Obama Spokesperson Says There's A "Pattern" Behind Bill And Hillary's Race Comments
This is pretty interesting. Check out what an Obama spokesperson said to The Politico about the backlash that's brewing in the black community to Hillary's recent Martin Luther King assertion and Bill's "fairy-tale" comment:
“A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements,” said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.“There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months,” she said. “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?”
What is this "pattern," this "something bigger," that the Obama spokesperson is suggesting might be lurking behind the Clinton comments? Anyone know what this is a reference to?
Comments (334)
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 5:58 PM:Um....for starters see the below "imaginary hip black friend" comment. Then go from there.
Dave wrote on January 11, 2008 6:03 PM:I think the idea is the Clinton campaign is deliberately goading Obama into making explicitly racial defenses/appeals, something he hasn't done in the past and (so the theory goes) something that could cause him to lose support among whites.
Not sure this is what they're actually doing, but it's an interesting theory.
Captain Obvious wrote on January 11, 2008 6:03 PM:Greg- This is a reference to something Dick Morris said would happen: the Clintons are injecting race into the campaign through a series of statements that when viewed in isolation can be spun to look innocent. As a result, race becomes an issue and not only can the Clintons claim innocence, they can play the victim if Obama or anyone else dares play the race card. I think it's becoming clear this is what's happening, and I'm afraid it will play into Bill and Hillary's hands.
Tom wrote on January 11, 2008 6:05 PM:There's definitely a pattern here.
Bob Kerrey's comments...the smear e-mails...the NH co-chair's comments. And more recently, MLK comments and the "imaginary hip black friend" comments.
There is clearly a pattern of racially insensitive and bigoted attacks. As usual with these kinds of subtle attacks, white commentators are blind to them, but black folks know exactly what's going on.
Jeremy wrote on January 11, 2008 6:05 PM:Hillary's campaign seems to be taking cues from Karl Rove. First there's the "boo terrorists!" campaign fear tactic. Now there's this "Obama's a lazy, jive talkin', do nothing Senator, with nothing but shuck and jive" stuff.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 6:07 PM:Translation:
Clinton is now cutting back into the massive majority support Obama had corraled among African American voters in South Carolina before New Hampshire. The Obama campaign will use any means at their disposal to arrest that erosion. This is definitely going to get ugly.
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 6:09 PM:Look! It takes a racist to see racism everywhere.
Even if there is a racial undertone, you cannot argue with that because you are impunging other people's characterwithout hard evidence and solid proof. The same thing happens with "hope". Who can argue with "hope"? You can say "hope" can be "wishful thinking" but it is just very difficult to say "People, you need to get real."
It is beyond stupidity for some Obama supporters to blame Bradley effect to argue for his loss in NH. There is no evidence for that. Even if there is, will your blaming of Bradley effect help you in later contests? By blaming your loss on Bradley effect, you are calling some white people racists. Do you think this will shame more white people to vote for you or get more white people angry to vote against you?
Bernice Lefkowitz wrote on January 11, 2008 6:09 PM:It's obvious to me that they have decided that their only viable strategy left is to draw out Obama in a racial discussion, making him less attractive to mainstream voters. It is disgusting, particularly in 2008 and serves to show just how desperate the Clintons really are and why they can no longer be entrusted with leadership of our country.
Mike wrote on January 11, 2008 6:10 PM:Greg - you are a partisan hack.
Kevin wrote on January 11, 2008 6:12 PM:The Clinton campaign wants nothing more than to bring race front and center in this election. There is nothing that could help her more politically. If she prods Obama to point out how her remarks about (how MLK needed Johnson to actually accomplish anything) or her campaigns several other remarks are racist she wins over support of the remains of racism in the Democratic party. At the same time, she wins over support of all whites who aren't following the issue and immediately see Obama as making it about race. Since there are many more whites than blacks in the democratic party, Clinton knows that this will help her (as discusting as it is).
At the same time, Clinton can also make the race about gender as much as she wants (ie. making it look like the "boys" are ganging up on her). Since women outnumber men in the democratic race, this also helps her win.
In conclusion :) if the race becomes about either race or gender, Clinton wins.
Who loses (besides Obama): The democratic party, who will have sucessfully alienated: men, african americans, inteligent people who can see this, and younger voters.
Who wins (besides Clinton: The republican party, who will win the best chance the democrats have ever had at a real majority party because the Clintons (and their campaign staff) will do anything to stay in power
Jimmy Nakasone wrote on January 11, 2008 6:13 PM:
1) Shuck and Jive
2) MLK was assassinated - it took a (white) President
3) Secular Madrassa
4) Fairy Tale
5) Hip Black Friend
I was a Clinton supporter but this is too much.
wow. now it's partisan and biased to merely quote someone and ask what they meant by what they said.
tough crowd.
Grace wrote on January 11, 2008 6:15 PM:To Josh Marshall:
Re: your piece at the top of your blog right now
Nice try to stay above the fray and act like this is balanced but it is obvious based on Bill and Hillary's recent comments (not their "advisor's") who is initiating all of this.
I have loved your blog and frankly did think you were above it all (unlike your flak, Greg), but you have really surprised me this cycle. Maybe it is time to look in he mirror.
Grace
Terje wrote on January 11, 2008 6:15 PM:The pattern?
- HRC's comments suggesting that LBJ did more for civil rights than Dr. King - and by implication, suggesting that Obama couldn't actually accomplish anything
- Bill Clinton's repeated references to Obama as unqualified, too risky, etc
- Billy Shaheen's drug comments, followed by Mark Penn's repeated reference to "cocaine" during a national television program
- Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comments
- The "imaginary hip black friend" line quoted today in the Guardian
-- The Bob Kerrey comments about his middle name, followed up with a comment about a "madrassa"
A pattern? A set of unconnected dots?
---
Look, I don't think Hillary or Bill Clinton are racist, nor do they want to run a racist campaign (not a good way to win a Democratic nomination) - but they face the unprecedented and challenging position of running against a series African-American candidate -- the media and the country will be watching for code words, people will be sensitive to remarks, and going negative carries significant risk.
The same applies to the Obama campaign facing the first serious female candidate for President -- many potential places to say or do the wrong thing.
We live in a country that is still horribly divided by race and sex (and class, and....) - at such a historic time, all of the candidates (and their campaigns and surrogates) need to take great care to avoid saying and doing things that will divide us further (or, worse get, attempt to subtly take advantage of those divisions).
We're facing a few weeks of intense campaigning that will inflame passions. Let's not let it tear the Democratic party and key constituencies apart. We're going to have to pick up the pieces after it is all over.
Previously, I wouldn't have taken seriously the idea of Obama and Clinton on the same ticket -- but I'm increasingly coming to think we will need to do that to heal the internal struggle (as well as take advantage of the tremendous strengths both candidates have)/
Here's how this strategy makes sense for the Hillary campaign. They can see from Clyburn's comments that they are on the verge of losing the black vote in a big way. So how can they counteract that?
By making it seem like Obama is gaining those votes by playing the race card. This will enable them to pick up enough additional white voters to win.
Brandon wrote on January 11, 2008 6:17 PM:Jeez, and Dan Abrams wonders why everyone hates the Clintons so much!
Rhoda wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:Right under this artical you have one stating a Clinton staffer said Obama was the candidate for those wanting a "young, hip, black friend." She called him naive after one of the debates for a position she herself had held recently. Her campaign was found circulating the Obama is a Musilm emails and the orignal Insight report said this was a charge coming from the Clinton camp. Shaheen intimated that Obama was a drug dealer. She and her husband and campaign from the top down constantly claim he hasn't been "vetted" and intimate revelations will occur during the election if he is the nominee without saying what those revelations will be. Her husband called his campaign or the questioning of his war record a fairytale, after distorting that record and quoting him out of context. This is solely from the top of my head. There is a clear pattern of surrogates or campaign aides off the record saying remarks that have to be walked back by the campaign or are said to simply not mean what they mean: the shuck and jive Cumo comment comes to mind. If you don't see it, I know a lot of AA people who do and hear the coded innuendos loud and clear. A part time senator, calls to mind a lazy black man. A good speaker, not a doer and then the King/Johnson comment. A fairly blatant attempt at conflating issues and demeaning Obama's ability to get people on board his campaign. The Clinton's arent' racist, but even non-racists have coded sterotypes that they implicitly hear and connect to black people. The clear example of this is how everyone jumped on that shuck and jive comment Cumo made and immediatly connected it not to Clinton, but Obama. Even through Cumo claims to be speaking abstractly.
It's intellecutally dishonest for you to ignore this Mr. Sargent.
bbln wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:most of you have no idea how much the Clintons have done for the African American community - Let Obama's surrogates cry "racism" because then they will have to go up against the Clinton record of DEEDS for that community vs. Obama's false accusations of racism.
Moishele wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:Obama's campaign spends 90% of it's time telling us how others are injecting race into this campaign when they themselves put the issue front and center every single day.
blackstar wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:What is this "pattern," this "something bigger," that the Obama spokesperson is suggesting might be lurking behind the Clinton comments? Anyone know what this is a reference to?
--------
i don't know, "journalist"; if a candidate and their campaign's staff repeatedly come out with statements easily construed as racially insensitive, why wouldn't YOU ask if there was a "pattern" at work?
how many times do Clinton surrogates or the candidate herself need to make these sort of statements ("it took a President to get it done", "this whole thing is a fairy tale", "Obama's just the imaginary hip black friend you wish you had", "i wonder if he sold crack?") for YOU, ostensibly the "researcher", to raise questions about the possible intentions of what has been touted as the most disciplined, ironclad campaign?
Jimmy Nakasone wrote on January 11, 2008 6:19 PM:Well, Greg, it's a little weird that you are such a close observer of politics and had to ask what the pattern was. It was obvious to many of us.
I think they are deliberately trying to deflate the hopes of blacks and liberal whites, and stir up whatever "concern" they can.
I thought we were beyond this, and I really thought only the GOP would stoop this low.
"Previously, I wouldn't have taken seriously the idea of Obama and Clinton on the same ticket -- but I'm increasingly coming to think we will need to do that to heal the internal struggle (as well as take advantage of the tremendous strengths both candidates have)"
You've got to be kidding. Barack has a bright future and is not a political hack like John McCain (who was treated equally as pathetically by Bush in SC in 2000). He should NEVER do anything with the Clintons.
If she magically gets the nomination, count me as another one for Bloomberg or even McCain. At least you know what you are getting.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 6:20 PM:Greg:
Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are kidding. I like this website a great deal. I visit all day. But please tell me you are fucking kidding.
Jesus, TPM has run how many stories over the last three months about the Clintons or their surrogates making veiled racists comments? In the last week, you've got Andrew "Shuck and Jive" Cuomo, Hillary "MLK and JFK didn't do nothing for the Civil Rights Movement" Clinton, Unnamed Clinton Aide "Hip Black Friend", Mark "Cocaine" Penn and last, but certainly not least Billy "Drug Dealer" Shaheen. I'm not even going to go with the coded "part-time senator" bullshit.
Just note that there's not much difference between what the Clintons have done the last week and the slimy emails circulating around the web. And if you don't recognize that, then this country has a much larger problem
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:20 PM:Greg wrote on January 11, 2008 6:13 PM:
wow. now it's partisan and biased to merely quote someone and ask what they meant by what they said.
tough crowd.
Greg Sargent - you really are fucking pathetic.
dougFL wrote on January 11, 2008 6:22 PM:Yes, of course. The pattern is racism. Obama's campaign plays the race card, over and over again, while doing so with plausible deniability. Ugly. But then again, it's all fair in politics and I don't think less of him.
Bupalos wrote on January 11, 2008 6:22 PM:There is definitely a racial strategy here, and unfortunately I don't think there's any way Obama can completely avoid adressing it.
My guess is the Clinton's have determined that race was a significant factor in NH, and they know that as long as they can bring it in "innoccently", they can only win. CF. Amy Mays' statement here. This is depressing.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 6:22 PM:So to recap:
Yesterday we had an Obama campaign co-chair mounting a calculated, sexist attack on Hillary Clinton's character, implyin that she cared more about her "appearance" than Hurricane Katrina victims.
Today, they're out there playing the race card with everything they've got. The only question I can't answer is are they really that desparate? Or are they just that reckless?
Seriously. What's in their internal polls? How badly could the wave they were riding out of Iowa have petered out in just two or three days? Can it possibly be dire enough for them already to feel they need to risk going nuclear like this? This some mighty serious fire they're playing with here.
W wrote on January 11, 2008 6:23 PM:More for the pattern: Bill repeatedly calling Obama a "kid". Donna Brazile said on CNN that if anyone else had been saying that she would call them out-as she said, he is a U.S. Senator elected by the people of Illinois, certainly not a kid.
Greg - way to play the "aw shucks" routine and blame the "tough crowd". Clearly, you're aware of what's been going on with these racial comments - maybe you caught the "RACE WAR" headline on Drudge today. No one's buying the "Anyone know what this is a reference to?" garbage.
Personally, I think that this approach is probably turn into a very big loser for the Obama campaign.
When African-Americans make claims of racism that white voters just don't buy, fairly or not, those voters tend to feel very resentful about it. For most, I think, it's a big turn off. It's particularly a big turn off when your overall message is one of coming together, and your campaign makes accusations of racism that are perceived to be false.
It's very hard to see most white voters buying into the idea that Bill's "fairy tale" comment was meant in a racist way, for example.
And it is simple fact that even in the Democratic primaries there are many more white voters than black voters.
Obama's people had better be very, very careful how they try to push all this because it is only too easy for it to backfire in a big way. It may be that this sort of approach will work in the African-American community in SC, but the larger electorate is likely to have a different idea.
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 6:23 PM:My momento again:
It takes a racist to see racism everywhere. It is the Obama people who bring up racism front and center. Now the Clinton's should just shut their mouths up? Anything they say can be interpreted as having racism behind it. You Obama supporters are sick. Only people with twisted mind will go out their way to twist other people's innocent comments. Don't we have enough division already. Now you want to bring sympathy to your cause by claiming the first "black" president as racism. That's too much! You guys are beyond sick!!!!
NCSteve wrote on January 11, 2008 6:24 PM:The Politico story does a pretty good job of summarizing all the comments, aside from the new anonymous foulness of the day.
If they aren't doing it deliberately, then Hillary needs to do what Obama did after that tacky "D-Punjab" oppo piece: come down on her people like a ton of bricks and tell them to stop.
But if they are doing it deliberately, I think its because she's lost Sourth Carolina and wants to marginalize the victory by having the vote be racially polarized. If the blacks in South Carolina get mad enough, they think the white Democrats there could get uncomfortable and move to Edwards or even Hillary. That lets her people characterize the vote (oh so off the record, of course) as just all the angry blacks rallying around their bo ... er, man.
If we don't hear word of the "coming down like a ton of bricks" option coming out of the campaign, and, instead, we just get more "Obama is trying to turn it into a racial thing in S.C." crap from their "anonymous staffers," I'm going to have to go with the second theory. I'm also going to move out of the "would hold my nose and vote for her if she gets the nomination" category to the "applying for immigration to Australia because whoever wins will be too repulsive for me to stay here" category.
If that's their game, it doesn't mean they're racists. It does, however, mean they've become so pathologically cynical that they make Nixon look like Jimmy Carter.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:24 PM:Nice try CalD.
The only thing desperate right now is Hillaryland watching all of the endorsements unfold after NH and seeing zero bounce out. Really, just ask Mark.
And now they have taken it lower than Bush. No wonder Karl Rove endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday.
blackstar wrote on January 11, 2008 6:26 PM:Today, they're out there playing the race card with everything they've got. The only question I can't answer is are they really that desparate? Or are they just that reckless?
---------------
are you retarded? Clinton and her surrogates are making these comments, and as far as i know the Obama campaign isn't responding to the majority of them as though they were the target of what could easily be seen as racist attacks. they're not playing the race card, they are avoiding them altogether.
but you're saying its OBAMA'S fault that Clinton surrogates keep making these statements? what planet are you from?
