BET Founder And Hillary Supporter Bob Johnson: Obama Was "Doing Something In The Neighborhood"
There's clearly no love lost between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. During a campaign stop today alongside Hillary, Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson said he was "insulted" by Obama's rhetoric with black voters — and referred to something from Obama's past, which many have interpreted to be about Obama's drug use as a teenager.
"And to me, as an African-American," Johnson said, "I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved."
More after the jump.
The Obama campaign hit back in a statement from a former South Carolina state Rep. "I.S." Leevy Johnson. "It’s offensive that Senator Clinton literally stood by and said nothing as another one of her campaign’s top supporters launched a personal, divisive attack on Barack Obama," he said. "For someone who decries the politics of personal destruction, she should’ve immediately denounced these attacks on the spot."
For his part, Johnson insisted he was not referring to Obama's youthful drug use. "My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else," Johnson said in a issued statement. "Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.
Comments (359)
DRinOH wrote on January 13, 2008 5:29 PM:This is just laughable.
Moishele wrote on January 13, 2008 5:34 PM:For someone who insists they aren't playing the race card the Obama campaign certainly does make everything about race.
Jeremy wrote on January 13, 2008 5:36 PM:I can see why Johnson would not want voters to know about Obama's service as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer. . . unlike Clinton who went for the big bucks in corporate law while burnishing her political resume with some token pro bono stuff.
eorse wrote on January 13, 2008 5:38 PM:Can Clyburn now endorse Obama? Can't he see how Clintons are hurting him/our nation/work of African Americans?
I cannot believe that I voted for the Clinton (male). I will not support his wife. Period.
brm wrote on January 13, 2008 5:39 PM:The Clinton team does not know when to stop.
They are willing to destroy the Democratic party to help Hillary.
Attack unions
Insult young voters
Continue race baiting daily
Please just get them off the Political stage
Jeremy wrote on January 13, 2008 5:39 PM:Moishele wrote on January 13, 2008 5:34 PM:
What the heck are you talking about? Nothing in the Obama response is about race. We know the strategy on the Clinton side is to minimize Obama's potential SC win by putting out the meme that it comes from playing "the race card" but your comment is beyond ridiculous. Leevy Johnson didn't mention race at all. He just denounces the sleazy innuendo from the Clinton camp.
Kevin wrote on January 13, 2008 5:43 PM:In the name of maintaining a white-knuckled death-grip on power, the Clintons continue to shame their legacy.
And with Republicans, the mainstream media, and now apparently the Obama campaign massing "vast conspiracies" against them, it's hard to see how Senator Clinton could unite the country enough to make an effective president regardless.
To paraphrase Margaret Carlson, they cannot find the depths below which they will not sink. That giant sucking sound you'll hear is swing voters -- and very committed Dems -- walking away from her candidacy should she become the Democratic nominee.
NCSteve wrote on January 13, 2008 5:44 PM:Hillary's strategy to racially stratify the S.C. vote so the punditocracy will discount its importance.
1. Blow dogwhistle at all the racist white people you think (in your Yankee naivete) are in the South Carolina Democratic Party.
2. Claim you meant something else entirely and deny that there was any message pitched to the ears of white racists when you're called on it.
3. Act indignant that anyone could have thought you were dog whistling to racists when you've got such a fine reputation as a non-racist and accuse Obama campaign of trying to stir up racial divisiveness (cause that's what they always do, after all, inn't it?).
4. Cackle gleefully as press and bloggers gives you benefit of the doubt for the eighth or ninth time.
5. Repeat.
"Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book"
Then claims he was talking about Obama being a community organizer? Why did he refer to Obama's book?
He's obviously lying, and he should get called on it.
Spike3905 wrote on January 13, 2008 5:45 PM:The Clinton campaign is certainly acting desperate by launching these negative attacks. It's not good for her and certainly not good for the party. After having been the target of such attacks in the past, it's very disappointing to see her do this.
Tom wrote on January 13, 2008 5:47 PM:" I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book"
You won't say he was doing community organizing? That's about as believable as the Clintons' attacks on Obama's Iraq War stance.
toni c wrote on January 13, 2008 5:47 PM:clinton has simply caluated that she will lose SC.
However the HRC campaign wants the nation to have the impression that Obama won SC BECAUSE of race. That could give them a reverse backlash in other states.
I truly beleive this is their calcuation at this point. I'm done with Hillary and this continuing nonsense. I'll vote against her at this point even if she is the nominee.
they don't care about SC anymore. They have already "Roved it" to FEB 5th.
Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 5:49 PM:I always hated BET. Now I know why. Bob Johnson is an Uncle Tom. Yep, I said it. This type of bs is the type of crap the African-American should EVER participate in. What a disgrace.
Publicus wrote on January 13, 2008 5:50 PM:And for the umpteenth time, she's trying to blame Obama for her and her surrogates statements.
Look for her to blame Obama for misinterpreting Johnson's comments.
Michael A wrote on January 13, 2008 5:51 PM:Gee, this is a shock. I would never have expected another clinton supporter to say these things. I mean she didn't trash King and he didn't say that obama's campaign was like a fairy tale. Right, of course the clintons aren't "shucking and jiving." They would never do such a thing and they would never argue about what the definition of is, is, right?
It's funny, all these clintonisms, triangulations and distortions of the last couple of weeks remind me of the lead up to the iraq war, that the clintons supported, but they didn't, but they did, man, my head is spinning.
Anyway, remember the lead up to the war when everyone thought saddam had something to do with 9/11. The administration hacks would constantly say the following sentences in speeches next to each other(of course, I'm paraphrasing):
9/11 should never happen again. We have to go after the terrorists and perpetrators where they are and take them on. Saddam hussein is a threat to the world because he has WMD's, which is a direct threat to america.
Now, after repeating this ad nauseum, people believed and still believe that saddam had something to do with 9/11. However, the administration hacks could come back and say that no they never said that and point to the quotes. The point is that they implied that and people believed it.
The same thing can be said about all this garbage and filth being shoveled by the clintons. They are doing the exact same thing and then they act like the victims and people are distorting what they are saying.
It really is pathetic and tiresome. They are liars and don't care about people at all. All they care about is promoting themselves. Hopefully america is smarter than that, but I don't know. If the clintons get back in the white house it will be four more years of the same garbage. That's why people call them bush-lite, because they are.
Dee Illuminati wrote on January 13, 2008 5:52 PM:This is the way that politics is played in SC, two cycles ago when McCain and Bush ran the issue was over the confederate flag, and this plays on a subconcious level to the voter down there.
In short, this allows the candidates to draw racial distinctions via proxy issues.
What is really astonishing in SC is the ad saturation, radio and TV are completely taken over by ad dollars, I bet that if you looked at spending you would be astonished at the politcal ad's bought, in comparison to say the state of Maryland.
What the Clinton camp knows, and what the SC GOP debate moderator was only two proud to point out is: That nobody has won the POTUS and not carried SC since they have had their early primary slot.
How is this playing out with the voters? That is yet to be seen. But in the last similar campaign Engler promised to be a firewall to McCain after that GOP loss, and Michigan went to McCain. My bet is this, if SC favors one, Michigan will favor the other.
Michele wrote on January 13, 2008 5:54 PM:Pay attention, Moishele. Barack Obama is NOT talking about race or injecting it into this campaign.
Talk about audacity! The Clintons say something funky and then act like it's the Obama campaign's fault when people react to what they've said.
Hillary will do ANYTHING to become President.
Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 5:54 PM:So if we take Uncle Bob at his word, when he threw in that cryptic comment he was basically saying that while Obama was involved in community organizing the Clintons were deeply involved in black issues. If that's the case, why's he insulted?
And did anyone tell Uncle Bob that Obama had nothing to do with the Clintons statements?
Toni C wrote on January 13, 2008 5:54 PM:As for Mr. Johnson's statement that he was referring to Obama's organizing work on the South Side of Chicago it's ridiculous.
I grew up in the very neighborhood Obama did his work in. It's where my mom taught me the saying "don't p*ss is my face and tell me it's raining."
Sad.
NotFeelingObamaSoMuch wrote on January 13, 2008 5:55 PM:pretending that bill and hillary clinton are racist and trying to diminish the role of MLK in fighting for civil rights is ridiculous. this line of attack is going to boomerang on obama and his supporters.
frankly, i don't understand how so many democrats can be launching these vile attacks on the clintons. it seems to me like they have fallen for the republican smear tactics of the 90's.
wake up people! you should be saving your disgust for the republicans, since they are the ones destroying this country. hillary clinton as president (or barack obama, or john edwards) will be a godsend to the United States compared to any candidate that the republicans decide to nominate.
Greg wrote on January 13, 2008 5:55 PM:I found the Sidney Portier reference is equally reprehensible. Did Bob Johnson have any further explanation for that one?
toni c:
I think you've nailed it. Obama has so far achieved the almost impossible balance between assuring white voters that he is not a narrowly-focused racial candidate, while somehow reassuring black voters that he does not discount the need to address the still-present reality of racism in their lives.
HRC's camp is probably trying to destroy that.
God, I'm starting to hate them.
Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 5:59 PM:NFOSM:
I see, everyone is picking on Senator Clinton for statements she made. How dare they listen. Perhaps she should speak with her OTHER voice, since so many of us are prone to misunderstand her new one.
brad wrote on January 13, 2008 6:00 PM:Keeping it classy, per usual.
There are two possibilities: there is either a coordinated attempt to denigrate Obama's character using whatever tools are at hand including race, or these attacks are just an organic representation of how those close to HRC's campaign conduct themselves.
Either possibility damns either her executive ability, the strength of character she lends to her campaign, or both. I think its both: she is showing ineffective executive ability, and she values winning above all else to the detriment of her ideals.
Obama '08.
JO wrote on January 13, 2008 6:02 PM:Whoa! The weekend shift at TPM is getting a bit carried away. Subhead under the main Robert Johnson story (the one commented on here) states that Hillary campaign manager in NH "previously commented on Obama drug usage." That's news? Nope. The link is to a posting on Dec. 12. Just so we won't forget that antics of Bill Shaheen? Do we need reminders in the form of headlines? Next time I see a front page headline in the NYT or WashPost that's a month old, I'll understand the layout of TPM. Until then, gotta wonder...
Rich wrote on January 13, 2008 6:03 PM:The Clinton Plan:
Step (1): Make a series of racist and quasi-racist comments regarding Obama that are largely unnoticed by the mainstream media.
Step (2): When the press and some black activists respond that you're being racist, charge Obama with playing the race card (despite the fact that neither Obama nor any surrogate has at any point done so).
Step (3): By the time Obama wins SC, have convinced the press that it was all about race, to create a backlash among white voters in the Feb. 5 states.
This is disgusting, and I really hope that white Democratic voters are smart enough to see that it is Hillary, and not Obama, who is race-baiting.
Scientific wrote on January 13, 2008 6:04 PM:This from the man who created the most destructive television network for African-Americans that's ever existed. Bob, don't you have some hoochified rap video to sign off on?
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 6:04 PM:Obama is UNQUALIFIED. I am black. NOW the BET Founder IS Qualified. I would listen to him, before this multiracial medial hyped pretty boy.
RichinNewYork wrote on January 13, 2008 6:04 PM:Robert Johnson....BET Bob or just simple ole "Tom"??? Hey Bob...here's a bit of advice: Keep your mouth shut...You did more damage to the AA community than any other person of your stature. Let's start with the denigrating programming you put on your "network"...you sell out..or should I say house Ni**a!
freaktown wrote on January 13, 2008 6:05 PM:And Bill didnt inhale.
NCSteve wrote on January 13, 2008 6:07 PM:I've lived in the South my whole life, and I've lived in NC through a number of Jesse Helms' campaigns and several local races where this same sick cynical game was played. Pass coded messages about them to the white racists behind varying layers of subtlety (usually depending on how close the election is) and accuse your opponent of trying to racialize the contest if anyone dares call you on it even if the person who calls you on it has nothing to do with the campaign.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt myself for a while. However, at a certain point, it becomes incumbent upon the campaign to send down a firm directive from the top saying stuff that sounds like racialist code talk will not be tolorated and campaign operatives need to think about what they're saying before they open their pieholes. When no such directive is forthcoming and the winking and nodding keeps happening, the denials wear thin.
I do not for a minute believe that Bill and Hillary are racists. I do, however, believe they are ruthless enough, and committed enough to their conviction that it will be a disaster for the country if the next president isn't Hillary, to play this game notwithstanding their lack of racism. And it's not as if Bill, as a southern politician himself, lacked opportunity to see how this game was played first-hand.
I fully expected this from the Republicans. Nixon invented this game and Republicans have been playing it down here ever since (albeit with slowly diminishing success). I never expected it from Hillary and Bill.
Lisa wrote on January 13, 2008 6:07 PM:I can't believe I've reached this point, but I will not vote Democratic if the candidate is Clinton. I will not endorse her brand of sleazy innuendo politics.
I just hope Obama moves beyond a defensive game. At some point, he has to stop reacting and start setting the media agenda.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 6:08 PM:And Bill didn't have sexual relations with that woman.
bvd wrote on January 13, 2008 6:08 PM:I guess obnoxious assholes come in all colors.
The Grand Panjandrum wrote on January 13, 2008 6:09 PM:Whoa! Did Johnson suggest that Obama is an Uncle Tom? He came awfully close to saying as much.
justin michael wrote on January 13, 2008 6:10 PM:I wonder how long the media is going to continue to give Hillary a free pass on this. Since losing Iowa she and her husband have consistently employed dirty tactics to attack Sen. Obama while his camp has taken the high road and generally refused to respond in kind. He has repeatedly stated that all the candidates are patriots while Hillary has invoked the failed terrorist attack in France to imply that the nation may be more vulnerable to terrorist attack if Obama is elected. These are Rovian tactics.
We saw it again today on Meet The Press. Rather than simply respond directly to or apologize for the alarming pattern of subtle racially motivated attacks hurled at Sen. Obama (speculating an implied drug dealing past may be exploited by the Republicans, Andrew Cuomo's Shuckin'& Jivin' remark, Pres. Clinton referring to Sen. Obama as a 'kid', Clinton folks stating that voting for Obama would be akin to supporting a 'hip Black friend', condescendingly referring to Sen. Obama as a good speaker), she instead decided to insist that the Obama campaign is responsible for all of this.
Hillary's implication that the outrage the African American community has voiced regarding the racially charged remarks of her campaign is some sort of manifestation of an Obama campaign strategy is almost just as insulting as her recent comments. It is as if the Clinton campaign believes African Americans are not able to think for themselves and can only take cues and do what they're told rather than think independently.
Whatever happened to personal accountability? Just apologize for the gaffs and move forward. No matter who you prefer in this race I think we can all agree that Americans are tired of leaders who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Hillary's recent posturing and stubbornness to admit wrongdoing is eerily similar to that of George W. Bush. No wonder Karl Rove seems to be endorsing her candidacy.
Umm...I can't think of anything else that could have meant other than a jab at his admitted drug use. "Community organizing" isn't that hard to say, why would he say "since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book" to mean community organizing? OF COURSE THIS IS A SHOT AT OBAMA'S PAST DRUG USE!! Give me a goddamn break! 99% of people hearing that would assume drug use, 99% of people would be reminded of the drug issue. The snake just didn't come out and say that so he can claim "oh, I wasn't saying that". Give me a damn break. I'm so sick of Hillary, Bill and their backers, this crap has gone on long enough, it is despicable and every Democrat, no matter who they support should be disgusted.
And of course the Clinton supporters are sticking to the obvious retort "of course the Clintons aren't racist, that is ridiculous" because obviously they aren't, but if your head isn't up your ass you know damn well them being racist isn't the issue. They can be not racist and STILL be using race as a dividing point in order to win this election, and that is exactly what they are doing. The Obama campaign, to their credit, haven't been playing the race victims, which would be playing into Hillary's trap.
I swear to god, every day that goes by of their dirty campaign I become more and more disgusted with them. In the very beginning I would have voted for Hillary in a general election as the lesser of two evils, then, I became so disgusted that I wouldn't vote for her in a general, I would have rather not voted at all, but every day this filth continues, I get closer and closer to the point of being willing to vote for a Republican out of spite if she wins the nomination. McCain and Huckabee have shitty policies and I'd hate them as presidents, but at least they come off as decent human beings. Regardless of their lies about the surge and all that, I would still trust either of them LONG before I could trust anything that came out of that slime Hillary's mouth, or her pathological lying husbands. They DISGUST me, and I'm ashamed they are in the same party as me.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 6:10 PM:I think it's time that Obama's most credible and visible endorsers speak out on his behalf against this sleazy bullshit being thrown out by the Clintons.
Is it a wonder that both Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich have endorsed Hillary in the last 2 days. There's obviously no difference between the Clintons and the GOP anymore. Maybe it started with her Iraq vote.
vena wrote on January 13, 2008 6:11 PM:I love how Bob Johnson actually has the nerve to guilt-trip us if we misinterpreted his statement. He's not even a good liar. I guess the phrase "doing something in the neighborhood ," is code for community service now? Come on.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 6:14 PM:Great, Lisa! Go vote for a Republican instead of Hillary Clinton... That really makes a lot of sense. John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Mike Huckabee wants to arm students with guns to avoid another Virginia Tech incident. Rudy Giuliani wants to out-Bush W (boo! be very afraid).
Mike P wrote on January 13, 2008 6:14 PM:LOL. That's the worst defense of a quote I have ever seen. Ok, he hints at an ominous "something" that Obama was doing in the neighborhood and that something is...being a community activist?
LaBougie wrote on January 13, 2008 6:16 PM:Count me among those who are done with Hillary for good. I'll write in somebody in November rather than vote for her style of politics. That goes for the endless triangulating (and subsequent lying about it), too.
justin michael wrote on January 13, 2008 6:16 PM:Are Johnson's comments a surprise to anyone who has actually seen the programming he ran on BET before selling it? Give me a break. This man exploited the community for years by profiting off of softcore porn videos with BET Uncut and he is going to act as if he is a moral authority on mistakes a teenage kid made in the 70's?
This just keeps getting worse and worse. But I think a previous post is spot on. Clinton is brilliantly using this strategy to scare up the white vote into an Obama backlash on February 5. If this is what it takes to win your party’s nomination then more power to you. I for one will vote McCain or Bloomberg. Hillary Clinton’s conduct has been disgusting.
Way to race bait against your own people, way to promote racial stereotypes about drug use in order to support the political dynasty of the Clintons.
And what exactly have they done for African Americans exactly?? Was it Bill's "welfare reform" that kicked tons of poor people off much needed government assistance? Was it NAFTA and corporate deregulation which only made harder for minority ownership in the media? How ironic that rich ass Bob Johnson would come trash on Obama for them. It makes sense, BET was founded long before Reagan, Bush and Clinton deregulated the media, so by the time Clinton came around with his pro-corporate economic policies it didn't hurt Johnson at all, in fact, if anything the deregulation helped him by making sure no other minority media outlets would be able to challenge BET. He doesn't talk for his people, he is about as black as Condi. What a corporate sellout, he fits in great with Bill "I love big business" Clinton and Mrs. Wal-Mart Hillary "I love lobbyist money" Clinton.
brad wrote on January 13, 2008 6:19 PM:Anonymous,
I'm with Lisa on this. I won't vote for Clinton.
Here is the question you have to ask yourself at some point: Do we stand for a god damn thing execpt for winning? Do you want to support a President who governs like she runs? Do you think she has the ability to set progressive causes back 20 years like she did to the cause of universal healthcare?
If she's the nominee, we are better off losing. I sincerely believe this.
While there is still time, let's make sure that this person is not the face of our party for the next generation.
Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 6:19 PM:Thanks NCSteve. I feel the same way. I guess the question is, who would be the most credible person to blow the whistle on what's happening here. I would think someone in Clinton's camp, but I know that's not happening anytime soon.
And Lisa, I'm with you. I expect this type of crap from Republicans, I don't expect it from the Clintons.
Common Sense wrote on January 13, 2008 6:22 PM:Anyone have an email address for the Clinton campaign and Bob Johnson?
