so far to within a few points.

That’s astonishing. It means we have a race frozen in amber. Which is why it’s reasonable to suspect that no matter how much money Obama spends or how many scandals each candidate suffers in the coming weeks, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico will go for Clinton while Obama takes North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota.

And then the superdelegates will have their conclave.

By Jonathan Last, Philly.com

Pennsylvania was the beginning of the end for Barak Obama.

His startlingly bad results among key groups – Catholics, white women, Jews and elderly voters – has shaken the Democratic world to its core.

And now the re-emergence of the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright will be the coup de grace for the already-hurting Obama.

Just when Obama has been trounced in the Keystone State the last thing he needs is Reverend Wright popping off on Bill Moyers on PBS, followed by a speech in DC at the National Press Club.

Clearly Bill Moyers – the Dean of the Left Wing Media – is trying to rehabilitate Reverend Wright in order to rescue Obama’s faltering candidacy.

What a mistake by these bone-headed liberals! Wright is way, way beyond political rehabilitation! He is radioactive – and the poisonous radiation is now spreading step-by-step down into the Democratic Party. State GOP organizations in North Carolina and Washington State are now airing TV ads using the explosive Wright excerpts against Democratic gubernatorial candidates there.

John McCain – in a typical McCain move – decries the use of the Wright sermons and asked these state organizations not to air the commercials. To their credit they have defied McCain – perhaps a sign of how little anyone inside the Republican Party believes in or cares about McCain; they are more interested in their home state prospects.

But the real story today is the almost sudden realization among the political cognicenti that Obama is un-electable in November and that Hillary is actually a stronger general election candidate.

The Pennsylvania results are what has brought this sea-change. For example, Obama lost Catholic voters 72-28%. This is a devastating result politically. The oft-mentioned ‘Reagan Democrats’ – who are in fact swing voters – are predominantly white Catholics (Irish, Itialian, Polish and other Eastern European heritage). When Obama gets blown out by Hillary, of all people, 72-28, that sent a shock wave through the political world.

The result? Obama rooters in the media like Joe Klein of Time Magazine, Howard Fineman of Newsweek and MSNBC’s Chris Mathews all did a massive 180 Degree Reversal on Thursday; they now realize that Obama is a mortally wounded candidate.

You can bet that the Democratic Super Delegates – the very people who will determine the Democratic ticket in Denver – are also re-assessing Obama’s deteriorating candidacy.

They, too, must now see that Obama is not their strongest general election candidate. In fact, he is their weakest.

He is now being called – in the liberal New Republic, of all places – “another George McGovern.” (McGovern lost 49 states to Richard Nixon in 1972.)

Bit by bit this realization is spreading through a stubborn and conflicted Democratic leadership. As they swallow the fact that Obama cannot win in November – and that McCain would thus win and continue the war in Iraq, which all Democrats want to stop – they look at Hillary. They also now know she is tougher than Obama and more of a fighter and would actually run a better race in the fall against the GOP nominee.

But in the meantime the Reverend Wright’s re-emergence will remind everyone of Obama’s weaknesses in a potential general election. The Reverend’s appearances will again stoke the fires. Cable TV will have a field day replaying new excerpts of this angry, disturbed man. Television loves a freak show!

It couldn’t come at a worse time for Obama.

I am not going to link to the particular blog who posted this because that would provide unneeded traffic to this person’s site. But for citation purposes, I did not write this (CLEARLY). This particular blogger also feels the need to filter the counter argument comments as to ultimately avoid transparent dialogue.

Whew!  Ya’ll seem to have had your socks knocked off by Hillary Clinton this past week.  Everyone wants to know whether or not she’s a racist!  I point to the info in this post, and also look for “White Privilage: Hillary has it”, also on this blog.

A lot of self proclaimed White people want to know more about what racism is in the wake of the last debate and the Penn primary, but it all started when Hill employed the kitchen sink strategy.  Not only did her gloves come off but all the rules and niceties went right out the window; everything was considered in play, including race, and playing on people’s fears about race.

White people have heard the ever rising accusation that Hill is in fact a racist, and they want to know if it’s true.  Particularly if they support her or are undecided and thinking about supporting her. 

After all, if she is a racist, voting for her would put one in a tricky position.  So, your concern is understandable.  Hopefully the information you find here helps you out a little bit, and puts you on the path towards truly examining race in your life.  Peace.

###

April 24th.  UPDATE:

Well.  This blog about whether Hillary Clinton is a racist or not has been getting major hits since the Pennsylvania primary.  I can only guess that is because people’s frustration levels are rising; you’ve seen the tactics being employed by her camp, so it’s natural to then ask the question, “is she racist?”

Let’s set that aside for a moment.  What I’ve outline is my personal opinion.  I’ve also outlined straight facts about white privilage.  I want to clarify someting.  All white people, no matter what class they grew up in or live in now, have white privilage.  It’s something granted by birth.  White people can not refuse their privilage, just like people of color can’t stop discrimination and racism from impacting their lives. 

But that doesn’t mean that I am saying that because you are white, you are racist.  No.  I’m not saying Hill is a racist because she is a privilaged White woman.  I am saying Hill is racist because the woman is smart as hell, let’s not get it twisted.  And what we are seeing is how she is using her White privilage in her campaign against Barack Obama.  The common theme is playing on America’s ingnorance of, uncomfortablnes with, guilt over, Black people.  She knows exactly what she is doing.  She is the one playing the race card.  Again and again and again. 

She could go about campaigning any number of ways.  She could choose the moral high ground.  But in desperation, losing the nomination, she decided to unleash the kitchen sink.  The ‘kitchen sink’ is code for by any means necessary, right wrong or otherwise.  And she can do that.  Because she’s a White woman.  So is Hillary Clinton a racist?  I would have to say yes.  I wouldn’t have thought so a year ago.  But I am cery clear on it today.

So, that is my update and clarification. 

Sable Verity

####

Typical Sable Verity, talking that racism nonsense again!

When I ask the question “is Hillary Clinton a racist”. I get one of two answers; yes or no.  Actually, I don’t get many ‘no’s’, but they’re out there.  I’m sure her supporters shout and argue it down whenever they have the chance.  I’ve written on Hillary’s White privilage, but white privilage isn’t chosen- you’re white, you’re privilaged.  We’re not talking class, so let’s not get into the i-am-not-a-privilaged-person-my-family-struggled-when-I-was-growing-up discussion…

Not only is Hillary racist, but she appeals to other racists as the candidate of choice:

By DOUG THOMPSON

One expects racism from Republicans. The party of the elephant could merge with the just about any white supremacy group and not miss a beat. Hell, most people wouldn’t see any difference.

