Hillary Campaign's Talking Points On Bill's Jackson Comment And Kennedy's Obama Endorsement

Comments (112)

Mike wrote on January 28, 2008 12:49 PM:

Bill Clinton is a racist.

Their are no half measures here.
We need to take a full measure OF bill Clintons character or lack there of.

I am white, and my grandfather is white.
He worked in the civil rights movement in the 60's.
He is incensed with Bill Clintons tactics.
When he saw what Bill Clinton was doing he angrily said "That son of a bitch, I always gave him the benefit of the doubt but no more. I can now see why the republicans despised him".
What he could not see is why we all fell for his act all along.
He pointed out to all the grandchildren who were gathered around that there are absolutely no half measures when it comes to racism.
He made sure they knew and understood that what Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were doing was wrong, and that if any of them split hairs with the race issue that they would not be welcome in his house.

Well this I know - the Clintons are not welcome in his house.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 12:51 PM:

As ever, the Clinton campaign is putting out good talking points. I find a number of them thoroughly unconvincing, but they are certainly the best possible spin to be put on the matters in question.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 12:53 PM:

Bill Clinton is a racist.

Come on. Bill Clinton is hardly covering himself in glory of late, but "racist"? Really, be serious, do. I am an entheusiastic Obama supporter, but I find the above rather over the top. Besides, no one (including Obama and my fellow Obama supporters) is especially well served by perpetuating this race-war theme.

blackstar wrote on January 28, 2008 12:53 PM:

Wasn’t former President Bill Clinton playing the race card when he sought to downplay Barack Obama’s victory in South Carolina by comparing him to Jesse Jackson?

* No.

* Look, President Bill Clinton has spent his entire public and private life repairing the breach in this country.

* Both his Presidency and his post-presidency career have focused on unity, not division.

* So I reject the premise of the question.

----------------

hahahahaha

can we really afford to go back to the Bizarro-World interpretations and denials that have been the hallmark of the Bush administration?

anyone who watches the video of Bill Clinton's comment knows EXACTLY what he was trying to do with it, and to outright deny that that was in fact what he was trying to do is a page right out of the book of George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld. its nothing less than a rejection of the uncomfortable reality of a situation, and America cannot possibly survive another 4-8 years of that.

Gregor wrote on January 28, 2008 12:53 PM:

The scene at American University in Washington:

Obama is on stage with Caroline Kennedy, and U2 is playing in the background. The background is filled with university students.

(Obama won 52% of the white vote under 30, in South Carolina.)

There were a number of moments in the 1992 campaign, like when Bill played Saxophone on the Tonight Show, when you knew he had garnered all the buzz and had roped in the zeitgeist, to his own advantage.

Just about everyone I am talking to from Los Angeles, to Brooklyn, from Boston overseas friends in London--are lining up for Barack.

Angry Vet wrote on January 28, 2008 12:53 PM:

Greg D-

You're right, and none of these talking points are all that surprising. In fact, To me, I feel like I have already read/heard these over and over again.

I also love the continued reference to American Samoa. I guess there is no chance for a campaign stop there, eh?

Seth H. wrote on January 28, 2008 12:55 PM:

I'm really astounded by the talking points regarding Florida. That's completely absurd. Obama ran, as I recall, a nationwide television ad on nationwide television stations. It is, in fact, a little dicey avoiding one state when you're doing that. So he ran an ad and she's in the state and somehow he's the one breaking the pledge and she's clear? Huh-uh. Nope. No, ma'am.

NCSteve wrote on January 28, 2008 12:55 PM:

If you don't think her campaign's habit of doing this is creepy, well, you're probably a supporter.

Funny how we've never yet seen any Orders of the Day handed down to Loyal Supporters by the Obama or Edwards campaigns.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 12:56 PM:

Speaking of Florida, as these talking-points do, did anyone else notice the Pollster.com graphs to our right? What happened to reverse Obama's spike? Is that where the NV caucuses entered into the picture? The change in direction could not be any less subtle. It is interesting to notice how Clinton's support hardly changes, but Obama's trend line suddenly turns from sharply positive to sharply negative.

Mike wrote on January 28, 2008 12:56 PM:

It does seem like they are setting high expectations for themselves in that last answer in talking about their big leads in the Feb 5 states and not talking about the fact that Obama will get a boost after the SC win and these endorsements.

Sue M. wrote on January 28, 2008 12:57 PM:

I agree with Mike.

One cannot be just a "little" racist.

Is Bill Clinton a racist.
Does not depend on the definition of "is".

Clinton was too cleaver by half here,
he must realize that most people are coming to see his shtick for what it is.

John McCutchen wrote on January 28, 2008 12:58 PM:

Mrs Bill talks
Who is listening anymore?

blackstar wrote on January 28, 2008 1:00 PM:

What happened to reverse Obama's spike? Is that where the NV caucuses entered into the picture?

------------

yes. that spike was in the days just after Iowa and the drop/reversal was just after NH.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 1:00 PM:

It does seem like they are setting high expectations for themselves in that last answer in talking about their big leads in the Feb 5 states and not talking about the fact that Obama will get a boost after the SC win and these endorsements.

Sure, but isn't that what you expect at this point. The "expectations game" matters in the early primaries because they exist principally in order to gin up momentum for the later, larger contests. By this point, however, what difference does it make if they build up high expectations and fail to meet them? This is no longer about "momentum" or "bounces," it is about delegates. If the Clinton campaign does not get all the delegates they need by Feb 6, the fact that they fell short of the expectations they had set will be the least of their worries.

NCSteve wrote on January 28, 2008 1:01 PM:

Somebody needs to ask them how it is that Obama's ads on national cable channels = "breaking the pledge," but Hillary's Internet advertising doesn't.

I'm also kind of baffled by how actually going down to Florida, stopping the limo to get out and press the flesh with ordinary citizens, and signing off on the "our problems are not of our own creation, we're the victims of a conspiracy" meme from the Florida voters in return for Bill Nelson's endorsement isn't campaigning. (Although, now that I think about it, it does match up word for word with the Clinton political motto.)

Another day, another bit of offically mandated doublethink from the Cube.

Jeremy wrote on January 28, 2008 1:03 PM:

Bill Clinton is not a racist. He was trying to make an analogy between Jackson and Obama to benefit Hillary's campaign. However, the facts do not support the analogy. I think Clinton is seeing things through an outmoded frame.

Regarding these talking points. If Hillary wants to get back to the issues, that would be great. First, she needs to get Bill to stop stirring up distractions. Why did she change her stimulus package to be more like Obama's? Doesn't "being ready to lead on day one" mean getting it right the first time? Notice that Obama attacks on the issues.

Then Obama went on the attack, spicing an economic speech in Greenville, S.C., with barbs at Clinton. The New York senator, Obama said, didn't think that workers or seniors needed immediate tax relief when she unveiled her economic stimulus package on Jan. 11.

