In reference to Keith Olbermann's special comment last night, something he said got me thinking deeper into the issue. "People now see a pattern of racially-tinged remarks and associations" within the Clinton campaign. I began to recall the previous dust-ups regarding race-related comments about Obama eminating from the surrogates of the Clinton campaign and how long it took for the person who said them to be dealt with.
Let's start with Billy Shaheen, the former co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire, who, on December 12, 2007, raised the issue of Obama's past drug use as a potential problem in the general election. The next day, he resigned.
Next, we have Robert Johnson, founder of BET. On January 13, 2008 he made a statement regarding Obama's admitted drug use as a teenager when introducing Clinton at a campaign event in South Carolina, which drew ire from nearly everyone in the Obama campaign. The statement lingered in the MSM for four days until Johnson apologized.
Next, we have President Clinton on January 26, 2008 and his comparison of Obama's win in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson's bid. "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." If you will remember that these comments stayed in the media for quite a few days and, to my recollection, were never "denounced and rejected" by anyone in the Clinton campaign.
Lastly, up to this point at least, Geraldine Ferraro. We all know what she had been saying and how the media reported on it endlessly for over a week until she finally "stepped down."
The pattern seen here, by me at least, by not immediately condemning the remarks and removing the person from the campaign, the comments linger in the MSM for days. Could this be a deliberate tactic to allow the media to repeat the comments over and over again until they get fully played out and have the desired effect without getting your hands dirty?