JHo wrote on January 13, 2008 6:23 PM:The Clinton's do whatever it takes; that includes sending this country backwards with regards race. If you can't see this then you should have your right to vote revoked.
denisepb wrote on January 13, 2008 6:23 PM:I'm waiting to see if Bill is going to start running around the suburbs in blackface trying to scare the whites into voting for Hillary.
Yeah, that is probably a bit of a stretch...but I also would have never imagined their campaign would have done the kind of crap they have been doing. I would be shocked with Bush/Cheney/Rove/Romney/Giuliani stooping this low (and not just this), but a supposed Democrat, trying to destroy an extensively popular fellow Democrat in a primary? I'm at a loss for words.
HolyRomanUmpire wrote on January 13, 2008 6:23 PM:Hey guys,
Just before an Obama rally the other day I saw him doing something - I won't say what - with an attractive, blond 19 year old college student while the Clintons were protecting our civil liberties. Yeah, *wink* *wink*. You know what I'm talking about.
Oh, what? No, that's not what I meant. I meant I saw him shaking her hand. I'm SO OFFENDED you could possibly have thought I was referring to anything else! You ridiculous Obama supporters and your politics of personal destruction. When will it ever end!
John McCutchen wrote on January 13, 2008 6:28 PM:These people are gross
brad wrote on January 13, 2008 6:28 PM:Holyromanempire,
Post of the year. Thanks.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 6:31 PM:Does that woman think that if nominated, Obama supporters will give her the time of day?
Goldspinner wrote on January 13, 2008 6:31 PM:Can't wait for Sheila Johnson to become an Obama bundler just to irritate her ex-husband!
Moishele wrote on January 13, 2008 6:32 PM:Jeremy and Michele,
Thanks for the comments. As far as my 'not paying attention' and your belief that 'nothing in the Obama response was about race', if you two can't see how Obama's campaign countinuous reaction to ferreted out bits from Clinton staffers to hold up as racist then you are blind.
Obama is playing right into the Republican's hands with the constant bellyaching that this that and the other is all racist. I'm sure they are lapping it up and looking forward to an even bigger time with that 'non-played race card' in the general election.
If Obama wants to claim he's not playing the race card then let him run a genuinely color blind campaign. Let him run on his merit rather than retreating to the same old claim of racist comments.
dbak wrote on January 13, 2008 6:32 PM:It's too bad that so many Obama supporters don't seem to understand that laws are enacted by elected officials. MLB was a powerful leader and advocate of civil rights but he held no official position. He could affect public opinion but it still required support from those who held the the actual hands of power. What Hillary said was an acknowledgment of of how things really work. To imply that she was somehow disparaging MLK is disappointing to hear from the supposed advocate of a new political order. That reeks of old politics of the worst way.
J. Keaton wrote on January 13, 2008 6:33 PM:The funniest part of all of this? The Clinton camp saying that he was referring to Obama's time as a community organizer...sure, that's what he was referring to as "doing something in the neighborhood."
This is not the Obama campaign playing the race card--Donna Brazile and Rep. Clyburn have both said they found some of the comments coming out of the Clinton camp to be irresponsible and hurtful--both neutral parties unaffiliated with the Obama campaign.
grover_rover wrote on January 13, 2008 6:33 PM:Here, look at this poll:
Pres '08
Jan 13 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 39%
McCain is going to get their nomination, because they want to win. If he gets their nomination and Hillary gets ours, WE ARE GOING TO LOSE AND LOSE BIG!!! Obama brings in masses of independents and even some moderate Republicans, Hillary pushes away even large chunks of her OWN PARTY!!
I don't think people are understanding this...starting in 2006 we began riding a wave of backlash against the Republicans, in 2008 we are poised, if we have the right candidate, to do it again. We've seen the kind of turnout that Obama can create, not from crying or getting ridiculed by the media, but by inspiring people, energizing America like it hasn't been energized in decades, if ever. We can increase our majorities in both houses of Congress and take back the White House! If Hillary wins our nomination, we can kiss Congress goodbye. The Republicans will use conservative hate of Hillary (50% of Americans have already said they will NEVER vote for her) to rally their troops and turn out in record numbers. When they go to the polls in these record numbers, they will vote against every Democrat on the ticket, destroying our chances to increase our majorities, or even killing our majorities altogether. In the VA-01 special election the Republicans already ran attack ads against Congressional opponents using Hillary's picture right next to theirs. This WILL HAPPEN all over America. If we don't lose our majorities altogether in 2008, we will lose them in 2010 (if Hillary is president, which probably won't happen) just like Bill lost Congress during his administration. And if McCain is nominated, we don't even have to worry about that because he WILL win, there is NO WAY Hillary can beat him. Obama has a good chance, polls have shown Obama beating McCain. We can do it with Obama, but we will lose our best chance in decades if Hillary is our nominee! We will also prove to the world that we are incapable of real change...this is make or break time and we are on the verge of throwing it all away because of the political ambitions of the Clintons, and the blind following of many establishment democrats who unconditionally support the Clintons, no matter how dirty their campaign is, and no matter how much they will lie to get ahead.
So what I'm saying is WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wp wrote on January 13, 2008 6:33 PM:Well, in the face of real challenge the Clintons turn to a Karl Rove campaign, using Johnson to place their version of a Willie Horton ad. This is exactly the kind of politics of division that has run this country into the ground over the past dozen years - and it is precisely why we need someone to take us all together beyond Bushes and Clintons and Roves and Johnsons.
Having felt uncertain of which way to turn, Hillary's campaign has made clear to me the need for Obama. In a Hillary-McCain fight, McCain's reputation for honor will prevail despite his dreadful politics.
Hillary's campaign has moved from inevitability to dirt and disgrace.
Part of what the democratic nominee is being the face/leader of the Democratic Party. When you look forward to the general election campaign and the senators, representatives and governors who will be running as DEMS as well, begin to ask yourself this question.
Do they want to Obama to come to their rally with his message of hope, inspiration, change, and ending partisan politics or do they want to be standing beside the oft hated Hill (and what she represents to the vast middle).
Folks in red or almost red states are deciding Obama. Nebraska, Missouri, Wisconsin. In fact this phenomenon already occurred in the ’06 elections in many cases.
The DEMS have taken the Black vote for granted for so long that they fail to realize it’s the main reason they win all the blue States. HRC figures that will happen even if she hurts the relationship to secure the nomination. But there is a reason DEMS can’t win in the other states and thus the White House.
Can Clinton or Obama best win Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio? The traditional Blue States will really be behind Obama and even some incredible energy will also be released in the new-South, "the purple states" and the West.
With Clinton we’ll be facing a nail biter in PA, OH, MM, FL etc. just like before with fingers crossed and possibly hopes dashed. About 50% of the nation WILL NOT VOTE for her. Period.
Obama has the chance to actually expand the DEM hold and get things done with a majority that is less polarizing. Hillary stands to allow the REP to secure or even reverse the shift that started in ’06.
Wake up people.
I am an angry liberal, too. I'm just not so angry that I will shoot myself in the foot like Lisa and Brad by falling for the anti-Hillary b.s. I have a friend who enjoys taunting me for being so far out on the Left that I will say and do things to ensure that the Democrats will be kept out of the White House permanently. This whole Hillary-Obama blood feud is exactly what the Republicans need to win the WH back with one of their lousy candidates. Let's not make McCain the default candidate for the WH because we Democrats are going to kill each other off... 100 more years of war in Iraq, "market solutions" for healthcare, more tax cuts for the rich to "save" the economy, more energy and drug legislation written by corporations, more signing statements and trampling of the constitution... so many things to look forward to if only the Democrats will bloody their nominee beyond electability before the convention! i can hear Karl Rove, W and Dick Cheney yucking it up right now!
Gina wrote on January 13, 2008 6:37 PM:Today Bob Johnson, founder of (BET)Black Exploitation Television, made comments about Senator Barack Obama while campaigning with Senator Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, in her quest to become President of the United States. Of all the people she could have stood side by side with today, why Bob Johnson? On the eve of the possibility of electing the first African American or woman as President of the United States, why on earth would Hillary Clinton associate herself with a man that has spent his life’s work trying to profit of the exploitation of African Americans, African American women and girls in particular?
Bob Johnson stands for everything Hillary Clinton OUGHT to be against. This man single-handedly set the cause of African Americans back hundreds of years. His exploitation of Black women and girls is particularly morally repugnant. Hillary Clinton is supposed to be a defender of the American worker, yet Bob Johnson made his billions at Black Entertainment Television by notoriously paying his on air talent slave wages.
To be sitting up in a the pulpit of a Black church grinning and laughing side by side with this multimedia crack cocaine dealer and pimp is the slap in the face of every Black woman and girl in this country.
Instead of repeating Bob Johnson’s comments on Senator Obama wholesale, reporters should be asking him about the circumstances under which his wife and BET cofounder left the company. They should ask him about his “relations” with the female executives at his company. They should ask him why his own sister allegedly sued him and whether Johnson properly paid his taxes. All of these issues are raised in Johnson’s biography, The Billion-Dollar Bet. Bob Johnson is not an African American leader, he is a bottom feeder.
Let us not forget that for SIX YEARS Bob Johnson skirting broadcasting rules to broadcast some of the most vile disgusting depictions of African American women in cable television history. BET’s “ Uncut “ featured such cultural gems as:
“What That Thing Smell Like”, by Black Jesus
Shake It Like a Pitbull, by Cold Cannons
F@#king, by David Banner feat. Jazze Pha -
“P#$$y Licker“, DJ Slim -
“I Got That Drank“, Frayser Boy feat. Mike Jones and Paul Wall -
“Let Me See You’re @$$ Drop“, Joker the Bailbondsman -
“P#$$y Poppin'“, by Ludacris feat. Shawnna and Lil Fate
This is not okay. Would Hillary Clinton sit in a church pulpit with Larry Flint or Hugh Hefner? Then why is she sitting in a pulpit with Bob Johnson? Or is she only concerned about the degradation and exploitation of White women? Does her brand of feminism extend to Black women and girls too?
When Hillary Clinton sits side by side in an African American church with a noted misogynist and smut peddler she sends a clear message: she’s not overly concerned about the damage this man has caused African American girls and women. Does Senator Clinton care about our daughters? I don’t know. The Senator should seriously reconsider the company she is keeping. Bob Johnson is no friend of Black America or Black women and children..
John wrote on January 13, 2008 6:39 PM:This is disgusting.
Before Iowa, I felt proud as a Democrat that we had a handful of supremely qualified candidates. I thought I'd be excited to vote for any one of them.
Now, if Obama doesn't get the nomination, I guess I'll have to support Hillary, but only because there will likely be at least two Supreme Court vacancies during the next administration.
After I cast that vote, though, I think I'm done with the Democratic party.
Clinton & Obama building the Party one bullshit petty spat at a time.
sarahNYC wrote on January 13, 2008 6:40 PM:And i thought the Clinton's were bad at trying to defend their bad quotes. What else could he be referring to other than the doing drugs thing? We're supposed to believe that the bad thing Obama was doing in the hood was being a community activist?
That may be one of the more laughable things I've heard since Cuomo tried to convince us that "Shuck and Jive" actually meant "bob and weave".
How much more of this bullshit are we going to have to put up with from the Clinton campaign?
I've never been much of a Hillary fan, but I was beginning to warm to her a few months ago. But after the disgusting and offensive campaign she's started to run against Obama, I can't see myself pulling the lever for her if she's the Democratic nominee in November. I'm sure she'd be a better president than anyone the Republicans put on the ballot, but I can't put my seal of approval on this form of Rovesque campaigning.
David wrote on January 13, 2008 6:43 PM:From the top of Drudge right now:
NEW WASHPOSTABCNEWS POLL: LARGE SHIFT TO OBAMA ... DEVELOPING...
Thankfully, America is not buying this classless race-baiting bullshit from the Clintons. Ever again!
Nickal wrote on January 13, 2008 6:44 PM:To common sense:
You need someone to provide a HRC e-mail address? Really? Hint: every campaign has a web site. Start there.
Grandpam:
Bob Johnson calling Obama Uncle Tom? Are you serious or delerious? How did you get that?
brm: Attacking Unions? Obama was the one who referred to unions as "special interest groups" linking them with the energy SIG, the tobacco SIG, etc. He is now pandering to them in the same way that HRC is pandering to young people.
What's laughable to me is the extent to which Obama supporters seem to think he embodies the second coming of Jesus. I will bet you think he can walk on water, too.
How about some facts? Some actual experience in national politics? An actual basis for his decision to run for President beyond, "I want to be President"? I personally distrust the "mail room to board room" mythology. I'd like to see some demonstration of actual competence before making someone CEO. Why don't you?
Criminy, because he tells you what you want to hear, he must be the cat's pajamas?? Take a look at the current inhabitant of that office -- he got there exactly the same way.
Perhaps, there's a cautionary tale there.
Thanks.
mp
Publicus wrote on January 13, 2008 6:46 PM:Folks:
No need in engaging the Clinton sock puppets that have appeared because their only goal is to push this notion that Obama is the one at fault here. And if you think otherwise, you are at fault too.
If you think Senator Clinton gives a damn what you think, just consider the damage she is doing to the Democratic Party in her effort to win the nomination. The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you'll recognize that what you and I think doesn't matter now and won't matter latter.
I'm officially an ABC voter.
sunsin wrote on January 13, 2008 6:46 PM:I cannot believe that I voted for the Clinton (male). I will not support his wife.
I still think she's better than him (for what THAT'S worth). She's just a lying politician, one of many. He is a slut who gave the US eight years of Bush in exchange for getting his knob polished by someone young enough to be his daughter. At least (outside the tabloids and their fantasies) Hillary hasn't done anything like that.
Jennifer S wrote on January 13, 2008 6:47 PM:John-
I wish I could be as mature as you. If Clinton were by some chance to get the nomination (and I don't think she will), there is no chance in HELL that I would vote for her. Thankfully, if she did get it, Bloomberg would likely run and provide a decent alternative to folks like me who would otherwise choose McCain over Hillary.
Regardless, I remain hopeful that Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Bradley, John Kerry, Janet Napolitano and others would not be putting their credibility on the line if they didn't agree that Barack will be our next President.
sebastian wrote on January 13, 2008 6:48 PM:Does anyone know about any contracts, etc. between the Clinton campaign and Mr. Johnson? In S.C. Clinton got some prominent endorsements from African American pastors after sprinkling money around.
Common Sense wrote on January 13, 2008 6:48 PM:Also please note sock puppets, the press release complained about personal, divisive attack. Nothing about race. Just the politics of personal destruction as practiced by the Clintons. So he's playing the "personal divisive attack" card, not the race card.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 6:53 PM: sfam wrote on January 13, 2008 6:53 PM:Going into this election, I didn't think I'd even imagine choosing a republican candidate over any of the leading democrats. The Clinton's campaign tactics have changed my mind. If McCain gets on the ballot, I probably WILL be choosing him over Hillary, even though I disagree with him on most issues. I feel you just gotta have at least an ounce of integrity - its clear the Clinton campaign isn't concerned about integrity - only whether they get elected.
jim wrote on January 13, 2008 6:54 PM:pretending that bill and hillary clinton are racist
No one is pretending that the Clintons are racist. Being racist implies you have a belief in something, however sick. What is obvious at this point is that the Clintons are using race like they use everything else: as a club that they think will help them win. This isn't about Saint Hillary and Bill the Honorary Black Man being "racist." I think the word is "shameless," not "racist."
Michael Powe wrote on January 13, 2008 6:57 PM:If you think Senator Clinton gives a damn what you think, just consider the damage she is doing to the Democratic Party in her effort to win the nomination.
I'd be interested to learn exactly what is this putative damage to the Democratic Party. I see this claim bandied about, without any substantive description of what is being damaged.
Primaries are, in their nature, divisive. Each candidate wants to separate the opponents from their blocks of voters. So what?
The assumption is that, in the end, we will rally behind the winner. True, Obama groupies can't seem to produce any actual facts that demonstrate his awe-inspiring superiority to everyone else in America. But, beyond that, I haven't seen any behavior by any candidate that establishes this claim of destroying "the party."
Enlighten me.
Thanks.
mp
Nizzy wrote on January 13, 2008 6:57 PM:This site has become as hateful as Daily Kos and HuffPo...
I was an Obama supporter and contributer up until the Oprah stunt...Then I went neutral. If that isn't an example of the Obama Campaign using race to score political points, I don't know what is! I truly believed in the man and his visions up until that point...After that, I'm not certain. I will still probably vote for him...But it has given me pause.
It's so disheartening to read the vile comments Democrats are hurling at each other...Have we forgotten we share a common goal???
awrbb wrote on January 13, 2008 6:57 PM:A vote for Hillary is a vote for Mark Penn.
sfam wrote on January 13, 2008 6:58 PM:Jim,
Yes, "Shameless" is the word people should be using. Not racist, but clearly shameless. Too bad the Democratic party suffers as a consequence.
NCSteve wrote on January 13, 2008 6:59 PM:Ah Ha!
Now I know why she appeared on the stage with this mysogyny peddler (you go girl!)and let him make his inflammatory comments. They wanted to light off yet another round in this fight because Obama rolled out a big policy speech today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22637891/
Same thing they did with their "we finally beat him in fundraising this quarter) back in October on the day he was giving another big policy speech.
Can't have people paying attention to the policy speeches. It makes him harder to accuse of not giving details, lacking substance and being hazy on the issues.
Nizzy wrote on January 13, 2008 7:00 PM:Publicus wrote on January 13, 2008 6:46 PM:
Folks:
No need in engaging the Clinton sock puppets that have appeared because their only goal is to push this notion that Obama is the one at fault here. And if you think otherwise, you are at fault too.
Could you inform me when this became an Obama Only site???
I'm a left-leaning Independent voter in NYC who is for Obama, but would normally vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. But after going through the last month of absurdities from the Clinton campaign (from Billy Shaheen's drug dealer comments to Cuomo's "shuck and jive" and through Robert Johnson's comments today), I will be writing John McCain the maximum $2,300 check if Hillary gets the nomination. There is NO WAY a group of people with this level of integrity and decency should be in the WH.
Integrity means something...as we've all seen over the last 7 years.
sfam wrote on January 13, 2008 7:02 PM:Michael Powe asks, "I'd be interested to learn exactly what is this putative damage to the Democratic Party. I see this claim bandied about, without any substantive description of what is being damaged."
The damage is that people (of all ages) previously turned off by politics, but who are suddenly energized by Obama's campaign will not be voting in November. The follow-on danger is that, based on campaign tactics like we've been seeing, independents like me who have always voted democratic for president (but not always for Senators/House members) will be voting for McCain over her if that be the choice. Integrity matters to some people - these tactics are truly shameless.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:03 PM:It's so funny to see the low-level Hillary staffers continuing to post on here that Obama is the one pulling "stunts." Their internal numbers must be a lot lower than we are seeing. My sense is that you will see several other prominent "establishment" politicians coming out in support of Obama in the next few days as they will want to distance themselves from the sleaze-bag Clinton campaign win or lose. Bottom line: it will be a fight between the special interests who are pulling for Hillary and the populus. History tells us that the witch will still win but this year might just be different.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:04 PM:What's the difference between Mark Penn and Karl Rove?
About 2 1/2 pounds.
Michael A wrote on January 13, 2008 7:04 PM:This explains alot, but I am sure that she is lying, or she is a sexist, or she is uninformed, or she is a hillary-hater.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-backer-se.html
Publicus wrote on January 13, 2008 7:05 PM:Obama's response to whether Clinton is trying to swiftboat him:
“I think they have decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign and I don’t think anybody who’s watching would deny that. I gather that she’s determined that instead of trying to sell herself on why she would be the best president, she’s trying to convince folks that I wouldn’t be a good one.”
onceler wrote on January 13, 2008 7:06 PM:note to the Clintons: shut the fuck up, go away, and leave us all alone.