''She thought it could wait until things got worse,'' he said. ``Five days later, the economy didn't really change, but the politics apparently did because she changed her plan to look just like mine.''

Obama, who offered his plan on Jan. 13, has proposed a $75 billion stimulus plan that includes a $250 ''bonus'' to seniors in their Social Security checks and a $250 tax rebate.

Clinton's original $70 billion blueprint concentrated more on help for energy costs and housing, but included a $40 billion contingency that would provide tax rebates ``if economic circumstances continue to worsen.''

On Tuesday, though, she seemed to drop the what-ifs, saying, ``We need a combination of spending, regulatory action with respect to the housing market and rebates through the tax system.''

.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/389838.html

And how about foreign policy? Does she still think that diplomacy is "naize"? Does she stand by her vote against the 02 Levin Amendment, which she defended in right wing terms, saying it gave the UN "veto power" when in fact it merely forced Bush to get final approval from Congress?

Or how about social issues? Is she ready to apologize for lying about Obama's record on choice?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVLzbBcs8A&feature=user

Or how about ethics reform? Does she have anything in her track record to compare the the commitment that Obama has shown to cleaning things up? Is she ready to commit to not having lobbyists in her WH if she's elected, or will her union-busting mercenary Mark Penn be getting a cabinet position?

pkoso wrote on January 28, 2008 1:03 PM:

couple of points: hillary is in florida today, isn't she? she's actively campaigning for voices to be heard...the implication being: obama and edward do not want the voters in florida to be considered. her hypocrisy (make a pledge, break a pledge) and her distortions are simply too much anymore.

unrelated: why is the headline on TPM home, "Political Fixer Rezko Arrested." As an "unbiased" news source, wouldn't it be at least fair to simply say, "Rezko Arrested"? Granted, the guy looks/smells dirty. But he's still innocent until proven guilty, right? (And pimping his connection to Obama OR Hillary in this context is simply ridiculous...)

prairieviews wrote on January 28, 2008 1:06 PM:

It is really surprising to me to see how the discussion of race has become almost taboo. If any one even implies that race may have played a part in the South Carolina primary, numerous bloggers instanteously howl. Bill Clinton is the only Democratic candidate to be elected President in 48 years, and he is no racist!!!

colonpowwow wrote on January 28, 2008 1:06 PM:

NCSteve wrote on January 28, 2008 12:55 PM:

"If you don't think her campaign's habit of doing this is creepy, well, you're probably a supporter.

"Funny how we've never yet seen any Orders of the Day handed down to Loyal Supporters by the Obama or Edwards campaigns."

NCSteve - Do you really think that they're campaigns don't release daily talking points memos (where have I heard that phrase before?)?

Call me colonpollyanna.

Angry Vet wrote on January 28, 2008 1:07 PM:

Greg D-

Missed that. I have no explanation, except for maybe the events in NH/NV. The actual polls used seem to have little actual derivation from one another over the last three weeks.

Obama- between 21-36%
HRC- between 40-60%

I took statistics 8 years ago, but totally forgot the calculations, but on first glance, comparing the numbers, they all seem rather consistent (or, perhaps, inconsistent). Poll numbers in the last four weeks generally jump all over the place, but that, I suppose, has a lot to do with methodology.

Also, one more note. Maybe the "Bradley effect" will now be outweighed or equivalent to the "cell phone effect." Just thinking...

brad wrote on January 28, 2008 1:07 PM:

So, is Hillary campaigning in Florida?

Well, I guess that depends on the definition of what...

never mind.

Tony Rezko wrote on January 28, 2008 1:08 PM:

How come you haven't posted about my arrest? It's the most dramatic news of the day.

colonpowwow wrote on January 28, 2008 1:09 PM:

I meant to say "their campaigns".

Ouch.

Norman Hsu wrote on January 28, 2008 1:09 PM:

I was wondering the same thing Tony.

Cmac wrote on January 28, 2008 1:09 PM:

Josh you are pathetic.

So, Edwards and "the One" do not have talking points or advise surrogates? This is the only thing you have about Hillary. This is it? She has talking points. OMG how so very 90s! I guess the Obama boys just use telepathy.

When will Jesus be supporting the next "Messiah", Josh?

I have a new phrase for liberal wussy bloggers: "O.A.K.s"

"Obama Ass Kissers"

You and Matt are the first to enter. Andy will be perform the secret initiation ceremony. Watch your back!

blackstar wrote on January 28, 2008 1:10 PM:

NCSteve - Do you really think that they're campaigns don't release daily talking points memos (where have I heard that phrase before?)?

Call me colonpollyanna.

-----------------

would you care to produce one? i'd be interested in what an Edwards or Obama "talking points memo" contains.

Rob wrote on January 28, 2008 1:11 PM:

Bill is a racist and I will not support Hillary any more for letting him act that way.

I will probly throw my support to McCain as I am an independant.

LJ wrote on January 28, 2008 1:12 PM:

Somebody needs to ask them how it is that Obama's ads on national cable channels = "breaking the pledge," but Hillary's Internet advertising doesn't.

Excellent point, NCSteve. One that hadn't occured to me.

Rooster_Ties wrote on January 28, 2008 1:12 PM:

I won't go so far as to claim Bill Clinton is a racist, because deep down, I do NOT think that he is. But I do believe the 'race'-related tactics of the Clinton couple make such an argument quite plausible.

In subtle ways the Clintons are trying their damnedest to use everything they can to win this race -- including race.

If she gets the nom, I may vote for her. But this active campaign volunteer will not call 1,000's of voters, and knock on hundreds of doors -- as I have in the past for a number of candidates.

God help this country if she gets the nomination.

blackstar wrote on January 28, 2008 1:13 PM:

So, Edwards and "the One" do not have talking points or advise surrogates? This is the only thing you have about Hillary. This is it? She has talking points. OMG how so very 90s! I guess the Obama boys just use telepathy.

When will Jesus be supporting the next "Messiah", Josh?

I have a new phrase for liberal wussy bloggers: "O.A.K.s"

"Obama Ass Kissers"

You and Matt are the first to enter. Andy will be perform the secret initiation ceremony. Watch your back!

----------------

oh look, a thoroughly retarded Clinton supporter. how novel.

colonpowwow wrote on January 28, 2008 1:13 PM:

blackstar:

Are you intentionally being obtuse or do you consider that a strength of yours?

As another poster put it so well - I guess the Obama and Edwards campaigns communicate by telepathy.

John McCutchen wrote on January 28, 2008 1:14 PM:

With Barack Obama we can turn the page on [the Clintons] EMK

A gutshot

Tony Rodham wrote on January 28, 2008 1:16 PM:

Tony, Norman. Call me. We'll talk numbers. Pretty sure I can get you pardoned.