But overt racism from a Democrat is something else, although it should not surprise anyone that Hillary Rodham Clinton would use racism in her anything goes quest for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Exit polls from Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary show nearly one-fifth of those who went to the polls admit racism determined how they voted — and that’s just those who admitted it. Most racists will swear on a stack of Bibles that they don’t hate blacks.

Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania because she pandered to the overt racism that exists among blue collar whites as well as the latent racism in too many others. She won because the bulk of her appeal comes from the less-educated, the less-tolerant and the less-intelligent among us. If you’re a stupid, illiterate, gun-totin’ white hick you probably voted for Hillary. And so did your ignorant, baby-popping, big-haired wife as well as that bleached-blond bar maid that you’re seeing on the side.

Now, before you hoist your Stars and Bars, clean your AR-15 and hunt me down as another Northeastern liberal who looks down his nose at just plain folk, remember that I can talk about chicken-fried racism with some authority because I’m a product of that culture: a son of the South, raised in the Bible belt where Southern Baptists sowed wild oats on Saturday night and then went to church on Sunday and prayed for crop failure.

Where I come from, the guys with the John Deere hats talk about how they voted for Hillary in the Virginia Democratic primary because “it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for the nigger.”

But racism in America is not limited to the guy with the 185 bowling average and who has confederate mud flaps on his pickup. It’s not limited to those out-of-work Pennsylvania rednecks who drink boilermakers.

Racism is alive in well in the halls of power in Congress, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and in the boardrooms of America’s largest corporations.

Many Americans talk a good game when it comes to race and equality but they are still bubbas in their hearts and minds and bubbas hate and distrust anything that ain’t lily white and just like themselves.

And those racists are gathering around their candidate of choice: a bleached blond carpetbagger who adapts herself to whatever political environment it takes to win an election.

Hillary Rodham Clinton may not really be one of their own but — in this race — she’s white and, for them, that’s all that matters.

####

ABOUT WHITE PRIVILAGE:

White privilege is a sociological concept describing advantages enjoyed by white persons beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people in those same social spaces (nation, community, workplace, etc.). It differs from racism orprejudice by the fact that a person benefiting from white privilege need not hold racist beliefs themselves.

Scholars associated with the legal studies field of Critical Race Theory have argued that whiteness or white racial status can be thought of as property, something of value owned by certain members of society. This idea has been advanced in particular by Cheryl Harris^[1] and George Lipsitz.^[2] Betsy Lucal writes that current ideas about racism are limited because of their tendency to focus only on racial “minorities” and the oppressive aspects of race. This approach, she writes, overlooks how whites are affected by race and indeed receive privileges through race.^[3] It is particularly difficult for white people to learn about White privilege. Dan J. Pence and J. Arthur Fields suggest that resistance to acknowledging white privilege stems from the fact that whites often see inequality as a black or Latinoissue. Reactions range from hostility to a “wall of silence.”^[4]

A study published by Branscombe et al found that thinking about the benefits gained from a privileged group membership can threaten social identity and evoke justification of the existing status difference between the ingroup and a disadvantaged group. For white Americans, racial privilege may be justified by concurring with modern racist attitudes. The study found that increased racism in response to thoughts of white privilege was limited to those who highly identified with their racial category. In contrast, when white racial identification was sufficiently low, thoughts of white privilege reliably reduced modern racism.^[5] Statements about racial inequality may be framed as either White privileges or Black disadvantages, when framed as White privileges a 2005 study found that the statements resulted in greater collective guilt and lower racism compared to a Black disadvantage framing. The findings suggest that representing inequality in terms of outgroup disadvantage allows privileged group members to avoid the negative psychological implications of inequality and supports prejudicial attitudes.^[6]

In the widely circulated essay, White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack,Peggy McIntosh sought to enumerate the social, political and cultural advantages accorded to whites in American society. McIntosh claims there are parallels between white privilege, male privilege and heterosexual privilege. ^[7]

The absence of racism

Definitions of privilege also include the absence of racism as a privilege^[8]. Privilege, then, includes both human rights, which are understood to be deserved, and unearned immunities and advantages, because disparity of both types exists.^[9]

History

In his 1935 Black Reconstruction in America, W. E. B. Du Bois first described the “psychological wages” of whiteness:

It must be remembered that the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage. They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were white. They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks, and the best schools. The police were drawn from their ranks, and the courts, dependent on their votes, treated them with such leniency as to encourage lawlessness. Their vote selected public officials, and while this had small effect upon the economic situation, it had great effect upon their personal treatment and the deference shown them. White schoolhouses were the best in the community, and conspicuously placed, and they cost anywhere from twice to ten times as much per capita as the colored schools. The newspapers specialized on news that flattered the poor whites and almost utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule.^[10]

This concept was later taken up by David Roediger in his book, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class^[11] Theorists associated with the journal Race Traitor, such as editor Noel Ignatiev, argue that whiteness (as a marker of a social status within the United States) is conferred upon people in exchange for an expectation of loyalty to what they consider an oppressive social order. This loyalty has taken a variety of forms over time: from the suppression of slave rebellions to whites-only unions to support for police brutality. Like currency, the value of this privilege (for the powerful) depends on the reliability of a white appearance as a marker for social consent. With enough “counterfeit whites” resisting racism and capitalism, the writers in this tradition argue, the privilege will be withdrawn or will splinter, prompting an era of conflict and social redefinition. Without such a period, they argue, progress towards social justice is impossible, and thus “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”

The theory of White privilege in America may be seen as having its roots in the system of legalized discrimination that existed for much of American history.^[12] In her book Privilege Revealed: How Invisible Preference Undermines AmericaStephanie M. Wildman writes that many Americans who advocate a merit-based, race-free worldview do not acknowledge the systems of privilege which benefit them. For example, many Americans rely on a social and sometimes even financial inheritance from previous generations. This inheritance, unlikely to be forthcoming if one’s ancestors were slaves, privileges whiteness, maleness, and heterosexuality.^[13] In addition to legal rights, whites were sometimes afforded opportunities and benefits that were unavailable to others. For example, government subsidized white homeownership in the middle of the 20th century through the Federal Housing Administration, but not homeownership of other minorities. ^[14] Some social scientists suggest that the historical processes ofsuburbanization and decentralization are instances of white privilege that have contributed to contemporary patterns of environmental racism.^[15]