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:27 PM:Maybe this is just a ploy by TPM to get more page views for their advertisers and Greggie's bonus is tied to it. It is obvious that serious journalism no longer rules the day at TPM. They are relying on us to make them money.
ShutupNvote wrote on January 11, 2008 6:28 PM:
“To say that there is a pattern of racist comments coming out of the Hillary campaign is ridiculous,” said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. “All of the world knows the commitment of President Clinton and Sen. Clinton to civil rights issues — and not only the commitment in terms of words but in terms of deeds.”
Are the Clintons Black enough is the question going into South Carolina , I believe the obvious answer is no that cant be…………but I am with Representative Tubbs Jones from Ohio no slouch on this subject
yeah, don't forget the crack dealer shit
it is a pretty brilliant plan really...she carefully disperses these ideas into the collective consciousness via surrogates using plausible deniablility as her shield, she can point to her obviously (I'd assume) not being racist, yet she benefits from capitalizing on and manipulating the racial feelings of voters.
it isn't really a stretch at this point...the first time, sure, a mistake, second time, okay...you need to get some control of your organization, third time, are you serious? fourth time, jesus christ, fifth time, there is definitely a pattern..etc etc..
greg wrote on January 11, 2008 6:28 PM:Just the Obama camp playing the race and victim cards. Too bad so many fall for it.
sue wrote on January 11, 2008 6:29 PM:The Trend:
(1)The “Obama is a radical Muslim” chain email smear – in Iowa in December, it seemed like every week it was revealed that another Clinton staffer was caught spreading that email. Of course, the Clinton camp made a big show of “disavowing” the behavior and asking them to step down, but of course it kept happening.
(2)Billy Shaheen (Hillary’s NH campaign chair) raised Obama’s teenage drug use and implied he may have been a drug dealer (he wasn’t). Obama wrote about his teenage years in his memoir and spoke to high school kids about the ills of drug use on the campaign trail.
(3)Another Clinton surrogate then gave CNN an interview in which he started talking about Obama’s “Muslim background”
(4)This week in NH, one of Hillary’s supporters criticized Obama’s references to JFK and MLK and indicated that like them he was also an “inspirational” speaker (i.e. in line with Hillary’s new “he’s a talker, not a doer” theme), only unlike them he hadn’t been assassinated yet. Hillary did not apologize for or disavow this comment.
(5)Hillary then gave several TV interviews in which she brought up the same comment mentioned above in (4), only sans the “assassination” part. She added that it took LBJ to get the civil rights act passed, MLK only gave great speeches – AND DIED!
(6)In NH this week, Bill referred to Obama as a “kid” (he’s f**cking 46 years old – nearly 50). Are they trying to call him “boy”? He graduated from two ivy league colleges, was the head of the Harvard law review, was a civil rights lawyer, has 11 years experience in elected office (4 more than Hillary and 5 more than Edwards), and isn’t try to ride to the presidency on his spouse’s coat tails.
(7)In NH this week, Bill implied Obama’s campaign was a “fairy tale”.
I don’t know, do you see a pattern? They are clearly using a race-baiting strategy to win the nomination.
Hillary seems to have two strategies to win the nomination. (1)the gender card (weeping her way to the white house), and (2)race-baiting.
This woman is one of the most polarizing candidates I have ever seen. She hasn’t even gotten the nomination yet and she’s dividing her own party.
Trouble on the plantation for Marse and Missus Beeyul eh?
The larger picture though should be equally as troubling to Democrats. As Jonathan Alter rightly pointed out, if Billary wins the nomination she will have to run "a flawless campaign" to beat the Republican in November.
Down slate Democrats are becoming increasingly nervous as well they should be over a campaign that has bungled virtually every day since October and is doing so now BIG TIME
Missus Bill cried when Obama threatened to bury her prematurely. If this is the sort of campaign she's running now, this vaunted "Clinton Machine", is doomed if Dems are foolish enough to fall for the Clintons one more time
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:31 PM:greg wrote on January 11, 2008 6:28 PM:
Just the Obama camp playing the race and victim cards. Too bad so many fall for it.
You really are fucking pathetic, Greg. And good luck getting another decent journalism job. Your are destined for Star Magazine.
By the way, Obama is a CHRISTIAN.
clintons 2 smart wrote on January 11, 2008 6:32 PM:I think the Clintons are trying to push the Obama campaign into making charges of racism. Such a response might help in the short run, e.g. in SC (tho Obama doesn't need help there, it seems). But Billary knows that Obama would be painting himself into a Jackson/Sharpton corner if he gave any indication of being a "victim" of "racially charged" remarks.
Here's hoping Obama '08 does not take the bait. The positive message of hopeful change, policy solutions over partisanship, and grassroots involvement will defeat this kind of cynical crap. Billary should be ashamed (though they never have been before...)
what's next CRY or CACKLE?
NCSteve wrote on January 11, 2008 6:33 PM:If we're toting up the pattern, let's not forget the "Obama is lazy" thing they've been floating. Given that its transparently false, racially charged, stated in such a way that they have plausible deniability on the latter.
fillphil wrote on January 11, 2008 6:34 PM:The subject of race is a favorite one for the Right Wing. With their Party disintegrating they know that race will help fire up their base. They have never seen race discrimination as a problem . Only as an opportunity. This is one of them, but it's only going to get worse. The slimy emails have already started and will continue as long as we keep pointing fingers at ourselves. The Clintons have always been one of the African American community's best friends. No one doubts they are intelligent. Do you really think they want this? There seems to be an abundance of Clinton Haters on the Net these days so I expect plenty of snide comments from them. You watch.
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 6:34 PM:“To say that there is a pattern of racist comments coming out of the Hillary campaign is ridiculous,” said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. “All of the world knows the commitment of President Clinton and Sen. Clinton to civil rights issues — and not only the commitment in terms of words but in terms of deeds.”
Here is the obvious response: "of course Bill and Hillary aren't racist, these allegations are ridiculous"...but that doesn't mean they aren't willing to exploit these historical racial divisions to their political gain if they need to to get back to the White House.
It is Rovian as hell and for months the Clintons ran the most tightly controlled campaign ever, the media noted the complete absence of missteps or slips, yet lately there have been "whoops" racial slips from campaign officials and high profile supporters left and right. Just like the tear, I'm skeptical of any time the Clintons show a strategic lack of control that helps their campaign in a pinch.
john mccutchen wrote on January 11, 2008 6:35 PM:Greg Sargent is so obviously a whore for Hillary that it seems hardly worth mentioning any more.
His cut and paste jobs routinely if not invariably distort the articles he pillages for propaganda.
READ HIS ARTICLES FOR YOURSELVES:
“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,” said Donna Brazile, a longtime Clinton ally who is neutral in this race, on CNN earlier this week.
Yes Greg Sargent is a whore. But many may not realize just how cheap he is
Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton are doing what they do best: dividing the nation. black against white, men against women, old against young. Obama is very threatening to the political establishment, corporate-fueled status quo. If he unites a signficant majority in the nation, we might actually address sky-rocketing health/drug and energy costs, preditory lending, environmental distruction, explortation of immigrant labor, importation of cheap/inferior/uninspected/dangerous food and products, bankrupted social security, warmongering... all the things esstential to unchecked corporate greed and profiteering.
The Clintons are agents of the corporations and they want to protect the status quo. They are dishonest, self-serving and dangerous. The only difference between the Clintons and the Bushes is party registration and hollow rhetoric. Their values, loyalties and agenda are THE SAME.
ava wrote on January 11, 2008 6:36 PM:It's important to remember that, until now, Obama has not replied to the Clinton's constant race/religious smears except to say (today) that "there seems to be a pattern."
The media and other prominent African Americans (e.g. Donna Brazile on CNN) called Bill on it this week.
It's not Obama's bloody job to defend the Clinton's if they are constantly injecting this sort of negativity into the media. They need to explain themselves.
Obama has been great about NOT taking the bait.
Joan Jacobs wrote on January 11, 2008 6:37 PM:Remember Bill Clinton's attack on Sister Soldjah? The same stuff.
Joan Jacobs
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 6:37 PM:If I didn't know any better, I'd think I was on RedState or some other conservative website. This is truly eye-opening and informative.
Wow. I don't think I can frequent this site anymore. You all are going too far in the name of partisan bullshit. Too far.
What it is going to take (and it will happen) is for more mainstream "establishment" pols, to come out and endorse Obama.
Just give it a little more time. The fact that Napolitano, Kerry and Bradley, and soon Biden, Richardson and Gore, will go against Hillary is all it will take to blow back this silliness and say goodbye to the Clinton drama once and for all.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:39 PM:But Lynch, the Clinton consultant who is advising Clinton’s South Carolina campaign, said he wouldn’t advise Clinton to fight on this terrain.“The more you kind of defend it, the worse it gets,” said Lynch.
$20
Whoa. A little vitriolic on the old comment board.
As an Obama supporter, I think it stinks what they're doing. But the reality is, this is what Rove was doing earlier today/yesterday with his "lazy" "basketball" "trash talking" comments. We knew stuff like this would come.
But AS an Obama supporter, I strongly believe that he's going to address the RIGHT way. He's not going to come out screaming racism. I think it's appropriate that some people do, but I think he will have a straight answer for this. He won't pin it on Hillary or Bill. He'll take it broader and pull what Bill Clinton did back in his day: let's have an honest discussion about race. Let's not be afraid to talk about it. Let's note that there are stereotypes, like lazy, jive, not up to the job, and trash talking. These stereotypes are not true -- and he'll display that in his speech. He'll note we need get beyond petty name calling and innuendo. And you will get chills when he does...because, dammit, the guy can give a killer speech that makes a ton of sense.
This is what I'm hoping anyway...please prove me right, Senator.
brad wrote on January 11, 2008 6:40 PM:Ah, gee Greg...
You strike me as...
Naive.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:40 PM:Hasn't Mrs Clinton taken more money form lobbyists, the drug industry, etc. than anyone on either side of the debate?
Greg wrote on January 11, 2008 6:41 PM:just to clarify, the Greg above who accused the Obama camp of playing the race card wasn't me, guy who writes on this site
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:42 PM:Nice try, Greg. Your overt partisanship has already indicted you.
Noonan wrote on January 11, 2008 6:45 PM:Greg, TPM Folks
I come to this site all the time throughout the day. But I'm truly dumbfounded at this post. The Clintons seem to be trying to bait the black community into a race war. If Obama gets into it too that's just icing on the cake.
For you to ask why the Obama folks have a reaction is playing into the Clintons' hand.
What the hell are you guys doing?
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 6:45 PM:Moishele wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:Obama's campaign spends 90% of it's time telling us how others are injecting race into this campaign when they themselves put the issue front and center every single day.
As long as other made a case about race and Obama appeared to be above it all, it was fine. But I do not think that it would benefit the Obama camp to directly emphasize the race issue, especially as an attack on the Clintons, for a couple of reasons:
1. The Clintons strong record on race issues, which caused the African-American community to famously dub Bill Clinton as the "First black president", somehow immunizes them against this line of attack. They did have a lot of support among leaders in the black community. When did that that changed?
2. Obama's appeal to many non-black voters has been his apparent desire and willing to transcend race. If his candidacy becomes about his race, he'll lose, as white voters would hear past echoes of blacks saying that they were victimized by slavery and segregation and therefore are "owed"... hardly "Politics of Hope."
The unintended consequence effect of this tack would be reemergence of the real "Bradley Effect", especially in the south...
crys wrote on January 11, 2008 6:45 PM:dick morris knows the clintons and advised bill for president and hillary for the senate. they used race against jesse jackson with the "sista souljah" moment. and dick morris says hillary is not a racist but is not above pulling the race card to win.
BluePuppy wrote on January 11, 2008 6:49 PM:Obama's people know that SC is there last stand, that's why they are playing racial politics. Pathetic and digusting.
Random wrote on January 11, 2008 6:49 PM:Mrs. Bill Clinton has certainly taken more money from defense contractors than any other candidate of either party. Begin to understand her Iraq and Iran votes? Any prospect she will end that war and deprive her patrons of certain billions and billions in profits if the war continues. Not in our life times.
awrbb wrote on January 11, 2008 6:49 PM:Anonymous, wtf?
They're not the same Greg.
Nathan Avinbl wrote on January 11, 2008 6:50 PM:There's a certainly a pattern of stupidity in the Clinton camps.
1) Bill Shaheen, wondering out loud whether Obama dealt drugs in his youth.
2) Mark Penn talking about cocaine with Chris Matthews.
3) Bob Kerrey, praising Obama for attending a 'secular madrassa'.
4) Hillary Clinton asserting that LBJ made civil rights a reality, not King.
5) Andrew Cuomo saying that candidate can't 'shuck and jive' with the press.
6) Clinton advisor saying that people are voting for Obama because they want a hip, imaginary black friend.
Race-baiting? Maybe. Idiots? Oh, hell yes!
For whatever little my opinion on this subject is worth, I tend to agree with what Josh Marshall wrote on the main TPM page on this subject. I found myself feeling very incensed with Andrew Cuomo's remarks yesterday afternoon, but as I was riding home on the bus and looking around at the other people there, some of whom are really hurting, I realized that it cannot be beneficial to the overall commonweal for us to turn the nominating process into a battle of competitive outrage. If we do so, we are letting ourselves be distracted from the real issues by the media noise-machine. At the very least, this issue is not nearly as important as to justify the number of blog posts and responses devoted to it.
Katherine wrote on January 11, 2008 6:53 PM:I'm not getting into what they meant because everyone always believes their candidate & disbelieves their opponents about this stuff.
I will say: acrimony about gender & sex will certainly have the effect of helping her campaign and harming his. Female voters sensitive to coded gender attacks are a majority of the primary electorate; blacks just aren't. And if he's going to win South Carolina because of record African-American turnout no matter what they do, it certainly creates less momentum if it happens after a tense, ugly back & forth about race, instead of being an inspiring symbol of progress. I am 100% certain that Obama gets this, but he needs to make sure his whole campaign knows it.
TD wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:The pattern? The Clintons are interested in themselves and power, period. L'etat, c'est moi. The means justify the ends. This is pure Rove. Insinuate, then deny. Of course, no one really MEANT to say anything racist! The hell they didn't! Whose racial prejudices are being aroused through these remarks? The same working-class white people that voted for Clinton in New Hampshire.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:I don't get the acrimony directed at Greg. I mean people, come one, the Clintons are trying to pull a really dirty one - Turd Blossom would be proud of them...
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:You know month ago, Obama probably have gotten away with this -- not to say it's a done deal that he won't pull it off now. But of course a month ago there would have been no need to try it. A man basking in the warm glow of an adoring and starry-eyed MSM obviously has no need of brass knuckle political tactics.
Pretty amazing though, how fast a guy can go from being Mr. Only-I-Can-Bring-the-Country-Together to apparently being pretty OK with tearing it apart if that will get him the Democratic presidential nomination. Welcome to politics Chicago style.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:CalD spins "massive support Obama had corraled among African American voters in South Carolina before New Hampshire"
CalD you are a Hillary-paid hate-monger. You know that Hillary has led among Blacks in South Carolina. The Clinton machine plays dirty, and it won't be any different if they get back into the White House. This nation needs to move forward and leave the scuzzy Clintons and Bushes behind.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:Obama's people know that SC is there last stand...
Rather a too-confident sentiment, that. Nevada is not in your column yet, and if Obama wins that SC will be the least of your ilk's worries.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:dcshungu:
Pardon me, but I'm not in the mood for your sanctimonious pontificating today.
1. Whatever goodwill the Clintons' had in the black community has disappeared in the last few days. That's not the black community's fault, that's the Clinton's fault. If they are so intune with African-Americans and our culture, you'd think they be sensitive to know just how far they've alienated themselves. Apparently, they weren't that intuned, or they don't give a shit. Take your pick.