Hank Essay wrote on January 28, 2008 1:16 PM:

To the first poster who said, "I can now see why the republicans despised him".

Look, the republicans didn't despise Bill Clinton because he was racially insensitive. Seriously, get real...Some of you are spinning yourself into pretzels...

The Republicans hated Bill Clinton because he campaigned and fought politically like they did and won. He played their game and made no apologies about it. They hated him because he won. These are people and a party without morals, scruples or decency. They are anti-American, vicious, hateful and will do anything and everything to destroy anyone who resists even slightly the GOP machine....

Seriously, get a grip.

blackstar wrote on January 28, 2008 1:19 PM:

Are you intentionally being obtuse or do you consider that a strength of yours?

------------------

so i guess that's a no on you actually providing an Edwards or Obama daily "talking points memo" for us to peruse?

i haven't come across one, and i'd be interested to see if its full of the same sorts of logical and moral deficiencies that comprise Hillary's talking points.

John Couch wrote on January 28, 2008 1:19 PM:

It is really surprising to me to see how the discussion of race has become almost taboo. If any one even implies that race may have played a part in the South Carolina primary, numerous bloggers instanteously howl. Bill Clinton is the only Democratic candidate to be re-elected President in 48 years, and he is no racist!!!

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 28, 2008 1:21 PM:

Why is the Media's and Obama supporters' denigration
of Jesse Jackson acceptable?

Trying to reduce the uniqueness of Obama's victory
in South Carolina in order to reduce
its importance is hardly racist. The Press has worked
overtime to ignore the shallowness of the Obama
campaign and it has been left to his opponents to point them out.

Unfortunately for them the Press calls normal
political criticism racist. This trashing of
truth is very reminiscent of the Bush side.

Gregor wrote on January 28, 2008 1:22 PM:

As someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice, who helped raise money for him, who defended him--I just want to say that now, as a passionate Obama supporter, I remain shocked and saddened at what the Clintons have done--to themselves. Bill and Hillary brought themselves low.

So very, very low.

swarty wrote on January 28, 2008 1:25 PM:

Watching the scene at American University, I wonder just how the Clinton campaign can answer this. They are smart, they'll think of something, but trotting out Bobby Jr., who wants her job, and KKT, who is a failed politican (ask anyone in Maryland) is not going to make the news cycle.

A quick story. I am volunteering in upstate NY at a small Obama office. Today a delivery truck driver who was about 60 years old stopped in when he saw the signs on the street. He told me he was a registered Republican but he wanted a yard sign. When I asked him why he supported Obama, he simply said, "I like what the man is saying." I know an anecdote is only that, but if Obama is reaching guys like this...

This has been a primary season about momentum, and if what I am seeing on my tv right now isn't momentum, then there is no such thing anymore.

colonpowwow wrote on January 28, 2008 1:26 PM:

blackstar:

Sorry I don't have one, but I'm sure the one that was going around his campaign staff after Obama's "sure, I'd invade Pakistan unilaterally" moment was probably a good read, don't you think?

Lisa wrote on January 28, 2008 1:29 PM:

Hank Essay

Your missing the larger point -
which is that the Clintons WILL
do anything to get elected.
It's not just the racisum.

Winning is fine, but we are all starting to realize that how you win is important.

We Democrats are getting a taste of that from the Clintons who are in our party.

To the larger point it is just very off putting and one can see them through Republican eyes for a once -
and not the rose colored glasses you have on.

Genghis wrote on January 28, 2008 1:30 PM:

Greg D, I was going to say that Clinton's comment on seating the FL delegates caused the dip, but the lower numbers start on 1/20, and the comment wasn't until the 25th, so the NV results may be a more likely cause. That said, the FL poll numbers are all over the map. There is a high cluster just before the 20th, which create Obama's upward spike, but if you discount those and smooth the line, there's still a steady upward climb. Clinton's numbers, by contrast, are slightly up but don't reflect Obama's drop.

That said, I don't expect a strong Obama showing in FL simply because, those national ads notwithstanding, he hasn't campaigned there, whereas Clinton seems to be doing everything that she can to campaign there without breaking the letter of her pledge.

Jen wrote on January 28, 2008 1:32 PM:

Just to clear up some confusion... Senator Clinton is not in Florida today. she is in the Washington area as both she and Senator Obama with cast votes to deny the Republicans cloture on the Fisa bill... Presumably, she will also be there for the State of the union speech later tonight.

She is headed to Florida tomorrow for a fund-raiser/victory thing.... which I personally disagree with, but have no real say in the matter.... you can't denounce your opponents for doing something and then do it yourself via the backdoor...

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 1:34 PM:

Today a delivery truck driver who was about 60 years old stopped in when he saw the signs on the street. He told me he was a registered Republican but he wanted a yard sign. When I asked him why he supported Obama, he simply said, "I like what the man is saying." I know an anecdote is only that, but if Obama is reaching guys like this...

Dear Swarty,

I could multiply that same story a thousand times. I grew up in a well-to-do suburb of St Louis, so most of my friends from high school are old-school country club Republicans. I was pleasantly surprised when first one, and then a few more, and then more and more of them started asking me for Obama bumperstickers (I had a big stack I was giving away). That was a great sign, I thought. But then, a few weeks more and the parents of these folks were calling me asking for sticker and info about Obama. If this man can appeal not only to 30-somethings like myself, but to the parents of these same Republican 30 somethings, then he has a broad reach indeed.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 1:35 PM:

So HRC has talking points......Do Obama not have talking points or Edwards ? I don't see you posting them. OH I forgot this is TPMemobama and you here have no shame in this matter. No shit HRC has answers to statements about different questions poised. You guys make no sense and have no sense of fairness whatsoever.

Angry Vet wrote on January 28, 2008 1:36 PM:

Swarty-

Thanks for the testimonial. I think you bring a valid point. to the discussion, but most of the trolls around here will probably ignore it.

Linda wrote on January 28, 2008 1:36 PM:

The campaign's "response" to the question of Bill playing the race card is pretty thin gruel. Basically it's just "No he didn't. How dare you question his motives? Nothing to see here. Move along."
Bill is not a racist, which is what makes his playing the race card all the more troubling. He really will say anything, step on anyone, to get elected. In a way I'm glad my erstwhile hero said it because it highlights just how loathesome he and his wife are. Hopefully enough people are paying attention to stop this trainwreck.

Liam wrote on January 28, 2008 1:37 PM:

I am an Obama supporter, and I do not think that Bill Clinton is a racist.

What I do find him to be is a cynical politician who will play any card in the deck in order to gain advantage. He always has been willing to set whites against blacks when he saw that was to his advantage. He wants whites to see Obama as only a candidate of black Americans. Guess who gets to draw from the huge non black majority.

This is not the first time Bill Clinton has played that card.

