So I just threw up a bit in my mouth...

Hi, there. I'm relatively new around here, so let me introduce myself first. I'm a young woman, still a student, in Montreal who follows politics the way some people follow soap operas. There's nothing like watching a televised political debate while blogging with one hand and shovelling in hot, buttered popcorn with the other. Oh, yum. Usually, Quebec politics keep me busy enough (rule of thumb: when it comes to politics, and some other things, French Canadians do it better than the Anglophones). But I have to hand it to you Americans: this year's election season is... well, it's my hot hot sex, to quote the iPod Touch commercials. And boy, does the American media know how to put on a show. You guys have turned democracy into a multibillion dollar entertainment industry! (That is only meant to be a little snarky... truly, I admire how involved your country is in this election.)

So I woke up this morning, read Drudge, the great Orange Monster (dKos), HuffPo, Talking Points Memo, Politico (yeah, I feel dirty)... my usual rounds... then steeped some coffee in the bodum and turned on the TV to see what CNN was talking about (they make me want to laugh and cry at the same time). There was an interview with the reclusive former president Bill Clinton. The question was, do you have any regrets about the way you behaved during your wife's campaign? Somehow, it was immediately obvious to me, and apparently to president Clinton as well, that the reporter was referring to some comments made in South Carolina which many perceived as racist, or "playing the race card." I remember that Bill Clinton had tried to diminish Obama's victory in SC by commenting that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice."

Clinton defended himself by saying that he was "not a racist" and had never "attacked Obama personally." Then --- and this is what really gets me --- we go back to the CNN studio, where John Roberts says, "but isn't Bill Clinton playing the race card by bringing that up? I thought we were trying to get away from race in this election."

I swear, I choked up an entire mouthful of my arabian mocha sanani. (I'm a card-carrying latte-sipping liberal who is working part-time at Starbucks this summer, so the Right can hate me for having pretentious tastes and the Left can hate me for working at Starbucks.) Anyway, I could not believe that Roberts had the testicular fortitude to say that he thought "we were trying to get away from race in this election."

What!? Who's "we"?! Certainly not the media! After the media pounced on Bill Clinton for those SC comments (rightly or wrongly, but either way they dragged it out for way too long), then, ever so subtly asked him about it again in this interview, then accused him a second time of playing the "race card" when he tried to answer their question... it was too much for me. I had to turn it off. And that rarely happens. Usually, I enjoy yelling back at the screen and then blogging about it in CAPS.

It's come to the point where the phrase "race card" is used whenever anyone makes any reference at all, in any way, to race in this election. For example, I think the media unfairly accused McCain's campaign of using the "race card" when he aired that commercial juxtaposing Paris Hilton with Barack Obama (apparently some on the Left thought the ad was targeting people who are uneasy about mixed race couples... an argument I can't wrap my head around at all.) And I think the media unfairly accused Obama's campaign of using the "race card" when he stated the obvious fact that McCain is trying to make people nervous about voting for him because he "doesn't look like other presidents."

Here's what I want to talk about in this thread. Do you think either campaign has used to so-called "race card," or do you think that this is just a phrase the media likes to throw around because it produces ratings and sells papers? (What is the "race card"? Does anybody know what this phrase actually means?)

LMAO, I am a political whore too, hugs from a fellow fetish sharing girl

the media in america (and well the for the most part in the rest of the world that have capitalism) so far as i have seen, is like an animal that is allways on the prowl for the scent of controversy mainly becuase it smells ratings

for the most part it engenders the use of the "race card" or is quick to pounce on any allucations of it's use

in the USA the race card is a paticularly sticky wickett due to its relationship to slavery and later peonage in our history, (see american civil war), and thus provides rich controversial fodder for the media

both cantidates will at the same time avoid playing the card in an obvious manner (that is they will each claim they dont see race as an issue and or obfuscate any media attempts to point out its use) yet you will see them play the race card from the bottom of the deck so to speak as the camppagin continues because it really is lurking inthe back of thier minds, as well as capitalize on the medias tendencies and outright accuse each other of using it to thier advantage

its like two moths circiling a light bulb daring the other to get closer as they get closer themselves hopeing the other one gets burnned first , all while the media cajoles them and cheers/geers thier efforts like the mob did gladiators in the arena

for our media like the mob in rome, any blood will do

oh btw the race card is most likely a colloquial refference to any situational modifier in the social and political arenas that brings tyhe issue of race into question, the long struggle for civil liberties and equal rights for all races here has everyone ultra sensitive to the issue weather they wish to admit it or not, and precieved falsely or not discrimination does still pervade every level of our culture as well as many others peoples of the world

Yes, I know & understand the history and politics which cause race to be a sensitive issue in the United States. This isn't exactly what I meant by "what is the race card?"

What I mean is, the media clearly use the phrase as a way of saying that someone has used the issue of race in the campaign with malicious intent. And yet they use the phrase so precipitously and pervasively that it seems to me that the media judges any mention of race in the campaign as evidence of malicious intent.

The Wright controversy that nearly sunk Obama's primary campaign forced the Illinois Senator to give a speech about race, in the hopes of avoiding political catastrophe. I think that the speech he gave, although motivated by politics, rose above politics for a few minutes and addressed the issue of race in an honest, mature, genuine way. It has been a long time since I have seen a politician with the guts to speak to voters as if they were mature, thinking human beings. I had to admire Obama for both his honesty... and his political guile. I think that speech might have saved his campaign.

But, with a few exceptions, the media has not made the same effort to speak about race seriously. I think they have capitalized on what has been and continues to be one of America's most painful issues in order to enhance the apparent drama of this election.

So then there's another question: who's to blame? I mean, do we blame the media, or do we blame ourselves, consumer, for rewarding the media for dwelling on this bullshit? The ad revenues for fast-food media tells us loud and clear: they're just giving us what we want. Or, perhaps more true, they're giving us what we're willing to buy.

Is it the media's responsibility to deliver a mature, sensible dialogue about race? Or is it our responsibility to demand one?

on the question of the media in my opinion it is "both"

unfortunately its all comer******m now for the most part on thier front, i find much more open dialogue on the internet as opposed to the mainstream