Historians and authors, including Noel Ignatiev and Karen Brodkin, discuss the historical trajectory from exclusion to acceptance of Irish and Jewish émigrés in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in terms of white privilege. Many see a continuing, although not legalized or acknowledged, system of advantage to white people in areas such as housing, salaries, access to employment (especially to positions of power), access to education, even life expectancy.^[16][17]

Sociologists in the American Mosaic Project report widespread belief in the United States that “prejudice and discrimination in favor of whites is important in explaining white advantage” or in their terms that “prejudice and discrimination create a form of white privilege.” According to their 2003 poll, this view was affirmed by 59% of white respondents, 83% of Blacks, and 84% of Hispanics.^[18]

Justice

A 2002 Department of Justice survey found that, although the likelihood of being stopped by police did not differ significantly between white drivers and other races, Black or Latino drivers were three times more likely to be searched than white drivers.^[19] Young white offenders are likely to receive lighter punishments than minorities in America. Black youth arrested for drug possession for the first time are incarcerated at a rate that is forty-eight times greater than the rate for white youth, even when all other factors surrounding the crime are identical. ^[20][21]

Employment and economics

There is a correlation between a person’s name and their likelihood of receiving a call back for a job interview. A field experiment in Boston and Chicago showed that people with “white-sounding” names are 50% more likely to receive a call back than people with “black-sounding” names, despite equal resumé quality between the two racial groups. ^[22] White Americans are more likely than African Americans to have their business loan applications approved, even when other factors such as credit records are comparable. ^[23]

Black and Latino college graduates in America are less likely than white college graduates to end up in a management position. ^[24] This is true even when other factors such as age, experience, and academic records are similar. ^[25] [26]

Education

Minority students are less likely to be placed in honors classes, even when justified by test scores. ^{[27] [28] [29]} Visible minority students are more likely than white students to be suspended or expelled from school, even though rates of serious school rule violations do not differ significantly by race. ^[30] [31] E. Manglitz argues the educational system in America has deeply-entrenched biases in favor of the white majority in evaluation, curricula, and power relations.^[32]

 

Self-image

Beverly Daniel Tatum points out that most white people do not think to describe themselves as “white” when listing descriptive terms about themselves, whereas people of color usually use racial or ethnic identity descriptors. Tatum suggests this is because the elements of one’s identity that are congruent with the dominant culture are so normalized and reflected back at one that one is apt to take such traits for granted. This is not the case for identity aspects of those who are defined as “other” by the dominant culture, whether it be on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other microcultural aspects.^[17] The true reasons behind this occurrence are unknown, but may also be due to many different unspoken psychological effects on minorities and majorities alike, whether it be pride, shame, or an environmental stimulation such as a rally.

Tatum writes that dominant microcultures (in this case, white people) set the parameters in which “subordinate” microcultures operate. Subordinate groups are often labeled as substandard in significant ways: e.g., blacks have historically been characterized as less intelligent than whites.^[17] Subordinates are also defined as being innately incapable of being able to perform the preferred roles in society.^[17]Some members of the subordinate microculture internalize these negative messages, thus being further disadvantaged by the entrenched belief that they cannot succeed to the same extent as white people.^{[citation needed]}

The use of skin whitening treatments by non-whites has been linked to the benefits of white privilege. According to several theorists, the relationship between white privilege and skin whitening is explained by colorism and colonial mentality.^[33][34]

Criticism

Low impact of white privilege

Conservative scholar and renowned opponent of affirmative action programs,Shelby Steele at the Hoover Institution, believes that the effects of white privilege are exaggerated. Steele argues that irresponsibility is a larger problem for blacks, who may incorrectly blame their personal failures on white oppression. He also argues that there are many “minority privileges”: “If I’m a black high school student today… there are white American institutions, universities, hovering over me to offer me opportunities: Almost every institution has a diversity committee… There is a hunger in this society to do right racially, to not be racist.”^[35]

Justification of white privilege

Journalist, conservative^[36] blogger and “race realist” Steve Sailer argues that white privilege may be real, but that “it was earned for [whites] by the hard work and self-discipline of [white] ancestors and relatives … If, say, [a white person] inherit[s] a valuable house in a nice, crime-free white neighborhood, it was earned for [them] by the law-abidingness of other whites” ^[37]