David wrote on January 13, 2008 7:06 PM:This might sound a bit over-the-top but has Hillary concluded that she will in fact lose this cycle? That perhaps she is just trying to damage Obama for the general (along with her moneyed interests) in the hope that McCain will be elected, serve 4 years, and then she can have a political comeback? Would anyone really put this past the Clintons? I, for one, would not.
roo_P wrote on January 13, 2008 7:07 PM:Wow, er, "I will not say what he was doing" refers to community organizing.
Really smooth recovery there, buddy.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:07 PM:Actually, "doing something in the neighborhood" DOES sound much more like a reference to community work than to drug use, especially for someone of his generation.
Ok, so this may already have been commented on, but what I see is the Clinton camp pushing the race thing as far as they can, (as filthy as it is,) then banking on the country saying "anything is better than another term of rebublican rule" it's filthy... reprehensible... but understandable. if anyone thinks this is an unreasonable assesment, I'd love to hear a cogent rebuttal.
Terry in Philadelphia wrote on January 13, 2008 7:09 PM:
I am really growing very tired of the massive amount of time wasted on all of the unimportant b.s. of these campaigns. Rhetoric aside, let's spend the time vetting the candidates and their ideas about correcting the ills we suffer. This "he said, she said" stuff is childish and unproductive.
We've suffered through nearly 2 full terms of one of the worst presidencies in history. It's not like we don't have significant issues on which to concentrate our time and brainpower. Shouldn't we be doing all that we can to understand and suggest resolution to the issues? Let's raise the level of discourse and begin a process which informs the American public about the issues, so they can consider an informed vote for the next president.
Please!
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:09 PM:Nizzy, you're right. Read Taylor Marsh. She loves Hillary and has dedicated to refuting the lies about her.
joshcooper wrote on January 13, 2008 7:09 PM:first, anonymous (the black one): you're an ass.
Second, so is Bob Johnson, obviously.
Third, who can tell me what the Sidney Poitier reference means? Is that code to AA's of a certain age calling out a lack of "blackness". What the f are they thinking?
I am truly amazed by how stupid the Clinton campaign really is. They are in desperate need of James Carville and Paul Begala. WTF? How stupid can they be?
sfam wrote on January 13, 2008 7:09 PM:David asks whether the Clintons believe they've already lost and are just trying to bring Obama down.
No, David, I cannot imagine this being the case. The Clintons play to win. Period. If they decide they're gonna lose, they will back off and support Obama and try to mend fences. I'm pretty sure of that. I don't think Hillary gets another shot, regardless.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:10 PM:Did Taylor March blow Bill Clinton also?
jim wrote on January 13, 2008 7:10 PM:I'd be interested to learn exactly what is this putative damage to the Democratic Party
It is true that the primary process can be divisive for a party by definition, but it is all a question of how far the candidates take that divisiveness for the sake of winning.
In this case, many people think Clinton is playing the race card in a variety of ways that will ultimately undermine the party. For example, if Hillary ends up getting the nomination by using these tactics, she will have done so at the cost of suppressing voter turnout in the general (particularly among blacks). Not to mention that all of this nonsense is turning a lot of Democrats off (regardless of color). For instance, I wouldn't vote for her at this point -- no matter what. I gladly would have supported Edwards or Richardson. I don't think you would have ever (or will) see this kind of race baiting coming out of Edwards.
Paulie wrote on January 13, 2008 7:11 PM:The Obama campaigns response is right on the money. Johnson claiming that he was not talking about Obama's drug use shows that HE must think we are stupid.
And what is this BS about Obama making everything about race? Moisele, have you been smoking crack?
NCSteve has it pegged right. It's posturing by the clinton campaign and it's pathetic.
sfam - It seems that the Clintons are more concerned with holding onto their own power than what may be best for the party.
I have lost all faith in them, particularly Bill. As someone who would have gone down in history as an epic President had he been able to keep his zipper up and not lie to a grand jury, he has fallen even more dramatically in my book. And he is the only reason I would put any faith in Hillary. She is a phony and is not someone I want to lead my country. They are despicable and I'm ready for them and their narcissistic drama to go away for good.
Goldspinner wrote on January 13, 2008 7:14 PM:Gina,
You go, girl!
John McCutchen wrote on January 13, 2008 7:16 PM:I'd be interested to learn exactly what is this putative damage to the Democratic Party. I see this claim bandied about, without any substantive description of what is being damaged.
Perhaps Michael Powe shouldn't have asked, then we wouldn't have to tell him
If Hillary is nominated she will not get the votes or the support of a substantial number of anti-war democrats adnd she will lose
If she continues to swift boat Obama, she will not have the support or the votes of a substantial number of Obama supporters, she will lose
If she continues to run the bungling and inept campaign that she has now since November, she will lose
Hillary cannot win.
Hillary is destroying the
As to the anti-war vote,USF's Steven Zunes gets it:
http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans – and even a larger majority of Democrats – believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces.
As a result, it is important to review Senator Clinton's past and current positions regarding the Iraq War. Indeed, despite her efforts in response to public opinion polls to come across as an opponent of the war, Hillary Clinton has proven to be one of the most hard-line Democratic senators in support of a military response to the challenges posed by Iraq. She has also been less than honest in justifying her militaristic policies, raising concerns that she might support military interventions elsewhere. ....
If the Democrats select another war supporter as their nominee in 2008, the result may well be the same as 2004. Large numbers of people will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee as part of a principled stance against voting for someone who authorized and subsequently supported the Iraq war. And Republicans will highlight the Democratic nominee's shifting positions on Iraq as evidence that their opponent is simply an opportunistic politician rather than the kind of decisive leader the country needs.
Hillary Clinton is no friend of those who oppose the war. She was one of the Senate's strongest war supporters for four years because she thought it would be over and done with when the time came to run for president (she's been running since 2000)
She triangulated the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History and the death or maiming of 50,000 US soldiers
Now she is showing us that even she will destory the Democratic party's electoral chances in 2008.
She is ruthless, unprincipled, and a menace
In a very real sense, her conduct has been more reprehensible than George Bush and millions will hold her to account
I know I will
If you're frustrated by this stuff and want to do something positive you can (a) surf over to the Obama site and make a little contribution (it's easy and fun!) (b) call up your local Obama organization and get involved.
sfam wrote on January 13, 2008 7:19 PM:David, I'm clearly not a supporter of the Clintons at this point, but I think you're going way over the top. Both of them obviously do truly care about issues. To think that they'd rather the republicans go again versus then is faulty on a number of levels. For starters, everyone WILL blame Hillary if your scenario happens. She will not get another chance.
So yes, they are clearly shameless and will do whatever they think will work to get the nomination, and then the presidency (and truly, what a sad commentary that so many people now believe this to be true about them). But no, I don't believe they have decided they've lost, NOR do I think its possible that they would be playing for 4 years from now by propping up republicans now, nor do I think they would ever try to get republicans to win - they are far too partisan for this.
Molly wrote on January 13, 2008 7:20 PM:YEAH! What c said!
The best way to register your displeasure with all of this bullshit being leveled by the Clintons is to donate to Obama. Your time or money will be equally appreciated and together we can close the door on this unfortunate chapter in the history of the Democratic party.
green heron wrote on January 13, 2008 7:21 PM:"...he said it in the book."
If more people read Obama's book there would be fewer Hillary voters.
David wrote on January 13, 2008 7:23 PM:sfam - isn't interesting though that both Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich have come out in support of Hillary in recent days?
If the Clintons truly cared about the issues (and not just themselves and their power) they wouldn't have allowed this BS to unfold and stuck to contrasting the policy differences between the two candidates and laid out a true vision for leading the country forward.
This is Lee Atwater politics at its best. Just ask John McCain about his time in South Carolina in 2000. I always thought bigger of the folks in our party. Boy was I naive.
Maddening. Enough. Stay on the issues. Stop bringing up this inane innuendos and nuance. In the midst of this crap, watch the nearly dead white guy take the white house, while we argue who is the racist and or sexist. This is becoming like a talk show where people are yelling at each other about being dissed. Yeah, it's politics. Grow up and tell us how you gonna clean up the Republican mess. I don't care about nuanced racism or sexism. Take the egos out for a spanking.
Hey Stellaa-
If you really believe that, then tell your compadres in the Clinton campaign to stfu.
sfam wrote on January 13, 2008 7:29 PM:David says, "This is Lee Atwater politics at its best. Just ask John McCain about his time in South Carolina in 2000. I always thought bigger of the folks in our party. Boy was I naive."
I fully agree with that. This is DEFINITELY Lee Atwater politics at its best. But, um, Lee Atwater STILL wanted republicans to win. The Clintons, as shameless as their actions have been (and truly, I was quite well disposed toward Hillary just a month ago - now now), they are still democrats. If there was ever a sign that their campaign represents a need to turn the partisan page, their recent actions are it.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:30 PM:Obama is running the most irresponsible campaign I have ever seen. I really hope Hillary kicks his trash ass to the curb. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I used to think that short of Joe Lieberman he was the worst Dem candidate I've ever seen. I'm now thinking Lieberman is now more loyal to the Democrats than obama is.
Is there nothing Obama won't piss on? Does he not have any decency or concern whatsoever?
sfam wrote on January 13, 2008 7:31 PM:I meant to say, "I was quite well disposed toward Hillary just a month ago - NOT now"
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:32 PM:It seems totally plausible that the Clintons now know they will lose this cycle and are now trying to ruin Obama to save their political future.
Lisa wrote on January 13, 2008 7:34 PM:Anonymous--
I'm not shooting myself in the foot. I simply don't want Hillary Clinton as my representative in the White House, and I refuse to give her my vote.
This is my right, and fear-mongering from Clinton supporters who threaten that the country will collapse if a Republican gets elected won't change my mind.
And for those who think this means I'm some crazy Obamaniac, well, believe what you want to believe. I'd vote for Edwards, Gore, Biden, Dodd ... and I would love to see a woman elected president. Just not Hillary Clinton.
merryll wrote on January 13, 2008 7:36 PM:Why are they using diebold machines in New Hampshire. Is is so difficult to count paper ballots in the open?
Alan wrote on January 13, 2008 7:42 PM:Obama supporters need to get their facts straight. If you can't take the normal ebb and flow of a campaign, what are you going to do if you are selected to run against the Republicans?
I am tired of this crap that the Clintons do ANYTHING to get power, blah, blah, blah. Hillary has more knowledge of how to make change in her little finger than Senator Obama has in his whole body. The Clintons did not disparage Martin Luther King. But what Obama supporters need to learn how do do is listen and read a WHOLE statement, not those parsed by his supporters and the media.
If Obama is the nominee I WILL NEVER SUPPORT HIM!. I am just going to be like the Obama supporters and take my ball and go home when things don't go my way!
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:42 PM:What neighborhood? Waikiki? Upper West Side? Cambridge, MA?
Obama is an elite. Like a lot of rich kids, he smoked pot. Who cares?
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:43 PM:Re: the voting machines in NH...given that the Clinton internals had her down 11 that day, the Obama internals had him up 14 that day, and every other poll had Obama considerably far ahead, is it possible that the Clinton campaign (with the help of folks in high places whose financial interests would benefit from her over Obama) quite possibly may have fixed NH?
Just saying...
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:43 PM:There can now be no dispute that this campaign is Bill and Hill against the rest of the Democratic Party.
Billary? Mrs. Bill? They're not ad hominems, those appellations are truth
Edwards Criticizes Clintons' Comments
By the way, I am an Edwards kind of person. I don't go for the old game HRC or for the iChange president. I will support whoever wins over the Republicans any day, it's called partisanship and I am all for it.
It's about the Supreme Court. If the other side wins. We are all done for. So, get your egos in check and deal with the issues. Hillary is not Satan, Obama is not the Christ Child. They are politicians. Politicians fight dirty. Live with it. Now lets make sure they don't let the Republicans win. Just don't encourage them and the media to lower the discussion.
Has anyone noticed that all supporters of any candidate this cycle are instantly labeled "bots" or "clones," etc.? We've got the Paulbots, the Obamamaniacs, the Hillbots, and on and on. It is pretty stupid. People disagree; get over it. I support Obama. I don't think people who support Hillary or even Ron Paul are "bots." I disagree with them, but I respect their right to be wrong. ;-)
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:44 PM:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/01/13/politics/p110430S70.DTL&feed=rss.news
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 7:48 PM:Drudge right now:
NEW WASHPOSTABCNEWS POLL: LARGE SHIFT TO OBAMA ... DEVELOPING...
This is beginning to look like the neo-cons v Democrats.
You would think with a President tanking in the opinion of the American people, both campaigns would take it to a new level.
Remember, it was the Clinton's who started this negative rhetoric which only speaks to need to change the way politics is presented to the voters.
adamchaz wrote on January 13, 2008 7:50 PM:I thought Bill Clinton was a good president but I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. I will either stay home or vote for the republican nominee.
Will Montgomery wrote on January 13, 2008 7:51 PM:It is interesting to discover that Bob Johnson is part of the Clinton smear machine.
What a shame.
I'm supporting Barack Obama in this election. I think America must have a fresh voice as it's representative. I hope he is able to overcome the Clinton's smear campaign and win the nomination. If he is not, I will not vote for a Hillary Clinton presidency. I am recoiling from the amount of sleaze her campaign is throwing out.
sarahNYC wrote on January 13, 2008 7:52 PM:Isn't the fact that Obama was open about his youthful drug use and THEN turned it around...went to and graduated from Columbia, became a community organizer in Chicago, went to Harvard Law and graduated magna cum laude while becoming the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, then turned down a supreme court clerkship and joined a civil rights law firm back in Chicago, became a constitutional law professor at one of the most respected schools innthe country, got elected to the Illinois legislature for 4 terms (same as Abraham Lincoln), was right about Iraq from the get-go, then got elected to the US Senate, has passed more of his own bills in 3 years than Hillary has in 7, and has run a superb campaign QUITE INDICATIVE of what kind of individual Obama is? And Robert Johnson is complaining about his high school drug use?
LaTeisha wrote on January 13, 2008 7:53 PM:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgtIqeV-6mk&feature=related
Here is the truth.
Nathan Avinbl wrote on January 13, 2008 7:55 PM:This is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee. If the Democrats pass on two viable, non-scumbags, I am fine voting for Nader or Bloomberg.
Southpaw wrote on January 13, 2008 7:55 PM:"May have been interpreted"??? Come on, now, Kleefeld, even *you* can't spin this as anything but beyond the pale, below the belt, over the line... choose your metaphor. The perfect punctuation on her day today, beginning with the reprehensible appearance on MTP (where she refused to condemn the Nevada Teachers' at-large caucus lawsuit, continued to mischaracterize Obama's consistent anti-war stance by pulling quotes out of context -- while simultaneously charging Russert with having done the same to her, and engaged in revisionist history about her own failure of judgment on the AUMF).
I am a lifelong Democrat who is now officially not voting for Hillary in the general election, in the (I would sincerely hope) unlikely event that these tactics somehow succeed and propel her to the nomination. I will stay home, or even vote Bloomberg or McCain, before voting for this sorry excuse for a human being. Indeed, I will devote every minute of my spare time from now until February 5th doing my best to ensure that the distinguished gentleman from Illinois takes her "home" state of NY, and makes her cry for *real*.
Yes we can!!!
Hillary used the word "spadework" on the "Today" show and nobody is reporting it.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Racial_sensitivity_selfparody_watch.html
You are slipping kleefeld.
I'm supporting Obama. I have voted Democratic in every election since Dukakis and before I was old enough to vote I ran the mock election at my high school for Mondale. And I would cast my vote for any democrat this year except Clinton. This is for the good of the party.
A smart Republican would not have voted for Nixon in '72. A smart Republican would not have voted for W in '04. It would have been obvious by that point that their party's candidate would in the long term weaken support for the causes they believed in. That's where HRC is for me. When she says the sky is blue, around 50% of the country and growing doubt it. That's because she is obviously more concerned about herself than the cause she speaks for. Even measured against other politicians, her capacity for self aggrandizement is stunning, and her disregard for her opponents (inside and outside her own party) alienate those whose help she needs to "make change".
Obama might make Jimmy Carter look like Washington, or he might be a decent President. But whatever else he is, I can see what he is not every day by comparison. Its my vote, and she's not getting it anymore if she wins the primary. If you think that makes me a crybaby, so be it. I'm old enough to know what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. I just don't want her representing the things I believe in.
sfam wrote on January 13, 2008 8:03 PM:Alan said, "Obama supporters need to get their facts straight. If you can't take the normal ebb and flow of a campaign, what are you going to do if you are selected to run against the Republicans?
I am tired of this crap that the Clintons do ANYTHING to get power, blah, blah, blah."
Alan, I don't have a problem with Hillary's "rhetoric versus reality" stuff (whether or not I agree with it). I don't even really mind her mischaracterizations about Obama's supporting the war (but these truly are mischaracterizations). Both of these qualify as the "ebb and flow" as you put it. This is not what bothers me. There have been a rash of truly trashy actions by the Clinton campaign that do bother me - as well as many others. Not one, not two actions, but bunches of actions. Race-baiting is just a trashy brand of politics. Continually "reminding" everyone of youthful drug use is trashy, especially when lying about when it occurred, and using it as a mischaracterization of Obama's community activism.
So yeah, the "empty suit" motif may be false, but qualifies as rough and tumble. But the shucking and jiving, cocaine addicted "blacks need white people to get things done" stuff and all the rest really is shameless, and will result in a loss of support for her in the general election. If you have a problem with people voting based on their perception of a candidate's integrity, that's "your" problem - not ours.
bvd wrote on January 13, 2008 8:07 PM:Excellent suggestion - I'm so pissed of about the Clintons trying to stop working people from voting in Nevada that I just donated $25 to the Obama campaign.
I'm still just as pissed off but it's much more satisfying than wasting my time arguing with Clinton supporters who will find a way to rationalize this tactic. Sorry, it's indefensible.
Do we really need any more reasons to keep the Clintons from getting the nomination and further damaging the Democratic Party? I'll take a chance on Obama's future mistakes rather than repeat all the same shitty ones the Clintons dragged us through the last time.
Let's move forward, not back.
Jennifer,
Does Ben Nelson have any credibility among Democrats to lay on the line for Obama? I'll happily go along with you on the other endorsees, but this one goes straight into the kitty litter. All Ben Nelson does is remind us that there's no use in getting more Democrats in office if they vote Republican. Nelson's only use is getting to the magic majority figure -- after that, he's worse than dead weight. I nearly threw up when I read his endorsement of Obama: Obama, Nelson says, embodies everything Nelson tries to do in the Senate. With friends like these, the Clintons are almost unnecessary....
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 8:15 PM:Count me in as someone ready to "roll the dice." Knowing what we already know about the Clintons and seeing how they've run this race is all I need to know to make me become a gambler.
paul wrote on January 13, 2008 8:17 PM:Isn't it interesting that two weeks ago, Hillary led in endorsements from fellow senators by 10-1? It was 10-2 (Conrad) until New Hampshire. But AFTER Obama lost to Clinton in New Hampshire, four senators and a key governor have endorsed Obama (Johnson, Kerry, McCaskill, Napolitano, Nelson). Politicians do not jump onto a sinking ship. This is unusual. I'd like to hear more analysis. Did the first 10 endorse because they felt the pressure of the Clinton machine? Are the most recent 5 trying desperately to give us a message about what another Clinton presidency would mean?
dajafi wrote on January 13, 2008 8:18 PM:About the best one can say of the Clintons is that they're so sure of their own virtue, and indispensability to the country, that they feel justified in saying and doing anything to get back in power.
That remind you of anyone?
Some of us are both repelled by that arrogance and far from convinced, given the record of the Clintons, that their beneficent ends are anywhere close to justifying their vile means.
