Justice Hugo Black was responsible for some landmark civil rights rulings, despite also having been a Klansman in his youth.
But Thurmond never recanted.
They didn’t say he said it privately to them. Somebody else spilled the beans to them about what Reid had said in private.
Well, the article neither explicitly says that, nor does it explicitly say otherwise; the following two paragraphs, however, seem to undercut the notion that they were working with a secondhand report:
ISTM that if they got the substance of that conversation from a third party and didn’t tell Reid that they had it, they certainly did burn him.
Wow. If he’d talked like that, I think my southern church wouldn’t have been mostly Palin supporters. The only reason they gave for liking Palin was her church background. Obama would have fit in perfectly, even at my all-white church.
You may call the source biased, but anyone can verify what he says. I think it’s pretty accurate and fairly comprehensive.
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/wilentz-blows-lid-off-obama-race-baiting-campaign/
Aside from the fact that your cite is ridiculously tendentious and biased, it does not contain any actual examples of Obama engaging in race baiting. It just tries to attribute the tactic to him via (mostly extremely lame) examples of race being invoked by others, not by Obama himself.
Can you cite a specific example of Obama himself (not Jesse Jackson Jr., or a NY Times editorial) engaing in what you would characterize as race baiting?
He basically never did it, period.
It takes more to race bait than just, you know, being black.
As a Republican:
Pleeeeeeease don’t get rid of Reid as Majority Leader. The longer he’s in, the more seats we get in the mid-term election.
That’s naive. He was in charge of his campaign. He could muzzle his surrogates just as effectively as he can make them start. And he can stop it by making definitive statements instead of letting the race-baiting roll when it’s shown to help him in the polls. There are a number of instances there that actually came directly from the campaign.
Right now, there are about three Republican Parties, differing mostly on their respective commitments to batshitism. Which one are you?
Ah, no, actually, no he can’t. That sort of crisply rigorous discipline and sharply defined authoritarian structure is, no doubt, a very effective approach, but Obama is a Democrat.
About 99% of the stuff in that article has nothing to do with race, much less baiting. 
You know what I mean. It doesn’t have to be authoritarian. The fact is, he CAN stop his surrogates from race-baiting.
Not when you define “race baiting” as “campaigning while black” he can’t.
I didn’t see anything on that list that came from the campaign that would qualify as “race baiting.”
Heh. Actually that was George Bush and Karl Rove’s attitude towards Trent Lott way back when. It wasn’t liberals who gave Lott the final heave ho. It was the Bush admin.
In 2005 Lott returned the favor and slipped the shiv into Rove
As for Paleface’s point that the Civil Rights Act had substantial Republican support: so what? There used to be an animal known as the liberal Republican. But they were drummed out of the tent starting in the 1970s. By the 1990s, they were extinct in Washington DC. In the hinterlands, what remains is farce: for example the so-called Republicans for Choice PAC has raised $5.5 million, but has forwarded less than 5% of that amount to -you know- actual candidates. The remainder has lined the pockets of Roger Stone’s wife.
Not a single person is going to change their vote in November because Harry Reid said “negro.” Not a single person in America is even genuinely offended by it, least of all Republicans.
But some people might change their vote because Reid is not all too popular in his home state, and now he has the taint of scandal attached to him. The Republicans don’t really care about whether he’s the majority leader or not (I think), but whether or not they can flip his seat to a Pubbie in November. There’s a good chance that will happen, and the more negative news there is associated with him, the worse it is.
This is politics, remember.
What scandal is that?
He has no taint of scandal. Whatever problems he will have will have nothing to do with “negrogate.”