References

1. ^ Harris, Cheryl I. (1993). “Whiteness as Property”. Harvard Law Review106: 1709-1795. 
2. ^ Lipsitz, George (1998). The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Temple University Press. ISBN 1566396352. 
3. ^ Oppression and Privilege: Toward a Relational Conceptualization of RaceBetsy Lucal Teaching Sociology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul., 1996), pp. 245-255
4. ^ Teaching about Race and Ethnicity: Trying to Uncover White Privilege for a White Audience Dan J. Pence, J. Arthur Fields Teaching Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 150-158
5. ^ Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of white privilege Nyla R. Branscombe, Michael T. Schmitt and Kristin Schiffhauer. European Journal of Social Psychology. Volume 37, Issue 2 , Pages 203 – 215. 25 Aug 2006
6. ^ Inequality as Ingroup Privilege or Outgroup Disadvantage: The Impact of Group Focus on Collective Guilt and Interracial Attitudes Adam A. Powell, Nyla R. Branscombe and Michael T. Schmitt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, 508-521 (2005)
7. ^ McIntosh, P. (1989). “White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack”.Peace and Freedom (July/August): 10-12. 
8. ^ White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack - Peggy McIntosh
9. ^ Defining “White Privilege” - WhitePrivilege.com
10. ^ W. E. B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880 (New York: Free Press, 1995 reissue of 1935 original), pp. 700-701. ISBN 0684856573.
11. ^ The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class a book review.
12. ^ Williams, Linda Faye (2004). Constraint Of Race: Legacies Of White Skin Privilege In America. Penn State. ISBN 0-271-02535-2. 
13. ^ Privilege Revealed: How Invisible Preference Undermines America By Stephanie M. Wildman. Published 1996 by NYU Press
14. ^ Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton, American Apartheid. Harvard University: 1993;
15. ^ Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California Laura Pulido Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 90, No. 1 (Mar., 2000), pp. 12-40
16. ^ Farley, R. (1993). The common destiny of Blacks and Whites: Observations about the social and economic status of the races. In Hill, H. & Jones, J.E., Jr. (eds.) Race in America: The Struggle for equality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
17. ^ ^a b c d Tatum, Beverly Daniel (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: BasicBooks. ISBN 9780465091270. 
18. ^ The Role of Prejudice and Discrimination in Americans’ Explanations of Black Disadvantage and White Privilege (PDF). American Mosaic Project(2006). Retrieved on 2007-09-09.
19. ^ Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt and Patrick A. Langan, Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics), April 2005.
20. ^ “Young White Offenders get lighter treatment,” 2000. The Tennessean. April 26: 8A.
21. ^ Human Rights Watch, 2000. Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs. DC: May, Volume 12, No. 2.
22. ^ Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment in Labor Market Discrimination.” June 20.http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mullainathan/papers/emilygreg.pdf.
23. ^ Fix, Michael and Margery Austin Turner, 1998. A National Report Card on Discrimination in America: The Role of Testing. The Urban Institute, March: 104.
24. ^ Linda Faye Williams, The Constraint of Race: Legacies of White Skin Privilege in America. Penn State Press: 2003, 359, Figure 7.1.
25. ^ William M. Hartnett, William M. “Income gaps persist among races,” Palm Beach Post, October 20, 2003
26. ^ Patrick L. Mason, “Race, Cognitive Ability, and Wage Inequality,” Challenge. May-June, 1998.
27. ^ Gordon, Rebecca. 1998. Education and Race. Oakland: Applied Research Center: 48-9; Fischer, Claude S. et al., 1996.
28. ^ Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 163
29. ^ Steinhorn, Leonard and Barabara Diggs-Brown, 1999. By the Color of Our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race. NY: Dutton: 95-6.
30. ^ Skiba, Russell J. et al., The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment. Indiana Education Policy Center, Policy Research Report SRS1, June 2000
31. ^ U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System: Youth 2003, Online Comprehensive Results, 2004.
32. ^ Manglitz, E (2003). “Challenging white privilege in adult education: a critical review of the literature”. Adult Education Quarterly (2): 119-134. 
33. ^ Llewelyn Muriel Austria-del Rosario. “Brown is Beautiful“. 
34. ^ Victor Mejia. “Mestizaje and Self-Hate“. 
35. ^ Stossel, John; Binkley, Gena. “Does White Privilege Exist in America? Scholars Debate Whether Society Overlooks Minorities“, ABC News (20/20),2006-11-05. 
36. ^ Types of Right - National Review
37. ^ Sailer, Steve. “Whiteness Studies and the White Guy Gap“, 2005-03-17. 

 

#####

I wonder if Hillary ever types “clinton” and “racist” into a search engine to see what comes up.  Here are 10 excerpts from the first ten responses (excluding video) to come up on Google’s general search…

 

1.  Clinton: Racism remains an issue

by Greg Johnson

Forty years after a U.S. commission warned that the United States was descending into two separate and unequal societies—one white and one black—Penn’s Center for Africana Studies revisited the issue in an effort to assess just how far the nation has come since those dark days.

And they brought in former President Bill Clinton to help.

Read more at Penn Current

 

2.  Clinton racism out of control

By Zenni Abraham

The Clintons are using the worst aspects of America to win. Is that any way to run a campaign? It’s not worked for them to this point, but God help us all if it does. America should be ashamed of itself for even allowing this kind of political farse of a campaign to go on.
Read more on Zennie’s Blog

 

3.  Massive Clinton Racism Skills

After issuing such thoroughly racist slurs as “fairy tale” and “Lyndon Johnson passed a civil rights bill,” the Clintons are now trailing Barry Obama by 50 points — 66% to 16% — among black voters, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey. The Clintons still lead among crackers, 41% to 27%, which must mean she is 14% more racist than Obama, or some such. Silly Clintons! Don’t they know that it was Senator President Martin Luther King Jr. who pushed that civil rights legislation through Congress?

Read more here: [Rasmussen Reports]

 

4.  Obama and Clinton: Racism and Sexism

The Postnational Monitor

There’s a lot of sexism vs racism talk in the current Democratic Election. I’ve heard some people say that it appears sexism is now worse than racism due to what’s happening to Hillary. I for one do not see it as sexism as much as anti-Clinton bias. I’m getting tired of Hillary and her supporters playing the gender card. Every time I see her or her surrogates on television they are talking about how women should vote for her because she is a woman and how it will be a “sea change” in American cultural life. Imagine for a second if Obama pandered like that to people based on his race. I can imagine how fast his polling numbers among whites would drop. In fact Obama has went out of his way (I believe pretty strongly despite criticism from blacks) to not talk about race in this campaign and stand on his own merit. Hillary waves her ovaries around and says look “I ain’t got no penis…vote for me”. I find this disgusting and anti-feminist (Hillary claims to be one).

More here.

 

5.  NY Times and Clinton: Racism wins

Black Star News Editorial

The New York Times early this week criticized the Clinton campaign for injecting lowly race-baiting tactics into the Democratic primary campaign. The newspaper appeared respectable on that occasion. 

 Today, the newspaper repudiated its own earlier critical editorial by endorsing the beneficiary of the race-bating, Senator Hillary Clinton. Her campaign’s principle characters are the senator herself and former president Bill Clinton, who has in recent weeks become a most obnoxious character with his vicious personalized attacks against senator Barack Obama.

More here

 

6.  For Bill Clinton, Echos of Jackson in Obama Win

Anne Kornblut

On Saturday, as Sen. Barack Obama was sweeping up the South Carolina primary, former Pres. Bill Clinton was busy downplaying the significance of Obama’s impending win, casting it as a function of the state’s demographics and the Illinois senator’s heavy African American support. “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ‘84 and ‘88,” Clinton said at a rally in Columbia. “Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.”

It was a sour note on which to end the contentious Democratic race in South Carolina. For her part, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton barely acknowledged the defeat in her post-primary speech here, except to say that she congratulated Obama on his win. Even when a voter at her rally asked about her defeat, Clinton limited her remarks and made it sound as though she had hardly had a chance. “I’m very very proud to have competed there. It was a close contest going into it,” Clinton said. (It was a close race going in, followed by a trouncing on the way out).

More here

 

 

7.  The Hidden Clinton Racism: Not so hidden anymore

It wasn’t enough that Bill alluded to The Black Guy’s campaign as a “fantasy”. Nor was it enough for Hillary’s campaign to display the reprehensibly arrogant attitude that “Obama should come from ahead and be her VP“.
The Clintonesque racist tendencies become more and more apparent as her campaign continues to fail, and it’s despicable. Almost indescribably villainous, the word “monster” comes quickly to mind.

