Now it's time for the slime machine to be turned on to the Clinton campaign. See this item by Mickey Kaus in his blog this a.m. at Slate dot com:

Undernews Alert--The Barrett Report's redacted pages? Clinton skeptics were disappointed when special counsel David Barrett's report didn't prove rampant Clintonian abuse of the IRS. (See here, search for "Kahoutek"). But some 120 pages of the report had been redacted. Did John Kerry endorse Obama rather than Clinton because he's seen what's in them? Mark Goodman suggests as much. The obvious problem with this theory is that if, as Goodman admits, the redacted pages "can be exhumed on demand by any member of Congress," you'd think that at least one of the 535 members would be enough of a Hillary enemy to have obtained and leaked any sensational charges they contain by now.

The actual turnout by race for the 2004 Dem Primary is in the SCDP voter file, and it showed a 50/50 split between white and African American voters. Turnout for state primaries (e.g., 2006) isn't a great barometer for presidential primaries, since the Dem slate typically has fewer races than the GOP slate. As a result, it skews toward core Democrats, and African American voters  represent a higher share of the electorate.

I see Joe and Mika are stating to backtrack on the clintons race baiting.----they say they probably made a mistake.Well duh---most of us have already chimed in to say the media has carried out this slugfest of race and gender.Too late the horse is out of the barn---they have succeeded in dividing the democrats and chased several dems into voting Republican.I hope they are being praised or paid by the neocons for once again throwing an election.

Polls are nothing more than meaningless to the general public! They generate hate, anger, incite, polarize, split the national unity, serve as a Media glitter. The Media does make or brake, it can be biased, less than truthful, indulged to destroy, content, or out right ruthless! Polls bring out self opinion, more over they are seeking to generate either the negative and less the positive. The Media thrives negativity.

As for the Clinton's , they need not the polls. The Clinton's on their own generate more scandal, immoral conduct, lies, back stabbing. The general public follows them like lost sheep in a snow storm.

The Clinton's are like two bank robbers planning their next heist! Are you going to be their get away driver?

Turned on the MSNBC to see about the S.C. primary. David and some female reporter, after almost a 30 minutes. She said she needed to give a "disclaimer" because her father and brother were working with the Obama campaign. Hello-you would never know! Her comments were just gushing when she spoke about Obama. After a couple of more quest.they talked with Joan, who I think is with Salon. The conversation on the morning of the N.H. Primary was revealing. The Dr. King, JFK and LBJ conversation came up. It was MSNBC that started up the race issue and since has blamed it on the Clinton's. Your bias reporting is disgraceful.

Spin...spin...spin

Halli Casser-Jayne
THE CJ POLITICAL REPORT
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

How is it that everyone has forgotten that hillary clinton was ask the first question in the debate in south carolina starting the termoil between Obama and hillary?

YOU, JOE, MIKA, CHRIS & the rest of you power hungry media men and don't forget MIKA (who wants to be a man) = RACE WAS IN THE RACE WHEN OBAMA ENTERED THE RACE. It amazes me how whites speak about RACE & RACISM. Obama does not have my vote and I don't live in SC but TN and I am BLACK (and proud)

Enough already of your racial divisiness.  The Clintons cannot say anything that you don't perceive as being racist.  You have spent all morning talking about the Clintons race-baiting.  Maybe you should look at yourselves.  You quote higher ups in the democratic party putting down Clinton.  Gee, these are the same people that are for Obama.  Did you ever hear of spin.  Just stop it.

An opinion on the "race" issue. In every election in the past there have been polls on the percentage of black or white response to issues.  This election that poll has been discussed by all media as a response to Obama (black candidate) or Clinton (white candidate).  If the comments were controlled to black or white ISSUES responses and not personalized, I believe it would get the focus back on those issues, and read the percentages as responses to ISSUES, rather than to race.  Nothing has really changed, except for the semantics of focusing on persons simply because we now have a black and TWO white candidates.  SECOND POINT: All references seem to have become "Obama and Hillary"- and Edwards as an afterthought.  This also influences voters.  He is being PRESENTED as an afterthought!!  Why can't you refer to our THREE candidates, and let the voters discover where any one of them rank -  we can all read the polls.  But as long as Edwards is in the race, he deserves to be included equally as far as presenting information and making comparisons.  PLEASE DON'T ELIMINATE HIM BY PROXY IN YOUR SHOWS.

It is a seriously sad statement of the state of the country when race is a qualifier for elected officials instead of political positions on issues. This kind of politics (racial prejudice)is what got Hitler elected to office.

why is the media playing the race card its crazy to think that blacks will vote for a black cuz he's black  trust we have our own mind black people will vote for who great for the US also while white America and the media is talking about race damn yall been voting for white people and putting them in the "white house" for years so please dont go there if you really wanna do the race thing

yes Chuckie you have done a good job on the race gender split.

i am a white woman living in wisconsin and i have been a fan of barack obama's for over two years since i read his book, "dreams of my father". part of what attracts me to his candidacy is that he seems to transcend race. please don't spend so much time focusing on the race issue. it only creates divisions where there don't need to be any. p.s. i voted for bill clinton twice and i still admire the work he has done but i don't like what he and hillary have injected into this election. i will vote for hillary if she is the nominee but i think barack obama is the best person to lead our country into a new age of civility and cooperation in politics. he has my vote first.

If Hillary Clinton gets less than 50% of the total white vote, does that mean that white Americans rejected her?  This is such bunk; it’s a case of an agenda setting media at its worse.  You sit there and wring your hands about how balkanized America is, then when an African American runs a candidacy based on the content of his character instead of the color of his skin; the Mass Media obsesses about the influence of race. You perpetuate the fomentation of racial politics, and then when the prophecy is fulfilled, you sit there and "report" on it as if though it was a spontaneous combustion.

If we are going to talk about this nonsense, could you please tell your readers what percentage of votes a typical African American elected official gets in a statewide race?  Has South Carolina ever elected an official for a state wide office?  Is it fair to say that if the average African American candidate in a statewide race historically gets less than 5% of the "white vote" and Obama gets close to 20% of the white vote that in fact this represents a tectonic shift in the mindset of white voters in South Carolina?? You are a reporter, while I am not saying be biased in one way or another, please do your readers a service and give us a fuller picture instead of setting an agenda for us.

I know you guys have talked about this, if only briefly, but (and I'm gonna sound like a push poll here):

1) Did you note an upward trend in race-based stories regarding Senator Obama's candidacy post the Iowa Caucuses?

2) Are you absolutely certain that placing race or gender at the center of nearly all of your discussions - even choosing commentators on that basis - is in the best interests of American political unity?

3) Do you believe that South Carolina - which is steeped in a history rife with racial tension - represents a fair sampling in terms of a political demographic map for the Obama campaign?

Chuck Todd reports on this issue courageously - given the "third rail" aspect of race - yet I am wondering whether or not he is overcompensating and, in the process, under-representing the many "white" folks (like me) that never did and never will conceive of Senator Obama as a "black" candidate.

Here I am reminded of how Sidney Poitier bristled when the press him to discuss his 1963 Best Actor Oscar (for "Lilies of the Field") in the context of "the first black man to . . ."

I think our children and theirs may watch old video of our discussions regarding Senator Obama's candidacy with a mixture of sadness and revulsion.

Please note, I'm not trying to be overly critical, as there is never a "right" way to report the news - particularly in an election as divisive as this one.

I'm just thinking "out loud."

If we get a black president, then we can get drug use decriminalized, and empty the overcrowded prisons. Maybe that reparations issue can finally get resolved. All that money going to the poor people who will spend it right away, can relly help our economy.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):