I'll say only this:

The last person that wanted race to become any kind of an issue in this campaign is Obama. I'm not sure he's handled everything as well as he could have, but he clearly was/is running as a "beyond race" black man. He's avoided all of the clearly identifiable issues that would mark him as a "black" candidate. His entire run was about transcending race. It's an absolute campaign killer for him to be identified strongly as "the black candidate". And you can be sure, he knows it.

I give Obama tremendous credit for that. I don't know if the same is true for some of the people who run Obama's campaign though.

. . . to his advantage.

Sure, he may not have wanted to talk about race. But, many of his supporters have inevitably weaved his race (and others' reaction to it) into their discussions, and even advocacy. In those efforts, there is always the potential for folly and unintended ripple effects, as others react and weigh in.

I don't think the insertion of Obama's race as a campaign issue, in and of itself, is the problem. I think the way it was raised, in the midst of political attacks on each other, from the candidates and the campaigns, allowed the subject to be used by others as a political weapon. Both campaigns were drawn into this.

If the discussion is steered back to something which isn't about the candidates, back to the concerns of voters, then its discussion can be managed in a responsible way. As long as that discussion centers on the candidates, the arguments will just become, mostly, a referendum on Obama's race.

It is a de facto issue based on the integral components of the election.

No one wanted it to be about the sex of the candidates either. But it is.

Wait until the demographics come out on South Carolina Saturday. There are 629,000 registered "non-white" voters there. They typically come out in the 80% area. I say there will be more than 80%. Maybe even 90%.

I don't have the male/female stats. But we can almost predict how they will turn out.

We shall see.

But somebody needs to tell Michelle Obama this. Just watched her on CNN saying something about her husband being the best candidate and that it's too bad he also happens to be a black man.

uh yeah

The press has been pushing race since well before any primary. I guess I'm the only one who noticed it, though. I have found it offensive all along, because they're trying to force this election to be about either race or gender, when both candidates are more than just their race or gender.

Since I am not in on either campaign's strategy meetings, I have to take a broad view with high standards of evidence.

If Senator Obama lost South Carolina his campaign would have been over on the spot. So it is wrong to make deductions about his campaign strategy based solely on what benefits him in the long run.

Not only does he need a win in SC, but his only opportunity to make a PR splash leading into Super Tuesday is to run up the score in SC... to win BIG. The only avenue for him to win BIG lies in the black vote. There was never an avenues by which he could gain 70% of the white vote in South Carolina... not because they are all racists, but because a lot of white people genuinely like Hillary and want to vote for her affirmatively, not to vote against Barack.

Senator Obama benefits immensely from being 'the black candidate' in South Carolina, which is a make-or-break must win. Since the campaign became racially tinged he has almost doubled his black support there, and across the nation. Hillary has not seen a comparable gain among white voters.

It is not obvious who (other than the media) injected race in the campaign. The only clearly racial incident (the MLK business) was not a Clinton effort at all. She and her campaign did everything possible to down-play and defuse that story, not to milk it. I see the MLK flap as a stunt pulled off spontaneously by free-lancing Obama fans, not by the Obama campaign, But when it became obvious that it has become a story, the Obama campaign was content to let it run for a while. That may have been a long-term miscalculation, but since his polls in SC were rising every day it's just not that obvious that the Obama campaign was desperate for it to go away.

In Summation: You are assuming (taking a series of posts in total) that any development that might harm Obama's campaign long term must be driven by the Clinton campaign, as if the Obama campaign is incapable of error. And you are under-estimating how badly the Obama campaign needs to make a splash. As it stands, he is going to get killed on super tuesday.

When you have few options you often have to chose between bad and worse. Being 'the black candidate' is a powerful short-term strategy. Also, consider the way super Tuesday results will be reported. In a racially tinged race, Senator Obama may get fewer votes nationally, but win more states than he would otherwise, which in media terms is valuable. (I haven't studied the map. I am just noting that winning, say, NC is potentially more valuable in perceptual terms than losing California more narrowly, even if the California move would represent more delegates.

Also, public perception of who is 'the black candidate' do not come from an opponent saying "You're Black!" That perception comes from observing who supports a candidate... his endorsers, his crowds. And comes from observing the nature of his appeal... his issues, his manner.

As black America, previously somewhat on the fence, flocked to Barack after Iowa it created a strong media impression that his support was primarily black, and that's what voters really key on, not nuances of campaign rhetoric. (That may not be what he desired, but there is no way a black candidate's national black support goes from 45% to 80% in a week without the media picking up on it as a racial story.)

A few good comments in my thread as well (#12)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4183159&mesg_id=4183159

rally the base. And he did. If he loses SC, the whole thing becomes irrelevant. To everyone.

I think he had to play the race card to ensure the win in SC even though it has a huge downside with it.

any impression of simple partisanship, but:

From my perspective it looks that that was certainly Obama's goal and intent going into the race. But I also think once things got hard, and his campaign sensed this was a potentially good "market" for him, the ideal was set aside for the practical.

I don't mean this to be an assault on Obama's character, or an offense - especially not to you Cali - nor do I intend it to be part of a tit-for-tat series of accusations. Just saying that's my impression, and hoping that even in this primary season it can be taken as such.

Because it gives them something to wank about.

It was a disgusting question that should have been resoundingly condemned. Obama's answer about having to wait until he sees if he can dance was sublime. It diverted awkwardness and insensitivity with the humor of someone who has been doing it his whole life-trying not to be defined on the color of his skin.

that we live in a country where this is still an issue...

he should watch out for the media because, they are the ones who are doing the baiting..