More here.

 

8.  Clinton’s racism is showing

That makes Clinton’s show of being fair to all ethnic groups a SHAM. She’s making a big deal out of Kenyan leaders giving Obama a native outfit to wear during a visit there? Many dignitaries have done the same. This Hillary woman is tiresome. I click past the channels really fast when I see her or that husband of hers. YUK! AND YUK! again.

 

9.  Other folks apparently want to keep the dialogue at the lowest common denominator: reptilian hatred. In my email inbox this week, I received a photo of Chelsea Clinton holding a t-shirt proclaiming “My mom is getting her ass kicked by a Negro.” Photoshopped tears in Chesea’s eyes betray her happy grin to a look of surprising agony as she displays the small t-shirt like she is trying it on.

More of that here

 

10.  Obama and Clinton: racism in the primaries?

Don’t you think that Hilary has blown it with her racist attack on Obama? For a Democrat it was rather disappointing to see her stoop so low. Obama is half-African, half-Irish- what is the problem with him dressing in African dress on a trip to his father’s homeland? If he had gone to Ireland and drunk Guiness, worn a shamrock and danced a gig no one would have said anything would they?

This also brings me to another point. In my experience there are two kinds of racists
1. The in your face I will call you a ni@@er type- well they may be low but at least they are honest.
2. The “we are not racist at all type”- that is until their daughter comes home with a black man…. enough said. The closet racists- in my opinion both are bad but the latter rather than the former are in a way worse!
The rest of this post can be found here

South Bend, Ind. — Senator Hillary Clinton began her campaign speech at a minor league stadium here by brandishing a baseball bat and promising to hit balls out of the park. She ended it by challenging Senator Barack Obama to a different sort of contest.

“What I think the people of Indiana deserve is a real one on one debate,” she said. “After the last debate, Sen. Obama’s supporters complained a little about the tough questions,” she said, drawing a sarcastic “awwwwww” from the crowd.

“I’m offering Senator Obama a chance to debate me, one-on-one, no moderators,” she said. At the same time, her campaign released a letter from Maggie Williams, its manager, sent to David Plouffe, her counterpart at the Obama campaign, outlining its proposed terms.

“Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will participate in a 90-minute debate in an open public forum,” Mrs. Williams wrote. “Just the two of them — no questioners, no panelists, no video clips. One candidate would speak for two minutes, then the other, alternating back and forth all the way through the debate. Their discussion – not any pre-set rules – would determine how long they spend on one subject before moving on to another.”

In an interview to be broadcast on Fox News on Sunday, Senator Obama said he will not debate Mrs. Clinton again before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6. Polls show the two tied in Indiana, with Mr. Obama substantially ahead in North Carolina. The Democratic candidates have debated 21 times, though as Mrs. Clinton pointed out, only four of those debates were between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama only.

By Jodi Kantor, The Caucus

After a series of discussions, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have decided to file papers with the Federal Election Commission establishing a “joint fundraising agreement.” Under the law, such a committee can accept up to $28,500 from individuals, most of which would go to the DNC.

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has already formed such an alliance with the Republican National Committee. Their group — called Victory — was created in March after McCain clinched the GOP nomination and is headed by McCain adviser Carly Fiorina.

Sources say the DNC has also held talks with Hillary Clinton’s campaign about forming a separate vehicle with her, but that no deal has been struck.

The fact that the Obama campaign is moving forward and Clinton is not at this time reflects certain important realities: Obama’s team is more confident that he will win the nomination than is Clinton’s — and Obama’s campaign has the necessity and luxury of thinking about and planning for the general election to come.

As part of that preparation, the campaign is thinking about how to divide up roles and responsibilities between the campaign’s Chicago headquarters and the DNC in Washington.

The DNC has stood out during this election cycle as the one major party entity that has not been raising money like gangbusters, and officials in both camps hope the joint agreement can allow the DNC to tap into Obama’s extraordinary leverage and popularity with donors, particularly after he secures the nomination — assuming he does.

The committee formed under the agreement is still in search of a final name.

Hillary Clinton responded to criticism that she wasn’t standing up to oil companies charging high gas prices with sharp criticism of Barack Obama at a rally in Bloomington today.

She said he voted for the energy bill put together by Vice President Dick Cheney that gave millions in tax breaks to oil companies. Clinton said actions trump words.

“When it came time to vote for Cheney’s energy bill, my opponent voted for it and I voted against it,” Clinton said. “It was best bill money could buy.”

And she said Obama’ ads about not taking money from oil companies are misleading because he took more money from oil company executives than any other candidate last month. 

Clinton entered about 45 minutes late to the song “Small Town” by Hoosier John Mellencamp, a not so subtle reference to Obama?s recent statements on the frustrations of small-town Americans. 

Clinton told several thousand students and other people at IU’s Assembly Hall that they should think of the election as a hiring decision. 

She spoke for nearly an hour at this basketball mecca in front of a sign behind the center-court stage saying, “Hoosier Country is Clinton Country.” 

Campuses full of young people have been considered a stronghold of Barack Obama’s, and Clinton aimed to make a dent here today.

“I’m well aware that my opponent has a lot of support on campuses like this, and that’s fine,” Clinton said. “But one thing you know about me is I am a fighter.”

Clinton focused much of her speech on making college more affordable. She invited two students to the stage to tell stories about using credit and loan debt or the National Guard to pay for school. She said her experience was needed to solve these kinds of problems.

An Indianapolis Star poll released today found that the Democratic contest is nearly a dead heat, with about 21 percent undecided that will determine the outcome. A number of those people came here today, waiting to hear Clinton in person before making up there mind.

Despite more than 15 months of a relentless campaign, Alison DenOtter she before the speech she is only leaning toward Clinton . 

“The campaigning has been kind of shallow,” said DenOtter, 18. “The TV ads don’t really tell me what they will do for the country.” 

Afterward, many of the students were excited. 

Logan Doyle, a 17-year-old high school student from Greencastle said she agreed with Clinton’ points. 

“I loved it,” she said. “I’ll be 18 in the fall and I’m voting for Hillary.”

By Brendan O’Shaughnessy, IndyStar.com

A plan to award half-delegates for the disputed Michigan and Florida Democratic presidential primaries will get a hearing before party leaders.

The co-chairs of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws committee sent members a memo Friday announcing a meeting May 31 to consider the idea.

The committee stripped Michigan and Florida of their national convention delegates because they held primaries too early. DNC members in Michigan and Florida have filed challenges to restore the delegates.