Any Democrat who believes we're a better country than that should look to Obama or Edwards.
progressivedem wrote on January 13, 2008 8:21 PM:There is, of course, one candidate in the race currently campaigning hard on the issues in South Carolina. That would be John Edwards. In an ordinary election cycle, one without the two historic and celebrity candidates, it would be clear to many that he is the one who is fighting hard for proressive policies that favor ordinary working class and middle class Americans. Because of his southern, rural, working class roots and his great ability as a campaigner he would run away with the general campaign if we would only let him. Right now the Clinton/Obama feuding (driven more by Clinton than by Obama to be sure) threatens to move from farce to tragedy. I still plan to vote for him on February 5th. Maybe some other folks should too.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 8:23 PM:C'mon with Edwards stuff already. He is done. He had a great opportunity but his numbers continue to go down. A great guy and a great AG in a Dem administration.
sickofitall wrote on January 13, 2008 8:24 PM:right, sarah?! if i knew my kid would go on to do all those amazing things after smoking pot in high school, i'd give him a bong right now!
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 8:26 PM:Paul - I think you are onto something and Josh certainly alluded to it in his post from yesterday. Why would all of these Senators who would have to go back to work with Hillary as President or Hillary as Senator, knowing what they know, still back Obama? It is quite a signal.
Sorry, Bob. Gotta call BS on this one. Why would you NOT want to refer to his community organizer work from the stump? You knew what you were saying, knew it would be controversial, and said it in a way that you could weasel out of it just like you did. Cold, calculated dirty tricks. Textbook Clinton. Great when used against the R's but not against our own. This is the last straw for me. I WILL NOT vote for Billary as the Democrats' nominee.
Jeremy wrote on January 13, 2008 8:29 PM:Does Hillary have anything to say about the portrayal of women on BET?
http://whataboutourdaughters.blogspot.com/2008/01/am-i-going-to-have-to-get-obama-t-shirt.html
http://www.blackcollegewire.org/culture/060713_bet-uncut-ends/
"And to me, as an African-American," Johnson said, "I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved."
So, how did this imply to the drugs? Does anyone know what kind of "community organizing" he was doing? Was it labor, community or economic development? The guy was just saying that Obama said in the book what he did, how did it jump to the drugs?
Jeremy wrote on January 13, 2008 8:31 PM:progressivedem, I think that Edwards problem isn't that, after being the parties VP candidate, he doesn't have enough name recognition (i.e., isn't a "celebrity candidate") but that his record doesn't back up his rhetoric. Obama has actually fought for and delivered more progressive legislation than either Hillary or Edwards.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 8:33 PM:Glad to know we can get rid of Alan, when Obama is the nominee.
Feel free to leave now, Alan.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 8:37 PM:""And to me, as an African-American," Johnson said, "I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved."
So, how did this imply to the drugs? Does anyone know what kind of "community organizing" he was doing? Was it labor, community or economic development? The guy was just saying that Obama said in the book what he did, how did it jump to the drugs?"
It's clearly implying drug use. As in, "I won't say it because I'm not supposed to, but he's talked about it". It really looks like a snipe about the drug use; that's the biggest thing from his book. It's another example of the Clinton's turning this thing into the SC Republican primary.
brad wrote on January 13, 2008 8:41 PM:My take on why Obama is getting some traction with Senators (brought up a couple of comments ago):
1) If you are a Democratic Senator or Congressperson from a moderate or conservative state, you do not want to run for election against the headwind generated by HRC at the top of the ticket.
2) No one knows who will eventually get the nomination. But if you are endorsing Obama, your political calculus is that you are more frightened of HRC's negative coat tails in your own district than you are of her wrath if she wins.
3) Even if she wins the nomination, you have partially inoculated yourself against her negative effects by first endorsing Obama.
4) You are betting that even if HRC gets the nomination she will lose the general, thus the tab you would have to pay if she is President won't come due.
Does this make sense to anyone else?
Chima wrote on January 13, 2008 8:43 PM:To Moisele:
Could you kindly point out where exactly Obama is playing the race card in this response to Bob Johnson's comments? Please be specific, because I don't like generalizations.
stellaa wrote on January 13, 2008 8:44 PM:Anonymous.....
Could it be, "he was doing something" do you know what the organizing was? I think you all jumped on the drug thing. Could Johnson have been saying, "look he was organising, I don't know what, but he says in his book" .
Was not the drug stuff when he was younger? Why do you all imply that if someone is doing something in" the neighborhood it's drugs"? Gee, who is being racist? So, white folks, get your tits out of the wringer and check out what you implied from what Johnson said, the minute you heard neighborhood, you think it's drugs, whereas I think Johnson, like most people does not know what organizing, literally, Obama did in the Neighborhood.
Count me in as one of the people not voting for Hillary under any circumstance. This is the second time someone close to Hillary has brought up Obama's drug use, so its either a big coincidence that it keeps popping up around her, or her campaign is actively pushing it.
I still won't vote for whatever wacko comes out of the Republican side, instead maybe a Green Party. Or maybe I'll write in Dodd's name, or something.
Anthony Harrison wrote on January 13, 2008 8:45 PM:Bob Johnson, founder of B.E.T has now officially become Bob Uncle Tom Johnson. Uncle Tom Johnson must be getting a sweetheart deal for selling out his black community.
Uncle Tom is commonly used to describe black people whose political views or allegiances are considered by their critics as detrimental to blacks as a group.
Jing wrote on January 13, 2008 8:48 PM:His comment of obama doing "something" in the neighborhood is reffering exactly to "drug dealing". "community organizing" and "drug smuggling" Get it??Of course it all make sense now, Obama gave up jobs in big law firms to go work in a church-based drug smuggling group in Chicago. WOW!!
You wonder why Al Gore did not associate himself with the Clintons when he was running for president.
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 13, 2008 8:49 PM:Exactly what advantage are the Clintons supposed to be
gaining from these "racist" remarks? Someone doesn't
know Obama is Black? Those who hear them
being reminded that now they won't for an American
American?
The need to torture the Clinton words, or in
some instances make them up or rewrite them suggests
how ridiculous and juvenile this is. Obama
supporters are running the very campaign
Obama is not. I am Black, I am victim vote
for me.
The Obama supporters' charges not only are angering more and more
Clinton supporters, they are what seem to be racist and
above to be taken fro the Karl Rove playbook.
To think that the black community saved Clinton's election in 1992. It was just like the sista soldja moment. The Clintons again proved they can embrace you when they need you, and throw you away when it hurts.
Steve wrote on January 13, 2008 8:55 PM:Let's suppose Robert Johnson was in fact referring to Obama's drug use. (I support Clinton, and I think that's what he meant.)
I could see this as being a hit below the belt--it shouldn't have anything to do with the campaign.
But it's not racist, is it? Would the founder of BET make a race-baiting remark in the same sentence in which he's trying to build up Clinton's bona fides on race issues, in front of an African American audience? To me it sounds like he was just making a personal attack.
I suspect that's what the Obama campaign thinks too, given their response.
So let's classify this incident separately from the others, and go back to our regularly scheduled argument about the others.
CHRISTY wrote on January 13, 2008 8:57 PM:HEY IF HE CARED SOOOO MUCH ABOUT BEING A PRESIDENT MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE DRUGS, YOU HILL HATERS! I KNOW THIS THAT IF I THOUGHT ABOUT MY FUTURE I WOULD NEVER HAVE BROUGHT DRUGS TO THE TABLE! HE IS NOT FROM THE SIXTIES, HEY NOBODY IS PERFECT BUT IF HE DID THEM THERE YOU GO! I AM SOO SICK OF HEARING HOW MR CLINTON TALKS ABOUT SOMETHING NOT EVEN ABOUT RACE AND THAT COMES OUT AS RACIST! READ ON THE CLINTONS PAST, THEY HAVE DONE SO MUCH FOR CIVIL RIGHTS FAR MORE THAN SAINT OBAMA! CHECK OUT TONY REZKO ON YOUTUBE, OBAMA IS A CONN AND HE WILL BE EXPOSED NEXT MONTH. MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP HATING SOMETHING YOU DONT MUCH ABOUT AND START LOOKING AT THE FACTS NOT OBAMAS PEP SPEECHES! IDIOTS!
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 8:57 PM:"'We're not inflicting pain on these fuckers,' Clinton said, softly at first. 'When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers.' Then, with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony [Lake], as if it was his fault. 'I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks'"
-George Stephanopholous quoting Bill Clinton in his book, All Too Human.
Be very afraid for Barack Obama.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 8:57 PM:Wow, the ruthless folks behind the scenes at the Obama campaign are getting better and better, I suppose uniting a country comes after dividing a party. And frankly, I do not care what the naive, mindless sheep with no sense of reality who are spiteful, immature and easily misled who post above have to say, boo-hoo. This is what you get people, cunning politicians (Clintons) vs. cunning politicians (Obamas), what did you expect? Because someone's gimmick is they don't have a gimmick doesn't mean they don't have a gimmick, it means you are easily fooled. When every breath you take is a political calculation and then the premise of your campaign is there are no political calculations, well then I question your authenticity, you my friend are the same politician as Hillary and you deserve each other. Bravo again Democrats. Blame Hillary all you want, we knew what she was, too bad you were too blind to see this one and get duped again.
stellaa wrote on January 13, 2008 8:58 PM:The amazing leap: who is the racist?
Wow all you racists who think that Johnson's comment implied drug dealing or using, cause it was in "the neighborhood" that he was doing something!!!!
Doing something was about the community organizing, if you know the field is wide and varied, it can be from labor issues, housing, economic development, health care, environmental etc. It was not the drug leap you all are making. How many people can recite the specifics on the organizing? Probably 1%.
RanStevens wrote on January 13, 2008 8:59 PM:stellaa-
You're right, its possible that "I won't say what it is" carries multiple meanings. For example, he could not want to mention Obama's days as a community organizer, and thus the omission.
But logic suggests that when a person saids "I won't say what it is", they are implying the most obvious answer (I have something in the back for you, I won't say what it is, but it has four wheels...) So what would the most obvious answer be here? Especially since the person is attacking Obama's credentials?
christy wrote on January 13, 2008 9:00 PM:"And to me, as an African-American," Johnson said, "I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved."
So, how did this imply to the drugs? Does anyone know what kind of "community organizing" he was doing? Was it labor, community or economic development? The guy was just saying that Obama said in the book what he did, how did it jump to the drugs?
we knew what she was
Yes, we all know. But what you aren't factoring in is that a plurality of Americans - nearly a majority - would rather lose without Hillary than win with her.
How are you failing to absorb this?
carrenderb wrote on January 13, 2008 9:02 PM:CHRISTY
STOP YELLING!
(in case you missed it, all caps in net-speak is yelling)
It doesn't imply drug use to a reasonable person, but the Obamaheads most certainly don't qualify as that. For people who don't want politics as usual, perhaps you look behind the curtain at Mr. Obama, his politics are as dirty as hers and we've got months more of this, yippee!
stellaa wrote on January 13, 2008 9:03 PM:Maybe he will not say what it is cause he does not know what it is, ever think that? But no, if it's in the neighborhood you all think it's drugs. Go for it.
And anonymous with the 8:57 post, RIGHT ON.
If the man meant community organizer he should have just said so. He implied somethng Obama did in his book which he trying to infer in code. The Clintons are coldhearted. They won't stop until they win, even if it is at the cost of splitting the democratic party on racial and gender lines. The Clintons are smearing the democrats legacy of supporting AAs and destroying the democratic party in the process. If I was an AA I would think long and hard about the Clintons and exactly what they did for AAs. What did Bill Clinton do for AAs while he was in the White House? Did he appoint any AAs to any important post??? The only AA he appointed he fired. What does that tell ya? The Clintons care about the Clintons first, last and always.
NJ Lawyer wrote on January 13, 2008 9:03 PM:Johnson lost all of his credibility when he said OJ didn't do it.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:04 PM:JOSH MARSHALL - Regarding your post, what about the MLK remarks, how about the pattern of al of this to Bob Kerrey, Andrew Cuomo and Shaheen. I think you are trying to have it both ways. It is clear that TPM has not been that balanced re: Ms. Clinton's sleaze, and while I applaud you for listening to part of your conscience, I do not think you have completely restored your credibility.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:04 PM:Um, Duane, perhaps you re-read, when you recognize that Obama is no "cleaner" than Clinton, then you've seen the light my child. Until then, enjoy walking around lost.
stellaa wrote on January 13, 2008 9:05 PM:"Code" where is this implied "code", you all made up this "code" that the neighborhood=drugs.
Russ wrote on January 13, 2008 9:05 PM:I posted after Greg Sargent's Friday column, and at the time, I mentioned that the HRC campaign was going to face a tidal wave of discontented, no, pissed off African Americans, of which I am one.
That Bob "I never met a Black community I didn't want to corrupt with every suburban white teenager's fantasy of what urban life is like" Johnson even opened his mouth on this controversy shows how desperate the Clinton campaign was to find a Stepin Fetchit to do their dirty work.
It warms my heart to see that AAs are no longer willing to be treated by the Democrats like evangelicals are treated by the Republicans. The sad thing is that the Rovian game the Clintons are playing is going to cost the party a great shot at the White House. Like many other posters wrote, I will not vote for Clinton in the general under any circumstances, even if George "Little Satan" W. Bush could bamboozle his way into running for a third time.
At this point, a Draft Gore movement needs to start immediately.
Michael Powe wrote on January 13, 2008 9:05 PM:John McCutchen, et al have sententiously informed me that "Hillary can't win" and "only Obama can win" -- thereby perpetuating (1) the meme that Obama is the returning Jesus, come to save us all from ourselves; (2) the meme that Hillary can't win, which they adopted wholesale from their Republican friends, in service to their candidate; (3) that the above two statements prove that Hillary is destroying the Democratic Party.
Well, not a lot of philosophy students in this forum. Two statements in succession do not a syllogism make.
One person states that failing to nominate Obama will destroy the Party because all the people "energized" by his candidacy will stay home on election day. The consensus among Obama disciples is that all the other candidates should simply go home and acknowledge him as the Savior Godhead of our nation. Perhaps, we can simply dispense with the formality of an election and install him for life. That seems only fair, considering the awesomeness of his Power.
But, if he is as weak in the knees as his followers, he'll be trying to save our country with mailin rebates. None of you seems to have the stomach for a standup fight. Numerous individuals in this thread have repudiated the Democratic Party, preferring to see Mike Huckabee installed as President rather than Hillary Clinton. Words cannot express my contempt for this hypocritical, self-serving band of cowards, who in fact care nothing for the fate of our nation.
For the record, I will vote for the candidate nominated to lead the Democratic Party. I hope that candidate is John Edwards, who makes Hillary Clinton look venal and Barack Obama like an immature putz. Failing that, either Obama or Clinton will be worlds better than the Republican alternative.
Thanks.
mp
If you have a close friend who is a Hillary supporter, and especially if your friend is a big fund raiser for Hillary, the time has come to ask that person why. And, for how much longer?
Seriously I think the Clintons have run off the rails into a ditch. I don't ever remember seeing them both so consistently desperate, angry, equivocating--and most surprising of all--downright incoherent.
The Clintons have entered the Twilight Zone.
I guess, like many, I was such a huge supporter of Bill in both terms of his Presidency, it has taken alot of shotgun blasts to wake me up. But, when Bill started firing on the Charlie Rose show, and there was no let-up through the NH primary, well, one sort of had to take notice.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:06 PM:Hey Christy:
HILLARY IS A PHONY!
Mike wrote on January 13, 2008 9:06 PM:Seriously, what exactly has HRC done in the field of civil rights, women's rights, etc...?
I'm an old guy and I don't remember her name ever coming up on those issues.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:06 PM:I think there may be truth to a fix being in in NH.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:06 PM:It doesn't imply drug use to a reasonable person, but the Obamaheads most certainly don't qualify as that. For people who don't want politics as usual, perhaps you look behind the curtain at Mr. Obama, his politics are as dirty as hers and we've got months more of this, yippee!
Yep, it's Obama's fault that Bob Johnson made those unfortunate - and suggestive - remarks. If for no other reason than he won't step aside and let the Rockefeller Republicans crown Hillary.
Shame on Obama for continuing to force the Clinton campaign to do nasty things.
(FWIW, this is covered in Hillary Law: Someone else is always to blame for the shortcomings of the Clinton folks.)
Christy,
no one is buying it, but thanks for dropping the ALL CAPS. PEOPLE FIND THAT VERY ANNOYING AND IT MAKES YOU LOOK KIND OF UNINTELLIGENT.
sue03 wrote on January 13, 2008 9:07 PM:Has anyone stopped to consider this: Racism can be both out front and subtle. I agree with the notion that my white parents didn't have to teach me to be racist. I believe that white folks do benefit from "white skin privilege" in the U.S. even to this day. There are disparities in life experience that most all of us white folks don't even notice, unless a Black friend points it out, but most African-Americans will recognize, based on their life experiences as members of an identified and sometimes scorned minority.
I don't think Bill and Hillary Clinton are overt bigots, and I am sure they have had many experiences with African-Americans, but that isn't the same as being on the receiving end of discrimination, both overt and subtle, all your life.
Given Sen. Clinton's poorly-formulated statements and her inability to squelch such statements from her political operative supporters, I am beginning to think that Hillary Clinton just doesn't get it deeply enough to earn my vote.
It's time for Sen. Clinton to be humble, and go sit down with some astute Black advisors and take her lumps, listen, and adopt a more humble tone on race if she has it in her.
Lyndon Johnson pressuring Congress to pass civil rights legislation so he could sign it was the moral thing to do and the least white folks could do, considering centuries of privilege. LBJ wouldn't have had the platform to get that legislation passed if grassroots activists hadn't sat in and marched and been spat on, waterhosed, arrested and even murdered (Emmet Till, Medgar Evers, MLK, etc.). The struggle for social justice needs all of us united, of all colors, playing all the roles up the chain until the work is done.
I prefer Sen. Obama's crew of foreign policy advisors over Sen. Clinton's, and prefer his call to broaden our vision and not just take the same old approaches in foreign policy. And I like that he worked to address the needs of displaced manufacturing workers in Chicago. Sen. Obama has my vote. And don't tell me I am blindly voting for him just because he is African-American. I wouldn't vote for Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas or Armstrong Williams. Obama '08!
Bob Johnson was speaking in disparaging terms about Obama. He certainly wasn't talking about his community organizing, which Democrats across the board consider a plus. Wonder what he WAS talking about?
I started out this primary season thinking I would vote for Clinton if she won the Democratic primary. I am now so disgusted, I honestly don't know. If it came down to her vs. McCain, the latter would win the integrity argument, which might be enough for me.
brm wrote on January 13, 2008 9:08 PM:Obama support soaring in the African American community. I guess they can see the Clinton campaign race baiting very clearly. Maybe they dont want to stay on Miss Hillary's plantation any more.
But he's also soared in a key Democratic group -- African-Americans, who've switched from favoring Clinton by 52-39 percent a month ago to an even larger preference for Obama, 60-32 percent, today.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:08 PM:Give him a break 904, it's been all Hillary mudslinging all day here, what more can he do? And yes, I used mudslinging intentionally and correctly, I understand the definition. I'm all for bashing her on all the reality she can be bashed for, not all the heresay, inuendo and blatant comment-morphing that the Obama camp is circulating to smear the Clintons post-loss. This one was a real stretch. The thing is, he could have really risen above, albeit an act, he's going to win anyway.
Tony wrote on January 13, 2008 9:10 PM:I am really concerned about Hillary being 'thrown under the bus' by her own party. The Clintons are a truly remarkable couple who have always put their best efforts toward creating lasting change and compromising across party lines to get there. Sure, they can be annoying, but they work hard, and that beats anything I have seen in a long time.
Obama is a clean, articulate, man, who represents an African American visual and voice that transcends racial lines. He doesn't sound like Jesse or Al, so he his good for most people. He is not presidential material. In fact, I am not sure what he has really done. Not much.
If nominated - he will not win.
Tony
Um, Duane, perhaps you re-read, when you recognize that Obama is no "cleaner" than Clinton, then you've seen the light my child. Until then, enjoy walking around lost.
Huh? Typical Clinton condescending and patronizing tone aside, what point exactly are you trying to make?
