« Hillary And Obama Ads Hitting More Super Tuesday States | Home | Negative Obama Mailer Hits Hillary On NAFTA »

Hillary Supporter Bob Kerrey Restates Praise Of Obama

This is interesting. Hillary supporter Bob Kerrey had a letter to the editor in The Times today responding to Bob Herbert's weekend column, which pointed to Kerrey's apparently accidental claim that Obama had gone to a "secular madrassa" as a sign of the Clinton campaign's race-bating.

Kerrey wrote:

This letter is written to restate my compliment of Senator Obama.

If he becomes president of the United States, his experience will give him the capacity to undo much of the damage we have done to our standing in Muslim communities without weakening our resolve to keep ourselves safe from terrorist Islamic groups.

For a Hillary supporter to go out of his way to restate such praise of Obama seems suggestive in light of recent events. More on Herbert's column and on the weaker side of Kerrey's response right here.


31 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

rats to the lifeboats!

user-pic

Interesting...

I suspect that way too many people jumped on her bandwagon too soon back when they thought she was inevitable, and now they are uneasy and wondering how to jump off and when. This is why it is foolish to commit 100% to someone at the beginning of a campaign.

user-pic

I beleive the Clintons used racist tactics in this election. When Ideas and thoughts are raised in the hopes of dividing americans across racial lines,
then I beleive that is racist.

user-pic

Unfortunately, this cut off the Horse's Mouth piece actually tells an extremely different story than the original.

Horse's Mouth is a bit more scathing of Herbert, while this TPM-EC cut piece of the HM piece brings up the rats from a sinking ship idea.

I'll side with the original. I think Kerrey's response was pretty justified, without further response or evidence.

Maybe my reading comp is sucky, but that's how I read it. Besides, NYC is Kerreyland now anyway, with the New School and all....

No story here.

user-pic

Billary battles back!

- She hauled out the president of NY NOW to flame Kennedy and all progressive males as "not really ready for a womman"

- Then she dragged out the tried and true hack, Maxine Waters


Poor Billary....she trotted out her Machine endorsements four months ago and ain't got much left

user-pic

Oh, I get it now.

This is supposed to be an example of a change in HRC campaign tactics in response to the "race-baiting" of the last few weeks.

Maybe, maybe not. I think Kerrey was probably seriously embarrassed about what happened in late December. That serious embarrassment required a tepid response to Bob Herbert's column, though it probably deserved much more.

Why the tepid response? Bob Herbert is African-American. I'm guessing Kerrey that a response was appropriate, but unilaterally toned it down for fear of being un-pc and continuing the Clinton "race-baiting" media narrative.

Taken on its face, Kerrey's response is justified, and to me, a solid rebuke of Herbert.

user-pic

Yeah, not much of a story here, but I'm just glad TPM had the decency to stay away from that BS "snub" story that much of the MSM is bloviating about.

user-pic

"Clintons Racists ???

Having met and worked for Bob Kerrey, I know for a fact that his statement is sincere.

The only racist in this campaign has been Jesse Jackson Jr. , who supports Obama. The Clintons are among the most racially progressive couple in politics. Your smears are pathetic and losing.

user-pic

Mike- we agree.

Thanks, TPM, for avoiding the BS "snub" pile-on.

user-pic

A Republican's Prayer

"The democrats are being given a choice. Remain the clunking collection of single interest groups that it has been for decades or become a national party once again. That's the choice that Obama is offering and as a Republican, I hope they don't take it"
Tucker Carlson

Ahnold's not bothering with Tucker Carlson's prayer

Schwarzenegger Praises Obama SF Chron

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/29/MNOSUNR7E.DTL&hw=arnold+obama&sn=001&sc=1000

user-pic

just by way of explanation of the dual posts: the two blogs really have different missions. EC is more of a news blog, and though it's opinionated at times, posts are built around delivering new nuggets of info.

HM is focused largely on political coverage, and is meant to be a more personal blog/take on stuff.

thus the two different posts on two different aspects of this.

user-pic
This is interesting.

Hm, chacun à son gout I suppose, but I do not find it that interesting. Sen Kerrey was slighted by Bob Herbert and he wrote a response. If Sen Kerrey had actually repeated the allusion to a madrassa education in this letter, I would find that interesting, but all I see here is a man defending his good name without really touching on the political fights of the moment at all. I see no real story here.

user-pic

Sure Hillary's a skank. I hit that back when I was a teenager. So did my dad. Chelsea--now that's some sweet poontang.

user-pic

"Then she dragged out the tried and true hack, Maxine Waters"


Clintons are racist, except when they have Maxine Waters, who is a hack. As if Ted Kennedy is a fresh and modern voice. Give me a break.

Obama is going to lose. Deal with it.

user-pic

Herbert called out Kerrey, slimed him, and misrepresented what he meant as a compliment (like his saying it in October, in an interview with the economist, a month before he endorsed Hillary). Kerrey responds to the smear. How exactly is that him deserting the Clinton campaign?

user-pic

Bob Kerrey apologized immediately once he became aware that his statements had been taken by some as insults/subtle attacks; Sen. Obama immediately said that he saw nothing wrong with the comments and returned praise to former Sen. Kerry.
I saw Kerrey make the statements initially and frankly (although I'm a strong Obama supporter and by this point can't bear to look at Clinton) I believe that he was making what he believed was a compliment (roughly, "I don't see these differences - name, background, etc. - as a bad thing at all but instead as a strength, an asset" - apparently too complex for national TV).
Anyway, Kerrey has been speaking up, in just this tone and these words, whenever the negative construction placed on his comments is brought back out for an airing, so the letter to WaPo is nothing new. --- Just because it came from the Hillary side of things doesn't mean it's *necessarily* negative and an intended attack. Anyway, what in Bob Kerrey's background makes anyone think he would be anyone's attack person?

user-pic

I think it shows Kerrey is a classy guy and the Clintons have some morally decent people behind them. If they'd shut up and let their supporters talk, they might pull this out.

user-pic

"apparently accidental claim of a secular madrassa"

You're kidding, right?

the man was president of a university for crying out loud, and before that he was a well respected senator. Oh and he was on the 9/11 commission.