Go back and read about how he played the Sistah Soljah card against Jesse Jackson, in order to make sure that white voters stayed away from him.

Bill Clinton loves blacks when he needs their support, and he will throw them to the dogs if he thinks that will gain him an advantage. Racists are too full of hate to ever play that game.

In some ways the Bill Clintons of the world are worse than racists. At least with racists, the targets of their hatred always know where they stand. It is far worse when someone who has befriended you, turn around and feeds you the wolves.

T. wrote on January 28, 2008 1:40 PM:

Look at the #'s in NV compared to SC,

How can Billary compare the two with a straight face.

AlwaysTip wrote on January 28, 2008 1:44 PM:

Billary is worse than a racist. They are politicians who consciously manipulated racist sentiments for political ends. This is perhaps the most disgraceful episode in my long memory of observing political behavior. We wrote off the Southern vote for a generation to insure an end to the legacy of racism. Then these fools do this. Shanme, Shame on Clintonism.

Elizabeth wrote on January 28, 2008 1:45 PM:

blackstar wrote:
>>can we really afford to go back to the Bizarro-World interpretations and denials that have been the hallmark of the Bush administration?
>>>anyone who watches the video of Bill Clinton's comment knows EXACTLY what he was trying to do with it, and to outright deny that that was in fact what he was trying to do is a page right out of the book of George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld. its nothing less than a rejection of the uncomfortable reality of a situation, and America cannot possibly survive another 4-8 years of that.

I'm so glad someone else mentioned this! My sense of unwelcome echos ("am I listening to Bush or the Clintons?") has been too frequent and is increasing. Words don't mean what they say; strident, repeated repitition can create 'facts' that never existed in the real world; and so on. Listen to her response to Bob Schieffer's question on Face the Nation about what she learned from the SC loss: Aside from saying that she congratulated Sen. Obama, there's no reference to the loss and certainly not to any lessons learned, in fact, no acknowlegement of the question, just a mini-compressed-version of the stump speech .. I guess because she has nothing real to say. And you get the sense, as with Bush, that she would be deeply affronted and perhaps even puzzled if you so much as suggested that she hadn't answered the question. This is GEORGE BUSH! This is the very, very worst part of George Bush -- he thinks with the same lack of clarity/reality.

Example: statements about Florida. Obama's campaign could not make a national ad buy on cable channels without having those ads apprear in Fla. They went to DNC about the problem, were referred to the SC Dem party, and got that party's blessings before going ahead. As I understand it, the Clinton campaign made its accusations but then quickly followed suit and is now running cable ads there also! But.... they still continue to claim in the talking point) that Obama's doing so is a violation of the agreement. And if they believed that, then they couldn't say they are the only campaign to honor the agreement. It's all just ... well, utter swill!

Someone on one of these blogs said, with deep regret, that she mourned the president Hillary Clinton would have been if she'd only had a little integrity. I'm not in mourning, but it is regretable. What is clear, however, is that we will never know - that critical piece that is missing.

Genghis wrote on January 28, 2008 1:48 PM:

Liam writes

I am an Obama supporter, and I do not think that Bill Clinton is a racist.

What I do find him to be is a cynical politician who will play any card in the deck in order to gain advantage. He always has been willing to set whites against blacks when he saw that was to his advantage. He wants whites to see Obama as only a candidate of black Americans. Guess who gets to draw from the huge non black majority.

Liam, this is well put. Obama supporters who call Bill Clinton a racist are doing a disservice to the Obama campaign. It's not a defensible claim and reminds me of 90's PC campaigns at college. Obama supporters who call Clinton racist look like they're the ones playing the race card.

But Bill's attempt to exploit race politics (which is not the same as racism) is fairly obvious, and that's what we should be calling him out on.

Ross wrote on January 28, 2008 1:53 PM:

It is not so much that HRC has talking points, it is that the disingenuous nature of them reflects poorly on the Clinton's campaign. They sound just like Republican (GWB) talking points. Lie and deny.

Genghis wrote on January 28, 2008 1:54 PM:

Screwed up the quote again. Liam's quote is the first two paragraphs.

elusive wrote on January 28, 2008 1:55 PM:

I'm just back from American University and can report that the crowd was Huge!! Bender Arena was filled up so they moved overflow to the Grayson Center. That filled up too and there were still hundreds waiting outside. We didn't get in, but did get to wave as he came in. It's amazing and uplifting to see so many come out to support our next President!

Mary wrote on January 28, 2008 1:58 PM:

Genghis said

"which is not the same as racism"

Oh really,
how in hell can you say that.
Racisum is racisum.
I guess you think it is ok when people tell jokes with the N word.
Their not racist, their just having a little fun at the expence of someones skincolor.

How amusing you are.

rgo wrote on January 28, 2008 2:01 PM:

bill is not a racist - he's gone a little squirrelly, very bitter - they're entitlement is going away

Billy Glad wrote on January 28, 2008 2:03 PM:

Great post, Greg. I suppose this proves you favor Clinton, since you don't have access to Obama talking points. But, seriously, some of us might have come up with some of those ideas on our own. No?

The Confidence Man wrote on January 28, 2008 2:07 PM:

Jiminy Cricket! I'm no Hill- or Bill-hater, but the gall of this talking point is awe-inspiring:

"Regardless of which Kennedy supports which candidate, we are aware that ultimately this election will be decided not by one family but by the voters themselves."

CT Voter wrote on January 28, 2008 2:15 PM:

Hank Essay

Look, the republicans didn't despise Bill Clinton because he was racially insensitive. Seriously, get real...Some of you are spinning yourself into pretzels...

Oh, thanks for the laugh. You're correct, of course--Republicans hated Clinton because he played the game just as hard, and won, and, most galling, increased his popularity, as a result.

Bill Clinton isn't a racist, and neither is Hillary Clinton. What Bill is, though, is a master politician whose ego might be more caught up in this than is prudent. One can use racist tactics (and that's despicable, yes) without being a racist oneself.

And just for the record, I'm not a Clinton supporter, and wasn't all that thrilled with the 90s.

Hank Essay--thanks for the laugh, again.

Michael A wrote on January 28, 2008 2:15 PM:

I know its a shot in the dark, but I will be laughing my a** off if she loses florida or its a razor thin win. She has been playing this up based on the polls and the polls have been way, way off either one way or the other. No polls predicted the trouncing in sc and no polls predicted nh. Would it not be a laugher if obama won in florida? Too funny.

JR wrote on January 28, 2008 2:16 PM:

The funniest? Touting the new polls showing her ahead by double digits in NY and CA. The news would be if she was NOT in double digits.

Re endorsements: I know they're not supposed to matter but the one that interests me even more than Kennedy is Xavier Becerra. His pledge of support has received little coverage but he's the highest ranking Latino in Congress and, most intriguing to me, the Assistant to the Speaker of the House. Pelosi's consigliere, George Miller, has already endorsed Obama, now Becerra. I'm not expecting Pelosi to endorse but these guys are awfully close.