I bet you Clinton supporters would be happy if you could figure out how to cast disapproving looks over the internet. Then you wouldn't be forced into these indefensible positions vis a vis the Clintons AND you could still convey a patronizing and condescending attitude. That would be a win-win for all of us.
del wrote on January 13, 2008 9:11 PM:it's now official. as a commmitted registered democrat, who wants to end the war in iraq, i will vote for john mccain over hillary clinton in a general election, should it come to that.
this is indisputable, unacceptable, race-baiting, and it is now part of an unmistakably deliberate pattern. that it comes from the mouth of an african-american is irrelevant.
this is not about civil rights, to which the clintons are committed. this is not about racism per se -- the clintons are not racist. this is about the willingness to disgustingly exploit racial divisions as a political tool to win elections.
from this point forward, i will never cast a ballot for hillary clinton.
Anna wrote on January 13, 2008 9:13 PM:Right on, Duane.
It is one thing to say I made a mistake, it is another shameless thing to say I made a mistake but it is your fault.
The finger pointing politic is over, we need a different politics that can unite the people
Go Obama!
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:13 PM:brm- yes, it appears they have fallen for his race baiting, it works, I anticipate more Hillary smear out of his campaign. I expect more retarded, for lack of a better word, antics out of her camp as well. Now, the challenge will be, can Obama really make black people believe the Clintons are racist? Not saying it's not possible, but if so, wow, this snake oil salesman is moving on to bigger things, I'd like to remain wise enough not to say I was not a part of it when you're all disillusioned.
Marcie Kleinman wrote on January 13, 2008 9:14 PM:Gregor -
You are absolutely right. I cannot imagine any of my friends, with whom I have deep respect, who may have supported HRC in the past, to continue to support her in good conscience.
The Clintons have proven that retaining power is far more important to them than bringing the country together at a time of great need and doing what is best for the Democratic party.
At least the Obama and Edwards campaigns have remained above board. I have lost deep respect for Bill Clinton throughout all of this, someone with whom I have defended with deep conviction for the last 15 years. It is a disgrace and he should be ashamed.
long wrote on January 13, 2008 9:14 PM:Thank you del, i feel the same way too.
Although I supported Obama from the beginning.
GO Obama!!
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:14 PM:Um Duane, again, read it real slow, and then walk away and ask yourself, does this guy support Hillary? I mean, take yourself out of anti-reality Obama defense mode, read it, would a Hillary supporter write that? No, please back to Earth.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:14 PM:Seriously, what exactly has HRC done in the field of civil rights, women's rights, etc...?I'm an old guy and I don't remember her name ever coming up on those issues.
Mike, in regards to civil rights, she was a Goldwater girl. Barry Goldwater, you will recall, ran against the guy she gives all the credit to for the civil rights movement.
Josh,
Re: Your take on the context of the "fairy tale" comment. In immediate context, you are absolutely correct.
But, if we accept as a possibility that the Clinton camp IS engaged in race-baiting (as I think you do), then Bill's comment could be interpreted within the broader context.
It goes like this, "Hey White America, Barack is not the Numinous Negro. There's no such thing. It's a Sidney Poitier movie. It's a fairy tale. He's a smooth-talking shuck-and-jiver."
"Would you trust your daughters' with him?"
Seen in a broader context, where they just keep drip, drip, sripping away with this stuff, the immediate context may not be the whole story.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:18 PM:Right on Anna! More hypocrytical finger pointers for Obama! ARe your fingers sore from pointing? Of course call me a Hillary supporter, standard warfare. But really, if I wanted another corporate Democrat for President, couldn't I just support Obama too? Oh that's right, I have to fall into the trance that distorts all reality and makes me think he is opposite-person for that!
jim wrote on January 13, 2008 9:19 PM:It doesn't imply drug use to a reasonable person
This must depend on the meaning of the word "is" somehow. Please, ok, you support Hillary, but it is beyond obvious what he was implying. You are just making yourself look ridiculous.
Scott wrote on January 13, 2008 9:19 PM:Good grief! As an Obama supporter, I have to admit that all of this stuff coming from Hillary's campaign is really starting to annoy me. I've worked in politics since I was 22, and I understand the game, but this stuff that seems to come out every day is beneath contempt. I've supported the Clintons in the past and was even a delegate to the '96 convention, but Bill and Hillary are starting to really irritate me with all their Roveian b.s. lately. It's ok to draw contrasts on positions, but this smear campaign against Obama carried out by surrogates is just pure Karl Rove, as well as the obvious attempts by the Clinton campaign to suppress votes in Iowa and now Nevada.
As someone else noted last week, it is just unseemly that a former two-term President of the United States is out attacking a candidate and Senator from his own party. It just seems so petty and small-minded, and I've really lost a lot of respect for Bill in the past couple of weeks due to this.
There is no way Hillary can unite this nation, and her campaign's words and actions are proving that on a daily basis. Obama is really the only chance we have to change our politics and unite our nation.
Wow... Someone smare posted here. wrote on January 13, 2008 9:20 PM:Michael Powe wrote on January 13, 2008 9:05 PM:
John McCutchen, et al have sententiously informed me that "Hillary can't win" and "only Obama can win" -- thereby perpetuating (1) the meme that Obama is the returning Jesus, come to save us all from ourselves; (2) the meme that Hillary can't win, which they adopted wholesale from their Republican friends, in service to their candidate; (3) that the above two statements prove that Hillary is destroying the Democratic Party.
Well, not a lot of philosophy students in this forum. Two statements in succession do not a syllogism make.
One person states that failing to nominate Obama will destroy the Party because all the people "energized" by his candidacy will stay home on election day. The consensus among Obama disciples is that all the other candidates should simply go home and acknowledge him as the Savior Godhead of our nation. Perhaps, we can simply dispense with the formality of an election and install him for life. That seems only fair, considering the awesomeness of his Power.
But, if he is as weak in the knees as his followers, he'll be trying to save our country with mailin rebates. None of you seems to have the stomach for a standup fight. Numerous individuals in this thread have repudiated the Democratic Party, preferring to see Mike Huckabee installed as President rather than Hillary Clinton. Words cannot express my contempt for this hypocritical, self-serving band of cowards, who in fact care nothing for the fate of our nation.
For the record, I will vote for the candidate nominated to lead the Democratic Party. I hope that candidate is John Edwards, who makes Hillary Clinton look venal and Barack Obama like an immature putz. Failing that, either Obama or Clinton will be worlds better than the Republican alternative.
Thanks.
mp
He is not presidential material. In fact, I am not sure what he has really done. Not much.
If nominated - he will not win.
Tony
Tony, I realize your opinion about who is electable versus who isn't is paramount to any evidence to the contrary but for those of us who aren't listening to the little voices in your head, where is the evidence?
On MTP today, Russert introduces polls that show Obama beating Republicans in a matchup much more handily than Hillary. Even Hillary had to acknowledge that if nominated by the Democrats she would have to work from a position of "being behind".
Do you have anything other than your own latemt prejudices to justify such an indictment of Obama? He does, after all, have more years in elective office than Hillary, has been elected more times than Hillary and has shown the ability so far to pull in huge new swaths of supporters.
zonk wrote on January 13, 2008 9:21 PM:Frankly, HRC fans, you'd have a much easier time defending this if Johnson had responded with such a laughable defense...
He just didn't want to say "community organizer"? Riiiigggghhhhtttt... You have to be either drunk on the kool-aid or really pretty, well, not very smart to believe that.
I'd also ask that you go back up top and re-read the post, paying particular attention to Obama response. They didn't mention race in the least, they solely decried "divisive" and "personal" attacks.
You're being a bit daft here.
candace wrote on January 13, 2008 9:21 PM:This is unbelievable to me. We’re talking events of a week and Clinton has the audacity to feed THESE recent, uh, days-old, hours-old events to the Revise-History, Scorch-Earth, Didn’t-Inhale Clinton Machine? And who’s coming to the plate for this? Bob who?
So, last week, during the NH primary campaign when they were feeling pretty desperate with the polls and everything (you with me so far — this is true, right? Happened? We all on the same page so far?), Bill appears at a campaign event and says Obama’s story is a fairy tale. He can’t make his wife taller, make her male, make her, well, Obama, Bill whines bitterly. Bill’s very angry about this — can’t you see? You’re missing something here — read my lips, he whispers, “she’s Female, come on!”
Then, shortly after Bill’s remarks, Hillary herself says:
“Dr. King had been on the front lines. He had been leading a movement. But Dr. King understood, which is why he made it very clear, that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That’s why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That’s why he was there when those great pieces of legislation were passed. Does he deserve the lion’s share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does.”
After Hillary basically says, “Hey Obama, don’t give too much credit to what Dr. Martin Luther King dreamt of — all this hope stuff is false. Yeah, let’s not have “false hopes.” I mean, MLB had to get Lyndon B. Johnson to do the real work, remember? Unlike what you think, that white man was really the one who got all the work done for your civil rights movement stuff.”
Senator Obama in the meanwhile, stays quiet. All in the meanwhile, with all these headlines going back and forth, regarding what I outlined above, Senator Obama says nada.
The news sort of talk about these remarks by the Clintons. Sort of. There are other headline news. Clinton comes first in NH, and some people think it’s because she almost cried, and she makes a speech and says, “Okay, I’ll try and cry more often folks, should’ve listened to you a bit more carefully — huh. THAT’s what you wanted?”
Senator Obama still stays quiet. All in the meanwhile, with all these headlines going back and forth, regarding what I outlined above, Senator Obama says nada.
Then, uh uh, problems for the Clintons. Clyburn, the top ranking black politician, gets angry at the Clintons’ remarks (and maybe he also got peeved at other vicious Clinton lies, e.g., Bill claiming he was against the war from the beginning when there’s undisputed evidence of speeches he gave supporting Bush on Iraq war?). “You guys being racist here?” Clyburn wonders incredulously.
Senator Obama still stays quiet. All in the meanwhile, with all these headlines going back and forth, regarding what I outlined above, Senator Obama says nada.
So, the Clintons, who desperately need the black vote, then go on radio to Al Sharpton saying, “Hey, Obama is a great guy, he can win, no, no, no, he’s no fairy tale.”
Obama, in the meanwhile, still keeps quiet.
Hillary now goes on Meet the Press and says, “It’s Obama’s fault. He’s been twisting my words, and oh my god, people, HE IS MAKING RACE AN ISSUE! AND I’M CRYING, SEE MY TEARS???”
So, Obama finally responds, “Uhm. You know, this is kinda fascinating to me. I mean, I didn’t say a word? Did anyone hear me say anything about this?”
Nope, Senator. It’s just the crazy Clintons again, and some crazy Americans believing the crap, as they do sometimes.
Sigh.
Jim, back to reading comprehension with Duane, Hillary supporter?????
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:24 PM:Michael Powe wrote on January 13, 2008 9:05 PM:
John McCutchen, et al have sententiously informed me that "Hillary can't win" and "only Obama can win" -- thereby perpetuating (1) the meme that Obama is the returning Jesus, come to save us all from ourselves; (2) the meme that Hillary can't win, which they adopted wholesale from their Republican friends, in service to their candidate; (3) that the above two statements prove that Hillary is destroying the Democratic Party.
Well, not a lot of philosophy students in this forum. Two statements in succession do not a syllogism make.
One person states that failing to nominate Obama will destroy the Party because all the people "energized" by his candidacy will stay home on election day. The consensus among Obama disciples is that all the other candidates should simply go home and acknowledge him as the Savior Godhead of our nation. Perhaps, we can simply dispense with the formality of an election and install him for life. That seems only fair, considering the awesomeness of his Power.
But, if he is as weak in the knees as his followers, he'll be trying to save our country with mailin rebates. None of you seems to have the stomach for a standup fight. Numerous individuals in this thread have repudiated the Democratic Party, preferring to see Mike Huckabee installed as President rather than Hillary Clinton. Words cannot express my contempt for this hypocritical, self-serving band of cowards, who in fact care nothing for the fate of our nation.
For the record, I will vote for the candidate nominated to lead the Democratic Party. I hope that candidate is John Edwards, who makes Hillary Clinton look venal and Barack Obama like an immature putz. Failing that, either Obama or Clinton will be worlds better than the Republican alternative.
Thanks.
mp
there are only two possible explanations for all this vile hillary-bashing: 1) TPM has become a target of some republican hate group that is posting verbal graffiti on this board or 2) obama supporters think that the "politics of hope" can only win if they slap down hillary in a manner that only a swiftboater could love.
i prefer to believe that the michelle malkin crowd has infested this board. no way can obama supporters have written even half of the disguting comments on this board.
John McCutchen wrote on January 13, 2008 9:25 PM:For 2-3 months now I have been saying that Hillary's campaign has been sputtering because they've been reacting to internal polls which show her headed for the crapper
That's why they've been, however ineptly, swift boating Obama
WaPo/ABC appears to confirm the hypothesis....Hillary's lead is now gone...down 25% from last month
It isn't rocket science.
She's about the worst candidate the Dems could field
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:29 PM:John McCutchen: so glad that the pollsters are right this time!
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:29 PM:Um Duane, again, read it real slow, and then walk away and ask yourself, does this guy support Hillary? I mean, take yourself out of anti-reality Obama defense mode, read it, would a Hillary supporter write that? No, please back to Earth.
Anonymous, if you want to have a discussion with me, you are going to have to make an effort to establish a premise, support it with facts and then query from there. My inability to read your mind and your inability to construct a coherent drive-by protestation are creating an obvious impediment to our continued discussion.
John- you nailed it. And it proves, given their tactical response, that they care more about retaining power than the long-term impact it is/will have on our ability to win back the WH. Then again, Hillary's policy views aren't much different than McCain's.
davet103 wrote on January 13, 2008 9:29 PM:Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:25 PM:
there are only two possible explanations for all this vile hillary-bashing: 1) TPM has become a target of some republican hate group that is posting verbal graffiti on this board or 2) obama supporters think that the "politics of hope" can only win if they slap down hillary in a manner that only a swiftboater could love.
i prefer to believe that the michelle malkin crowd has infested this board. no way can obama supporters have written even half of the disguting comments on this board.
Me: Right on. Hillary sucks, but I come online tonight and read these comments, this is the politics of hope? Mr. Obama would be embarassed by his supporters. These seems like most everywhere, a pretty-pro Obama blog, not sure where that comes from either.
jim wrote on January 13, 2008 9:31 PM:i prefer to believe that the michelle malkin crowd has infested this board
A comment worthy of Malkin herself. It is all a vast conspiracy!! First Hillary was a victim of the liberal media, now TPM has become part of RedState and Malkinville because anyone here dared to criticize Poor Victim Hillary. Sorry, if the Malkinites had infested this board, they would be cheering for Hillary. She is their last best hope.
Sue wrote on January 13, 2008 9:32 PM:The thing to understand is that the latest comments coming out of the Clinton campaign are being viewed through the prism of what happened in December, when every other day it was discovered that another Clinton aide in Iowa was caught sending out the "Obama is a radical Muslim" smear, and when their NH campaign chair brought up Obama's teenage drug use and implied he was a drug dealer.
You sew what you reap; now the public doesn't trust what comes out of the mouth of that campaign, and rightfully so, especially when these sorts of comments are dropped every few days. Give me a break.
You don’t hear this crap coming out the Obama campaign.
It's beyond disingenuous to suggest he meant anything other than drugs. It's like Barbara Bush referring to Geraldine Ferraro saying "I'm too much of a lady to say it but it rhymes with witch." I suppose you believe she meant rich.
You don't make a disparaging remark like that and allude to Oabama's book , which unfortunately is probably best known now for his acknowledgment of trying drugs as a teenager, with "I wont' say what he's been doing..." simply to suggest that he was community organizing. I have a hard time believing Democrats consider community organizing a negative.
Oh wait. It's the Clintons. They've trashed his being against the war in Iraq, trashed his pro-Planned Parenthood positions in Illinois, are currently trying to suppress his votes in Nevada - maybe community organizing is a negative too after all.
They are a pox on us all.
Barbara
War wing of the Democratic party...McCain's never known a war he wouldn't fight, Mrs. Bill never seen one she wouldn't triangulate
At one level, I'd prefer McCain. At least he won't Lieberman me
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:35 PM:MP, I fail to understand how mocking Obama with religious concepts that are sacred to myself and many other religious Americans is a strategy for success.
I'm not trying to be a concern troll here, just really disagreeing with your choice of words used to mock Obama.
I think you can make the same scurrilous attacks on Obama without offending mine and others' religious sensibilities.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:35 PM:The tone of the Hillary-haters is shrill. Why? During the holocaust there were capos, Jews who helped the Nazis herd and beat and round up other Jews on the way to the gas chambers. Likewise, the Hillary-haters don't want success, they know Obama can't win. They want to lose, and then they can feel self-righteous. They're not interested in making changes (hence the stir about MLK/LBJ comment), because LBJ actually helped people by passing laws. They're self-loathing, America-hating ultra leftists. That's why they're trying to swift boat Hillary, our most progressive and winning leader.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:35 PM:Do you live under a rock Sue? This Obama/Clinton nonsense has clearly moved me to Edwards.
I agree with this:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/13/surrogates-should-stick-to-sex/
Chicken George! Give us all a break!
It is not about what the Clinton's have "done" for the African American community it is about what can be done for the future of America (no subcategory descriptor required)!
In order to not live in the past we need to look far into our future. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the Clinton past. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for the American future.
African Americans do not owe any individual or group their [our] allegiance because our allegiance is to the Untied States of America and the ideals that all men and woman are created equal!
We do not have to bind ourselves intellectually nor emotionally to any candidate, particularly the Clinton's. We are all free people that should not vote just on the bases of a single point issue.
Hillary Clinton is the virtual incumbent in this race. The problems we face today are part of the Clinton's doing and the core of Hillary's 35 years of experience on why we should not vote for her. There’s no dismissing the fact that the Clinton administration got distracted in his second term a period when bin Laden and al Qaeda could have been stopped.
Each day I read about the pandering done by the Clintons makes me sick of a Presidential Primary selection process that I was previously extremely enthused about!
I believe this to be very Rove(ish) in the application of hot button talking points where they [the Clinton's] know that they [the Clinton's] have a solid backing of the core of the Democratic party and as such want to discourage younger and independent voters from taking part I the process thus increasing the voting base for real change, change we all can trust.
Bob Johnson of BET is looking out for his share of entrenched interest as he has a lot to gain/maintain by supporting the status quo and not supporting non-partisan issues and solutions. He wants polarisation because he makes money on polar issues and groups.
Obama makes a large number of Americans – young and old, black and white – believe this nation can accomplish anything it sets its mind to. He talks about "replacing the politics of cynicism with the politics of hope." And he doesn't see Republicans as the enemy. The Tampa Tribune Editorial Board Jan 11, 2008
We were foolish to believe that the Clintons could see what they believe is their destiny threatened from someone like Barack Obama! The Clinton’s position was clearly articulated by the statement of: "Give me a break," said Mr. Clinton. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Not sure about your vantage point nor how you might parse what Bill Clinton said and meant but I know what I heard and what I heard was Bill Clinton saying that the whole Barack Obama campaign is a fairy tale.
This idea had been levelled earlier in the campaign with Hillary expressing that Barack was giving the American People false hope(s)!
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union were foolish to believe that we could hope for a country of unity, one of collective strength(s), one without the constraints of the past placing artificial restrictions on our future!
This really isn't about right vs wrong; liberal vs conservative; Democrat vs Republican vs Independent -- this is about the past verses the future! This is about a select entrenched group that dominate our country trying to retain THEIR power!
Why do you think the GOP core despise Mike Huckabee OR provide luke warm support for John McCain??? They are worried that We the People will see the truth and as such vote for change real change, change that we can trust.
If Barack Obama gets no further then the Presidential Primary process he [Barack] will still have done more for Americans or all colours and ethnic backgrounds then the Clinton's could have ever hoped to accomplished!
Don't let them steal our future in an effort to save their past!
"I once was lost but now am found, Was blind, but now I see!"
Obama support soaring in the African American community. I guess they can see the Clinton campaign race baiting very clearly. Maybe they dont want to stay on Miss Hillary's plantation any more.