2. If it's a matter of speaking out against racism and losing the race, that's something I could handle. Obama and no other person of color should have to be an apologist for someone else's tone deafness or insensitive comments. The Clintons and their surrogates own their words. Shifting the blame to the recipient is cowardly.
Truly an illuminating display of ignorance and a testament to just how far we have to go in this country.
Finn wrote on January 11, 2008 7:00 PM:Well this about drives the nail in the coffin of my ability to s
upport Hillary in the general if she wins. For the first time in my adult life I will not be voting for a Democrat in the general election.
Finn wrote on January 11, 2008 7:01 PM:Well this about drives the nail in the coffin of my ability to s
upport Hillary in the general if she wins. For the first time in my adult life I will not be voting for a Democrat in the general election.
And dont give me in BS about she is better than any of the R's etc etc etc. She isnt and the Clintons (cause really your'e getting a package deal) will be more of the same.
john mccutchen wrote on January 11, 2008 7:03 PM:We're all discovering something important about the Clintons that perhaps most democrats never quite grasped - the sheer audacity of their disingenousness and the depth of their lust for power
George Bush maybe a moron but at least a penny ante fascist is what we saw and what we got
Incidentally, I wonder how these sorts of fracases play out among those who do not follow political blogs (a category which I imagine would encompass the overwhelming majority of the American electorate). Do most folks even know what Andrew Cuomo and Jesse Jackson Jr said two days ago? Do most of them know what this "anonymous Clinton adviser" and this "Obama spokesperson" said today? How much does any of this matter?
Lawanda wrote on January 11, 2008 7:04 PM:Hey people..My subrime mortgage is the issue. Nobody with a few unpayable bills on their kitchen table gives a hoot about a bunch of yakking.
I read Edwards stimulus package.
Heard Clinton's today.
Am waiting for Obama.
I got 2 months before the loan resets.
Working single mom here.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:05 PM:BluePuppy wrote on January 11, 2008 6:49 PM:Obama's people know that SC is there last stand, that's why they are playing racial politics. Pathetic and digusting.
If Obama wins SC by playing the race card, he'll lose the nomination the same way: resurrection of racist instincts in white America, which would lead to a major GE debacle:
1) Obama the "Uniter" would become the "polarizer", losing his appeal.
2) The ante bellum mentality in white America, which is laying just beneath the surface, would quickly boot up its latest version and go to work, especially in Dixie, ensuring an Obama defeat.
3) The polarized Dem party would then go on to lose in the GE, as many blacks, furious that Obama was done it by racial bigotry, would stay home on GE day, handing the White House to the Repubs.
In the long run, this is a lose-lose proposition for the Dem party. The sooner this goes away, the better!
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 7:06 PM:CalD:
So this all part of Obama's master plan is it? Make the Clintons and their surrogates spew out a multitude of tone-deaf statements to infuriate the African-American base and rip apart the base. He's one tricky guy, that Obama. How inflitrated their minds to plant these statements is amazing. Just imagine when he's president, he'll be planting thoughts into everyone's heads. Wait, I guess that explains the tin-foil hat you are wearing....
I seriously can't believe you are such a partisan hack that you'd have contorted your brain to make this Obama's fault. Simply amazing. I guess next you'll say African-Americans should apologize to white folks for making them feel guilty about slavery?
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:07 PM:It is disgusting for you guys to accuse other people of being racists in orde to win an election. You are no better than the republians. You try to find something out of a so called "pattern"? You know no shame? If you have no proof, you should not do that. Have you no decency! Totally disgusting!
Zach wrote on January 11, 2008 7:08 PM:Here's a Bill Clinton quote, from his interview with Charlie Rose last month, that didn't get any attention but might look worse in light of this controversy:
It depends on what the American people — and the Democrats, in these first instances — believe is more important. Is it more important to have somebody who is basically, by his very nature, a compelling, incredibly attractive, highly intelligent symbol of transformation?> Or is it more important to have somebody who also would symbolize change by being the first woman president but has actually done incredible numbers of different things to change other people's lives?
Wasn't Clinton sort of saying here that Obama'a only value is his potential to be the nation's first black president? There was also this exchange in the same interview:
CLINTON: I think vision's important, and I think programs are important. But I think symbol is not as important as substance.ROSE: But are you suggesting by that that Senator Obama is more symbol than substance as an agent of change?
CLINTON: Well, that's not— He can't help that.
ROSE: But is that the reality? That he's more symbol—
CLINTON: Well, no— Other people— What I'm suggesting is...
Clinton's focus on "symbol" is troubling and borderline racist. I'd expect to see it disappear from his and the campaign's criticisms of Obama.
Here's video with the above quotes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_45KK8jwJR0
Tapper wrote on January 11, 2008 7:10 PM:Obama thinks the word "fairytale" is now a racist insult.
What could be more stupid? Must whole sections at Barnes and Noble now be torched to prove the stores non-racist?
It is Obama and his Bamaniacs who are playing the race card here. They want it both ways: OK to note the Blackness of THE GREAT ONE when arguing how great it would be to have a Black President but immediately shouting RACIST if anyone else even casually alludes to his being Half Black.
Did Obama play pick up b ball? Is it racist to note that he did? Did he trash talk on the court? Who knows but every player I've known does.
Is the story of his antiwar activism overplayed, a fairytale so to speak? Well he has consistently voted (when he voted) to support the war.
It is not racist to note this fact. Worse (for me) he has supported the Patriot Act.
And by the way, somebody tell me what his much vaunted "community activism" actually accomplished. Please.
Don't take this as support for HRC; a pox on both their houses...
But Obama's continuous (yes, if HRC is responsible for her supporters' words, so is he) cry of racism is just playing into the GOP game plan.
It is a losing game.
I agree with those who say that this is dangerous territory for the Obama campaign. While it's the Clintons that are in the wrong here, the Obama campaigns need white surrogates to be addressing this, not official campaign spokespeople.
BTW, the Clintons are wrong for the very reasons that Rep. Clyburn stated.
P.A.M.B. wrote on January 11, 2008 7:11 PM:Hold On!
This is a Rove/Morris type ploy, only it is being played on BOTH campaigns.
Read any of the comments in total and you will quickly see NONE of them are racist, with the exception of some blind quotes from someone who claims some title or other.
The these "quotes" are chopped up and reformulated for the Drudge and Politico. The discussion is picked up on liberal blogs and suddenly a swarm of attacks.
Does anyone else smell a big, fat, cigar chewing, and a toe licking rat?
Aaron M wrote on January 11, 2008 7:12 PM:First, I think everyone needs to lay off Greg a little bit. After reading Election-related blogs (TPM EC, Marc Ambinder, Ben Smith, etc.) over the past several months, it is clear that getting accused of bias is just part of their job.
Having said that, I think it is fair to point out to Greg (in response to his question) there have certainly been quite a few incidents (most of them listed above by other commenters, with some examples more concrete than others) over the past several months in which people associated with the Clinton campaign have said racially insensitive things.
Now whether they were said on purpose as some type of subliminal-type strategy (which is not unheard of, see: Rove, Karl), or whether they represented nothing more than individual slips of the tongue, I don't know. (If you do not trust Sen. Clinton or her team it is likely the former option, if you like and support Clinton, it is likely the latter).
But because these types of statements (Shaheen's comment, the e-mails, Cuomo's comment, Kerrey's comment, and now this new statement about Obama being a "hip black friend") have been made repeatedly now over the past few months- I don't think it's unfair for the Obama campaign to say, "What is going on?"
ScanDroid wrote on January 11, 2008 7:13 PM:Well, we are on the fast track in proving a very, very sad reality:
Our society can't handle a white woman and a black man running against each other for president. The wounds of racism and sexism might not allow it without HUGE resentment and division.
Trying not to weep,
Sincerely...SD
So this all part of Obama's master plan is it? Make the Clintons and their surrogates spew out a multitude of tone-deaf statements to infuriate the African-American base and rip apart the base. He's one tricky guy, that Obama.
Indeed. Well said. I think that it is regrettable the way that we are being tricked by the cable-news cycle into focussing on this issue instead of things that the government can actually fix (like mortgage meltdowns and environmental degredation) but to say that it is all the Obama campaign's fault takes a special sort of distortion. Nobody in our camp can make the Clintons and their allies say dumb and insensitive things - they do that all on their own.
Bill R. wrote on January 11, 2008 7:15 PM:Classic Rovian strategy- use surrogates to diminish and attack the person and integrity of your opponent. This is Clinton politics. Anything to maintain power.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:16 PM:Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:dcshungu:
Pardon me, but I'm not in the mood for your sanctimonious pontificating today.
You are in no mood to listen to reason. I remember that you were the one pushing this MLK/LBJ/JKF canard on the night that Hillary won NH. You had predicted that this would be a big deal and so it is. I read the whole exchange and I am not sure what the big deal is. The Clintons cannot be accused of being racists...Really. They may be lot of things that have been accused of but racists, they are are not. Teapot has been raised to the level of a tempst because of Obama camp's desire to ensure a win in SC. He might not even need this to win there [unless their internal polls are telling them otherwise]! But by playing this card, he'll win the battle butlose the war...Just you watch.
I hope you are at the least in the mood to use your head.
Raralex wrote on January 11, 2008 7:17 PM:Personally, as an Obama supporter, I don't think there is a strategy here other than to try to cast Obama as lacking substance. I think many at the top of the Clinton campaign, however, view Obama with what can only be described as a sort of withering, disrespectful scorn. And what's happening here is that they are showing their scorn in ways that inevitably, in the context of Obama's race, echo uglier kinds of scorn in our nation's past.
I don't think they mean to go after Barack because he's black. But they do mean to disrespect him, and they're showing a really stunning level of insensitivity to the short historical road, in this country, from disrespect to more nefarious kinds of disses.
And yes, I think that Jesse Jackson Jr.'s comments were idiotic as well.
Zach,
Only problem with your theory is that Barack Obama has been making the claim himself for months that he is, by his very nature, transformational -- even though he doesn't have a very long record of actually transforming very many things.
amberglow wrote on January 11, 2008 7:18 PM:Neither Clinton nor Obama were unprepared for any of the racism and sexism they expected to encounter (or at least they shouldn't have been).
Obama's in a tougher position tho, i think, because Hillary can and does use her gender as a plus when needed (esp for sympathy when attacked).
Obama is always conscious of not being allowed to act in certain ways (for fear of reinforcing stereotypes? or of alienating whites?) He can't ever come off as angry, or mean, or as someone who is only targeting his message to blacks, etc. He's much more boxed in overall.
c wrote on January 11, 2008 7:19 PM:It's certainly possible that some of the less-scrupulous folks in the HRC camp want to goad the Obama campaign, figuring either way they win: if he turns the other cheek (as he did with Rush L several months back) he looks weak, if his campaign lashes back then the usual swine will say look, another black man crying race.
But: any campaign attracts a lot of fiercely competitive people. It's easy to imagine any number of folks in the HRC camp, shocked to find themselves in a competitive race, indulging in the sort of cheap pop-psych that the _Guardian_ quoted, or more or less losing it as Bill C did. I'd be reluctant to attribute to plan what can be explained by confusion, incompetence, panic.
The best response is to be firm and positive on that you believe. No matter what there will be more of this goading, if not from official campaigns then from other sources.
Erik wrote on January 11, 2008 7:21 PM:Greg,
Are you really asking that question? It's obvious the something larger would be exactly what Nixon through Bush I did? Subtly rile up the electorate's racist preconceptions to worry people about a more progressive force taking over. Madrassa comments, Mlk needing LBJ talk vs. action, Fairy tale, Shuck and jive, Hilary vs. Mandela, imaginery hip black friend. It's disgusting. That along with deliberately misrepresenting Obama quotes and positions (Bill's half-quote for the "fairy tale", anti-abortion mailer) Whether it is conscious or not, the Clinton campaign is disgusting.
Anne wrote on January 11, 2008 7:21 PM:I understand this site's desire not to fan flames, but I think you're being too generous to Clinton in the process. I haven't read all the comments, but did see a few outlining all the comments and incidents.
I only pray that Obama's camp handles this in the best way possible.
joelle wrote on January 11, 2008 7:23 PM:To Lawanda
Senator Obama was the first candidate to lay out a plan on the mortgage issue. He has introduced a bill on the matter in the senate, it was over a year ago. Do some research on all the candidates before any ill-considered statement. He wrote an op-ed in the wall street journal last month.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#mortgage-issue
jjcoop wrote on January 11, 2008 7:29 PM:First off, I hope people will begin to talk about this issue with an eye towards distinuishing racial politics from racist politics. They are not the same thing.
Second, I agree with c about being reluctant to attribute this to a plan. The masters of message are more than likely just f'in up lately, and Cuomos comments about shuck and jive were just ridiculously unwise.
What I most suspect is that the Clintons could be practicing some racial judo, trying to get Obama or his supporters to make the move they hope will be seen as too much for America.
This was expressed in a Politico article last january:
Far from conceding African-American support to the most credible candidate ever of African descent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the Clintons are pushing aggressively for the help of their longtime allies in the black business, political and entertainment elite. Clinton's supporters say she intends to make the Illinois senator fight for every black endorsement and every black vote. It's a strategy that pushes Obama to decide just how black he can afford to be: Will he pitch himself to African-American voters as the black candidate, or hew to the post-racial line that's helped make him sensationally popular with white Democrats?
In other words, since its seems that voters aren't willing to concede that Obama isn't quite experienced enough for the White House, maybe it's time to remind voters that they're the ones who aren't ready for a black president.
Marc wrote on January 11, 2008 7:30 PM:All this back and forth between the campaigns really makes me want to just quit paying any attention to presidential politics.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 7:31 PM:Anne,
Handles what well? The Obama campaign's remarks to Politico are what's known as floating a trial balloon. They're trying to see if they can get any mileage out of calling Hillary Clinton a racist.
And this, after cynically mounting a sexist attack on her character just yesterday, trying to assert that she cared more about her hair than Hurricane Katrina.
freddy wrote on January 11, 2008 7:32 PM:"most of you have no idea how much the Clintons have done for the African American community - Let Obama's surrogates cry "racism" because then they will have to go up against the Clinton record of DEEDS for that community vs. Obama's false accusations of racism."
Please refresh my memory, and outline in detail the Clinton record of DEEDS for the African-American community.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:33 PM:Great minds think alike! Noam Scheiber over at TNR sees The Minefield That is South Carolina, just as I did on January 11, 2008 7:05 PM:
Obviously the endorsement of South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn would be a big deal for Obama. But, if it comes at the cost of awkwardly moving race to the center of the nomination fight (both in South Carolina and elsewhere), it could end up being counter-productive. From today's New York Times:Mr. Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights movement and a power in state Democratic politics, put himself on the sidelines more than a year ago to help secure an early primary for South Carolina, saying he wanted to encourage all candidates to take part. But he said recent remarks by the Clintons that he saw as distorting civil rights history could change his mind.
“We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics,” said Mr. Clyburn, who was shaped by his searing experiences as a youth in the segregated South and his own activism in those days. “It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal.”
My sense is Obama's going to win African Americans in South Carolina by an overwhelming margin with or without Clyburn's endorsement. But if the form of the endorsement, or the run-up to it, were to somehow drive a wedge between the black and white communities there, that's a problem, since Obama should be able to attract a lot of white votes there, too.
In his defense, Clyburn doesn't say anything especially controversial here. But implications matter a great deal. And these are the Clintons we're talking about, not Bill O'Reilly. I don't think anyone doubts their purity of heart on race, which might make Clyburn's comments sound a little unfair.
Anyway, this is all so fraught I get queasy just thinking about it...
I agree, I too get quite queasy about this...a lose-lose proposition for the Dem party, if there ever was one.
keith wrote on January 11, 2008 7:36 PM:Byron:
Perhaps you can explain why the Obama campaign should have someone white handle this?