Under the challenges, all superdelegates from both states would get to vote. The pledged delegates would only count for half votes.Hillary Rodham Clinton won both contests and has been pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her rival Barack Obama has said it isn’t fair to award delegates based on the votes because all the candidates agreed to boycott the contests and his name wasn’t on Michigan’s ballot. Most of the Democratic candidates had their names removed, but Clinton left hers on. Forty percent of Michigan voters chose “uncommitted” rather than vote for Clinton.

Obama’s supporters have suggested splitting the delegates evenly would be a fair way to handle it, since all sides want to see delegates from the two important swing states participate in the convention.

Both states, knowing the potential penalty, held their primaries earlier than party rules allowed to try have more influence in the nominating process that long has been dominated by early voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Few figured the campaign would last as long as it has, and now that Clinton and Obama are so close in the delegate race, both states want to help choose the nominee.

Michigan lost 128 pledged delegates and 28 superdelegates, for a total of 156.

Florida lost 185 pledged and 25 superdelegates, or a total of 210.

If it were valid, Florida’s election would have given Clinton 105 delegates to Obama’s 67. Michigan’s would have given Clinton 73 delegates, while 55 were uncommitted. That means awarding half-delegates would give Clinton 89 more delegates and Obama 33.5, with 27.5 uncommitted.

The plan would narrow Obama’s lead among the pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But Clinton still would not catch him in the remaining primaries.

Obama has a 154-delegate lead among pledged delegates.

The challenges were presented by DNC members Joel Ferguson of Michigan and Jon Ausman of Florida, who also are superdelegates because of their positions with the party. Ferguson supports Clinton, Ausman is uncommitted.

Ferguson and Ausman said in telephone interviews that they think half-delegates should be seated based on the outcome of the state’s primary elections. That is not spelled out in their challenges and the Rules and Bylaws Committee could determine how many delegates each campaign is awarded.

“I think the allocation should be solely based on the returns on January 29,” Ausman said.

Michigan’s case is trickier, since Obama didn’t get any votes in the state’s Jan. 15 primary. Ferguson said all the uncommitted votes should count for Obama.

“The only thing that hurts my challenge is that I declared that I’m for Clinton, but this has nothing to do with Clinton,” Ferguson said. “This has to do with making common sense.”

He said it’s only fair that the superdelegates be fully restored since they aren’t bound by election results any way. The challenges argue that the party doesn’t have the authority to strip superdelegates of their votes.

Ausman said as for the pledged delegates, it would be acceptable for the committee either to strip half of Florida’s pledged delegates and send the other half to the convention, or to send all and give them half-votes.

The Convention Credentials Committee resolves issues about the seating of delegates, but doesn’t meet until later in the summer after all the state nominating contests are over.

The co-chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee did not respond to messages left at their offices Friday. Party officials said it’s unclear whether they will make a decision and vote on the challenges at the May 31 meeting or just discuss them.

The Clinton and Obama campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.

By Nedra Pickler, MyWay.com

The protracted and increasingly acrimonious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is unnerving core constituencies — African Americans and wealthy liberals — who are becoming convinced that the party could suffer irreversible harm if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains her sharp line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton’s solid win in the Pennsylvania primary exposed a quandary for the party. Her backers may be convinced that only she can win the white, working-class voters that the Democratic nominee will need in the general election, but many African American leaders say a Clinton nomination — handed to her by superdelegates — would result in a disastrous breach with black voters.

“If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party,” House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. “I’m telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable.”

That fear, plus a more general sense that Clinton’s only route to victory would be through tearing down her opponent, has led even some black Democrats who are officially neutral in the race, such as Clyburn, to speak out.

Clinton’s camp has a vastly different interpretation, arguing that the most recent primary demonstrated that Democrats remain very interested in seeing the contest continue.

“Pennsylvania did the job of calming any nerves that existed,” said Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson. “It showed that the big states around the country think she’s the best person to be president.”

But that opinion is far from unanimous. More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show. Clinton’s lead among superdelegates, a collection of almost 800 party leaders and elected officials, has slipped from 106 in December to 23 now, according to an Associated Press tally.

“If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November,” Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an African American Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton.

Clyburn accused Clinton and her husband yesterday of marginalizing black voters and opening a rift between her campaign and an African American Democratic base that strongly backed Bill Clinton’s presidency. Some surrogates in her camp are trying to render Obama unelectable against the Republican nominee so she could run for the Democratic nomination in 2012, he suggested. The discussion flared up yet again when Bill Clinton suggested this week that Obama’s campaign had played “the race card” after the former president compared the candidate to Jesse Jackson after the South Carolina primary.

“We keep talking as if it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote, because since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he’s in trouble,” Clyburn said. “Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. . . . It’s almost saying black people don’t matter. The only thing that matters is how white people respond. And that’s what bothered me. I think I matter.”

The reemergence of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama’s controversial former longtime pastor, in an appearance on PBS last night may only fan the dispute.

“When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public, that’s not a failure to communicate,” Wright said in an appearance with Bill Moyers. “Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a ‘wackadoodle.’ “

Both campaigns sought yesterday to tamp down a race controversy, appealing for Democrats to stay focused on winning back the White House.

“I never believe in irreparable breaches. I’m a big believer in reconciliation and redemption,” Obama told reporters in Indianapolis. “So, look, this has been a fierce contest. I’ve said repeatedly: Come August, there will be a whole lot of people standing on a stage with a lot of balloons and confetti raining down on the Democratic nominee, and people are going to be excited about taking on John McCain in November.”

Campaigning for Clinton in Gary, Ind., yesterday, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio), who is black, said she does not share her colleagues’ concerns. “I don’t think Bill and Hillary Clinton will ‘do anything’ to win this election,” she said. “They are trying to be successful, but I disagree they will do anything or they are trying to hurt Barack Obama.” She added that black voters “are not a monolith, and we recognize the importance of this election.”

There are signs that the anger voiced by some African Americans is beginning to extend to the Democratic donor base. Campaign finance records released this week show that a growing number of Clinton’s early supporters migrated to Obama in March, after he achieved 11 straight victories. Of those who had previously made maximum contributions to Clinton, 73 wrote their first checks to Obama in March. The reverse was not true: Of those who had made large contributions to Obama last year, none wrote checks to Clinton in March.

“I think she is destroying the Democratic Party,” said New York lawyer Daniel Berger, who had backed Clinton with the maximum allowable donation of $2,300. “That there’s no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama], I just don’t like it. So in my own little way, I’m trying to send her a message.”