But he's also soared in a key Democratic group -- African-Americans, who've switched from favoring Clinton by 52-39 percent a month ago to an even larger preference for Obama, 60-32 percent, today.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:39 PM:if hillary weren't a threat to take the WH, then there would be no need to bash the hell out of her. sorry, but the republicans don't want to run against her.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:41 PM:Interesting post from an Andrew Sullivan reader:
Many of your recent posts on the Obama-Clinton contest are missing the forest for the trees. They are focusing on small annoyances from Camp Clinton. The big story of the last week is that the Clintons are trying to strip Obama of his rightful advantage on the Iraq war "judgment" issue and carry out the tactic from the Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength." If that strength is merely "perceived" and not real, it's a legitimate tactic, but Rove attacks even when the perception is justified, and the Clintons are now doing the same.
Bill did this in New Hampshire when he contended that Obama was not really a consistent war opponent. Hillary put this tactic way out front on Meet the Press today. She said that Obama's campaign is premised entirely on his October 2002 speech, and she said that Obama did nothing after that speech. This is just an out and out lie; there are no shades of gray here. Here are two examples of what Obama did after his October 2002 speech that I was able to find through a simple Nexis search:
On March 4, 2003, an AP story picked up by an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, states as follows:
"Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question....'What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago."
On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:
"Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam and four days before the invasion], then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, 'It's not too late' to stop the war."
All of this is highly relevant, because Hillary's account of her own actions in the October 2002 - March 20, 2003 period (March 20 being the day of the invasion) is that she voted, not to authorize war, but inspections, and that when the inspectors were there in March 2003, she, in her own mind, opposed the invasion and would not have carried it out had she been President. A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so.
Anonymous Hillary Supporter:They're self-loathing, America-hating ultra leftists.
In one breath, you Hillary supporters condemn us all as a bunch of closet Republicans, in the next breath you sound just like Republicans.
When you folks decide which it is, let us know. Right now, I'm feeling better about Obama's chances with the Clinton campaign floundering so badly and the Clinton supporters online losing all focus in their blind fury at being challenged in a Democratic primary.
jim wrote on January 13, 2008 9:41 PM:The tone of the Hillary-haters is shrill. Why? During the holocaust there were capos, Jews who helped the Nazis herd
Self-hating Jews for Obama!
Really, I sincerly hope you were being sarcastic. You never know, though, you might be Hillary's campaign chair. Take a deep breath, people.
Pot meet kettle wrote on January 13, 2008 9:43 PM:Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:41 PM:
Anonymous Hillary Supporter:They're self-loathing, America-hating ultra leftists.
In one breath, you Hillary supporters condemn us all as a bunch of closet Republicans, in the next breath you sound just like Republicans.
When you folks decide which it is, let us know. Right now, I'm feeling better about Obama's chances with the Clinton campaign floundering so badly and the Clinton supporters online losing all focus in their blind fury at being challenged in a Democratic primary.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:44 PM:But seriously folks: is Hillary really a lesbian? (not that it matters but shouldn't she come out already?)
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:44 PM:if hillary weren't a threat to take the WH, then there would be no need to bash the hell out of her. sorry, but the republicans don't want to run against her.
If telling the truth about Hillary is "bashing" her, then you don't have a prayer with her against the Republicans anyway.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:45 PM:Well, if Obama wasn't at least a little worried, he wouldn't be stirring all this up. I just don't see why, I think he can win this handily.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:45 PM:I think they fixed New Hampshire and are going to try to fix South Carolina as well.
jim wrote on January 13, 2008 9:46 PM:The tone of the Hillary-haters is shrill. Why? During the holocaust there were capos, Jews who helped the Nazis herd
One question: does this mean "Hillary is the Jew of Obama fascism?" Just curious.
brad wrote on January 13, 2008 9:47 PM:Has anyone noticed that almost every argument advanced by team Clinton in support of her candidacy is an attempt to bring Obama down to her level instead of trying to bring HRC up to Obama's level?
I mean every argument. On this board. From the candidate. From Bill Clinton. From her surrogates. Every arguement is geared towards the lowest common denominator.
And if you think there is a better option than HRC you are naive/a dreamer/a closet Republican.
That's the best we can do?
Pot Meet Kettle, Obama supporters haven't accused Hillary of being a self-loathing America-hating ultra-leftist or, what was the other phrase.. ah yes, self-hating jews.
Real classy stuff.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:51 PM:Well, if Obama wasn't at least a little worried, he wouldn't be stirring all this up. I just don't see why, I think he can win this handily.
How did Obama cause Bob Johnson to make those unfortunate remarks? Mind-control techniques? Maybe Bob Johnson is a double-agent, public support for Hillary, secret support for Obama?
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:51 PM:After seeing Bill Clinton Talktalk, there is NO way I could for Obama, ever. The Senator from Punjab? We know who is pushing this racism/racist bullsh*t.
how is it that bill clinton can have a 65 pct approval rating (much higher among democrats) and not have any supporters posting on this board? something doesn't add up... that's why i suggested that it must be the michelle malkin-loving, hate-mongering, swiftboat crowd... not the believers in obama's "politics of hope"...
blackstar wrote on January 13, 2008 9:53 PM:yeah Greg, there's CLEARLY no real pattern here. just a string of coincidences.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:53 PM:Geez, Moishele, how is Obama to blame for Johnson's comments?
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:54 PM:But seriously folks: is Hillary really a lesbian? (not that it matters but shouldn't she come out already?)
The first time that is brought up in a thread and it's from a Hillary supporter. Wow. You Clinton supporters really know no lows.
You are absolutely right. I cannot imagine any of my friends, with whom I have deep respect, who may have supported Barack Obama in the past, to continue to support him in good conscience.
The Obamas have proven that retaining power is far more important to them than bringing the country together at a time of great need and doing what is best for the Democratic party.
At least the Clinton and Edwards campaigns have remained above board. I have lost deep respect for Barack Obama throughout all of this, someone with whom I have defended with deep conviction for the last 15 years. It is a disgrace and he should be ashamed.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:59 PM:how is it that bill clinton can have a 65 pct approval rating (much higher among democrats) and not have any supporters posting on this board? something doesn't add up... that's why i suggested that it must be the michelle malkin-loving, hate-mongering, swiftboat crowd... not the believers in obama's "politics of hope"...
Well, I'd say you're wrong. The national polls have it 40% Hillary / 36% Obama. Additionally, save for folks generally considered to be on the Clinton campaign payroll, there isn't a whole lot of online support for Hillary's candidacy. Hillary's campaign is an overplanned machine candidacy, not a viral grass-roots thing.
And speaking for myself, and maybe Jim, we are pretty damn protective of our imaginary hip black friend. I think the loyalty Obama commands will do him well through the primary.
Tika wrote on January 13, 2008 9:59 PM:This is disgusting. This election is all about race now. I agree that Bill and Hillary Clinton are not racist; however, they will use any method to win. It's like she has to be the next president. Well not with my vote. If Obama does not win the nomination, I will vote for Huckabee or McCain. After this hot mess, no Clinton will ever get my vote again. She will be cremed in the general election. The republicans have enough to work with now. It's going to be pleasurable for them.
zonk wrote on January 13, 2008 9:59 PM:Ding! Ding! Ding!
We finally have it - a Godwin's Law violation from camp Clinton.
OK - who had 1/13/08 in the pool?
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:00 PM:"You're right, its possible that "I won't say what it is" carries multiple meanings. For example, he could not want to mention Obama's days as a community organizer, and thus the omission."
Bingo, stops short of saying something positive, doesn't make it right, but jumping to drugs? Seems silly.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:02 PM:This is disgusting. This election is all about race now. I agree that Barack Obama is not racist; however, he will use any method to win. It's like he has to be the next president. Well not with my vote. If someone other than Obama does not win the nomination, I will vote for Huckabee or McCain. After this hot mess, no Obama will ever get my vote again. He will be cremed in the general election. The republicans have enough to work with now. It's going to be pleasurable for them.
zonk wrote on January 13, 2008 10:02 PM:How did Obama cause Bob Johnson to make those unfortunate remarks? Mind-control techniques? Maybe Bob Johnson is a double-agent, public support for Hillary, secret support for Obama?
Duane, clearly -- Barack Obama and his supporters are not just nazi sympathizers, but Jedis as well.
Truly a frightening combination.
Where do I pick up my Messerschmidt light saber?
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 10:03 PM:At least the Clinton and Edwards campaigns have remained above board. I have lost deep respect for Barack Obama throughout all of this, someone with whom I have defended with deep conviction for the last 15 years. It is a disgrace and he should be ashamed.
Yeah, well we only have your word for that and you've chosen to remain anonymous so if you don't mind we'll just put your concerns in the "unsourced" pile. Thanks for visiting.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:04 PM:Is Barack Obama a lesbian?
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:06 PM:No, that's John Edwards, he's a lesbian, fresh from an Obama surrogate.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:06 PM:What has Bob Johnson done for the Black Community, apart from exploiting it by airing videos of scantily clad Black Women in Hip Hop videos and making millions of dollars for himself?
Any parents of any race who want to bring up responsible children should ban BET from their households. It's degrading to humanity.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 10:07 PM:This is disgusting. This election is all about race now. I agree that Barack Obama is not racist; however, he will use any method to win.
Again, I appreciate that you are too embarassed to sign your own name to the stupid shit you are posting but how did Obama cause Bob Johnson to make these unfortunate remarks?
We've considered mind-control, jedi mind-control and super secret double agent tactics. Did you have another theory?
xargaw wrote on January 13, 2008 10:10 PM:The Clinton campaign fears loosing so much they have adopted the Rove/Atwater approach to campaigning. With each passing day they become smaller and more disgraceful. Not only will Hillary self-destruct, but Bill's legacy will be destroyed as well. It is digusting to watch. In 2000 and 2004, I was an anybody but Bush voter. I am now an anybody but Hillary voter.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:12 PM:WOW...check out the new Washington Post/ABCNews poll! No wonder team Hillary is pulling out all the stops. Her national lead is now down to 5 from what 35? a month ago. That is stunning.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:13 PM:The Obama campaign fears losing so much they have adopted the Rove/Atwater approach to campaigning. With each passing day they become smaller and more disgraceful. Not only will Barack self-destruct, but his legacy will be destroyed as well. It is digusting to watch. In 2000 and 2004, I was an anybody but Bush voter. I am now an anybody but Obama voter.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:14 PM:Hey Hillary, maybe it's time Bill gave you a cigar?
Organizer wrote on January 13, 2008 10:17 PM:If anyone ever had any respect for Johnson, take another look. His "something in the neighborhood" dis was bad enough, but then claiming he was referring to Obama's work as a community organizer was cowardly, idiotic and slimy beyond belief. He doesn't even have the courage to own up to his own insults.
Who'd have thought that the founder of BET would stoop to racist stereotypes, then deny the obvious? Are we sure he's not trying to give Rush Limbaugh another show?
Scumbag.
c wrote on January 13, 2008 10:18 PM:Yikes.
Speakin' as an Obama supporter, I think HRC is on balance a force for good in the world, and I think reasonable people can support her. Still.
Campaigns can get really, really pissy at times and this is one of them, especially as remarks by surrogates and hangers-on get amplified by a media eager for a brawl. I think it's also possible that the HRC campaign is ham-handed, and that its notion of getting tough on Obama means saying stupid things.
sue03 above is very good.
Let's take a deep breath. First, no matter how much crap is flying right now, there will be a lot more of it after the conventions. The challenge is to stay positive and firm. Think of this as practice! If you think you've seen race-baiting (and maybe you have) it's nothing on what will come later from the other party and nameless 527s.
The last thing you want to do is to get sucked into the kind of insane Hillary-hating that surfaces above. Politically inept she may be, evil she is not.
And we have to be sensitive to the way people read these things. Though it pains me to admit it, the Frank Rich op-ed in today's NYT gets it exactly right. Obama needs to do a little air-clearing on that front.
nzinga wrote on January 13, 2008 10:18 PM:I'm really disgus with the clintons using a black man to diss and disrespect sen, Obama why?
Again,What has Bob Johnson done for the Black Community, apart from exploiting it by airing videos of scantily clad Black Women in Hip Hop videos and making millions of dollars for himself?
SALE OUT
BOb you make me sick
The last thing you want to do is to get sucked into the kind of insane Hillary-hating that surfaces above.
C, can you explain how Bob Johnson's unfortunate remarks are a result of "Hillary-hating"?
Thanks!
Copied from another blog, but worth it...
I was in the trenches working with the poor during the nineties. I remember when he compromised on the welfare to work programs and how some liberal dems were outraged. But you know what he did. He attached domestic violence treatment funding to the welfare to work program. So, our program quadrupled. Our welfare to work programs did more to help people than you can imagine. We had child care credits, we had long term over a year long counseling for the REAL issues that hold folks back (like domestic violence, substance abuse, poverty). We actually had programs that trained these women in computer fields so they would be guaranteed 40 thou or better when they got out.
I was in the the trenches. Still am. Our domestic violence programs have been cut. Welfare to work is not “dress for success” our programs for good jobs in higher paying jobs is gone, we lost two shelters in our city.
The Clintons did an amazing job of placating the republicans, balancing the budget without selling out the poorest, and middle class of this nation. There have been dems who developed good programs but NONE that did and balanced the budget. Republicans always used their examples as “pork” but not the Clintons. The Clintons completely damaged the republican reagan meme “trickle down economics” that if you focus on the rich, and corporations we all are “lifted.” The Clintons proved this was bunk. They are hated and feared for this reason.
I don’t like every thing about them, but I was working amongst the poorest, most neglected segment of our society when the Clintons were in office, and for them life got a hell of a lot better.
I get tired of the Clintons are corporate evil argument. If that were true, the nineties would have been way different. She outright admitted that NAFTA was a mistake and that it didn’t turn out the way Bill had envisioned. He was in trouble with the Monica Lewinsky stuff and threw them a bone, not realizing how bad it would turn out. WE do have to deal with the global market but it didn’t go the way they thought it would. IN part due to what BUSH did when he got into office.
Technically, belittling Obambi's community service would have raised the hackles of Obamites as much as mentioning his drug use. So, I disagree with Josh's assessment that Johnson's defense doesn't make sense.
I'd be more inclined to believe that he was deliberately vague in order to provoke this kind of response from the Obama campaign. Altough, the wisdom of such I'd leave up to him for knowing what his target audience would respond to.
Nevertheless, uh, remember this morning when we saw Timeh Russ on MTP bring up the spectre of a certain intern and we also saw a skillful Presidental response by a candidate to this very personal very sexist attack.
Where was Josh's indignation and multiple posts on this low blow and masterful direct response from the candidate that didn't call it for the sexism that it was, but instead dealt with it head on because it was out there and had to be dealt with? I didn't see any mention whatsoever. Why is that?
Ladies and gentlemen, BO took drugs. He has said that he took drugs and he needs to answer to the fact that he took drugs every time it's brought up. Moreover, he's got to respond in a way that is not whiney and full of self pity becuase it may be an issue that for some may be a deal breaker. Like it or not, drugs are a big deal to some people, just like interns are a big deal to some people. I've yet to see candidate Obama handle his drug problem with the skill and grace that candidate Clinton handles her intern problem.
(And guess what, I know that the phrase "drug problem" above means something different in another context. I purposely used that phrase in this context for a third reason altogether. My guess is that there will be some who will speak to this literary device because it's easier to address the device and not the substance of what I actually said.)
anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:29 PM:I think it's pretty clear what's happening.
Obama and his gang, oops, are swiftboating Hillary in the same manner that the GOP did when Bill was in office through "tendentious interpretation" and coupling that with a misogynistic message designed to drive even more men away from Clinton.
These remarks are a shot over Obama's bow (as well as the bow of his supporters) and the message is: we're not going to let you do to Hillary what the GOP did to Bill and what they did to Kerry and if you do we can fight dirty too.
As for Obama's war stance, it defies credibility for him to claim that he's is for abandoning politics as usual and for him to claim that its okay to undermine Clinton on something he refused to undermine Kerry and Edwards on but it has nothing to do with misogyny and it is not politics as usual to hide one's true position on a major issue to help candidates who voted for the war.
That is just the sort of hypocrisy and sell-out that Obama supporters claim he isn't capable of and has never done.
Bullsh*t.
And btw, if experience isn't required for the presidency and it is impossible for him to sit back while someone who allegedly voted for war runs then why didn't he run in 2004?
This whole Obama story about his character and his distance from politics as usual and his being "right on the war" is exactly a fairy tale.
russ wrote on January 13, 2008 10:29 PM:Maybe Mark Penn is Michelle Malkin in drag. Thats the only rational explanation.
loki wrote on January 13, 2008 10:29 PM:This is all so fucking depressing.
Let me be the first to say...Congratulations President Romney.
hello_world wrote on January 13, 2008 10:30 PM:brad wrote on January 13, 2008 9:47 PM:Has anyone noticed that almost every argument advanced by team Clinton in support of her candidacy is an attempt to bring Obama down to her level instead of trying to bring HRC up to Obama's level?
I mean every argument. On this board. From the candidate. From Bill Clinton. From her surrogates. Every arguement is geared towards the lowest common denominator.
And if you think there is a better option than HRC you are naive/a dreamer/a closet Republican.
That's the best we can do?
I completely agree. I'm officially off the reservation. If Hillary Clinton is rewarded with the nomination after her best efforts at tearing the party apart from within, I'm voting McCain. And I'm quite serious about this. I figure there are quite a few things that (real) Democrats would be able to work with McCain on if he makes it to the White House, and personally, I don't think a McCain foreign policy would look a good deal different from a H. Clinton one. Worst thing would be he'd be somewhat beholden to the Republican base, but due to his past history and the nature of his support, he's much less so than any other Republican.
I'm done with Clinton. I wash my hands of her, and her husband completely. I no longer recognize them as the people that I once supported. I hope Obama wins so that I can still feel good about the Democratic Party, but he can't, I'm done.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:38 PM:I am done with TPM for condoning this kind of bullshit. I can't believe this site has gone so low. I'm off to Huffington Post, Politico and Andrew Sullivan.
G vanGogh wrote on January 13, 2008 10:38 PM:I like Hillary. I like Barack. I prefer Dennis. Basically, I'm anyone but a Bushy, but I seriously think Team Clinton has a better chance at winning. We're talking political genius here. Unlike Kerry, they will have a quick response team that will eradicate any swift boat attempts. I fear Barack , although a great speaker, won't be able to handle what the GOP tricksters have up their sleeves. It will get EXTREMELY nasty. Then again, this is just my humble opinion. Again, any Dem will be the lessor of the evils.
Meanwhile, Campaign Diaries just released its latest detailed Senate rankings with analysis of all races. And things look good for Democrats, as 11 of the top 12 races are held by the GOP!
Gregor wrote on January 13, 2008 10:43 PM:No wonder the Clinton Camp is freaked out. This new NYT/CBS poll has oodles of detailed polling on electability, negatives, trust, and honesty. It echoes a similarly broad researched poll fromlate November, early December, in Iowa.
Folks, for those of you who are not political junkies, the polls I'm referring to are not simple "numbers" polls on who will win a particular state. These are big, multiple question polls that really dig into how voters rate the candidates on a whole laundry list of attributes.
If a person had only read these prior to the Iowa Caucus, you would have at least known there was a serious divergence between what "numbers" polls on the ground in Iowa were saying vs. what these big backgrounder polls were saying.
The Clinton Camp of course knows all about this. They HAD to have known that they were at risk, in Iowa. So too with tonight's poll. It shows HRC remains at risk, in a general election.
The Clinton Machine knows full well HRC faces a few very big hurdles in the general election. When they see how differently Obama fares on these questions, it obviously causes them to be very afraid.
To sum up: the Clinton campaign can read the data, and discern the zietgeist. They see the following.
1. Obama has a big edge on HRC wrt to the Iraq War position.
2. Obama is not running a campaign on race, which is making voters swoon with excitement, as it taps into an emotion especially among the young that everyone can be a part of something new.
3. Obama has a serious edge in favorability, and truth-telling.
Obama said he heard the beep beep beep of the dump truck coming, backing up to unload. Well, it's important that people understand that the attacks will very much concentrate on trying to strip Obama of the above percieved advantages.
It's not gonna work.