TD wrote on January 11, 2008 7:37 PM:Obama needs to make a major speech on the economy and shake a few hands. Tit for tat.
jjcoope wrote on January 11, 2008 7:39 PM:CalD_
That's the kind of bs that's being fomented. No one from Obamas campaign said anything about comments being racist. The spokeswoman is acknowledging the issue, nothing more. She is asking, rhetorically, is it a pattern?.
Whether it is a pattern or not, it's now in the public realm, so cool the hyper spin.
And yeah, Jesse Jackson Jr. probably should have been a little more cool yesterday himself.
Greg, please tell me you are kidding? What pattern?! You guys have been posting on all the incidents, even since Shaheen up in NH. Please be more responsible.
dr. duh wrote on January 11, 2008 7:42 PM:TPM's tiptoeing around this issue (see also Josh's "deep breath") is surprising and unfortunate. Don't any of you have a hip black friend who can explain what's going on? The Clinton's are race baiting.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 7:44 PM:This probably isn't the right place to air this complaint, but i really dont know where else to air it. If you look at Mr. Sargent's posts, both on his blog and here at tpm, they all have a "pro-clinton" slant.
Whats worse is, he has his blog comments disable "due to repair". Uhhuh. thyeve been disable for months. I'm not expert but i dont think it takes months to repair something like that.
I'm not sure thats entirely relevant to the discussion but when he says "what's this all about?" as if there really isn't any substance to back up the claim Obama's staffer is making, when in fact there is ample evidence of it.
Anyway...i'm sure most people will think i'm crazy for pointing it out but the bias is there, no matter how subtle it is.
Greg, since you obviously love hillary so much, why don't you just disclose that fact?
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 7:45 PM:JJCoope,
OK, then what exactly was meant by:
“Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?”Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:45 PM:
greg,
i wish you would just offer the same kind of editorial comments about coverage that josh does.
you clearly have opinions. what are they? you stand by them, you're a smart guy, trust us to listen to your perspective.
this teasing shit isn't what you guys are about.
i appreciate josh's post. i've been hoping and waiting for it.
now, please write (or, josh, let him write) your take.
the argument can't but help.
jhv wrote on January 11, 2008 7:45 PM:greg,
i wish you would just offer the same kind of editorial comments about coverage that josh does.
you clearly have opinions. what are they? you stand by them, you're a smart guy, trust us to listen to your perspective.
this teasing shit isn't what you guys are about.
i appreciate josh's post. i've been hoping and waiting for it.
now, please write (or, josh, let him write) your take.
the argument can't but help.
diogu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:47 PM:It is hurts the Clintons more. If Hillary does not get over 90% of Black votes in the General Election she loses. And with this crap, she won't get it.
The Clintons have decided that it is Hillary and no one else. And the Democratic Party be damned. That is why the Establishment Democrats are now backing Obama.
hank55 wrote on January 11, 2008 7:49 PM:People who write things such as this are the silliest people in the world:
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 6:09 PM
Look! It takes a racist to see racism everywhere.
This is the lamest form of argument.
keith wrote on January 11, 2008 7:51 PM:Dcshungu
Actually I never suggested the MLK comment was racist. It's demeaning to those who fought and died in the pursuit of civil rights. Now 40 years later I have to read comments blaming Obama for Clinton's comments. Why? Cause it may offend someone. Guess what? It already has. Maybe the Clinton's, the great friend of the American Negro, should set the tone for their campaign. I mean how many times is the most disciplined and professional campaign going to make these tone deaf arguments? This isn't about politics; this is real life and I, other African-Americans, have come to expect more from the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:52 PM:that statement from Obama's adviser is ALMOST enough to drive me to contribute to the Republican, if Obama wins the nomination. What a total scumbag.
His campaign is obviously searching out any quote which could possibly be interpreted in a racially insensitive way, and using these aginst Hillary.. all the way talking about taking the "high road".
The scent of desparation among the Obama camp and his supporters on here is palpable. Obama needed to kill her off in NH and couldn't and with Feb 5th approaching, they're freaked. Doesn't matter what happens in South Carolina at this point. NY, FLA, NJ, CA will decide the race now and he's not closing the gaps fast enough.
The only tactic they can pull off now is to exploit the feighned outrage over non-events like some quote from the Guardian attibuted to "an annonymous Clinton Advisor". please. Andrew Cuomo? Supporter of Clinton, not a campaign member or advisor. Same with Kerrey.
Should I as an outraged white guy be holding Obama responsible for every racially charged bit of stupidity that ever drooled out of Sharpton or Jackson's mouths? Tawana Brawly or any Hymies from NY have an opinion on this one? Come on blue-eyed devils, one of you must have an opinion on this one. I'm hoping that Obama has the decency to offer me an apology for these outrageous statements made by a few of his key "supporters".
Obama campers - Stop acting like a bunch of sniveling twists and go out and fight on the issues. With Hillary there is plenty to fight on. The more you grind yourselves down with the racial outrage angle the worse it's going to be for your man. It also suggests that he's made of glass and if elected we'll be spending 8 years talking about the offensive remarks of so-and-so rather than concentrating on issues.
Karl Rove must be laughing his ass off.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:53 PM:dr. duh wrote on January 11, 2008 7:42 PM:TPM's tiptoeing around this issue (see also Josh's "deep breath") is surprising and unfortunate. Don't any of you have a hip black friend who can explain what's going on? The Clinton's are race baiting.
By the above I assume that you mean that the Clintons are trying to draw Obama into abandoning 'color-blind politics' in favor of racial politics. If you're right, and Obama has plenty of black friends "who can explain what's going on" or he can figure it out himself, why in the hell would he fall for it? He'd lose easily if this turns into a black v. white race...but so would the Dem party.
If you are a loyal Dem, you'd want to this to just go away fast.
It is Friday night in Big Apple, so I am closing shop and hitting town...(read: "beam me out of here Scotty; there is no sign of intelligent life in this forum!").
Jonathan wrote on January 11, 2008 7:55 PM:This goes back to the Sister Soulijah comments Bill made to shore up his centrist bona fides back in 1992. But i dont know what use that has now.
MariMuri wrote on January 11, 2008 7:59 PM:This is nastier than any general election campaign that I have ever seen. I can't believe the filth the Clinton campaign are dishing out. Bush, Cheney and Rove (or their surrogate swiftboaters) weren't even this nasty, not by a long shot. The Clintons are below low with this entire dirty campaign. If there weren't a handful of Democrats that I really respect (and if I didn't care about being able to vote in this primary) I would switch my registration to Independent because I'm flat out disgusted that they are in the same party as me at this point. If she gets the nomination I will officially switch to Independent because I'm not going down with that ship.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 8:03 PM:Chris wrote on January 11, 2008 7:52 PM:The scent of desparation among the Obama camp and his supporters on here is palpable. Obama needed to kill her off in NH and couldn't and with Feb 5th approaching, they're freaked. Doesn't matter what happens in South Carolina at this point. NY, FLA, NJ, CA will decide the race now and he's not closing the gaps fast enough.
Scotty, stop! There is some sign of intelligence here, after all. This poster just put the finger on the sore point that is causing Obama to abandon the "politics of hope": His path to the nomination involved fatally wounding Hillary in the early states; however, with Hillary winning NH, that scenario looks unlikely, especially since most polls that have been taken since IA and NH show Hillary's strength elsewhere virtually unaffected, suggesting that Super Tuesday might still be a Hillary slaughter house.
When reasonable people begin doing unreasonable things, you must wonder why, but usually self-preservation instincts are the root cause.
Scotty, energize...
hubris wrote on January 11, 2008 8:04 PM:I think someone close to Clinton told urged Kerry to keep his view "deliberately vague."
No sir prize here.
I'm with Keith: Clinton supporters trying to blame Obama for all of the nasty stuff coming out of the Clinton campaign is just fucking disgusting.
That aside, here's the dynamic: the Clinton Inevitability '08 Tour wins either way for the reasons described above by more astute political observers.
It's people of color who lose, again.
It's not like we "Hillary-haters" haven't been warning ya for years now, Keith. You just have to resolve no matter what, you'll cast a vote for the candidate in the general who can most certainly relegate the Clintons to political history.
withering, disrespectful scorn
You pick up that in the comments from the Hillary supporters, don't ya? I guess apples don't fall too far from the tree.
If Obama thinks Clintons are racist then what's he going to think of republicans if he is the dem nominee in the general election..
Goldspinner wrote on January 11, 2008 8:10 PM:Why don't we ask Marian Wright Edelman, Lani Guinier, and Sister Souljah whether the Clintons ever play the race card?
colbertocrat wrote on January 11, 2008 8:14 PM:Given that this race pits an African American man versus a woman, even if a comment isn't intended to be racist/sexist, there will be a tendency to view it through one of the two prisms.
The predominant culture in the US still has racist and sexist tendencies, despite the major changes of the last 40 - 50 years. This won't change any time soon. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask Harold Ford.
From a wider perspective, the fissure that is developing is the 2008 Republican wet dream - a bloody Democratic primary that irrevocably splits the base and provides the GOP with the only chance they have to win.
Both sides need to take a deep breath and cease with the reactive vitriol.
DBH wrote on January 11, 2008 8:17 PM:If the Clintons are intentionally baiting Obama, then they must be conceding the black vote, which they previously thought they could win. The calculus must be: if we've lost the black vote, then lets make him lose the white vote, and we'll win. Of course, a lot of ifs, still not clear yet. And risky because Obama has everything to gain and nothing to lose by staying silent and letting the Clintons hang themselves...
Still, I find the image vile, and really unfortunate. I hope Obama doesn't have to get into the gutter with her...
Mary wrote on January 11, 2008 8:19 PM:Not to worry, Barak.
You're likeable enough. :)
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 8:19 PM:"If Obama thinks Clintons are racist then what's he going to think of republicans if he is the dem nominee in the general election"
just because the republicans are going to use these tatics doesn't mean its ok for the clintons to use them.
Chris wrote on January 11, 2008 8:20 PM:Sorry Goldspinner, Lani Guinier had views on quotas that were never going to make it through the nomination process and you know it. Even Mosley-Braun and Kennedy suggested her name to be withdrawn. If anything, Clinton's nomination of her in the first place is more of an indication of his bending over backwards to nominate a black woman, even though there is no way in hell she would have EVER been nominated.
As for Sister Souljah, she was always just an asshole, regardless of color.
pacc wrote on January 11, 2008 8:22 PM:Like I've said before... if Obama wants to make race the issue in the campaign, let him.
Americans of all stripes are sick and tired of black Americans always playing the race card when they think it might help them in the polls.
Obama will lose that.
The majority of Americans - in good faith - support decades long efforts to right old wrongs, but will no longer simply cow-tow to black America whining about victimization.
Hypatia wrote on January 11, 2008 8:22 PM:It's blindingly obvious that if she is the nominee, Clinton's going to need the black vote in November - this will not be a landslide no matter who the respective nominees are. Exploiting the racial divide would not be the cleverest way to go, methinks. It's possible the Clintons are that stupid (and racist), but I kinda doubt it.
I'd also point out in passing that the bluntest possible sexist slurs (no need to suss out any 'coded language,' it was right up front where you could see it) have been aimed at H. Clinton since the beginning, and until quite recently very few took note. It's also been considered fair comment by pretty much everybody to accuse the Clinton camp of playing the gender card, not always with much evidence to back it up.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 8:25 PM:"always playing the race card when they think it might help them in the polls."
and hillary didnt play the gender card when she conveniently cried one day before and election?
Obama isnt making race an issue. The clintons are. His camp is just trying to respond.
dawn pentenrieder wrote on January 11, 2008 8:37 PM:I believe that the American people are far too wise not to see through this transparent political tactic by the Clintons and I am confident that they will find it as distasteful as I do. I don't trust the Clintons and I don't think that any trick is too dirty for them if it helps win the election.
Pepp wrote on January 11, 2008 8:37 PM:Senator Clinton does have to accept in this race she is not Black enough compared to Senator Obama ......Obama is Blacker period,
Juts like if Senator Obama tried to be the Woman candidate compared to Senator Clinton he would not be Woman enough …move on
She has nothing to apologize for and the raging charges of racism are unconvincing……
..........one of the main stream media editors just said white people should not discuss the MLK story hmmmmmmm, ok
Oh and former Governor Dean Chairman of the DNC really good choice you made their moving up the powder keg to the beginning of the primary with the promise of neutrality that was dumb in hind sight, yeah sucker…………
Josh,
You seem to be solidly in the Obama camp. Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. But, like Rachel Maddow and Mike Malloy and other "liberal", "progressive" people, you need to be up front about your position. Weren't you one of the "pundits" who pushed Obama after he won Iowa.
I emailed you saying just what you are saying now. Wait, two small states is not a good way to select a nominee. Remember?.
State your preference. It's ok. Then we can weigh your comments properly.
RobK wrote on January 11, 2008 8:41 PM:If Hillary gets the nomination, she will not only lose due to lack of male votes, lack of Independents, but she'll lose the black vote.
She'll be forever known for being the one who stopped the only possible chance of there ever being a black President of the United States.
Black folks will stay home on election date, knowing again the disenfranchisement started in NH due to the Bradley effect, and has continued on during the whole campaign.
onceler wrote on January 11, 2008 8:41 PM:I'll take a stab at an overall analysis. There is a pervading mentality in America, and white American liberals are certainly no exception, whereby people see themselves as fit to comment on racial matters to a degree that black Americans are not quite comfortable with, at this point. Thus a statement like the one Clyburn made in response to Hillary Clinton's comments about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson; tepid, but pointed enough where I can't imagine such feedback wouldn't reach the Clintons directly. Commentary which sounded fine among an insular group of friends or constituents in describing Obama comes under much greater scrutiny once it's in the public eye. You can't have anyone under your employ who will talk to the Guardian about how Obama appeals to people looking for a "hip black friend", as if his supporters' knowledge of the candidate or the issues involved necessarily went no further than that. Pop psychology diagnoses of Obama's supporters which describe them as naive followers will also be met with a great deal of resistance.
I just watched Keith Olbermann interview Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post on Countdown. Robinson summed up his feelings pretty well with the statement that "You don't lecture black Americans about the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. You just don't. And you certainly don't do it right before the South Carolina primary!" He was animated, but again, restrained. There is no fury, but in both his and Clyburn's statements there is a definite shot across the bow to the Clintons to shape up or lose that coveted African American love they've been enjoying - and on pretty thin grounds for quite a while now. I am absolutely shure that if you were to ask Obama whether he thinks the Clintons are racists, the answer would be an emphatic negative.
semaja wrote on January 11, 2008 8:43 PM:I really wonder how many folks listened to the entire Bill Clinton clip in New Hampshire? 'This whole thing is a fairy tale' line was very consistent with rest of Bill's 'rant' about his perception that Barack was inconsistent with his war vote and furthermore the press gave him a free pass. Bill's implication is that Barack's stance on the war is a farce. He did not say that Barack's campaign or that Barack was a fairy tale! It won't long be before long that every critique of Barack will be considered racist and I am starting to believe that amplifying certain aspects of Clinton's speeches to ignite a race war is precisely how Obama intends to win SC. Tear away whatever loyalty African Americans have for Bill Clinton and he'll be able to garner more votes. I do like Obama and I am one black person who clearly sees this tactic and am sure others will too. The entire clip is below.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4102345
John Y wrote on January 11, 2008 8:45 PM:"I think the idea is the Clinton campaign is deliberately goading Obama into making explicitly racial defenses/appeals, something he hasn't done in the past and (so the theory goes) something that could cause him to lose support among whites."
Bingo.
Obama does not, and never has, wanted this fight. He has only wanted to run as a CANDIDATE for president, not a BLACK CANDIDATE for president.
Anyone telling you anything different does not want him to get the nomination/presidency, because him picking that fight is the quickest way for him to lose. Remember that.