The message came in the form of a $2,300 contribution to Obama.

Donors are not the only ones who have made the leap. Gabriel Guerra-Mondragón served as an ambassador to Chile during Bill Clinton’s presidency, considered himself a close friend of Sen. Clinton, and became a “Hill-raiser” by bringing in about $500,000 for her presidential bid.

But he had a fitful few weeks as the battle between Clinton and Obama turned increasingly negative. Last week, he decided he had seen enough.

“We’re just bleeding each other out,” Guerra-Mondragón said when asked why he had decided to join Obama’s finance committee. “Looking at it as coldly as I can, I just don’t see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I want this fight to be over — the quicker, the better.”

The Obama converts include William Louis-Dreyfus. The billionaire New York financier said he had been impressed by Clinton’s performance in the Senate and distressed by eight years of the Bush administration when he donated the maximum to her campaign last August. Then, he said, he began watching more closely.

“However much one might have supported the Clintons, or one might support the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, I began to believe Obama represents a new approach. He gives off such a sense of relevance that he’s sort of irresistible,” Louis-Dreyfus said.

He also expressed, as did other big givers who crossed to Obama, exasperation about the tone of the Clinton campaign and frustration with the candidate herself.

“At the end of the day, all she had to do was open her mouth for me not to believe her,” Louis-Dreyfus said.

By Jonathan Weisman and Matthew Mosk, The Washington Post

Hillary Clinton won an impressive victory over Barack Obama last night, winning by an 55%-45% margin. Her victory was impressive for a number of reasons:

What’s wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face — including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference — verbal, visual or otherwise — to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.

The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s chief strategist, appeared with me on “Meet the Press.” He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring “the changes necessary” to Washington, and his answer was “no.” This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race — including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as “the master of a broken system.”

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand, it’s perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what’s right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama’s preparedness to the voters.

Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?

I am not making any bones about the fact that our campaign has pointed out what we believe are legitimate differences between Clinton and Obama on important issues. We have spoken out when we thought the Obama campaign made false distinctions, such as when it ran advertising in Pennsylvania on standing up to oil companies, particularly when Clinton was the one who did stand up to the oil companies by voting against the Bush-Cheney energy bill. And we believed it was appropriate to debate Obama’s comments about working people in small towns, because they expressed a view of small-town Americans with which Hillary Clinton strongly disagrees.

But throughout that debate, Clinton deliberately focused on the content of Obama’s comments without making sweeping statements about his character.

It’s an important distinction. The Obama campaign has chosen from its inception not to treat Clinton with the same respect. In fact, the Obama campaign has made an unprecedented assault on her character — not her positions, but her character — saying one thing about raising the tone of political discourse but acting quite differently in its treatment of Clinton.

Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, held a conference call with reporters and called Hillary “one of the most secretive politicians in America today” — a striking personal charge in the era of Dick Cheney.

Axelrod described Clinton as having “a special interest obsession.”

Obama himself has joined the character assault from time to time, saying, for example, that Clinton “doesn’t have the sense that things need to change in Washington” — a patently false and demeaning observation.

In the Philadelphia debate last week, Obama incorrectly said that his campaign addressed Hillary’s misstatements on Bosnia only when asked to by reporters. In fact, Obama’s campaign has organized several conference calls on the topic, including one this past weekend in which the featured speaker said that Clinton lacks “the moral authority to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day” (a statement the Obama campaign thankfully repudiated after we called it on it). Even though many reporters participated in those calls, Obama’s misstatement in Philadelphia was almost completely ignored.

The bottom line is that one campaign really has engaged in a mean-spirited, unfair character attack on the other candidate — but it has been Obama’s campaign, not ours. You would be hard-pressed to find significant analogues from our candidate, our senior campaign officials or our advertising to the direct personal statements that the Obama campaign has made about Clinton.

The problem is that the Obama campaign holds itself to a different standard than the one to which it holds us — and sometimes the media do, too.

Hillary Clinton is a strong and determined person, and she will continue to discuss real solutions to America’s problems and the need for strong leadership to implement those solutions — even if she must play by a different set of rules than Barack Obama. But wouldn’t it be better if in this campaign what’s good for the goose were also good for the gander? After all, in America, fair is supposed to be fair.

By Geoff Garin, Washington Post

Sen. Hillary Clinton is widely expected to lose North Carolina’s Democratic presidential primary on May 6, but that isn’t stopping her campaign from spending millions of dollars on advertising and holding rallies in dozens of communities throughout the state.

Sen. Clinton wants to avoid the kind of blowout loss to Sen. Barack Obama she suffered in South Carolina in January. She is trying to demonstrate the breadth of her support to Democratic elected officials and other superdelegates who will sway the decision on the party’s nominationNorth Carolina has a large population of the economically hard-hit rural white voters among whom Sen. Clinton has fared well in recent contests. Thursday, Sen. Clinton held rallies in Fayetteville and Asheville. She is expected to visit a fire station in Jacksonville on Friday.

“This has to be an election when voters actually hear specific solutions,” Sen. Clinton said at a “Solutions for a Strong Military” event at Methodist University in Fayetteville, near the Fort Bragg Army base. “We cannot have a leap of faith or a lot of guesswork in this election.”

North Carolina offers 115 delegates, and roughly 38% of the state’s registered Democrats are African-American, a demographic that favors Sen. Obama. According to exit polls, Sen. Obama captured 90% of black voters Tuesday in the Pennsylvania primary. Still, Sen. Clinton beat Sen. Obama in Pennsylvania by 55% to 45%.

A Public Policy Polling survey of likely voters conducted April 19-20 put Sen. Obama ahead in North Carolina, 57% to 32%.

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe visited North Carolina twice last week to open offices. “We’re spending everywhere … and we’re going to move ahead in the popular vote,” Mr. McAuliffe said of the remaining nine contests.

Ace Smith, Clinton campaign director for North Carolina, said the campaign would be happy if it could narrow the gap to single digits. “There’s no question that this is an uphill battle; winning here would be the upset of the century,” said Mr. Smith, who headed Sen. Clinton’s operations in Texas and California.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters he expects his candidate to make up in North Carolina for the delegates Sen. Clinton gained in Pennsylvania.