NYC4Obama wrote on January 13, 2008 10:47 PM:I say we all just relax and let the Clinton campaign self-destruct. Why even both worrying about it? Best comments of the day were Andrew Sullivan's:
"Clinton's surprise come-back in New Hampshire is the exception to her eventual defeat, not the rule of her imminent victory. One good cry does not a campaign win. Democrats are looking to their party's future, not a dynasty's ambition."
Michael Powe wrote on January 13, 2008 10:50 PM:MP, I fail to understand how mocking Obama with religious concepts that are sacred to myself and many other religious Americans is a strategy for success.
Pshaw. I don't know why your worship of Obama as the return of our Lord should be above reproach, but as I read the scripture to the congregation at our service today (1 Corinthians 12:12-31), I was not necessarily thinking of you, either.
I tend to my work (http://www.prospectctucc.org/Missions.htm). You should tend to yours. I really get annoyed by people using religion as a shibboleth in a political argument. It's irrelevant and I might be wrong, but I believe God does not approve. (Of course, I'm not Catholic, either.)
Thanks.
mp
Stanley wrote on January 13, 2008 10:55 PM:And to add to Gregor's great post, the Clinton campaign is also running out of cash and this can't be good news as they try to replenish. The fact that Obama has made up this much ground in such a short time has got to provide great consternation for the Clinton investors, who saw a large margin throughout the summer continue to erode throughout the fall. Imagine putting a chunk of cash on a sure thing, the closest to an incumbent, and then seeing it go south drip by drip. Ouch!
PlumWdhse wrote on January 13, 2008 10:58 PM:The usual suspects are out in force, and the high tech lynching (on charge of subtle, subliminal racialism) of Bill and Hillary Clinton is now on. Set the camera and let the pundits roll.
After 40 years of their work and known history, after 20 years of the Cuomos' dedication to the issue what do we have here is nothing but the most vile campaigner campaigning as a virtuous man, proclaiming himself above all this sort of things and yet.
Weep, liberals, weep.
paul wrote on January 13, 2008 10:58 PM:In the 1980's the Reagan administration planted all sorts of false stories about the Nicaraguan government and the El Salvadoran rebels, in a transparent attempt to equate them, morally, with their opponents (the Contras and the El Salvadoran government).
In the 1990's the paper companies planted all sorts of stories saying that using disposable diapers was environmentally equivalent to using cloth diapers.
This is an old trick. Clinton wants to drag Obama down in the dirt. She doesn't care if she gets slimed in the process - she's already disliked by a large segment of the population. What's important is that she slime Obama, so that those people who don't pay close attention will throw up their hands in disgust and say "Who can tell who's right and who's wrong?"
What is sad is that Obama could be a truly different president. Clinton will just be more of the same. Better than Republicans in the short run, yes, but her presidency will give the Republicans time to gather their strenght again adn come back stronger.
hello_world wrote on January 13, 2008 10:59 PM:My last comment should have read, "...but if he can't, I'm done."
I support Obama. More so every day. I have contributed money to his campaign and have been a vocal advocate for Obama with people I meet who have honest questions about him. Monday, I'm planning on finding out if there is any need for part-time volunteer help in NYS for the Obama campaign. But like I said earlier, if Clinton is the nominee, I'm crossing over in November.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 11:00 PM:I like Hillary. I like Barack. I prefer Dennis. Basically, I'm anyone but a Bushy, but I seriously think Team Clinton has a better chance at winning. We're talking political genius here. Unlike Kerry, they will have a quick response team that will eradicate any swift boat attempts. I fear Barack , although a great speaker, won't be able to handle what the GOP tricksters have up their sleeves. It will get EXTREMELY nasty. Then again, this is just my humble opinion. Again, any Dem will be the lessor of the evils.
I think we can all agree that each of us thinks we know exactly how this thing is going to play out, who is most electable and who can proudly move us forward as a bigger party and better country.
However, as Timmeh indicated on MTP today, the latest Democrat vs. Republican polling matchups have Barack doing significantly better in the general against Republicans than does Hillary.
However, I'm not making a case about who would be most electable. If I was making that case, I'd probably be backing Al Gore.
I'm making the case that Obama has proven he can expand our party with an influx of new voters. He has already shown in NH and IA that he can pull in Independents and disaffected moderate Republicans. He has shown remarkable judgment on the most important issue of this election: the ongoing debacle in Iraq. His very election will send a clear message to the world that we've turned the page on the politics of fear and triangulation.
In tandem, I am making the case that Hillary does not deserve the party's nomination, in large part because of her poor judgment on Iraq, poor judgment on Kyl-Liberman and now despicable Republican hardball tactics in the race for the Democratic party. She and her husband's support for Republican legislation in the 90s, up to and including signing DOMA into law do not help build a case for her candidacy for the Democratic party, IMHO. (I will grant you that she would make an awesome Republican candidate.)
So we can speculate all day about who can win and who cannot win, but that shouldn't actually be the calculus. The calculus should be who DESERVES to lead our great party, who can expand it and inspire us as a nation to the great challenges ahead. That's Barack Obama.
He has now pulled within 4 points of Hillary nationwide, closing down her 30 point lead in about a month. Just being able to do this in the Democratic party to Hillary Clinton should be all the evidence we need that he is a shrewd politician who can close the deal.
Sonnenfeld wrote on January 13, 2008 11:01 PM:Front page lede in tomorrow's WaPo:
McCain Moves Into Lead; Obama Gains on Clinton
Giuliani Falls to 4th in National Poll
"...The first contests of the 2008 presidential campaign have led to a dramatic shake-up in public opinion nationally, with Sen. John McCain now leading the Republican field and Sen. Barack Obama all but erasing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-overwhelming advantage among Democrats, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
I realize that Team Clinton thinks the costs of a scorched earth primary strategy are perhaps the only way that it wins the nomination. I will say though that the Clinton teams burning of bridges WITHIN the party amongst grass roots activists and supporters is going to make a general election win even more difficult -- especially given Hilary's 42 to 46% negatives among the electorate outside of the Democratic party.
I am someone who has given about $1,000 to Democratic candidates and the party since 2004 (a big chunk to Webb in 2006, a chunk of about $250 to the DNC in 2006, some money to Clark in 2004, as well as $100 to Obama). I have also given about 100 volunteer hours including work during the 2004 presidential primary and the 2006 Senate race. The party may only count on my support on the margins, but it better hope that my sentiments at this stage are not representative. I think Edwards, Obama, and the other candidates have run issues focused campaigns that are largely above-board. They have made the hard case for their candidacies based on their records and their vision.
The Clintons have not done this. They told us they were going to run a "positive campaign" in New Hampshire. They did not. Instead we get mailings which blatantly distort a candidate's record -- there wasn't even the pretense of an attempt to make the strong case based on the facts in context.
We later learn that their surrogates in New Hampshire harassed poll monitors to interfere with the Obama campaign's get out the vote efforts in that state. Now in Nevada we learn that after months of supporting the state's caucusing system, and even signing onto a plan that would ensure the ability of union workers to participate in the caucus, they now seek to interfere with the terms of the agreement after losing out on the support of the state's main union. Throw in the racial ploys, which have been real enough, and you have one hell of a sleazy campaign.
I realize that wedge politics, distortions, and shady campaign tactics come with the territory. It is after all politics. But there is also something to be said for winning the right way -- in a way that people can rally around and be proud of -- even if they aren't happy with an election's outcome. The Clintons have not done this.
They have debased themselves and the Democratic party with their sleazy campaign. In the process they have lost the general election support of this one strongly-Democratic leaning voter, who on balance thought the first Clinton presidency did the U.S. more good than ill. They better hope that my case is not representative.
No one knows what will happen in the general election, but I think at this stage, if Clinton is the nominee, and the alternative on the other side is McCain, that the GOP will win the presidency. The only consolation is that there is at least a pretty good chance that we might make inroads in the House and Senate this election cycle.
BA wrote on January 13, 2008 11:04 PM:sfam and others,
John McCain has integrity? You must be kidding, right? The man who sucked up to Jerry Falwell when he decided to run for President? The man who changed his views on immigration so he could kiss up to the Republican base? The man who originally voted against Bush's tax cuts, but now supports them? The man who divorced his first wife (who was raising his kids while he was a POW) so he could marry the beautiful, young and RICH Cindy, whose parents just happened to have enough money to pay for McCain's first campaign? Integrity? I don't think so. Go ahead and vote for him if he is the nominee and watch how much integrity he has when he cuts taxes for the rich again and does nothing to help us get affordable health insurance. Any Democratic nominee has more integrity than John McCain!
I am concerned that fellow Obama supporters are so angry. I have been to 3 events for Obama and they all have such hatred to anyone who asks a question or has a doubt. Things in politics are always a pressure cooker, there is alot at stake. I went to 1 Clinton event and the people were a bit more relaxed. I support Obama, but his followers are freaking me out a bit and I will not bring my little girl to another one of his events, as there was to much rage.
I hope my candidate addresses this soon.
maria wrote on January 13, 2008 11:17 PM:Bill Clinton's remarks (and Hillary's today on MTP) about Obama's position on the Iraq war are what have pissed me off to NO end. They are both lying through their teeth when they say he hasn't been consistent. This is a pure Rovian tactic of going after Obama on his main strength. To top it off, Hillary CAN'T even concede at this point that she made a mistake with her vote.
I could never vote for a Republican but count me in as one of those Obama supporters who is going to "tune out" and approach November with apathy if she gets nominated. If Democrats blow this chance to close the door on all the crap the Clinton's are associated with - and I mean the stuff that is self-created- then they might just deserve to go down in flames.
jim wrote on January 13, 2008 11:21 PM:I predict that when Hillary loses the nomination, after much whining about the "shrill, angry, shuckin' and jivin' Left," she'll declare herself an "independepent" and pick Lieberman as a running mate. Hillary is close to Lieberman in terms of her positions in any case. Maybe they can do a "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" trio with McCain. You know, she'll do it for the children.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 11:25 PM:Moishele,
First off, please check your sources. Obama has never said anything about race. Find a source and and I will personally apologize to you. This stuff has taken a life of it's own since people has called them on their comments about "fairy tale" and the MLK Lyndon Johnson comment.
Moreover, with respect to Mr. Johnson, he has lost all credibility with me, as he turned BET (Black Entertainment Television) into media company that exacerbates negative stereotypes of blacks and then he sold it to media giant Viacom.
He needs to apologize to the Obama campaign for his comments at a Clinton rally.
Moishele,
First off, please check your sources. Obama has never said anything about race. Find a source and and I will personally apologize to you. This stuff has taken a life of it's own since people has called them on their comments about "fairy tale" and the MLK Lyndon Johnson comment.
Moreover, with respect to Mr. Johnson, he has lost all credibility with me, as he turned BET (Black Entertainment Television) into media company that exacerbates negative stereotypes of blacks and then he sold it to media giant Viacom.
He needs to apologize to the Obama campaign for his comments at a Clinton rally.
I am concerned that fellow Obama supporters are so angry. I have been to 3 events for Obama and they all have such hatred to anyone who asks a question or has a doubt. Things in politics are always a pressure cooker, there is alot at stake. I went to 1 Clinton event and the people were a bit more relaxed. I support Obama, but his followers are freaking me out a bit and I will not bring my little girl to another one of his events, as there was to much rage.
I hope my candidate addresses this soon.
I'll answer it right now. The Obama events are ANYTHING but hateful. You've seen them on TV, they are all over Youtube and they are simply electric with good feelings.
I'm sorry you're such a warped person that you feel like you have to concern troll as an Obama supporter to slam him.
Ugly stuff.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 11:29 PM:Ugly stuff.
Let me just follow-up and say unequivocally that if you think Obama is selling hate, you aren't an Obama supporter.
Franklin wrote on January 13, 2008 11:34 PM:I think Mariah's post is hilarious. Just out of curiosity -- where were these events? In which state, city, county? What time frame?
hwc wrote on January 13, 2008 11:37 PM:Why is it again that talking about Barack Obama's coke problem is off limits? Is it because he's black? Or because he's a saint?
Steve McGuire wrote on January 13, 2008 11:37 PM:I have been watching the Clinton Campaign especialy since Iowa.
I fail to see how the Campaign that she is running is ANY DIFFERENT than a Republican campaign would be. I mean, of course the Rethugs will go Apeshit with scary mailings and TV ads and what not. At it's core though, the basic dishonesty of their entire campaign against Sen Obama differs not on it's philosophy.
Some say that it is a "rovian" campaign because it is focused on going at his strengths. That puts way to kind of a point on it. There is nothing wrong with attacking a candidate's strengths. It is attacking those strengths with LIES that makes all of the difference. It is the LIE factor that makes it a Republican campaign. For all practical pourposes, Barack should consider himself in a Campaign against the Republicans RIGHT NOW, because that is EXACTLY what the Clintons are doing. They use distortion and half truths to MISINFORM the voters about Barack. They use inuendo and character assasination against Barack. They drop phony disgusting emails, and filthy lies in mailers.
There is no difference from a Republican attack and a Clinton attack.
They are one in the same.
The onus is on Barack NOW to show us how he will combat against a Republican by taking the fight to Hillary.
The Clinton Campaign HATES Barack, and whether it is him or a Republican that stands in their way top the White House, makes no difference.
They don't care about the country,
they don't care about the Democratic Party,
They only care about themselves.
If these disgusting phoney's actually win the nomination, I will NOT vote for them, I will vote for a Republican, I don't care WHO it is.
How low can Hillary "Goldwater Girl" Clinton go? Well, everyone knows of the Clintons' dirty politics. As an undecided 50+ BLACK woman, who endured Jim Crow, I'll refrain from calling Bob Johnson what he really is on the plantation. I remain uncommitted , however, after today, I'll cast my vote for a Republican before I cast a vote for Clinton. I so appreciate Senator Obama's viable campaign of change taking the higher ground.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 11:40 PM:Shit's hitting the fan now:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_po/clinton
The Clinton folks are hoping they can make this primary about race. We'll see if they are successful.
Kudos to John Edwards who is quoted in the article:
"I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that," Edwards told more than 200 people gathered at a predominantly black Baptist church in Sumter, S.C.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 11:41 PM:Why is it again that talking about Barack Obama's coke problem is off limits? Is it because he's black? Or because he's a saint?
Hell, why can't we talk about Hillary's marital problems, if you want to be disgusting?
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 11:41 PM:Judging by the comments of some of you Hillary supporters, Obama plays the race card just because he's black. And when someone insinuates something negative about Obama, especially if it's tied to race, somehow Obama is playing the race card.
That's it. I'm staying home on Nov 7 if Hillary gets it. The Clintons can triangulate all you little lemmings right off the cliff with them, but I ain't going.
And don't think I'm alone.
blatherskite wrote on January 13, 2008 11:45 PM:I'm a caucasian yellow-dog (NOT blue-dog) liberal democrat. I've never voted for a Republican.
I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.
I doubt I'll vote Republican, but it's conceivable. Or a third party. A.B.C.
Up until a week or so ago I would gladly have voted Hillary in the general election. After this past week, I don't just want her to lose, I want her to be disgraced thanks to her disgraceful behavior.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 11:47 PM:Judging by the comments of some of you Hillary supporters, Obama plays the race card just because he's black. And when someone insinuates something negative about Obama, especially if it's tied to race, somehow Obama is playing the race card.That's it. I'm staying home on Nov 7 if Hillary gets it. The Clintons can triangulate all you little lemmings right off the cliff with them, but I ain't going.
And don't think I'm alone.
Anonymous Commenter, Obama has never mentioned race. The race meme keeps getting injected by Clinton folks. I defy you to find me one example of Obama playing the race card.
Sorry Anonymous Commenter, misread your comment. At any rate, the solicitation has been made over and over in this thread. Show us where Obama played the race card.
Ree wrote on January 13, 2008 11:49 PM:Right, everyone who does not like obama is a clinton supporter. Everyone who does anything that is marginally insulting obama is a clinton supporter.
Ree wrote on January 13, 2008 11:50 PM:*And apparently, everyone who is not voting for Obama, or who plans on voting for Clinton is part of the Clinton Campaign directly working under orders of Hillary.
Mariah wrote on January 13, 2008 11:52 PM:It's people like Duane that I don't want to be around. You have a thought or an idea and he attacks you.
and then name calling me..a "concern troll."
Please, practice what you preach.
MLK said judge on the content of character, I was just expressing myself on this forum. No more.
del wrote on January 13, 2008 11:53 PM:this is not about civil rights. clinton, obama, and edwards are all committed to civil rights. (which, by the way, should be a bare minimum qualification to run for president in 21st century america -- especially on the democratic party line.)
this is about the use of race as an electoral tool by washington political operatives. a hillary clinton presidency would no doubt be 'good for civil rights.' but hillary clinton's campaign has absolutely no compunction about using racially divisive tactics in order to get there. i cannot endorse that under any circumstance.
you don't need to be a racist to cynically exploit other people's racism. it's still morally wrong.
Marc wrote on January 14, 2008 12:04 AM:The Clinton's are running a disgraceful campaign. They deserved to be thoroughly called out for their behavior. It's amazing to me the hold they continue to have on the democratic party. Shameful.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 12:05 AM:Mariah, you are trying to smear Obama with the "anger" and "rage" nonsense. We know it isn't true, so please stop or give us a link to evidence.
I don't care that you don't want to be around me. As you have indicated that you are part of the problem and not the solution, the feeling is mutual.
You can count me among the legion who will not vote for Hillary should she make the general.
I've never not voted Democratic for president. I voted for Bill twice.
I would vote for Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson or Kucinich.
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton to be the head of my party, let alone the POTUS.
Franklin wrote on January 14, 2008 12:11 AM:Duane, I commend you for making an impassioned case and asking level headed questions.
I find it hilarious too that someone would go to THREE campaign events in which they found nothing but hate-filled invective. Kind of makes a person wonder: wouldn't one time have been enough?
Never mind the idea of traveling around a state just to witness the "hate-filled" atmosphere repeated not TWICE but THREE times. Never mind that the person presumably spent a few hours waiting in line each time just to experience that trauma ALL over again.
That is dedication of a sort. If only it had the ring of truth.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 12:19 AM:That is dedication of a sort.
It's dedication already. Dedication to smearing Obama.
Thanks for the kind words, Franklin.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 12:23 AM:FYI, Franklin, I've got the same history as yours above. Sounds like you are in Virginia like me.
We need to get together and have a beer.
Btw, I want to point out yet another race-baiting comment which Hillary made on the campaign trail in Nevada that I have not seen reported anywhere. Specifically, a not-so-oblique reference to (and in fact, tacit approval of) the phenomenon of "white flight."
The speech to which I'm referring aired on CNN's 4-hour-long "Ballot Bowl" show on Saturday afternoon, though it may have been delivered the previous day. She began talking about the economy and the subprime/housing crisis and how it was causing grief to homeowners in Nevada. At one point during this discussion, in expressing sympathy towards her audience, she said something to the effect of how perhaps these folks have experienced a situation where their neighborhood was "changing" around them due to foreclosures, etc., and indeed maybe getting to a point where it was no longer a "safe place" for their children to grow up. Subtext: "there goes the neighborhood"? Was this a reference to the perhaps commonly held (though of course baseless) notion among middle class folks suffering from losses in home equity that poorer folks (read: minorities) are moving into their previously more affluent neighborhoods as an indirect result of the decline in home prices? If not this, then what on earth could she have been talking about? What's "changing" about the neighborhood? Why are the neighborhoods less "safe"?
When I saw this clip on CNN on Saturday afternoon, I decided to let it go, thinking that maybe I was just *looking* for things after the whirlwind of the previous week. But Johnson's comments today as Hillary stood by his side have made me go back and reevaluate. So does anyone have footage of this they can link to? Or a transcript of the remarks in question? Or at least a recollection of the same speech to which I can compare my own? I'm willing to be set straight on this, but I really do think there's something there.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 12:55 AM:Southpaw, let me just say that doesn't sound at all like race-baiting to me and I've got pretty good antenna.
icenomad wrote on January 14, 2008 1:03 AM:The revival of the Southern Strategy, except this time the Clintons are doing it. Why the hell am I not surprised?