Obama is trying to shatter the "either you're a black candidate, like Jesse Jackson, or an actual candidate, like (fill in white candidate's name here)" paradigm, plus a million others, from Red State/Blue State to Washington Insider/damn fool.
We need to respect him for that. Perhaps he was naive for trying. I don't think so.
Whatever YOU think, he deserves a lot of credit for trying to do it. That's how he got my vote.
I really wonder how many folks listened to the entire Bill Clinton clip in New Hampshire? 'This whole thing is a fairy tale' line was very consistent with rest of Bill's 'rant' about his perception that Barack was inconsistent with his war vote and furthermore the press gave him a free pass. Bill's implication is that Barack's stance on the war is a farce. He did not say that Barack's campaign or that Barack was a fairy tale! It won't long be before long that every critique of Barack will be considered racist and I am starting to believe that amplifying certain aspects of Clinton's speeches to ignite a race war is precisely how Obama intends to win SC. Tear away whatever loyalty African Americans have for Bill Clinton and he'll be able to garner more votes. I do like Obama and I am one black person who clearly sees this tactic and am sure others will too. The entire clip is below.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4102345
Marian wrote on January 11, 2008 8:52 PM:Why does Obama spin so much? All through the campaign and debates he never gave straight answers to questions on issues and on what he will do with the country's domestic and international problems. It's as if the presidency is a battle in word parsing. Of is it now? Are Americans thar desperate?
It may not be fair to bring his declaration to bomb Pakistan without clearance in the anti-terrorism camoaign because that was early on in the game. But it has been months. He is darling of the media. He gets better treatment and time. Why has not not capitalized on these to tell the American peole what he will do,concretely, for the country?
If just followed up by emotionally-loaded jargon, hope is nothing but a four-letter word. Obama needs to do his homwork very soon if he targets the nomination and really means to lead the country. Otherwise, if he becomes the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will have the golden opportunity to regain the nation's respect and trust. For now, any of their candidates are far better prospects than Obama.
Davidson wrote on January 11, 2008 8:52 PM:Clinton needs to deal with this--now! And Obama needs to tell Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Eric Dyson to just keep quiet. They only do him harm. But again, Clinton has the more serious problem.
Damn. What are they doing?
Celested9 wrote on January 11, 2008 8:54 PM:Sorry Josh,
I just read the "take a deep breath" blog which I mistook for "calm down", we have a long way to go. You were talking about racism which, when discussing the Clintons, is ludicrous.
Still.....I've heard many people, including Bill Clinton, say "any of the Democratic presidential candidates would make a superior President. I wrote you asking for more info about Obama.
Have you done any real journalism regardingthe quote from Rove in the Wall Street Journal..."Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting "present" on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn't know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through."
We simply need more info. I asked you if there is any truth to these statements. Please get it for us instead of this charge..counter charge stuff which is inflammatory and little else.
Let's remember that we are talking about Bill Clinton - serial adulterer, perjurer, the president who achieved little but endless rounds of compromise and triangulation. As for Hillary, other than botching healthcare, ranting about conspiracies, and defending her husband's illicit lusts - what has she done of substance? And now we have a pattern of attacks, aimed at pushing Obama into the "racial conspiracy" counterattack, which would sink his campaign. Of course, any sane person knows Hillary can't win the presidential election, and that these tactics will simply turn off a major democratic constituency - so why spend time destroying the Democrats' best chance of a win? I think the answer is obvious - two colossally selfish, arrogant, and foolish people, who can't allow anyone else to take "their place". I have been a lifelong Democrat, with strong liberal leanings, but at this point I would vote for even Duncan Hunter over Hillary. We can't afford the Clintons any longer. It is time to take back our party from their corrupt, incompetent, and irresponsible hands. For the record, I am white - and I despise the Clintons' racism and use of techniques of racial hatred exploited by Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, and the Republicans we are supposed to be fighting. If we have to put up with four more years of Republicans - and at the end of that we are rid of the Clintons - well, that almost looks like a bargain worth making to me.
ChrisO wrote on January 11, 2008 8:57 PM:Jesus, this is getting worse and worse. I've been reading and contributing to TPM's comments for some time now, and I have to say Obama's supporters have significantly lowered the level of discourse here. Putting aside all of the distortions of remarks from the Clinton campaign, what's with the attacks on Greg? Obama's spokesperson talks about a "bigger pattern," and Greg sincerely asks what people think she's referring to (he has to ask, because her passive/aggressive comments sure don't make it clear.) For this he gets called a whore, and worse? Are you people retarded? It's incredibly ironic how so many people who celebrate Obama as a "uniter" who can provide us with "hope' cam make the nastiest comments. It makes me sad to see what used to be one of the most intelligent comments sections on the web debased in this way.
Obama's supporters, at least in most of the comments sections I see, reveal themselves to be either ignoramuses who have limited reading comprehension, or willful prevaricators. Seriously, look at Shaheen's comments and then show me where he suggests that Obama sold drugs. I can only guess that a lot of you are new to politics, and don't get that campaigns say negative things about each other. All of this puffed up outrage is getting really tiring. Go read the comments at Wizbang or Ace of Spades or any other right wing site, and tell me the level of discourse is any lower or coarser than what you yahoos bring here.
I'm not a Hillary supporter (I liked Dodd), but I'm sure many people reading my comments think I am, because I find myself defending her from you idiots so much. I like a lot of things about Obama, but you people sure make it hard to support him.
And Keith, why don't you just STFU? All of this "I suppose you want me to pick cotton now" bullshit is really annoying. Do you really think it take special insight to respond to every post by attributing the most vile racist motives to everyone? Really, are you going to add some substance at some point? Surely you've seen the black character in comedies who's portrayed as an idiot for saying "It's because I'm black" in response to every slight? That's you, buddy. A laughingstock. But what do I know? I'm just another white racist trying to keep you down.
pol wrote on January 11, 2008 8:59 PM:My, this is awfully Karl Rovian, isn't it?
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 8:59 PM:Let's look at this alleged "pattern" one at a time, shall we?
(1) Bill Shaheen brings up Obama's drug use, and says the media will ask him about it and whether he sold it to anyone else. This doesn't strike me as overtly racist--don't white people sell drugs too? But even so, Shaheen is fired within days. Clinton later personally apologizes to Obama.
(2) Two Clinton volunteers forward that Muslim smear email to a few dozen people. They're immediately fired. Incidentally, a paid staffer replies to the person who sent him the email saying that it's offensive. Again, I'm not sure how race plays into this--this is about religion, right?
(3) Bob Kerrey endorses Clinton, and in a conversation with reporters, says how much he admires Obama, and that he likes how his African American heritage would make him a good role model, and how the fact that he has a Muslim middle name and some Muslim family would help in foreign relations. A firestorm ensues. Later, in an interview with CNN, he makes the same points, using the phrase "secular madrassa", which he had also used in October without harm. An even bigger firestorm ensues. Again, what this has to do with race I don't know. Kerrey apologizes for what he said.
(4) In response to reporters questions about Obama's point on King, Clinton notes that Eisenhower and Kennedy failed to move civil rights legislation, but LBJ did, thus demonstrating the importance of presidential leadership. A firestorm ensues in which people claim that what she really meant was that black people can't do anything and that they need white people to help them out.
(5) Bill Clinton, in describing the press's coverage of Obama's position on the war, says it's a "fairy tale". For reasons I don't understand, this is apparently racist.
(6) Andrew Cuomo, who supports Clinton but is in no way actually affiliated with her campaign, in a question about how Iowa and New Hampshire affect the race, goes into a long answer about the retail nature of the two states. He notes that it's not just a media war, that you have to meet voters in cafes and living rooms, and not merely shuck and jive at press conferences. Because the latter phrase has its roots in African American communities, this means that he must be using racist code words. This is clear even though (a) he wasn't talking about Obama, and (b) the question related to both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Furthermore, in every one of these cases, including the Clinton volunteers and Andrew Cuomo, who has no role with the campaign, all of these actions were explicitly ordered by Hillary Clinton, and thus reveals her to be a racist or at the very least a race-baiter. That some of the incidents have no connection to race and that those who did the most egregious things were immediately fired is to be ignored.
Racism is still a problem in our society, and a serious one. But this is nothing more than people trying to find a pattern where none exists, using way too much conjecture to find evidence of racism in people who have a long history of good faith in these matters.
Fortunately, we've reached the point in our society where racism is understood to be one of the most repugnant and despicable traits a person can have. But this means we have to be extremely careful in when we accuse people of it. You better be very certain before you call someone a racist. Even people of good faith will become angry if they see the term being thrown about lightly and for political gain.
rashad davis wrote on January 11, 2008 9:01 PM:I go with the Clintons long record with the African-American community. Remarks are being taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Hillary has the support of many african-american leaders, that is enough for me.
I don't like the Obama campaign stoking this issue with emails and press releases.
GMFORD wrote on January 11, 2008 9:03 PM:I do think gender has been a factor in Clinton's popularity. That's based on a small, informal poll of all the Hillary supporters I know. Every one of them says they will vote for her because she is a woman (and a democrat, of course).
I do not, however, think race has been a factor with respect to Obama supporters. He seems youthful and energetic and that appeals to young people. His message of change appeals to people of all ages.
It worries me that Obama's competition might feel the need to say 'but...but..he's black!' I hope that isn't happening. I hope we are better than that.
goldencrumpet wrote on January 11, 2008 9:04 PM:ChrisO - given your recent comments, you look more like a Ron Paul supporter to me. As for your own post - it's pretty rich to come in here and rant about how people are retarded, while santimoniously explaining how they are being insulting. Or perhaps you think using this sort of language is fine -after all, disabled people probably deserve to have you use their misfortune as a term of abuse. As for your use of a racist stereotype at the end, that may fly with Ron Paul, it does not cut it here.
maximus wrote on January 11, 2008 9:08 PM:@Steve
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 8:59 PM:
Let's look at this alleged "pattern" one at a time, shall we?
Might the phrase "wilfully naive" apply to you? You seem overqualified to be a trial lawyer, judging by how you evade the issue, misrepresent the context, and generally whitewash the hateful tactics used by Clinton and her surrogates.
It worries me that Obama's competition might feel the need to say 'but...but..he's black!' I hope that isn't happening. I hope we are better than that.
*****************************************
Interesting. I hope it worries you just the same that Clinton's competition feels the need to imply that all she did was drink 'tea' and dismiss her with a tacky 'you are likeable enough in a debate. There are two sides to every story.
Carl wrote on January 11, 2008 9:12 PM:Personally I think the Clintons are "poor people who made good" and have had to live by their wits all these years. They have studied people, know which buttons to push, and are very good at drawing people into confrontations. We're glad Obama hasn't fallen into their traps thus far.
Hillary's crying act was nothing but BS, but it appealed to women. Bill Clinton's tirade was a speech by a desperate man because he feared for Hillary in New Hampshire, and it showed his true feelings as he did everything but utter the dreaded "N" word. I continue to hope and pray that Black people will become un-enamored of the Clintons and realize that the foolishness about Bill Clinton being the first "Black President" was nothing but a very good (I think) public relations job. I am of the opinion that the Clintons think only of themselves and heretofore have run a very good game.
Goldspinner wrote on January 11, 2008 9:15 PM:Interesting comments, Chris: spoken like a true Federalist Society member. In case you aren't old enough to remember, William Jefferson Clinton threw his OWN nominee under the proverbial bus and repeatedly lied about whether he was familiar with her legal writings prior to the nomination (Bill's lack of candor didn't start with "I did not have sex with that woman!"). Guinier and Edelman were VERY close friends of the Clintons who were publicly screwed over for political expediency, just like Jocelyn Elders. As for Sister Souljah, her rhetorical comments were taken out of context and intentionally used to promote massive white voter turnout. Quite a few of us black folks haven't forgotten Bill or Hillary's hubris...and guess what? We aren't voting for anyone named Clinton.
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 9:15 PM:No, I'm not being willfully naive. I see a bunch of isolated incidents, few of which are directly related to race, almost all of whom can be explained by stupidity (in the case of the volunteers) or are inoffensive.
When someone who's never been accused of racism before does something that could easily be interpreted as inoffensive, I think that person deserves the benefit of the doubt. Especially for a charge as serious as racism.
For whatever it's worth, I don't think Obama was being sexist when he talked about Clinton having tea with foreign leaders, nor was Edwards being sexist when talking about Clinton's now infamous emotional moment.
Thanks for the personal insults, however.
goethean wrote on January 11, 2008 9:16 PM:frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 6:23 PM:
Personally, I think that this approach is probably turn into a very big loser for the Obama campaign.
When African-Americans make claims of racism that white voters just don't buy, fairly or not, those voters tend to feel very resentful about it. For most, I think, it's a big turn off. It's particularly a big turn off when your overall message is one of coming together, and your campaign makes accusations of racism that are perceived to be false.
It's very hard to see most white voters buying into the idea that Bill's "fairy tale" comment was meant in a racist way, for example.
And it is simple fact that even in the Democratic primaries there are many more white voters than black voters.
Obama's people had better be very, very careful how they try to push all this because it is only too easy for it to backfire in a big way. It may be that this sort of approach will work in the African-American community in SC, but the larger electorate is likely to have a different idea.
frankly0, you just endorsed the Clinton campaign's use of racist tactics against other Democrats.
b wrote on January 11, 2008 9:23 PM:"I am absolutely shure that if you were to ask Obama whether he thinks the Clintons are racists, the answer would be an emphatic negative."
of course the clintons aren't racists. the question is whether their organization will do whatever it takes to win -- including the exploitation of whatever dark yellow fear it is in the lizard brain of hundreds of thousands of american democrats that is tickled into line by racist cheap shots like "shuckin and jivin" and filing mlk underneath lbj on great men chart.
Just when I thought Obama wouldn't play the race card.
Duane wrote on January 11, 2008 9:25 PM:And Keith, why don't you just STFU? All of this "I suppose you want me to pick cotton now" bullshit is really annoying.
I searched the comments up and down and found no reference of Keith saying any such thing so you where did this shit come from? Must be another Clinton supporter "slip"..
Duane wrote on January 11, 2008 9:26 PM:And Keith, why don't you just STFU? All of this "I suppose you want me to pick cotton now" bullshit is really annoying.
I searched the comments up and down and found no reference of Keith saying any such thing so you where did this shit come from? Oops, must be another Clinton supporter "slip"..
stlounick wrote on January 11, 2008 9:29 PM:What onceler said....
mkolb wrote on January 11, 2008 9:36 PM:I agree with Sen. Obama's spokesman that "there is a pattern here", but I think it would be wise to ask who really benefits from this and it isn't (in alphabetical order) Sen. Clinton, former Sen. Edwards, nor Sen. Obama.
The real beneficiaries from this uproar are the Republicans. If Democrats can tear themselves apart as they often do, the only party left standing unscathed is the party of Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Huckabee.
Yes, a lot of people in Clinton's column, Edward's column, and Obama's column have said some stupid things, many of which have been what appears to be purposely misconstrued and publicized far and wide. But, actually, among the anonymous sources, who knows exactly who is saying what? Who is fanning these flames?
Again, ask yourself, who benefits. Gee, it's the Republicans again. Well, the MSM too, because it gives them something to talk about.
There are an awful lot of people with an awful lot of money who want the Democratic nominee to lose: think Scaife of Arkansas (although I don't think he's much in it this round), T. Boone Pickens (one of the Swiftboat funders), the gazillionaire from Utah whose name I don't remember but who is committed financially to having Sen. Clinton beaten, and so on. Don't take the bait.
I'd ask everyone to remember what we are supposed to be doing - choosing the person who can best govern us for the next 4-8 years and stop bashing each other.
Ignore the trolls (of which there seems to be an inordinate number) and stick to the policies of each candidate.
lambert strether wrote on January 11, 2008 9:39 PM:Funny how it's always OK to be bigoted against atheists and agnostics, isn't it?
lambert strether wrote on January 11, 2008 9:43 PM:What mkolb said.
