According to an article at the New Republic, it is apparently all Obama's fault that the race card ever came up.
Sean Wilentz's article Race Man
He claims (without sources of course) that Obama backers were planning the race baiting even before the Iowa caucuses. Apparently Obama backers, not Chris Matthews or Pat Buchanan introduced the stupid Bradley effect meme after the New Hampshire loss.
But instead, Clinton won outright, amazing her own delighted supporters and galling the Obama campaign. That evening, the Democratic campaign became truly tangled up in racial politics--directly and forcefully introduced by the pro-Obama forces. In order to explain away the shocking loss, Obama backers vigorously spread the claim that the so-called Bradley Effect had kicked in.
And who are his sources for suggesting that the Obama campaign introduced the Bradley effect?
Senior Clinton campaign officials later told me that reporters contacted them saying that the Obama camp was pushing them very hard to spin Clinton's victory as the latest Bradley Effect result.
This is revisionist history and deeply troubling. Obama himself has said MULTIPLE times that the reason Hillary won in New Hampshire is that she ran a good campaign. Obama did not compare himself to Jesse Jackson.
Obama had the most to lose by making racial references and elevating discussion on race issues to the forefront.
The article is really a piece of work. He criticizes many other aspects of the Obama campaign as well and promotes the meme that the media is
in the tank for Obama.
Really? If the media is in the tank for Obama, why does he even have to keep defending his middle name? Should the media not do the job by providing readers with the proper context about his background.
Did George HW Bush have to defend his patriotism for not wearing a flag lapel pin?