Genghis wrote on January 28, 2008 2:20 PM:

Yes, Mary, you've got me pegged. In fact, I myself tell N word jokes all the time.

In all seriousness, being a racist means believing that one race is superior to another. Clinton has not said that, has not even implied that, and I highly doubt that he believes that. (A racist joke, on the other hand, does suggest that one race is superior to another.) When you call Bill Clinton a racist, you yourself are exploiting race politics. It does not help Obama's attempt to transcend such tactics.

But you can quite defensibly accuse of Bill Clinton of exploiting racial divisions in order to promote Hillary's campaign. That in itself is completely reprehensible, perhaps even more reprehensible, as some posters suggest, than simply being a racist.

There are many more thoughtful Obama supporters posting on this site than thoughtful Clinton supporters. Let's try to continue that trend and avoid resorting to snide namecalling and emotional kneejerk insults - for the sake of the campaign and Obama's goal of unity, not to mention common decency.

Bob Richardson wrote on January 28, 2008 2:23 PM:

I don't think either Bill or Hillary are racists. But I don't put it past either of them to play the race card if it means more free rent at the White House. Bill's "Jesse Jackson" remark is odorous, but it's not nearly as bad as Hillary's Iraq War and Iranian sanctions votes. She uses both to pander to the worst instincts of American hatred of all things Arab and Muslim. Make no mistake -- America's attack against Iraq is a war crme, and at the very least a hate crime that depicted Muslims as unthinking savages. Her persistent defense about the post-invasion "mishandling" is a dodge, since she sill refuses to address original sin, the pre-emptive "policy" and tell us why attacking nations that haven't attacked us wasn't/isn't a mistake.

Kefa wrote on January 28, 2008 2:27 PM:

So it's seems to be HRC against the world......seems about even. Add WJC and I'll take those odds. As a matter of fact it's gonna be kinda funny with all of this hubbub when she still wins. She will take FLA. you will say it won't matter. You will talk about what little place he leads like you are now in NYC but not in NY state. You will talk about COLO but not in CAL and other major markets. WE who used to frequent TPM for it's evenhandedness know and understand it is now something else. I for one will hang around to say I told you so. When she cleans his clock on Feb 5th and in March 5th. Despite the MSM, despite the VRWC, despite the turncoats, HRC is gonna take it.

John Nowlan wrote on January 28, 2008 2:27 PM:

George Stephanopouls used the Florida talking points when he interviewed Mr. Obama yesterday morning...

DaddyD wrote on January 28, 2008 2:31 PM:

Mike wrote on January 28, 2008 12:49 PM:
"Bill Clinton is a racist."

Sorry dude. I'm an Obama supporter and I also agree with Greg DeLassus. At worst, the Clintons are race baiting, but that is distinct from being racist. In other words, using racial tensions to your political advantage is entrely different than hating someone who is of another background, or believing that people of a different color are inferior.

Now, just to avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying race-baiting is OK. And I'm not saying the Clintons are race-baiting. All I'm saying is that the accusation about WJC being racist is way off base.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 2:31 PM:

Kefa wrote on January 28, 2008 2:27 PM:

Okay,Already! But why is she going to Florida?

markg8 wrote on January 28, 2008 2:31 PM:

"Both his Presidency and his post-presidency career have focused on unity, not division."

Apparently Hillary's team doesn't read bloggers who support her. "Unity pony" is the slur they throw at Obama.

Southpaw wrote on January 28, 2008 2:33 PM:

Very interesting. Just as with Bob Johnson's "in the neighborhood" comments, the context of Bill's Jesse Jackson comments lends itself to no other credible explanation for what he could have possibly meant. And indeed, in this case, Hillary, et al. aren't even *attempting* to give an alternative explanation. They've at least learned *that* lesson, from the Johnson affair, or perhaps from the Reagan one (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674): namely, that they can no longer lie themselves out of trouble for their underhanded campaign tactics like they could have before the decentralization of media brought on by the internet age. In the 90's, the netorks and cable news outlets might have given them a pass. But we will catch them every time.

Now if only they would stop those underhanded tactics to begin with.

Bupalos wrote on January 28, 2008 2:37 PM:

>>>Would it not be a laugher if obama won in florida? Too funny.>>>

Simply not possible if you look at the demographics in Florida, I don't think. Demographically, Florida is THE state that sets up best for Hillary Clinton.

California is where Obama could pull a stunner. But honestly, we are past the point where "winning" any state really matters at all. It will in the general, of course, but those polls are totally different. A dem candidate that wins any given state against dem opponents may actually have worse poll numbers in that state against any given R than the dem "losers" in that state. I think Florida is probably a good example of that.

At this stage, all that matters is the number of delegates, state by state, that each candidate can collect. Obama can pull some out of Florida and a lot out of California. The biggest question for me about feb 5 is simply whether it gets spun to mean Hillary is inevitable again, and then that hurts Obama in future contests. That's the only way this isn't going all the way to the convention. It's just too close.

Liam wrote on January 28, 2008 2:37 PM:

As an Obama supporter, I think we all can agree that this is a great contest, and a lot more engaging than if one or the other had the nomination handed to them. Which every side wins the nomination, having had to earn it will have sharpened their campaign skills to go up against the Republicans.

Facts, not spin wrote on January 28, 2008 2:40 PM:

DaddyD

I do not understand your justification for saying,

"At worst, the Clintons are race baiting, but that is distinct from being racist"

By what possible logical argument can you find a distinction.

What if one wanted to get elected in germany in the 1930's and placyed the anti semite card.
Do you really beleive their is a distinction.
Their will be deep seated consequences for what the Clintons have done -

It was racist

Rosemary Storaska wrote on January 28, 2008 2:42 PM:

For those of us who have lived long enough to have hindsight, the choice of Obama by Mr. Kennedy is no surprise. Kennedy has never been one to respect women if history teaches any lessons. Most people are too young to remember neither the Chappaquiddick scandal nor Ted's reputation with respect to women as he grew into political power. Let's look at this so called difficult choice between Obama and Clinton: One, Obama is an unproven freshman senator who would not be running for the presidency if he were not black (however much I hate racial references). Two, Kennedy could have jumped into the race for Obama prior to South Carolina but held off? Democratic power requires the black vote and the south. Third, Hillary has worked hard for Ted, serving on health, education and other committees with him and now we see him stripping her of the job merits she has earned! Obama has yet to earn his stripes in Congress. What you are seeing with this endorsement is an embedded 'old boys club' figurehead "USING" A BLACK man to move his own agenda. Kennedy's position as part of the old guard has done little to change either the economy or our status as a world power. He is the weak link in the Kennedy family. The irony of this is unbelievable! What will this mean? A Republican candidate will most likely be put back into the oval office running against Obama. Many women such as myself will vote against extreme "inexperience" by crossing the lines to vote for the lesser of two unintellectual choices: a more experienced Republican! I'm all for great oratory and movements but they do not put more bread on my table!