Halli wrote on January 11, 2008 9:43 PM:There are a great many political reasons to explain what is going on here.
I am certain that the Obama campaign is reading its internal polls and sees that white women are moving strongly for Clinton. He MUST get the black vote or he can't win.
What would Mrs. Clinton gain from this supposed race-baiting? Dick Morris has a vendetta against the Clinton's. When he wrote that column he was setting them up because he knew at some point in the campaign they would be accused of racism.
The Obama campaign is taking a risk here by screaming their accusations for all the black voters to hear. The internal polling must be devastating for them to take a risk with this particular political game.
And really, how does calling Obama's campaign a "fairy tale" translate into a racist remark? Well, OK, racist to the gays, perhaps, but how to a black man.
Congressman Clyburn is building an excuse to throw his support to Obama, who he never thought had a chance of winning, when he cut the deal with the democratic party to remain neutral in the race if the Democratic Party agreed to hold an early primary in S.C..
Now that he thinks Obama has a chance to win...if he can garner the black vote, the congressman needs a reason to go back on his word.
All of this says one very sad thing about the blacks in America ... sadly, they are still not ready to believe enough in themselves to win a race without using their race as their trump card.
Obama who speaks of hope and unity has now shown us who he really is: just another divisive politician.
I am shaking my head with disgust.
The CJ Political Report
http://www.ablahblahblog.com
I personally think that Senator Obama will not respond to the Clintons real or perceived strategy of forcing him to call 'racism'. If you notice, Senator Obama does rise above their comments, even when he said 'you're likeable enough Hilliary' in kind of a weary, low key can we please drop this line of dialogue. My perception of course and not one shared by any press that I read. Senator Obama is a dignified, self-assured man who has much wisdom for his age. The Clintons look like they're running a high school student council election compared to his sense of gravitas. Doen't he have a great and genuine smile. He makes me smile. He'll make a fine president - one we can be proud of.
Lenore R.
Lenore
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 9:43 PM:ChrisO:
You know about two hours ago, I would have responded in manner that wouldn't have been productive. But I've taken my breather and you know what, you are still wrong. While you guys view this in the political frame, you fail to recognize and acknowledge one undisputed fact: whether or not any of you think these comments are racist, etc., they have set off a firestorm in the African-American community. Instead of posting comment after comment that they aren't racist, perhaps you should consider if you really are in a position to make that determination. When NH turned suddenly for Senator Clinton, the notion that it was backlash against the sexist response by Chris Matthews and others was widely accepted. No one questioned whether the women really had a reason to be upset or if it was a pattern. It was accepted as a fact and Matthews and others have been derided for their comments.
But on the issue of race, you all consider yourself the appropriate arbiter on whether black folks should even be bothered by these comments. This isn't about politics, this is about life. I have every right to take offence at these comments. And the frequency with which they've rolled out of the Clinton does raise a question of just what is going on. The question can't be casually dismissed because you don't think it rises to the level. The question should be why the most discplined and professional campaign in the field, with the most experienced candidate and the well regarded Clintons have committed so many tone-deaf blunders over the course of two months. The reactions are real, not staged. Dismissing them because YOU don't think they are offensive misses the point entirely. Suggesting that this is some sick attempt by the Obama campaign to play the race card is both insulting to Senator Obama and a reinforcement of the tone-deafness that caused this situation in the first place.
So pardon me for taking offence. But these comments, whether you agree, have crossed the line in the African-American community, and no amount of blame shifting is going to change that fact.
Genghis wrote on January 11, 2008 9:47 PM:Steve, thank you for the thorough rundown. I agree that everyone is being hypersensitive to any kind of reference to race. And I don't hold with all the Clinton-hating conspiracy theorists who believe that this all some grand Machiavellian scheme by the HRC campaign.
On the other hand, of course everyone is hypersensitive to the issue. From poll taxes to segregation to "states rights" to Willie Horton, American politics has always been deeply infected by racism, and we're all just waiting to see what form it takes in 2008. I'm sure that these minor explosions are nothing compared to what we'll see in a general election if Obama wins the primary.
Given this history, I fail to understand why anyone with any connection to Clinton would use the word "black" or "African American" or any other word associated with black culture (e.g. "shuck and jive") and "Obama" in the same breath to the press. Because of the history of racial politics, it's just something that you need to steer away from because we've all got a hair trigger when it comes to race. Anyone who doesn't understand this reality must be either politically tone deaf or else trying to subtly exploit the race issue.
If people associated with the Clinton campaign blunder in this way, it's up to Clinton to rectify it. Not because it's her fault but because she has to avoid any suspicion of complicity.
Ajax the Greater wrote on January 11, 2008 9:47 PM:wow, freeperville invasion.
Greg, you should talk to Josh about blocking anonymous posting and banning people for over the top invective and ad hominems.
I love this place, and am sad to see so many obvious Dubya Publicans writing anonymously as "Hillary supporters" or "Barack supporters" and pissing in our pool.
This site gets a lot of credit for its incredible depth of research and analysis, which is what gets the Freepers (and redstaters and the rest of the geniuses) knickers in a bunch, so they are trying to make this site less relevant by posting here.
Again, you guys should think about moderating comments (either by TUs or staffers), and blocking anonymous posting.
love the site, stay strong Greg, you're one of the good guys.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 9:50 PM:"Again, you guys should think about moderating comments (either by TUs or staffers), and blocking anonymous posting."
God bless free speech, huh, ajax??
Glad to know you support the first amendment...
Duane wrote on January 11, 2008 9:51 PM:All of this says one very sad thing about the blacks in America ... sadly, they are still not ready to believe enough in themselves to win a race without using their race as their trump card.
Unbelievable, unfathomable condescension.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 9:56 PM:Halli:
I too am shaking my head in disgust, at the ignorance you just posted. Unbelievable.
Tim wrote on January 11, 2008 9:58 PM:All of this nonsense is irrelevant. Good luck to anyone trying to find ANY politician who doesnt pull snaky, devious tactics out at election time. The fact that Obama is black, or whether or not Clinton said "Hey, Obama's black", is all irrelevant. The point of it all is representative democracy. Don't vote for the person you think is the least slimy, because politicians are slimy people. Vote for the person who best REPRESENTS your views and opinions on policies. Personal character matters much less. How else could Bill have gotten a blow-j in the white house and still left with such a high approval rating?
Genghis wrote on January 11, 2008 9:58 PM:Davidson writes
Clinton needs to deal with this--now! And Obama needs to tell Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Eric Dyson to just keep quiet. They only do him harm. But again, Clinton has the more serious problem.
Davidson, I agree with you on both counts. I've written about Clinton already, but strategically speaking, I wish Obama would shut his people up. Even more than Clinton, he needs to avoid the perception of playing the race card, or he will turn people off. JJ Jr in particular is a loose canon. The press is already running with this, so there's no need to for Obama staff to flog the issue.
Chris wrote on January 11, 2008 10:03 PM:Goldspinner - That's cool. I know those horrible Clinton years were so hard on the black community at large compared to Reagan and Bush 1 & 2. Maybe AA voters can all sit this one out come November if it doesn't work out for Obama in the primary to teach those evil Clintons and their inherently racist supporters a lesson and then either President McCain or Huckabee will prove to be MUCH better advocates for all people of color around the globe. Boy, that'll show US.
Yes, I'm old enough to remember the events of Lani's nomination clearly, and truth be told, Clinton was foolish to even nominate her in the first place since her record was obviously going to get hammered by a hostile audience in the capital building. I'm also old enough to remember clearly the ranting of Sister Solja and please don't insult us all with the "oh, she was taken out of context" nonsense. Yeah, so was David Duke.
I've noticed alot of the "well, if Hillary wins, I'm staying home on election day" talk this week. Why is it that the nation can consistently count on the foolish Dems to do that to themselves time and time again. Who exactly will the AA community be scolding if that turns out to be the case?.
As I alluded to earlier, I'm sure the 10 million non-white kids in America with no health insurance and the disparity of incomes which have been exploding since the evil race-baiter Bill Clinton left office will taste alot sweeter to you under a Republican administration because you stuck it to the man by staying home in November. Good plan.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 10:13 PM:Chris:
Maybe you don't recognize it, maybe it doesn't register with you, but you really are coming off like, well an asshole. You make it seem like African-Americans need to accept this type of crap from anyone because well someone else will treat them worse. Perhaps the Clintons should be a little more attentive to the way their conducting their campaign. Perhaps they should recognize that they are navigating a potential minefield and that they have a responsibility to be mindful of their statements, just as African-Americans should be mindful of who the Clintons are and their history.
But this isn't one incident, but a series of incidents that have all arisen out of the Clinton campaign. Perhaps they should consider their message instead of blaming the audience. And if you can't appreciate the other side of this situation, then perhaps you should hold your tongue until you do. Unless you really are an asshole.
ChrisO wrote on January 11, 2008 10:15 PM:How predictable. Two responses to my post, and neither one deals with the substance of what I said. And to clarify, my insulting comments were inspired by, and directed to the people who have brought so much hatred to this campaign. Look at the comments sections accompanying any of the posts about Clinton and Obama, and the comments run about 10-1 Obama people, with many of them being incredibly nasty. Are you suggesting that its OK to call Greg a whore because of his relatively simple question?
Again, I defy you to find a difference between what many Obama supporters are saying about the Clintons and all of the standard right wing talking points. Actually, racism is a new one that even the righties haven't resorted to.
And for the record, I'm a member of my Democratic town committee, and was a precinct captain for Deval Patrick. You haters should learn that everyone criticizing Obama isn't a secret Republican.
And Goldspinner, your personal shot aside, I'm not sure what Guinier, Edelman and Elders have to do with Clinton's views on race. Their cases were all very different. Guinier was under intense fire, and people like Ted Kennedy and Carol Mosely-Braun advised him to withdraw her nomination because her interviews with key Senators were going badly. Clinton can certainly be faulted for claiming he wasn't familiar with her views, but he hardly 5threw her under the bus. Elders became a lightning rod when she suggested that masturbation should be taught to children. The Republicans had just retaken Congrsss in a rout, and the Surgeon General wasn't a battle Clinton thought was worth fighting. Presidents make those calculations all the time. Elders has been quoted as saying she was still going to vote for Clinton in 96, so it seems you're a little more upset than she is. And Edelman resigned because Clinton didn't follow her policy recommendations. I get that blacks will want to support and promote other blacks, but I don't get vowing to never vote for a Clinton because of these three cases. What about all of the other people and policies in the Clinton years? Does race really trump everything for you in politics? And what will you do the first time President Obama fails to support a black person in his administration?
As for Sistah Souljah, what is so wrong with a candidate condemning the statement "I mean, if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" You may be sympathetic to her, but how can you possibly expect a white politician to do anything but condemn a statement like that? And I'm sure his condemnation was motivated in large part by the election, but believe it or not, just about everything a Presidential candidate says is done with an eye to how voters will respond.
FOXX wrote on January 11, 2008 10:15 PM:When Jesse Jackson Jr, Obama's national co-chair, went on national television and accused Hillary of not caring about Katrina, the Obama campaign explicitly fueled this war about race and this accusaton that Hillary is racist. They have raised the race issue themselves, and drawn attention to Obama's race. They aren't waiting for remarks by Clinton supporters, they are actively floating the accusation that she is racist.
I suspect the strategy is that this will increase his black support in South Carolina and Nevada, and that two wins there will give him another boost.
Jackson's lie that Hillary was cryig about her appearance is also an allusion to the stereotype of the trivial silly white woman.
Why hasn't Obama asked for Jackson's resignation?
I am numb and cannot believe I have been supporting Hillary, albeit cautiously thus far. This is so absurd, disturbing and so ironically Rovian.
WILL NEVER EVER VOTE FOR HILLARY Clinton so help me God.
Count me in for Bloomberg or McCain and say hello to our next President if Hillary nominated.
Does anyone really believe this Greg "Who me" BS? He knew very well what he was doing when he posted this. Is TPM for real anymore? I am becoming skeptical, Josh.
W Action wrote on January 11, 2008 10:18 PM:To those who said above that we need both HRC and BHO on the ticket in November--I agree. That needs to be the goal of Dem voters going forward, to ensure close primaries and thus a deadlocked convention unless these two find a way to play nice. This is the week to punish Hill for going too far. Join the Kossacks to encourage Michigan cross-overs to Romney so Hill may suffer a fall-off in popular vote that sends her (and Bill) a message. They're smart. They and their minions relentless ly monitor the blogs as well as the cable yackers.
Keep in mind that much of the trash talking in these discussions is done by GOP-loving (and sometimes GOP-subsidized) Hate Trolls. Don't get sucked in. We are all in the boat together. Both Hillary and Barack will make terrific candidates. It's why the trolls want to keep them apart.
Ree wrote on January 11, 2008 10:23 PM:If I held Obama responsible for everything his supporters have said on this blog alone, then he would be truly an atrocious human human being.
John Russell wrote on January 11, 2008 10:27 PM:Oh Puleeese! Don't fall for this BS. Obama people: creeping paranoia if you think that Hillary's or Bill's comments ( MLK/ LBJ, or fairy tale) was anything more than their obvious (and legitimate) points. Hillary's people: some of this is clearly aimed at planting the notion among South Carolina blacks that underlying everything, you are still a bigot...like the rest of white people.
Come on folks, we don't need to do this. I'd be very happy with either of these folks. What the hell is your problem?
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 10:30 PM:Hi Genghis,
The thing is, Cuomo didn't use the phrase "shuck and jive" and the word "Obama" in the same breath. Neither the paragraph long question or the paragraph long answer mentioned Obama. And Cuomo isn't even part of the Clinton campaign. And yet this is all somehow evidence that Clinton is pulling some race-baiting? Sigh.
Here's the transcript:
Fred Dicker: You know I’ve said this on my show before, I think the American people are very lucky to have most these candidates, the major party candidates, I think they’re all quality people, they have disagreements, but they’re all quite talented, and I think the people of Iowa and now New Hampshire really have allowed the rest of America to see much of this because I think to their great credit it requires politicians to kind of get down, not kind of, get down in the grassroots, I think I heard John McCain say he had something like 110 community meeting before the primaries - fabulous - you know, I wish we could see that here in New York.
Andrew Cuomo: You know I’ve spent a lot of time in other races, especially in Iowa and in New Hampshire, back with Gore and back with Clinton. Those races require you to do something no other race does, you know, and I like it, and I agree with you, it’s a good thing. It’s not a TV-crazed race, you know, you can’t just buy your way through that race [FD: Airport press conference and the media markets…..], it doesn’t work that way, it’s frankly a more demanding process. You have to get on a bus, you have to go into a diner, you have to shake hands, you have to sit down with ten people in a living room. You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference, you can’t just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you saying answer the question, you know, and all those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room. And I think it’s good for the candidates, I think it makes the candidates communicate in a way that works with real people because you know in a living room right away whether or not you’re communicating, and I think the questions are good and I think the scrutiny is good, so you can, you can say they’re small states and they get a lot of attention — they are very good for the process, I believe that.
Dawn wrote on January 11, 2008 10:30 PM:Steve, you saved me a few minutes in laying out the facts. At least half the commenters are starting out with the wrong facts and partial quotations taken out of context. It was true on Hardball too tonight, until Hilary Rosen got a chance to speak for like 10 seconds.
I'll add one more. This is the quote from The Guardian, supposedly from an anonymous Clinton advisor: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."
The 'anonymous Clinton advisor' is insulting someone, but it isn't Obama. Any 'Colbert Report' fans from the show's early days remember Colbert's character's "black friend Alan", usually shown in a photo with a resigned look on his face as Colbert throws his arm around him and points at him in glee. The joke is that Colbert's character is proud to have this hip black friend, thinking it shows he is hip himself and does not see color. The look on Alan's face says this friendship exists mostly in Colbert's imagination. Colbert is making fun of unhip white guys looking in vain for a 'hip transfusion' from their black acquaintances. So is that Clinton advisor.