How could he, after all that, think there was such a thing as a "secular madrassa"?

Accident? you're deluding yourself in your hackery for Billary's candidacy.

user-pic

Greg-

Understood on that count. However, there is a peculiar slant on EC's take on this vis a vis Horse's Mouth. I don't think mission really explains it, in my mind.

I think my previously posited deux et machina idea of throwing the wolves (us commenters) red meat in order to tear each other apart for blood sport would explain the rationale of the phrasing if the "story" above.

At least, to me, it is a lesson of how a particular "truth" changes in how you cut and how you piece together the facts of a given situation. A very important skill for a lawyer to be, you see.

user-pic

The word "madrassa" literally does just mean "school" in arabic. I looked it up.

user-pic

Christ, guys, let up on it already. Not every politician is evil, ok?

Anyway, Greg, your piece on Eugene Robinson is right on the money. Could it be that his personal reactions to particular stories in the past has leaked into his reporting?

Also, I love the fact he has the same name as a former DB for the Packers and Falcons.

user-pic

Another member of the 9/11 Commission. Don't trust him.

user-pic

Angry Vet -- thanks on Robinson.

As for the two posts, I think they're justified. I think Kerrey's pushback

1) is interesting in that it goes out of its way to praise obama, which I think is suggestive;

and, simultaneously

2) is too weak in challenging Herbert

user-pic

then why not just call it school cal d?

user-pic

My understanding is that NYT columnists are contractually barred from endorsing candidates ... thus we have columnists using their regular column space to play political hardball for chosen candidates, but with no disclosure.

Thus we have Krugman shilling for Edwards (and viscerally opposing Obama), and Herbert running interference for Obama.

While we're at it, if Begala and Carville are barred from CNN for liking Hillary, Donna Brazile (who remains officially neutral while serving as a conduit between Obama and the political press for campaign oppo and talking points) has no business remaining on air in an analyst role.

You can't keep opinion writers from having opinions, and you can't keep those opinions from evolving into convictions. What you can do is ask that they just fess up (which might reduce the guessing games where rabid followers of every candidate conclude that every writer is slanting it against their side).

user-pic

So, wait ... just so I understand: When this initially happened, Kerrey's mere mention of Obama being able to reach out to Muslims was part of the "slur," but now that he writes in -- and repeats that line -- it's a sign that people are bolting from Clinton's camp or hedging their bets? Seriously? These Obamabots are a squirrely lot. The media-concocted Obama "movement" is about to learn what happens when actual Democrats show up and vote in large numbers. Starting tonight in Florida, and continuing next week. Nuzzle the warm embrace of Tim Russert and Chris Matthews while you can; once large numbers of people start voting, it will be a different story.

user-pic

Greg-

I think that's a legitimate point of view (obviously alluding to your other post on Robinson).

However, I believe a more accurate one is that Kerrey was trying to explicitly avoid causing any sort of negative campaign fodder. Therefore, his hands were rather tied.

If he came back and slammed Herbert, his enemies could suggest that perhaps this kind of slam, combined with his early comments about Obama prior to Iowa, showed some sort of defect of character in him. In essence, that he was a racist.

I think Kerrey was driven more by self-interest in reacting the way he did, out of fear of being perceived as "un-pc" again by the media. Playing up Obama helps in that regard, as well.

I think the timing of his note was only significant because the article by Herbert was so recent, and probably had nothing to do with South Carolina and HRC's troubles there.

user-pic

Obviously, in restating his opinion of Obama in a very favorable way but still mentioning the word Muslim, it is clear that Bob Kerrey is not only racist but a religious bigot. And by not mentioning the woman candidate he supports, he is clearly a misogynist, too.

I think that covers it.

-

user-pic
When this initially happened, Kerrey's mere mention of Obama being able to reach out to Muslims was part of the "slur,"

Well, no, if it had been only one reference, which it wasn't, obviously. Muslim, Muslim, Muslim was pretty much Bob Kerrey's compliment to Obama.

In any event, the problem with Kerrey isn't that he could have worded what he was saying differently. The problem is that there are at this point, multiple representatives and fans of the Clinton campaign who are guilty of hoof and mouth disease. The e-mails, Kerrey's comments, Johnson's comments, Shaheen's comments, Penn's comments, etc. Take each one in isolation, and there's no there, there. But collected together, the Clinton campaign looks unsavory.

That being said, Bob Kerrey's "defense" today was about as effective as his original "compliment".

Not very.

user-pic

Honestly, looking at the letter from Kerrey, I can't say for sure what the fundamental purpose of it was.

My guess is that he mainly wanted to clear his name of the charge of racism, which Herbert, in a fit of true viciousness, was eager to hurl.

user-pic

Big News

Rasmussen’s new poll for CT shows Obama and Clinton are tied at 40% each. It’s the first new poll taken since he won SC, but BEFORE Ted Kennedy’s endorsement was announced. Also, prior to this poll, Hillary was leading by 20%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/connecticut/election_2008_connecticut_democratic_presidential_primary

Hillary was supposed to have a lock on the NY tri-state (NY, NJ, CT), so if CT is in play, she may be in trouble in NJ and NY as well.

The new Kennedy ads are coming out one after another in all the big states.

Obama is making up ground FAST. Looks like Obama could pull an upset on February 5th.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address