CT Voter wrote on January 28, 2008 2:44 PM:

kefa Turncoats? If you don't support Hillary Clinton, you're committing treason?

Damn. Why does that line of reasoning sound familiar?

If you are not a Clinton supporter, you're either committing treason or part of the vast right wing conspiracy. These particular words seem particularly divisive. Divide and conquer: the legacy of Karl Rove.

That being said, I also think she's going to take the nomination, sadly enough, because nothing unites this Republican field like Hillary Clinton does.

Michael A wrote on January 28, 2008 2:44 PM:

I don't know bupalos. One can always hope. You are right about the demographics, but anything is possible. I would submit that if young people come out in droves, obama has a shot.

I agree on the cali angle. One of the last polls that I saw on cali had only a 5% difference between the clintons and obama. Obama could take cali, which would be huge.

Regardless of the outcome on 2/5, I don't think that the clintons spinning inevitability will be able to fly. They lost that mantra with iowa. It's a horse race now.

Stirling McLaughlin wrote on January 28, 2008 2:46 PM:

"...We are aware that ultimately this election will be decided not by one family but by the voters themselves."

LOL.

There is just something funny about that coming from the Clintons...

CT Voter wrote on January 28, 2008 2:46 PM:

I'm all for great oratory and movements but they do not put more bread on my table!

And neither will a Republican president, with a Republican controlled Congress...if getting more bread on your table is a priority, then you should vote Democrat, not Republican.

President Bill Clinton wrote on January 28, 2008 2:47 PM:

I am not a racist. Obama is, however, black.

AlwaysTip wrote on January 28, 2008 2:51 PM:

DearRosemary,

Bill Clinton has treated women almost as abominably as Ted Kennedy did. One reason, I have doubts about Hillary is that she enabled her husband (for decades)to sexually harass (and abuse) young women under his control, e.g. Monica Lewinsky. This gets you fired in my workplace. When I point this out to my Clintonista female friends, I almost see their brain click as they process that unhappy thought.

Bupalos wrote on January 28, 2008 2:53 PM:

Come off it. Bill Clinton is not a racist. He's a street-fighting politician who is going to use all the tools at his disposal to get elected. That's what the Clintons' supporters like about them.

I've come around to the point where, while I don't like it and am coming to despise the Clintons, I wouldn't really want to see them act differently. This is what they are and who they are. They are representatives of smash-mouth, polarized politics, and they are good at it. If Obama is going to win in the national, he has to figure out how to deal with this. I think he's done a masterfull job of walking a vanishingly thin line so far, even if some of his supporters don't.

And for the record, I don't think any of the R candidates will have near the skill and subtlety that allows the Clintons to deploy this slow-motion race-bomb. So I will be both disgusted and disappointed if she wins a squeaker. But if she can deliver a butt-kicking, I think we have to say it just isn't meant to be, hold our noses, and decide whether we'd rather see 8 years of a democrat that slogs along with 50+1 polarization or 4 years of a Republican that might keep the prospect of realignment in play and perhaps even enhance it.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 2:54 PM:

Real slow news day for Hill and Bill? It seems to have been this way for 48 hrs or so. Will her trip to Florida change this around! Sorry, senate vote maybe?

More Axe wrote on January 28, 2008 2:59 PM:

"Don't forget Poland!"

Seriously, American Somoa? WHy do the keep carping on American freaking Somoa? Hillary said it after the SC primary as well.

They must be really nervous about their chances to be doing this in Florida AND screaming "American Somoa" every time they are asked about SC...

suzanne wrote on January 28, 2008 3:05 PM:

Rosemary, you write:

"A Republican candidate will most likely be put back into the oval office running against Obama. Many women such as myself will vote against extreme "inexperience" by crossing the lines to vote for the lesser of two unintellectual choices: a more experienced Republican!"

Whhere do Hillary's supporters get off beating up Obama by playing the "experience" card? It's hardly a trump. Hillary's so-called "experience" is mostly a charade. When Bill was president, she didn't sit in any national security cabinet meetings. She was shaking hands with the wives of other dignitaries, wow! Her one landmark White House "experience" was health care, and that was a major flop. If Hillary gets the Dem nom, the "experience" card will blow up in her face when she faces either of John McCain, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. McCain has been a senator far longer than Hillary, and the latter pair are both former state governors. If she plays "experience" as her trump against Repubs, she has no more advantage in that fight against Republicans than Obama does, so that's a loser argument..

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 3:05 PM:

Clinton Campaign Talking Points
FOXNews - 2 hours ago

Stuff must be thin when FOX pushes your talking point. Waiting for more talking points on American Somoa! Michigan would not be bad!

billy wrote on January 28, 2008 3:07 PM:

Guys, it's spelled "Samoa."

NCSteve wrote on January 28, 2008 3:07 PM:

Actually, Colon, "invade Pakistan unilaterally" is a Clinton talking point, and exactly the kind of distortion of what he actually said that we've become accustomed to over the last several months.

But I said, and I repeat, funny how we never see uniform talking points for minions from the other campaigns yet see them regularly from Hillary's hive.

Talking points. A concept born during the Reagan administration, incidentally. At the time, after they first found out about them, the WH press corp found the concept appalling. (My recollection is that they took it as further disquieting evidence that Ronnie's mind was going. Which, of course, it was.)

billy wrote on January 28, 2008 3:10 PM:

And while I'm being pedantic, maybe it's time to retire the use of the term "talking points," and call it exactly what it is: a script.

Ike wrote on January 28, 2008 3:12 PM:

Come on TPM, you are starting to sound like Foxnews, CNN and MSNBC with with your bashing of Clinton. Please put down the glass of kool-aid and return back to reality.

Mary wrote on January 28, 2008 3:12 PM:

It comes down to this.

Politics in general has believed the electorate is stupid.

Somehow GWM got elected, twice - that is evidence enough.

Same old politics plays "the electorate is stupid" game.

But we have had 8 years in darkness, and we have awakened. We are not falling for any more BS. We want someone honest and ethical in the white house.

Anyone who has really been paying attention knows the clinton's are playing "the electorate is stupid" card.

Barack Obama respects our intelligence. He knows deeply who we are and who we want to be. Someone who can touch that intelligence within ourselves and direct it for the greater good. Why do you think his speaking inspires so much. It is not his words so much as it is recognition we feel when we realize this is a person who respects the electorate.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 3:14 PM:

Rezko is in police custody as we speak.

Bat Guano wrote on January 28, 2008 3:16 PM:

He's not playing the race card.