Insert John Kerry joke here.
I guess my point is that if you are going to be outraged, at least be outraged for the right reason. Start with the facts and go from there. I saw one commenter somewhere fulminating over Clinton calling Obama 'imaginary'.
The more I read these threads the more I lean toward Edwards. Who said Rove is behind this, anyway?
b wrote on January 11, 2008 10:33 PM:the hillary shills are more annoying than the obama shills on this thread by a factor of nine.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 10:33 PM:ChrisO:
“It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’” said Shaheen, whose wife, Jeanne, is a former New Hampshire governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.”
That's Bill Shaheen. On it's face, it seems like an innocuous question. But let me ask you something, can you provide a link to a quote where this question was contemplated for a white politician who used drugs as teenager/college student? I don't recall this being a concern for Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John Edwards or any of the countless other white, male presidential candidates who've admitted using drugs in their youth. Be happy if you could post a post demonstrating that this is unique to Obama.
As for your comments directed specifically at me, I am trying to raise the discourse in these threads, but I'm inundated by ignorance. The fact that folks view this as some kind ploy on the part of Senator Obama's campaign to interject race into this is laughable. He's never run on his race, why would he need to now? I mean he's up between 5-10 points in South Carolina and the question had been answered (whether white people would vote for him). Perhaps you didn't appreciate my snarky responses, but the attempt to shift the blame for this situation to Senator Obama is beyond laughable.
I'll do you one better, I defy you to point to one of the comments by Senator Clinton or her campaign that would elicit the exact same response in the African-American community.
PlumWdhse wrote on January 11, 2008 10:36 PM:From Advisor to aide? Why this deceit? What reason for this word play, specially when Josh write a few hundred words on the subject, raising the correct issue - advisor could mean anything and all sorts of folks like to call themselves advisors.
It is frustrating, particularly when you consider the history of Clintons and their support and relationship with African Americans.
No one is safe. And nothing you do for 40 years is safe, when chips are down, you can be just like that labeled a closet racist.
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 10:38 PM:P.S. Genghis--the part about frustration that people were pinning the Cuomo quote on Clinton wasn't meant at you, but the Clinton critics. I appreciate your response to my post.
Dawn wrote on January 11, 2008 10:39 PM:Hillary will have to respond now, since the Obama spokesperson issued the dreaded order to 'think about apologizing'. Gag me. My least favorite tactic. You can bet it will be the first question Brian Williams asks in the next debate.
Genghis wrote on January 11, 2008 10:40 PM:ChrisO, I deplore all the personal attacks as well, but that's the web for you. Obama supports are obviously riled, but I've seen plenty of nasty comments on this site from Edwards and Clinton supporters before. (Not much from avowed Dodd supporters, but to be honest, you're the only Dodd supporter that I've seen post.)
I think that the intensity level is related to the sensitivity of the issue. And that's what I think that you and the other people pooh-poohing the issue don't get. Race is the rawest nerve in the Democratic race, much more so than gender, and there's a good reason for that given this country's history of racial (and racist) politics.
Urging people not to get carried away is fair enough, but blowing off what's been happening as a non-issue and calling the people who care about it "retarded" is only going to piss people off. In other words, though I don't like the personal attacks on you, you're not exactly innocent in this nasty exchange.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 10:43 PM:Now, now Keith. Your not appreciating my side of this situation and resorting to name calling, and doesn't that make you well,.. Anyway, the larger points to be made here are:
1) I disagree that the Clintons are engaging in some conspiracy in race baiting. Just because Obama supporters are reading all sorts of meaning into standard campain jabbing is telling. Calling Obama inexperienced and referring to the "fairy tale" about Obama propagated by the media may be seen by some as inaccurate, but the level of feigned outrage and calling the Clintons racist is a bit much. Sounds desparate. Obama is in trouble after NH, and super Tuesday will probably go Clinton's way as it stands today. Even a win for Obama in SC will probably not change that. So now the likes of JJ Jr. and other Obama spokespeople are playing the race angle as much as possible. I for one don't know if Hillary shed a tear in private over Katrina, but neither does JJ or anyone else in the Obama campaign. As for Cuomo yesterday and Kerrey a few weks back, let's not get into the back and forth about those two and Jackson/Sharpton sound bites over the years. Neither Clinton or Obama owe explanations for what any of these clowns say. Let's stop trying to stoke the fire with nonsense headlines based on "anonymous Clinton Aides".
2) I pointed out to Goldspinner that the Sister Solja as victim angle is an insult. I was at Rutgers when she stopped by to tell us all that Homosexuality was the cancer of the white man inflicted on black Americans, so spare me the "taken out of context" garbage. Any person on the Dem side, regardless of color, who is going to cross their arms and stay home and pout on election day is a fool for reasons that should be fairly obvious to anybody with half a brain in their head. Sorry for any hurt feelings. I'm hoping that every Dem, regardless of the nominee, will vote on election day. This self-depricating pounting that I'm hearing from some Obama supporters is just foolish and will only lead to a Repub in the White House.
The Clinton years were good for the nation, and particularly people of color. I know I'm an asshole for having the racist audacity to say such a thing, but you know us race-baiters.
Radio Head wrote on January 11, 2008 10:48 PM:A couple of clicks on Halli's website links you to Drudge. Thanks for your concern, Halli. (Yawn.)
The only story here is how conflict is being promoted with out-of-context quotes. GOoPers feed the paranoia of campaigns under stress, and the MSM thrives on conflict it helps to create (MoDo, Mathews, Buchanan). We need Obama and Clinton on the same team eventually. Don't feed the paranoia.
Genghis wrote on January 11, 2008 10:55 PM:Steve, I appreciate your keeping me honest and apologize for my loose language. (Good thing I'm not a Clinton advisor.)
My point is not that this is all Clinton's fault or Cuomo's fault or even the "advisor's" fault. But it is Clinton's responsibility. Everyone is expecting dirty tricks from the Clinton campaign, and everyone is expecting Obama's opponents to try to use his race as leverage against him. Perceptions are everything, and fairly or not, Clinton needs to do whatever possible to avoid the perception of race-baiting. It's not sufficient to say that so-and-so was taken out of context or that so-and-so is not associated with the campaign. She needs to come out hard against anyone who is perceived as attempting to use Obama's race as a criticism of his candidacy.
(Likewise, Obama should go after Jesse Jackson Jr.'s sexist crap; I just don't think that that issue is quite as sensitive, though I'm sure that others disagree with me.)
shookem wrote on January 11, 2008 10:56 PM:This is the exact same 'whispering' campaign that Bush/Rove used against McCain in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Send quite e-mails, 527 ads, etc. Make it difficult to tie it back to the campaign -- it wasn't us. And by the time it gets back to them, the news cycle has moved forward, they plead ignorance and the damage has been done.
What's astonishing to me is that people haven't picked up on this nuance and immediately dimissed it, or held the offending people accountable, in this case the Clintons. Instead, naive people believe it and vote for Bush/Clinton types. Which is why a) these people continue to do it and b) there potentially remains a Bush/Clinton dynasty in this country.
If this country wants to move past this, then read between the lines and vote against these folks.
ChrisO wrote on January 11, 2008 11:00 PM:Anonymous
I'm going to assume that your partial use of the Shaheen quote is inadvertent. He wasn't asking those questions, he was saying that he feared the Republicans would ask those questions. And I think the reason people are particularly concerned about this issue with Obama is because of his admitted cocaine use. Good for him for being honest, but many people do view cocaine use differently than pot smoking (I don't have a problem with either one, personally). As for Edwards, I did an admittedly brief Google search, but I'm not aware of any drug issue with him. Did he admit to using drugs in his youth? I honestly don't know.
As for Bill Clinton, you've got to be kidding me. How do you think the term "I didn't inhale" became part of the popular culture? I did a Google search on the term, and came up with 1,510,000 responses. I hardly think it's accurate to say Clinton has never been called out on this issue. You must have missed the 1992 and 1996 elections.
Anyway, it's not about drug use specifically, it's about whatever issues a candidate has that might be used against him. Why is it so outrageous for someone to raise this issue about Obama, yet Obama supporters can continually reference Hillary's electability and talk about the smears that will be used against her? By referencing these issues, aren't Obama supporters subtly reinforcing them in the electorates' mind? Or is it that the Clintons are alsway devious, while Obama supporters are just innocently thinking out loud? Do you think it's fair to say that Republican opposition is raised as a negative issue for Hillary much more than it is for Obama?
ChrisO wrote on January 11, 2008 11:12 PM:Genghis
Thanks for the reasoned response. If you look at my post, my use of the term "retarded" was directed at the people calling Greg a whore, and worse, for his relatively innocuous question. It wasn't directed at the people who are concerned about racism in the Clinton campaign. And I'm not pooh-poohing (funny term when you type it out) the issue. I'm directly addressing it. It's not as though I'm suggesting that people shouldn't be concerned if Hillary's a racist, I'm saying that it is a canard being manufactured from whole cloth. There are some issues that are worth heated debate, and then there are some that are just despicable. Calling someone a racist is something that shouldn't be done lightly, and doing it for simple electoral advantage is reprehensible.
Dawn wrote on January 11, 2008 11:22 PM:And another part of the pattern emerges...here is Obama calling his Illinois state senate job a part-time position: NYTimes, 7/30/2007
Asked why he ran for the Senate in a state where rank-and-file lawmakers have been called “mushrooms” (because they are kept in the dark and fed, uh, manure), Mr. Obama said: “Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done.”
How dare that Hillary quote him. Only Russert is allowed to do that.
David wrote on January 11, 2008 11:32 PM:JOKE OF THE DAY:
What's the difference between Karl Rove and Mark Penn?
About 2 1/2 pounds.
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 11:33 PM:I actually didn't see JJJr's comments as that egregiously sexist. I was more disturbed that he was clearly making an appeal to black voters, however--mentioning the size of the black vote in South Carolina, and referring twice to Katrina. It sounded very much that he was suggesting that Clinton doesn't care so much about black people.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 11:35 PM:The Clintons only care about black people when it helps them to.
Dawn wrote on January 11, 2008 11:41 PM:Steve, JJJr did say she was crying over "her appearance". (A flat out lie, by the way) I found that sexist, though I suppose he would have said the same thing about John Edwards.
tao jones wrote on January 11, 2008 11:45 PM:all you people need to back away from your computers and take a walk out in the daylight! What a bunch of crap I'm reading here. You take vague comments attributed to UNNAMED sources for gospel. Shuck and jive? How is that racist? (I know it from a Joni Mitchell song lyric- is she racist for singing it?) My advice- find the source- the NAMED source and the exact context before you get your knickers in a twist. OOPS- didn't mean to insult any English people out there!I mean they own THAT right? I can't use it because I'm not English, right and so I must be making fun of them?
Seriously- you stir up a hornets nest of controversy for what? Karl Rove couldn't have played this any better for dividing us. Maybe he has.
Add Conservative Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of North Dakota to the Obama endorsement list. WOW!
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 11:48 PM:Dawn--I see your point, and it's a good one. You might be right. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he had said "she was crying about her appearance", and stopped there, that'd be sexist. Instead he said something of the form "she cried about her appearance but not about Katrina", which I took to mean "she was sad about her appearance but not about Katrina", which is not necessarily "egregiously sexist", as I wrote above.
But your point of view is at least as valid as mine in this case, I think.
Jeff Barea wrote on January 11, 2008 11:50 PM:Before all this blew up today on politico and then the Race War headlines and splashes across the Drudge Report, I reported yesterday:
http://www.bareablog.com/2008/01/obama-shucks-and-jives-according-to.html
It is simply offensive to me how in 2008 we still got a white southern woman being defended by white males by attacking the black man.
Shameful!
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 11:59 PM:Steve,
Jesse Jr. used the word "tears" 5 times and "cried" or "crying" twice in just over a minute (I counted), when in fact there were no tears and there was no crying -- she had just gotten a little choked up for a sec. Then he asserted that what she was "crying" about was her "appearance," implying that she cared more about her hairdo than Hurricane Katrina victims.
You don't want to believe that was a blatant, calculated and cynical on Clinton for the sin of being a woman, that's fine. Just tell me the last time you heard anyone saying shit like that about a man.
Genghis wrote on January 12, 2008 12:02 AM:Jackson's comment was as sexist as Cuomo's comment was racist. Not explicit but subtly playing on stereotypes, i.e. women are overly concerned about appearances, black men are con artists. I don't think that one is worse than the other, but I think that it's noteworthy that the race-related comment caused the uproar due to racial sensitivity.
Such implications can easily be unintentional, but politicians can also be extremely calculating and exploiting in subtle ways, so it's not unreasonable to believe that they were likely intentional. Again, I don't think that Clinton encouraged Cuomo to say what he said or that Obama encouraged Jackson to say what he said, but it's incumbent on the candidates to draw a hard line against this kind of crap (or the perception of this kind of crap), especially in the primary season.
Correction. Make that:
...You don't want to believe that was a blatant, calculated and cynical attack on Clinton for the sin of being a woman, that's fine. Just tell me the last time you heard anyone saying shit like that about a man.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 12:05 AM:And add Gary Hart to the Obama endorsement list.
That's Ben Nelson, Janet Napolitano, John Kerry, Bill Bradley, and George Miller thus far.
On Deck: James Clyburn, Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Al Gore.
Go Barack Go!
Dawn wrote on January 12, 2008 12:10 AM:Tao Jones -
I know 'Shuck n Jive' from an Art Garfunkel song - you can get it on that racist iTunes right now!
Steve, I agree JJJr's comment was not as egregiously sexist as some other things I have heard in the last week. I was really more struck by its falseness and utter irrelevance.
Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 12:14 AM:
CaID:
When's the last time something like that was said about a man?
John Edwards expensive haircuts.
Take your white ass back to Clinton campaign headquarters and cry.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 12:16 AM:Genghis wrote: Jackson's comment was as sexist as Cuomo's comment was racist.
Let's take that at face value for a moment, even though there may be some problems with the assertion. First, two wrongs do not add up to a right. Secondly, since Cuomo is not actually affiliated with Clinton's campaign, what is she supposed to do, have him arrested? You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you.
Jackson on the other hand is a co-chair of Barack Obama's campaign. When Billy Shaheen, a co-chair for Clinton in NH crossed the line with an observation about about Barack Obama's drug use he was gone the next day. I have yet to hear even an apology from Obama about Jackson. Has there been one? Has Jackson stepped down?