Franklin wrote on January 14, 2008 1:11 AM:Duane, yep, I am a Virginian. Likely will be doing some volunteer work in advance of the Feb. 12th primary in Northern VA if it comes into play (e.g. DC suburbs -- Arlington, Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax). So I might bump into you if you're volunteering in NoVA.
greensky wrote on January 14, 2008 1:14 AM:if johnson was talking about obamas "drug use" in the neighborhood then the "neighborhood" would be where obama went to high school (since obama said he did drugs in high school) does anyone know where obama went to high school?
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 1:17 AM:Prolly not then, Franklin. I'm down south VA.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 1:19 AM:where obama went to high school
Honolulu, Hawaii
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 1:20 AM:psssst greensky, barack is actually native hawaiian. don't say anything though, we're saving that surprise for the general.
greensky wrote on January 14, 2008 1:38 AM:so where is the "neighborhood" in hawaii
greensky wrote on January 14, 2008 1:38 AM:so where is the "neighborhood" in hawaii
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 1:42 AM:shhhhhhh
Sista Soulja wrote on January 14, 2008 1:45 AM:This is bobo in the extreme. Its Sista Soulja, its the Clinton 2nd election attack on Gays in the Military.
Bob Johnson: Founder of the Booty & thug Entertainment Network, before MTV bought it out, should shut up. His sellout has not been forgotten in the community.
Clinton can try to put blackface & a Sharpton wig on O as much as she wants, I dont think its going to work.
L.A. Richardson wrote on January 14, 2008 1:53 AM:This is really depressing. For him to deny that he was talking about Obama's drug use is just unbelievable. On top of that, who is Bob Johnson to criticize anyone's drug use? The guy has basically made his living from booty videos.
greensky wrote on January 14, 2008 2:04 AM:thanks duanne i just looked up at wikipedia where obama went to high school what a great place one of the best private schools in the country
Icy Truth wrote on January 14, 2008 2:16 AM:Two possibilities here:
1) Bob Johnson seems to think that Obama isn't black enough. The only way you can keep receiving handouts is to perpetuate the myth that the white power structure owes you eternal reparations, right? If one of your own is in power you'll have a hard time making the case that "equal opportunity" is nothing but an empty promise.
2) On the other hand, maybe Johnson's reasoning is based on the idea that Obama simply cannot win in the general election, which -- in a height of irony -- means he thinks Obama isn't WHITE enough.
Will Obama's campaign falter due to a lack of support from black Democrat voters? His policy positions are so similar to Hillary's it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that they're potentially throwing him under the bus due to one or the other of the reasons above. Certainly no black voter should feel obligated to vote for him; it's the reasons why they may not vote for him that are astounding.
RE: ICY TRUTH...TRY STUPID wrote on January 14, 2008 2:24 AM:KEEP IT SIMPLE HE HAS TOO MUCH! MONEY!!!!
EVEN DUMB IS POOR!
Reading through these posts, it appears as if I'm not alone: Hillary better hope someone other than McCain wins out on the Republican side, or she's going to lose a big chunk of the left-leaning independent voters like myself.
Again, this is a sad thing to say, considering that about a month ago, most of us would have been thrilled with any of the candidates. But some of these tactics say so much more about Hillary than she imagines. If she continues with the scorched earth - by any means necessary - approach to winning, people like me won't vote for her even if McCain fails to get the Reps nomination (this doesn't mean I'd vote for the remaining Republican Candidates - I'd sit this one out. But this shouldn't matter in a new swing-state like Virginia, ey?)
deeply concerned wrote on January 14, 2008 4:17 AM:You can add my name to the legion who will not vote for Hillary should she make the general.
I've never not voted Democratic for president. I voted for Bill twice.
I'm a contributor to Emily's List and the Feminist Majority Foundation.
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton to be the head of my party, let alone the POTUS.
No wonder Bloomberg keeps hangin around in the wings... please stop the madness before it's too late.
- Amanda
Jan wrote on January 14, 2008 6:15 AM:If Obama is going to accuse his fellow Black leaders of racism, how is he going to take on the actual racism of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?
Is he just "hoping" that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will be nice to him because he's such a "hopeful" kind of guy?
Let's get it on record:
Is Obama actually calling the Clintons "racists"?
Or is the Obama camp just very, very touchy on this subject?
If Obama is going to accuse his fellow Black leaders of racism, how is he going to take on the actual racism of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?Is he just "hoping" that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will be nice to him because he's such a "hopeful" kind of guy?
Let's get it on record:
Is Obama actually calling the Clintons "racists"?
Or is the Obama camp just very, very touchy on this subject?
Jan, Barack Obama isn't calling anyone racists. Link to some evidence or STFU.
Otherwise your comments are offensive and there's no place in the Democratic party for them.
Phil wrote on January 14, 2008 6:54 AM:Most of these comments are the biggest load of crap imaginable. Anyone considering voting for either of these candidates should NOT be swayed by anything of the disingenuous statements posted here (by so-called democrats). Most of these posts are probably by either Edwards supporters or more likely republican supporters trying to divide and conquer. I hope that democratic voters are smart enough to find and read the FULL statements attributed to these candidates (or OFFICIAL members of their staffs) instead of carefully selected snidbits that distort the meaning of the statements. Also do NOT assume that they are responsible for everything their supporters might say, without concrete proof. The stakes are to high to start forming negative opinions of our two front runners based on assumptions, especially someone elses assumptions. Let's make race NOT an issue. When we listen to race-baiters, such as 90% of the people on this post, it's the Democratic Party (and voters) that will lose, not just Hillary or Barack.
Sue wrote on January 14, 2008 7:08 AM:http://www.blackcommentator.com/13_thw.html
Apparently, Bob Johnson has a history of fronting for the GOP -
"Bob Johnson, the Black Entertainment Television founder with a personal net worth of $1.3 billion, is a Trojan Horse, an aggressive political operative of the Bush White House posing as a Democrat. He has used his high profile status as one-half of all African American billionaires (the determinedly non-partisan Oprah Winfrey is the other half) to advance the most politically perilous item on the GOP agenda: privatization of Social Security."
(found via Matt Yglesias)
At 5' 6", Bob Johnson is vertically challenged.
Bob is a hypocrite. His driver "was doing something in the neighborhood - and I won't say what he was doing..."
Bob needs to stay away from Grey Goose Vodka before he opens his mouth as well.
David wrote on January 14, 2008 8:13 AM:This guy is a fool. now you know money does not buy you wisedom. He is a shame to the black community in away because he made it others has to be pulled back or stay at the lowest because of thier history. I hate you bud!
Liam wrote on January 14, 2008 8:19 AM:So it looks like that Hillary backer, Andrew Cuomo, remains silent when Hillary backer, Bob Johnson, does his "Shuck and Jive" on behalf of Hillary!
Mike in Cincinnati wrote on January 14, 2008 8:29 AM:Well Tom Johnson you dont need the black face put on you. You already have it on homie. Now all you need to do is take Cuomo up on his offer of shucking and jiveing.
Hjay47 wrote on January 14, 2008 8:30 AM:I am shocked and angry at the comments by Bob Johnson, How can one black man stand before an audience and make such a comment about another. The whole suggested drug use in the neighborhood was just not called for. When he say that the Clintons has done so much for the blacks, I ask him, Just what have they done? Black people need to get off that wagaon, The First Black President Bill Clinton. Please.
bacalove wrote on January 14, 2008 9:02 AM:Johnson, former BET owner, has made his billions by peddling smut, sex and violence on his tv programs which has had a profoundly negative and damaging effect on our youth both in America and other countries which airs his shows. Obama has been trying to get rappers to put out postivie messages for our children and to denounce the negative and demeaning messages todate. I do not think he will miss Johnson's endorsement and would rather not have it. These are the kind of "shameful" people Clinton surrounds herself with.
Jack wrote on January 14, 2008 9:14 AM:Well, the comment by Bob Johnson was aptly commented earlier by another reader, ""and Bill didn't enhale" So much for forgiveness and reconcilation, right Bob?
Liam wrote on January 14, 2008 9:35 AM:At the time that Dr. King was putting his life on the line to obtain equal rights for all, Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, and was supporting Barry Goldwater while he was campaigning against the civil rights bill that ended segregation.
Since she clearly supported Goldwater, that means that she opposed what MLK stood for, so no wonder she still holds him in such low regard. Once a Goldwater Segregationist, Always a Goldwater Segregationist. Hillary, still a Goldwater Girl at heart. You go Goldwater Girl. You can fool some of the people all the time.
HeyStimulusPackageAnyone wrote on January 14, 2008 9:43 AM:
I am so done with this fight Senator Obama is Blacker ok, But Senator Clinton is not a bigot.
Edwards is such a barnacle he is just so pissed at Senator Clinton for having better hair.
If you say anything against BO=racist
no matter who u r. It ain't gonna work. Where's the beef???? DOn't try to flip the script. OOH was I being racist? IS that a black term??????
Jr wrote on January 14, 2008 10:17 AM:I am utterly discussed when I heard Johnson’s remark, it is not because he is supporting Clinton. He has all the rights to support whom ever he chooses. As it has been suggested Johnson has made BILLIONS in the demising of young African American with the garbage his so called BET network has fed our children for sometimes now. I would suggest he spends his time and effort cleaning up after himself. Johnson you have corrupted a whole generation so please, leave this kind of remark for some one with more integrity.
Do us all that favor.
I've been saying it all along. Every time race comes up, the Clintons win, and every time sex comes up (er...gender that is) the Clintons win. This is a natural outgrowth of a "minority" that comprises 55% of the electorate runing against a minority that comprises 8%. Simple math.
So shock of shocks, the Clintons are doing everything they can to bring up race and sex (er...gender), in the most "innocent" and "defendable" ways they can. They aren't racists. But they are going to win no matter what, no matter how Rovian they have to get. No matter how ugly it makes our party and country look. I will never be able to look at the Clintons the same way.
I am truly sorry this is the route this thing has gone. She won't win waving her red capes, but she may end up making our china shop as ugly as the republicans.
Mary wrote on January 14, 2008 10:53 AM:Logic, logic, logic! Can we come down to earth for a second and analyze the syntax of the Johnson quote. Does it make any sense to rebut an argument that Hillary Clinton made a racially insensitive analogy with this sentence: "the Clintons were helping the black community, while Obama was helping the black community"? If it doesn't, then neither does Johnson's excuse. How duplicitous can the Clinton campaign get?
improper wrote on January 14, 2008 10:55 AM:Drug use is fair game, as is the fact that her husband is a chronic philanderer. Does Obama's camp have any dirt on Hillary's possible drug use and/or her sexual practices? If so, would they utilize such things as Hillary's 16-inch Red Foxx dildo made in China?
sy wrote on January 14, 2008 11:15 AM:Robert Johnson is a fucking liar.
Then again, when his ex-wife Sheila said he had "a body count" before their divorce, some might assume that he was doing some community organization too.
HC wrote on January 14, 2008 11:26 AM:I agree 100% with Keith. Johnson is Tommin' it up with Hillary. Hillary's the Miss Blanche that will cry to Massa' if Tom don't comply.
Sick. I lost my last shred of respect for her when she cried in NH...and now this? Looks like she's playing the race card AND the gender card!
dollarsagallon wrote on January 14, 2008 12:03 PM:Whichever one of the Clintons is running for president should be more selective in their choice of those whom they allow to publicly campaign for them. Bob Johnson? He's a capitalistic pimp, who poisoned the African American community with his media for his own greedy self interest. Bill, Hillary - you're friends are shady.
STILLiRISE wrote on January 14, 2008 12:33 PM:I would rather be guilty of experimenting with drugs or even drug use than to be guilty of providing them to innocent children. Bob Johnson's criticism of Barack's past indiscretion is nothing in comparison to what he's done in the African American community pumping BET into our community. Bob Johnson your message would be better addressed to organizations that desire to destroy our community. I work hard everyday trying to combat the effects of the garbage you've been pumping into the minds of our youth. The true rhetoric is coming from Hillary. If she really believes that it takes a village... then stop tearing down those who want to effect change, instill hope in the otherwise hopeless. Just run for president and leave all the negative campaigning out of it.
Justme wrote on January 14, 2008 12:36 PM:There is clearly a problem with reading a drug use comment into Johnson's words. He was speaking on a specific topic; the Clinton's involvement in Black issues verses Obama's involvement in Black issues. He said that the Clintons have been heavily involved in those issues, while Obama was doing "something in the neighborhood".
The single sentence in question was unquestionably directed to the candidates' involvement in Black issues. If fairness matters in the least, one cannot simply read a fragment of Johnson's sentence as though it had nothing to do with the rest of the sentence.
The import of the sentence fragment in question, taken in the context of the rest of the sentence, is that the Clintons were doing things that were significant and definable, while Obama claims to have been doing an undefined "something".
The remainder of Johnson's sentence, "... I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book..." appears to be nothing more than a refusal by Johnson to repeat claims by Obama that Johnson considers mertitless.
The utter lack of fairness in this "controversy" is quite troubling.
Nickal wrote on January 14, 2008 12:41 PM:Liam's logic does not stand up to scrutiny, I'm afraid. Liam seems to believe that Hillary Clinton is the same person and holds the same views as she did in 1964. 1964! People grow and change as their life experiences lead them to see things from different points of view. That experience is a very positive thing and adds to the list of many, many reasons why Clinton will be a better President than Obama. Rather than touting his experience and achievments (a very short list, to be sure) Obama is content to fan the flames of racial intolerance and whip up an issue where none exists. Doing so keeps the focus on his imagined victimization and off the fact that as an inexperienced and ineffectual senator, he brings little beyond his amazing rhetorical skills to the great debates of our time. I am not so sure that Dr. King would be proud ofhis tactics.
tina wrote on January 14, 2008 1:44 PM:Where do I begin? If we as American's have listened with open minds to what Barack Obama has been saying about "CHANGE", then we would not be having this conversation about race. I want someone out there in America to name one time Barack Obama has either spoken or written any thing about his race being a factor in why he is running for the HIGHEST office in America. When he talks of "CHANGE", he is referring to eliminating the conversation that America is having right now. He is referring to eliminating the hatred and anger that divides our nation. Barack Obama is a not a qualified black man, he is a qualified human being to be the President of the United States of America.
Goldspinner wrote on January 14, 2008 2:14 PM:Tony wrote on January 13, 2008 9:10 PM:
I am really concerned about Hillary being 'thrown under the bus' by her own party. The Clintons are a truly remarkable couple who have always put their best efforts toward creating lasting change and compromising across party lines to get there. Sure, they can be annoying, but they work hard, and that beats anything I have seen in a long time.
Obama is a clean, articulate, man, who represents an African American visual and voice that transcends racial lines. He doesn't sound like Jesse or Al, so he his good for most people. He is not presidential material. In fact, I am not sure what he has really done. Not much.
If nominated - he will not win.
Tony
What's up with this "clean" and "articulate" crap again? Contrary to popular belief, we African-Americans are fully capable of enunciating Standard American English. We're not so-called AAs, either.
James wrote on January 14, 2008 3:09 PM:This is a prime example of black people trying to discredit other black people. Mr. Johnson in my opinion is no better than the house nigger on the plantation who oversaw the field slaves and did the master dirty work. For once in this country 200 years on electing a President have a black man ran than is qualified and deserving of the position have ran for this nation highest office. And for a man like Bob Johnson to try and tear down all that this guy have worked for on behalf of a President who cheated on his wife with an intern in the Oval Office and have to support Mrs. Clinton who is only about big business interest is an insult to the black voters.
RC Claudius wrote on January 14, 2008 3:15 PM:At the end of the day, there are many real strong African America ... Absolutely. Unfortunately, there are still many uncle Toms ... and Robert Johnson is an Uncle Tom of the gigest order. Okay, it's one thing to support HRC, but to say the things he said is a down right disgrace. It made me sick ... and I am so angry that I bought so many Jet & Ebony magazines. If I only knew then what I know now.
I find it sad that so many black voters are still undecided. It makes me sad because it shows that too many of us are really house niggers. Yes, we talk all that pro black stuff, but when it comes right down to it, we are Uncle Toms. so many of us will do whatever it takes to keep our master in Power. It's the reality ... and this election proves that.
Let me tell you a story about a a frog and a scorpion. The frog asked the scorpion to help him cross a river, but the frong said no because he was afraid the scorpion would bite and kill him. But the scorpion said, "why would I do that since I cannot swim? If i bite you I would also die." The frog thought the scorpion had a good point and so he felt safe to carry the scorpion on his back.
However, in the middle of the river, the scorpion stung the frog. As the frog was dying, it ask the scorpion Why? Since you cannot swim, you will also die. The scorpion replied, "It's my nature."
My point is, it is the nature of many blacks to to keep their brothers and sisters down. Johnson exploited the balck community (I mean, every other page in his magazine was for an alcohol commercial) for whatever he could get. A true parasite. Today he is trying to do the same thing. It's his nature.
Finally, maybe The clinton did some good things for the AA community, and we should all appreciate that. But that does not mean we owe them our lives. If we have an opportunity to let one of our own become the most powerful man in the world, how can we miss such an beautiful opportunity? Today we are seeing a miracle happen. However, it is hard to see a miracle if you are actually living the miracle.
Diane Brown-Petteway wrote on January 14, 2008 4:16 PM:Hey Bob, let Clinton and Obama and the public work it out....you stay out of this! You fired Tavist Smiley and sold BET to the white man. What happened to the better programming...HELL DATE? Well right now the Black community should be getting nightly information on the election. I need Tavist interviewing the candidates adressing the concerns of the Black community. Thank God for Tom Joyner......Oh and by the way "I Johnson" is all about himself.
Patrick wrote on January 14, 2008 4:16 PM:
I don't think the race stuff is meant for SC voters. I think it's meant for the rest of the country. I think the Clintons are conceding SC but want to make sure "race" is a big part of the discussion. Then when they lose SC, they can spend the rest of the campaign "saying" you guys better vote for us or you're going to wind up with a black president.
What's ridiculous is that this clown claims Bill & Hillary are some kind of champions for the Black community. Puhleez. With BET feeding our community a steady diet of pitiful portrayals of Black people, and the Clinton administration's heavy-handed, failed drug policies (designed to benefit private prison corporations), the Black family and the community are in far worse condition!
Athena wrote on January 14, 2008 7:48 PM:". . .Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book"
"My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else"
Of course that's what you meant Bob.
The founder of Black "Exploitation" Television is a hypocrite.
The man who uplifted the Black community by showing music videos all day of sex, drug use, violence, disrespect of women and gang culture. Yay Bob.
nicole Daley wrote on January 15, 2008 2:42 PM:the Obama campaign didn't make anything about race until Hillary made some questionable comments regarding Martin Luther King, and as an african american who once supported the Clinton's even when everyone else was judging them for Bill Clinton's adultery. I am deeply disappointed in Hillary's comments. Also, it is sad to see the founder of Black Entertainment Television showing so much negativity towards Obama, no one is perfect especially when standing behind the Clinton's, as they've had their own skeletons while in the White House. I wouldn't so much say that the Clinton's did so many outstanding things in the african-american community as I would say they didn't discriminate and seemed un-biased as many politicians aren't. As far as Obama mentioning race, I feel Hillary mentions being a woman far more than Obama mentions being african-american. When in actuality no one can use race, since he's biracial. I think Hillary's true feelings showed with her MLK comment.
Ann wrote on January 15, 2008 8:25 PM:This campaign is about the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.
The Clintons need to GROW THE HELL UP!!!
Both Clinton and Obama need to stay focus on the prize, which is US THE PEOPLE, because NEGATIVE WORDS once said CAN NOT AND WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN.
It only HURTS US THE PEOPLE.
I AM TRULY DISAPPOINTED!!!!! in all those who partcipate in any kind of negative comment.
The US already LOOKS BAD in the eyes of the World,so GROW THE HELL UP!!!!!
WepZereeGab wrote on January 29, 2008 9:20 AM:hi! google info
[url=http://google.com]http://google.com[/url]