Given Sen. Obama’s double-digit lead in recent polls, many observers expected the Clinton campaign to concede North Carolina and pour its limited resources into tightly contested Indiana, which offers 72 delegates and also votes May 6. Instead, the campaign has opened roughly 20 offices around North Carolina and is expanding its staff of more than 50 paid employees. A $10 million cash infusion in the 24 hours after Sen. Clinton’s Pennsylvania victory is helping.

Sen. Clinton trails in the race for delegates, 1,592 to 1,723, according to the Associated Press. A total of 2,025 is needed to secure the nomination. Her campaign is hoping a decent showing in North Carolina and a win in Indiana would put her ahead in the popular vote.

Sen. Obama campaigned throughout North Carolina last week. As of Thursday, he had no further events scheduled there. The Obama campaign recently announced that nearly 50 local politicians and community leaders in North Carolina who had backed former Sen. John Edwards now support Sen. Obama.

After six weeks of attack ads by both candidates in Pennsylvania, Mr. Smith says his campaign needed to take a different approach in North Carolina. It has started a state-specific television and online initiative called “NC Ask Me,” in which voters can ask questions online. The campaign then airs advertisements in which Sen. Clinton answers select questions.

Former President Clinton kicked off a five-town tour Wednesday in Hillsborough, population 5,446, which last had a visit from a president when Ronald Reagan passed through on a train in the 1980s.

By Amy Chozick, The Wall Street Journal

With all the talk among the Democratic presidential hopefuls about change, they may wish to consider this as they wanderIndiana: People here practically revolted a few years ago when their governor, Mitch Daniels, pushed to change to daylight saving time like most of the country.

Change, it seems, may not carry quite the same political magic in this state as it has elsewhere.

“We hold onto a lot of traditional values,” said Brian L. Thomas, 39, as he bought a cup of coffee along the courthouse square here on Wednesday. “Saying you’re ready to change is probably not the best or only thing you would want to say around these parts. Frankly, we want it to be like it used to be.”

Many of the two dozen voters interviewed in this central Indiana manufacturing city of 46,000 expressed queasiness over the notions of change that both Democratic candidates have proudly pledged elsewhere. Though residents bemoaned economic conditions that have taken away thousands of factory jobs and given the state the 11th-highest rate of foreclosures, they also said they worried about doing things — anything — very differently.

“What are we going to change to?” asked Ron O’Bryan, 58, a retired auto worker who said he was still trying to decide which Democrat to vote for in the May 6 primary. “You mean change to some other country’s system? What do you think they mean?”

Jeremy Lewis, a 28-year-old window washer, said simply, “Old-fashioned can be in a good way.”

As the Democratic presidential hopefuls turned to Indiana as a new battleground in the fight for the nomination, they find themselves facing a different audience in places like Kokomo, a blue-collar city in the middle of endless expanses of farms north of Indianapolis. In some ways, these are voters not so unlike those in other Rust Belt states, like Pennsylvania, but with an added dose of nostalgia and a practical, Midwestern sensibility.

“We are manufacturing workers, farmers, beer drinkers, gun owners, pickup drivers,” said Karen Lasley, 64, who was volunteering on Wednesday morning in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s field office in Kokomo (one of 28 Mrs. Clinton has opened around the state along with SenatorBarack Obama’s 22, including one just down the street). “We are full of pride for this country.”

Politically, though, Indiana is by no means monolithic: its terrain is more of a quilt, as elaborate as its tangled time-zone map, complicating matters for the campaigns as they decide where to devote time and money.

Northwest Indiana, often viewed as an extension of suburban Chicago and sharing Chicago’s television market, is seen as strong territory for Mr. Obama, who lives on the South Side of Chicago. Indianapolis, the state capital, which includes a large segment of Indiana’s 9 percent African-American population, is also expected to lean toward Mr. Obama. In the blue-collar, rural parts south of Indianapolis, where the residents often have stronger links to Kentucky than to Illinois (or even Indiana), Mrs. Clinton is expected to have the advantage.

As with so many recent primaries, no one — here or elsewhere — ever anticipated that Indiana’s presidential primary would matter much. For 40 years, the primary here has come too late, so the change comes as a shock to voters who rarely had seen presidential campaign advertisements, to political organizers and to overwhelmed election registrars.

And unlike some other states, including Pennsylvania, Indiana has mostly been ignored in general elections, too. It has long been written off by both parties as so reliably Republican in presidential races as to not be worth much note. After 1936, a Democratic presidential candidate has won the general election here only once, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

“Every year, two minutes after our polls close, they declare Indiana for the Republicans and that’s that,” Bob Stephenson, the local Democratic chairman said. “This is really something special to have people listening.”

There are 72 delegates at stake, and this is an open primary; in practice, anyone may choose a Democratic ballot, though state officials say technically there is a provision allowing voters to be challenged if they are believed to be switching party affiliations at the polls. Some 4.3 million voters are registered in the state, including 200,000 new voters this year. More than 50,000 people have already cast ballots in early voting.

Mr. Stephenson has fretted over whether there will be enough ballots printed here to handle the expected onslaught of voters and has struggled to find enough poll workers who are not already volunteering for the Clinton or Obama campaigns.

Around the state, the candidates are battling for endorsements. Lee H. Hamilton, the former congressman, has endorsed Mr. Obama, while Mrs. Clinton has the support of Senator Evan Bayh, and Dan Parker, the state party chairman. Some political analysts here, though, played down the significance of the state party’s political apparatus for getting out the vote.

Even Greg Goodnight, the new mayor of Kokomo, said he had been astonished by the telephone calls he had been getting lately: Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton each sought his blessing. He shows visitors a separate letter from former President Bill Clinton, still in its envelope, on his desk, but he has yet to take sides.

Mr. Goodnight and others here say the race is certain to hinge on the economy. Indiana has lost about one in six of its manufacturing jobs since 2001, and Kokomo has similarly struggled. One plant here employed 300 people not long ago, Mr. Goodnight said; today, 20 workers tend to a warehouse of products imported from other countries.

“Indiana and Kokomo are a good reflection of the rest of the country,” said Mr. Goodnight, a Democrat who once worked in a factory and whose office bookshelf includes a biography of Harry S. Truman; “Dude, Where’s My Country?” by Michael Moore; and the Bible. “Places like Kokomo cannot handle even four more years of these economic policies.”

Everyone in this town — everyone of a certain age, at least — seems to remember exactly where they were the last time a presidential primary election in this state counted for anything. Some recall skipping class or slipping out of work. The year was 1968, and the eventual winner, Robert F. Kennedy, came right through Kokomo and spoke on the courthouse square.

By Monica Davey, The New York Times