He's just pushing the race button.

Desider wrote on January 28, 2008 3:17 PM:

I'm sure if Bill Clinton had said the obvious, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch, South Carolina is not representative of all 50 states", it would have still been taken as "racist". Ohmygod, he said "chickens". What does he mean, South Carolina doesn't count?

Just a few days ago many Obama supporters were slamming LBJ as being racist. Today it's praise JFK day. LBJ's work on civil rights is swept into the dustbin of history, an inconvenient detail. Obama can invoke MLK all he wants (like what's the similarity aside from race?) and there's nothing racist about that, but no one can compare Obama with anyone else that Obama doesn't want. Chutzpah.

OxyCon wrote on January 28, 2008 3:17 PM:

Mike wrote on January 28, 2008 12:49 PM:

Bill Clinton is a racist.

Their are no half measures here.
We need to take a full measure OF bill Clintons character or lack there of.

I am white, and my grandfather is white.

------------

And I think you are also an idiot for labeling President Clinton a racist.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 3:17 PM:

Rosemary, I read your little novel down to the part where you say Obama would not be running if he was not black. Then I moved on.

Racism is not an on-off switch. It's a spectrum. You should think about where you are on that spectrum when you see a legislator, motivator, scholar, and individual this talented--a man who has been a community organizer and constitutional law professor, a man with almost uniquely good judgement on the critical issue of our time at a moment when your own candidate's judgement was so tragically bad--and can only conclude that his primary advantages are based on race. Or for that matter that his race is an advantage at all.

Do yourself a favor and check out the SFGate editorial board interview here that they based their endorsement on here:
http://cdn.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0

Then ask youself again about your characterization of his candidacy as racial.

Mary wrote on January 28, 2008 3:18 PM:

Rezko is getting old. This is not a new story. Obama's connection is debunked. You truly need to get a new line. It is obvious there are no skeletons in Obama's closet (believe me the clintons have tried) Probably have a whole team of private investigators. This is the only thing the clintonistas can come up with?

Get a new line - or get out of the gene pool.

JohnS wrote on January 28, 2008 3:25 PM:

Did Clinton play the race card in his Jesse Jackson SC post-primary remarks? I didn't think so, and neither did Jesse Jackson when he was asked about it. "“I don’t read anything negative into Clinton’s observation,” Mr. Jackson said in a phone conversation late Sunday night from India, where he is taking part in a commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Still, Mr. Jackson said that he had spoken to Mr. Obama on Saturday night and to Mr. Clinton a few days earlier and that he had appealed to both to “take it to a higher ground.” ...So I find it amazing that many of the commentors here, like "Mike" in the first comment, have been able to crawl into Clinton's mind, "Being John Malkovitch"-style, and proclaim without hesitation that, "Bill Clinton is a racist."

Sorry, but if anybody's playing the race card in the Dem primary campaigns, it's the Clinton-haters in the media and elsewhere. So I'm sorry to see TPM cavorting around in that slime pit. And I am an Edwards supporter BTW.

TC wrote on January 28, 2008 3:26 PM:

Prairieview.............. Best check your history. Jimmy Carter (Democrate) was President from 1977-1981

Mary wrote on January 28, 2008 3:27 PM:

It is truly amazing that this race thing is even an issue anymore.

I was watching VH1. They were doing a documentary on Motown. Back then, when black groups had a good sound, they would get a white group to record it for the masses.

How times have changed. We all love the blues, soul, hip hop. Everyone has a favorite song done by an African American now. That was not true in the 50's and 60's.

Why is it our music can be color blind, but our politics cannot? Why do you think the young voters are color blind? We are in 2007. The new generation is taking the place of the old. Race/gender is not a dividing point among the under 40 group.

It is time to leave the divisiveness behind. The face of America has to change. Not only here but around the world. We are global now. Our economy, our environment, our social networking is global. Lets elect a president who can embody that view.

Obama 08

ebie wrote on January 28, 2008 3:37 PM:

It's racist to compare another black POTUS candidate's SC results with Obama's?

If so, how so? Seriously.

Also, this is all softball compared to what's going to be said by Republicans if Obama gets the nod. So be ready for lots more talk of this nature, and be prepared to not freak out.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 3:51 PM:

>>>Rezko is in police custody as we speak.>>>

Thanks for the update. Can you give me any info on the current location of Mark Rich, Jim and/or Susan McDougal, Samuel Rivera, Norman Hsu, Sandy Berger...

Stan wrote on January 28, 2008 3:59 PM:

Each candidate in SC won a majority from their own racial/gender background. Hillary won white women. Edwards won white men. Barack won black men. But Barack also pulled more from any of the other candidate's identity pool than they pulled from each others or his. He won more white men than Hillary, more white women than Edwards, and of course won women overall. So objectively, while he had the strongest identity response, he also had the broadest and most diverse response. That's a winning combination. I'm beginning to see this.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 4:00 PM:

So where are the daily talking points from the Obama campaign? Are we to believe that only the Clinton campaign has a particular story they're trying to spin to the media? I would like to see the other side of this story.

wwjb wrote on January 28, 2008 4:01 PM:

To anyone who has been paying any attention, the Jesse Jackson comment was dropped like clockwork, I could have set my damn watch by it. This whole subtle race-baiting campaign has been leading up to that point. The Clintons sacrificed SC by pushing away the black vote, but they hoped to spin the big black loss as a racial thing, and in the process paint Obama as "the black candidate", just like Jesse Jackson was, and sure enough, like clockwork, right after they get thumped in SC, Bill Clintons comes out and compared Obama to Jesse Jackson, totally without provocation. Clinton campaign strategists were at this same time saying that Obama being "the black candidate" now could hurt his chances in other states. They have been waiting for this moment, and they jumped on it, and it was predictable as hell and if you deny it, you either haven't been paying any attention, or you are a Clinton troll and you need to quit spreading their lies and tricks around.

The only problem, Barack got a quarter of the white vote, against two high profile white candidates, and John Edwards, that wasn't something Jesse Jackson ever did, he also didn't stomp his opponents by 27%, and he also wasn't going against the most well known Senator, and a former president. Jesse Jackson also didn't win almost pure white Iowa. Looking toward the future, Jesse Jackson wasn't even or ahead in Colorado, another state that is white as snow. The Jesse Jackson allusion is an illusion. It was a transparent attempt by the Clintons to set the race trap they have been baiting this whole time, and it failed, and even the media noticed this blatant attempt.

And Jesse Jackson is an idiot if he doesn't see what is going on. But I don't think he is an idiot, I think he feels threatened by Obama, because his candidacy will pretty much be the final chapter in his career as the wannabe voice of the black community. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the old guard, and Obama is the future, I wouldn't expect them to embrace it. I wouldn't be surprised if they both endorsed Hillary just to keep Obama at bay, but that probably won't happen now that the Clintons have pissed off so many blacks.

marcus wrote on January 28, 2008 4:02 PM:

Funny Hillary, you weren't so carefree about the whole thing these last couple weeks when you were begging Kennedy behind the scenes to not endorse Obama.

How little and fake you are..

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 4:06 PM:

>>>>>
>>>Rezko is in police custody as we speak.>>>

Thanks for the update. Can you give me any info on the current location of Mark Rich, Jim and/or Susan McDougal, Samuel Rivera, Norman Hsu, Sandy Berger...>>>>>

That's exactly the response the Clintonistas are fishing for here. They want to make this all relative and everyone else as scummy as they are. Don't fall for it.

Mary wrote on January 28, 2008 5:13 PM:

Obama talking points:

1. read the clinton memo

2. take the higher ground

3. Point out falsehoods with documentation (choosing only those that really matter)

4. Don't play in the slime the old guard is determined to drag us in.

Any questons?

Yamma wrote on January 28, 2008 7:49 PM:

Thanks for the update. Can you give me any info on the current location of Mark Rich, Jim and/or Susan McDougal, Samuel Rivera, Norman Hsu, Sandy Berger...>>>>>

>>>>>>That's exactly the response the Clintonistas are fishing for here. They want to make this all relative and everyone else as scummy as they are. Don't fall for it.>>>>>>>

Exactly. That was not posted by an Obama supporter. An Obama supporter would know that Sandy Berger has been tireless on the campaign trail for Barack.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 10:31 PM:

"Liberal Icon Senator Ted Kennedy"??

I will repeat here what I said elsewhere: Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing when he compared Obama to Jesse Jackson: he painted Obama not just as the "black" candidate, but as the candidate of the left wing. Then the Kennedys jump in, and Obama is now officially the "far left" candidate, which leaves Hillary as the "centrist" candidate, just in time for Super Tuesday.

Elizabeth wrote on January 29, 2008 1:06 AM:

>>>Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the old guard, and Obama is the future, I wouldn't expect them to embrace it. I wouldn't be surprised if they both endorsed Hillary just to keep Obama at bay, but that probably won't happen now that the Clintons have pissed off so many blacks.

Al Sharpton has remained uncommitted, but Jesse Jackson endorsed Barak Obama very early on. -- Since they, especially Jackson, were not too long ago the 'younger generation' who accepted the torch/mantle from those like King, Abernathy, Lowery, and so forth, they may be more aware than others in public life that at the right time, or out of necessity, the new generation *should* take over. Someone like Obama who may genuinely be a 'post-racial' leader who just happens to be black is in so many ways proof of the value of what they have done with their lives.

Elizabeth wrote on January 29, 2008 1:17 AM:

Re: Obama's 'talking points'
Interesting article by Howard Kurtz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/28/AR2008012800899.html
Samples:
When reporters met with the staff members after the last Dem. debate:
"There was no high-level campaign spinner to argue that Obama had gotten the better of the exchanges or that the verbal fisticuffs were part of some precisely calculated strategy. On the press bus the next day, mid-level aides dealt with travel logistics but made no attempt to shape the coverage."
* * *
"But the contrast in his press strategy is striking, not just with Clinton's campaign -- which aggressively lobbies journalists around the clock -- but also with the Bush White House and the Clinton White House before that. And that, Obama aides say, is by design."

bbln wrote on January 29, 2008 3:58 AM:

it's the Obama campaign that pushed race - did no one get the Obama talking points or is criticizing the "one" off limits:

Read the full memo:

Subject: MUST READ: Key S.C. figure takes issue with Clintons

SHUCK AND JIVE

Clinton Supporter Andrew Cuomo, Referring To Obama, Said "You Can't Shuck
And Jive At A Press Conference. All Those Moves You Can Make With The Press
Don't Work When You're In Someone's Living Room." Clinton-supporting New
York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the thing that's great about New
Hampshire is that you have to go out and meet people rather than "shuck and
jive" through press conferences there. Cuomo said of New Hampshire on an
Albany radio station: "It's not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can't buy
your way into it. You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those
moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living
room." [Newsday, 1/11/08]

MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON

Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising "False Hope" Said That While MLK
Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One
Who Got Legislation Passed: "It Took A President To Get It Done." Clinton
rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in
Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther
King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the
one who got the legislation passed. Hillary was asked about Obama's
rejoinder that there's something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes
as false, and that it doesn't jibe with the careers of figures like John F.
Kennedy and King. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to
get it done." [Politico, 1/7/08; Video]

Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton
introducer: "If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the
other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of
hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his
work and got the republicans to pass all those measures." [HRC, Dover, NH,
1/7/08] AUDIO ATTACHED

NELSON MANDELA

Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. "I
have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the
last hundred years. [...] I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year
and we're still very close. [...] But if you said to me, 'You've got one last
job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life
and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one
other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never
blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would
pick Hillary.'" [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]

DRUG USE

Clinton's NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said
It Would "Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter." Clinton's
Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen's Comments
And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He "Deeply Regret[s] The
Comments." The Democratic presidential race took on a decidedly nasty and
personal turn, with the New Hampshire co-chair for Clinton, raising the
youthful drug use of Obama. Shaheen said Obama's having been so open -- as
opposed to then-Gov. George W. Bush, who refused to detail his past drug use
during his 2000 presidential campaign -- will "open the door to further
queries on the matter. It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give
drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so
many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome." By the
end of the day, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer had issued a
statement asserting that "these comments were not authorized or condoned by
the campaign in any way." And Shaheen himself issued a statement: "I deeply
regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the
campaign in any way." [ABC News, 12/12/07]

Mark Penn, In Trying To Defend His Campaign Over Bill Shaheen's Obama Drug
Use Comments, Used The Word "Cocaine," Drawing A Rebuke From Edwards Adviser
Joe Trippi. Mark Penn, defending the Clinton campaign in light of Bill
Shaheen's comments about Obama's drug use, repeatedly referenced Obama's
cocaine use. Edwards adviser Joe Trippi accused Penn of dropping the word
"cocaine" deliberately. Mark Penn said "Well, I think we have made clear
that the -- the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the
campaign was in any way raising. And I think that has been made clear. I
think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator." Joe Trippie
responded and said "I think he just did it again. He just did it again. ...
This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said cocaine again."
[Politico, 12/13/07; Video]

FAIRY TALE

Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A "Fairy Tale"
And Said "It's An Insult... As An African-American" And That His Tone And
Words Are "Very Depressing." Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton over his
insulting comments of Obama, where he called him a "fairy tale" and said "I
could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn't
take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It's time that they regroup. Figure
out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds
like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that
many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy
tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you,
as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing.
... I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United
States senator." [Politico, 1/8/08]

Amaya Smith
South Carolina Press Secretary
Obama for America

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)