JC wrote on January 12, 2008 12:16 AM:I am so sorry for the long post but I cannot begin to express how much this story infuriates me. There are sound arguments to be made about Obama's experience, or lack thereof. There are arguments to be made about the differences between their proposals--where they exist--though neither campaign should pretend that the details of their plans matter, as Mickey Edwards suggest, unless they can demonstrate that they have a substantial potential for enacting them (i.e. how the Justice Department will be run is fair since it falls within Article II, how much money will be appropriated to green collar jobs is not unless there is evidence to suggest that there is consensus on the wisdom of such proposals). But race? Gender? Look at what Clinton's surrogates have said not just about politics but Obama in particular. We have Shaheen (drug dealing), then Penn (cocaine), then Young, then Cuomo, Hillary, Bill, now the Clinton advisor. Obama has himself been mum on this question (besides the fairy tale dispute which is about the Iraq war) though Bill also called him a kid, when in fact Obama is a United States Senator, he may refer to himself as the Comeback Kid, but to call Obama as much is perjorative. And yet despite all of this Hillary has not come out once to apologize publically or to make a point of why she does not want her campaign to turn into this. And Obama made the point that the candidate sets the tone for the campaign...Sorry, I can hardly stand it...Penn should have been FIRED after the last Iowa debate for the comments he made (cocaine over and over again). Clinton should dissassociate herself from Cuomo. Tell her campaign that racism will not be tolerated. She has done nothing of the kind. The worst part of it is that when Obama objects, even gently, to say it keeps happening, it is suggested by smart people like JMM that he may be making a mountain out of a molehill. It is infuriating. Has Obama once mentioned Lewinsky--something that actually happened as opposed to his alleged drug dealing? Has he once called into question Hillary's gender as a factor in her fitness to lead? When asked about the tearful moment he said he understood and had no comment. Have his surrogates? He apologized personally for Punjab and assured relevant parties (not just Hillary) that it was a mistake. He is waging this campaign on a completely different level. I am so sick and tired of the Clintons and their tactics. I think a woman would be a great president, I think women have done wonderful things for this country (of course); my fight is with the Clintons and the subtle game they are playing. They must think, perhaps like that vote for the AUMF, that there will not be any casualties. But it sends a clear signal to racist voters in this country that it is okay to talk about shucking and jiving that there are no consequences to making claims about how a black man who admits to using drugs must have dealt them as well. When Clinton lets these things slide, it sends a signal, not just to her campaign staff, but to the country of what as President she would allow as permissible political discourse. I wish TPM would wake up to this one. The Clintons are nothing if not subtle. I voted for them 3 times. Never ever again. Why is that when we have a decent man a good man run for President that we must assume that his opponents can say whatever they want about him. The Clintons should be careful because they are writing themselves into the history books on this one. If Clyburn is annoyed the grievance is real. Do the Clintons really want to be the people who used race-baiting to stop one of the most viable African-American politicians in our history from having a shot of embodying the American dream? I am sorry for being so irate, it is nothing personal against the other commenters who may disagree with me on this, but this thing the Clinton's are doing (and we all know they are doing it) cannot be tolerated. It makes me ill.
frankly0 wrote on January 12, 2008 12:18 AM:Goethean writes:
frankly0, you just endorsed the Clinton campaign's use of racist tactics against other Democrats.
That remark is nothing but a floridly stupid, utterly dishonest, and deliberately malicious "interpretation" of what I wrote. There is absolutely nothing in my remarks that could possibly support such a claim. Some of you Obama people really are pieces of work aren't you?
In fact, my remark was directed, if anywhere, to the Obama campaign. My advice to them (not that I ever imagine them caring) would be to be exceeding careful if they are going to start projecting racist interpretations on things the Clinton campaign says or does.
Why? Because if those claims are perceived as false by white voters -- as I said, fairly or not -- it will do nothing but incur resentment in those voters. And at least in a number of cases in which they seem to attributing racist overtones, only an extreme partisan on that issue could possibly come to agree with them. The example in which Bill Clinton talks about the "fairy tale" interpretation of Obama's statements on the war is a paradigm case of this.
The point is not that the Obama campaign can't call out genuine cases of racist language and appeals in the Clinton campaign, but that they can't make such claims when they are not credible to white voters. If the Obama campaign made such assertions only when white voters could be persuaded to believe them, then I think it would be right and productive for them to call them out.
I have no idea whether the Clinton campaign may be trying to goad the Obama campaign on this. Certainly almost the cases I've seen so far appear to be cases in which it's the Obama campaign that's seeking out what strike me as pretty spurious assertions of racism. But in the end it won't matter in the eyes of the voters if somehow the Clinton campaign manipulated the Obama campaign into taking this tack, if the claims the Obama campaign makes don't pass the bar on credibility.
And, let me explain something to you all: your screaming with all your keyboards banging at once that the things Clinton and her surrogates say are racist won't do Obama a particle of good if your own claim doesn't pass any kind of smell test, and sounds instead like crazed partisan fulmination.
And what makes it particularly dangerous for the Obama campaign is that if it employs the strategy of making claims of racism that aren't credible, it will see its numbers plummet in the polls, and won't have the slightest direct indication of why it happened. If white voters pull back their vote from Obama because they think his campaign is trumping up claims of racism, they will absolutely never own up to that motivation, either in response to any poll question, or prodding in a focus group. The votes will just be lost, and the campaign will never have a piece of concrete evidence they can lay their hands on as to why.
The Obama campaign needs to understand it is playing with fire here, and had better back away.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 12:21 AM:Jeff Barea,
Of course I recall attempts to tar John Edwards with the sin of being to feminine to be president. But even then, they tried suggesting he was too emotional about his appearance or that he cared more about his hair than hurricane victims.
What else you got?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 12, 2008 12:23 AM:Ben Nelson of ND, Janet Napolitano of AZ, Tim Johnson of SD, Tim Kaine of VA, John Millin of WY; not terribly hard to see the pattern there. Prominent democrats in red states are throwing their support behind Barack Obama because they know that Sen Clinton at the top of the ticket will be murder on down ticket democrats. Plenty of republicans who might well feel so dispirited about the crummy crop of candidates on their side might well stay home on election day if we nominate Sen Obama, but you can be sure that they will crawl out to the polls on their bellies if they have to in order to vote against the hated Clintons.
Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 12:28 AM:CaID:
A refutation for every single Clinton campaign attempt at damage control you or your fellow interns try.
I'm here now. Tell Hillary. votingpresent.net is in the house.
Not every reference to shucking and jiving is racist, of course, but that doesn't mean that it can't have racist connotations. You can also talk about "states rights" without racial overtones, but at a southern rally in 80s, for example, the overtones are there. In this case, Cuomo obviously implied that Obama is a shucker and jiver, and in the context of a black man running for president in a field of white candidates, it has an implication that plays on racial stereotypes. If you're a white man speaking on the record about a black candidate, and you say that kind of crap, you're begging for such an interpretation.
JC wrote on January 12, 2008 12:29 AM:@ Dawn, with all due respect, it is not the fact but the connotation it is given. If Hillary says she is an old woman, it means one thing, if Obama were to say it, it would mean something else. He spoke of part-time as a part of opportunity, she raised it to question his service. Nation guardsmen serve part time, that does not make their service any less significant. I don't think you will hear Hillary talking about how National guardsmen had not sacrificed by serving on weekends, because it would not be politically expedient for her to do so.
JC wrote on January 12, 2008 12:34 AM:Cuomo suggested that Obama, the candidate, who happens to be "black" (let's assume that's true for the sake of argument) had tried to "shuck and jive" his way through nh--that is not the same as joni mitchell or s&g talking about american culture in their songs. And to say Cuomo is not associated with Clinton is to demonstrated an astounding naivte as to the subject of NY politics. He may have made nothing by it. Fine. But why does everyone associated with Clinton keep saying things that need to be explained away. It is despicable and they need to stop.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 12:35 AM:Jeff Barea:
IOW, you got nothing.
Genghis wrote on January 12, 2008 12:38 AM:CalD writes
Secondly, since Cuomo is not actually affiliated with Clinton's campaign, what is she supposed to do, have him arrested? You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you.
At the least, she could say something like, "I think that comment was offensive, and I'm very sorry that someone who supports me would choose such language."
And yes, Obama, should come down on Jackson too. Politically, I don't know if he can get away with firing him without pissing off too many constituents, but he should at the very least disavow the comment.
Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 12:44 AM:For those reading the comment stream I need to highlight some things.
CaID made sure, after he was shown to be wrong that no man was attacked on his appearance, to italicize "feminine" and "emotional."
That's one of the easiest ways to identify a Clinton campaign stooge.
While I completely screwed over his contention that no man (because Clinton is the only woman they need to keep harping on that) was ever attacked on his appearance, he felt the need to come back with identifying Edwards as feminine.
The highlighting of "emotional" connects to the hiccup Hillary gave that supposedly showed "emotion."
What you should take from CaID (an operative for the Clinton campaign) is that he is insulting every black man and black woman who is upset.
Don't forget, the Clinton campaign has brazenly used every racist connotation in quotes, not even rumors, against Obama.
The truth is the Clinton's are from Arkansas. Not Harlem.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 12, 2008 12:49 AM:Well, what the heck, I will not likely make many friends for saying this, but the majority of posts on this thread strike me as kind of childish; so childish, in fact, that it cannot possibly lower the tone of the conversation if I wander totally off-topic, so I would just like to thank Greg Sargent (who does a fine job with this blog, regardless of what anyone else here says) for updating the Pollster.com graphs on our right. I am especially grateful for the NV graph, even if the goofus pollsters have not updated it in weeks now.
I would just like to call attention to a trend I noticed in browsing around on that site - all the democratic graphs which have been updated at all recently have Barack Obama's line rocketing up with slope at nearly 45 degrees to the horizon. Keep that in mind as you try to formulate a theory that involves the Obama campaign feeling "desperate." Right now, as an Obama supporter I feel about as "desperate" as Alexander the Great felt marching across Anatolia.
Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 12:54 AM:Ghengis,
Don't even give quarter to the Clinton damage control team.
There's a long history in presidential campaigns dating back centuries questioning white men's ability to command if they showed emotion. Jesse Jackson's comments relate to the fortitude to remain resolute and strong. Nothing about man or woman.
Shuck and Jive.
Drug Dealing.
Even Donna Brazile - a Clinton supporter - bitchslapped Bill Clinton.
No manner of spin can take shuck and jive out of Andrew Cuomo's racist mouth.
No amount of southern white woman talk will remove the obvious connections to attacking a black man for treating that southern white woman that way. The only thing left is for Hillary to have a noose avatar on yahoo. Shameful.
Simple.
I, for one, stand firmly behind Obama's outrage at being treated so shabbily by the "first black president."
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 12:55 AM:Jeff Barea,
I was about to mention the attempted feminization of John Edwards in my original post but I thought it would be more fun to leave it hanging an let someone walk into that punch. I actually wrote my reply before you even posted on it. I knew it wouldn't take long.
Face it dude, I pwned you.
JC wrote on January 12, 2008 12:56 AM:I also agree that this is dangerous territory for Obama--I am sure he is well aware. The fairy tale comment is different--but just as specious since it takes the answer to Russerts question but not the question "As an opponent of the war..."; it also adopts a R talking point, that voting for a Defense Appropriation Bill is equivalent to voting to give the President unilateral authority to use force against a foreign state--these of course are different as Bill well understands. For him to reassert his claim and muddle race issues with war issues may be a deft political truth, but it also plays with the truth. The objectional comment (and I heard it too) was when he called Obama a kid. No other candidate has done that. I expect that Obama is clever enough not to step in the trap Clinton has laid. I hope he does not, but as supporters we ought to be more than free to register our objection and demand clarification from the Clintons. All they have to do is clarify and make sure it doesn't happen again. Bill gave such a wonderful speech at Coretta's funeral, really a nonpareil and a fitting and moving tribute. But that is not the challenge he faces here. As he said himself in his tribute to the Little Rock 9 they had forced him to chose, and now when African Americans are asking for access not just to the schoolhouse, but the White House, Bill will have to decide once again whether he is going to be a positive force for change or whether he is going to put his political objectives first. That is the real test. The true test. The sign of true commitment to civil rights. He does not need to call Obama a kid, he does not need to call him and empty symbol, he does not need to draw those contrasts, anymore than Michelle Obama as a spouse needs to call into question the gender of her husband's opponent (noticeably she has not). That is the true mark of a commitment to a cause, whether you will not denigrate it even if you may suffer as a result. And it is not just the cause of minorities, it is also the cause of unity. For that is precisely the kind of compromises that unity requires, that compassion requires. That even if it requires higher taxes to provide affordable quality early childhood education to someone else's children that is a sacrifice we should make, even if it means driving a car with more fuel efficiency. That is the measure of the Clinton's commitment, the sincerity of their message.
Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 1:00 AM:"CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 12:55 AM:
Jeff Barea,
I was about to mention the attempted feminization of John Edwards in my original post but I thought it would be more fun to leave it hanging an let someone walk into that punch. I actually wrote my reply before you even posted on it. I knew it wouldn't take long.
Face it dude, I pwned you. "
It takes an 18 year old intern in a campaign office to make the critical mistake which reduces everything they write into a campaign response, diminishing the effectiveness of that response as a normal person responding.
What you pwned is that you told every person reading this that you planned out every possible response in order to maximize damage control for Hillary Clinton.
Time to send in the next screen name gurrrrl.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 1:10 AM:Jeff Barea,
I always know I've won the argument when someone abandons all attempts at reasoned discourse and just starts trying to insult me. You actually did that about four comments back and I have no idea what you think you're accomplishing at this point. But I'll admit it's kind of fun watching you sputter.
Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 1:17 AM:I can count.
"Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 12:28 AM:
CaID:
A refutation for every single Clinton campaign attempt at damage control you or your fellow interns try.
I'm here now. Tell Hillary. votingpresent.net is in the house."
The only potential insult 4 comments back is that I called you an intern.
Were you insulted because you are in fact Communications Director?
Campaign chairman of the Hillory Clinton for President campaign?
Or is that you can't count?
Genghis wrote: And yes, Obama, should come down on Jackson too. Politically, I don't know if he can get away with firing him without pissing off too many constituents...
Clinton fired the husband of the single most connected woman in New Hampshire Democratic politics. I was frankly surprised. But she did it.
But you're right, disavowing Jackson's remarks would be a good start -- unless of course Obama condones that sort of behavior.
Long Time Democrat wrote on January 12, 2008 1:20 AM:By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 11, 2008
ALBANY — Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo’s staff spent much of Thursday explaining Mr. Cuomo’s use of “shuck and jive,” a term with racial overtones, during a radio interview on Wednesday about the presidential race.
“It’s not a TV-crazed race,” Mr. Cuomo, a supporter of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, said on WCBI-AM. “Frankly, you can’t buy your way into it. You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference, you can’t just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you saying, ‘Answer the question.’ ”
On Thursday, Mr. Cuomo’s choice of words was being discussed on political blogs. A review of the interview, however, indicates that Mr. Cuomo was not referring to the black presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, when he made the comment, but was generally discussing how directly candidates should interact with voters. He called Mr. Obama “a powerful speaker” and added, “What he has to say is important for the Democrats to hear.”
Jeffrey Lerner, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, said, “The attorney general’s point was that Iowa and New Hampshire were important primaries because the candidates could not duck the voters’ tough questions.
“He clearly meant no offense, as he was praising both candidates in the interview,” he said. “ ‘Bob and weave’ would have been a better expression and is certainly all the attorney general meant.”
Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 1:25 AM:Here's the new screenname I said was coming.
Long Time Democrat quotes from white reporters for the white owned Albany Times Union.
Damage control. First time these crackers actually told the truth about what they believe and now they want to just hand out 40's and tell u to forget they said it.
Dan wrote on January 12, 2008 1:31 AM:I'm an African-American male, who reads the Times, the Post, and TPM everyday and can state that this whole "race card" issue is completely bogus but serves to galvanize the black community for Obama. People, try to be a little sophisticated in your thinking. Does anyone remember that just a few months ago the "question" in the black community was "Is Barack black enough?" Now, not only is he black enough, but he's under attack like the rest of "us." How convenient for the South Carolina primary.
Someone posted five (5) instances of "racist comments" above. Please. If that's your idea of a pattern of racism, you've only read about it.
A new screen name, go figure.
"Someone posted five (5) instances of "racist comments" above. Please. If that's your idea of a pattern of racism, you've only read about it."
I've not just read about it. I've lived it.
It takes more than calling yourself African-American conveniently. Shuck and jive is about as inflammatory - see Wayan's movie if you're too white bread to understand.
Hillary.
Seriously.
Get off this damage control mission. You ain't gonna win.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 1:41 AM:Jeff Barea,
Don't get me wrong. As ad hominem attacks are a classic and all. But there are entire web sites devoted to fallacies of logic and critical thinking. You should try learning a few new ones, just to make things interesting. They say variety is the spice of life.
Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 1:44 AM:Ok Hillary Clinton campaign Intern.
Notice how you stopped trying to fight against the obvious racism in your campaign to focus on little old me.
I bet everyone else notices too.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 1:48 AM:LOL! You really can't stand it when you lose an argument, can you Jeff.
Stevie wrote on January 12, 2008 1:54 AM:gOSH.... Maybe Clinton wins if she is 'the female candidate' and Obama loses if he is 'the black candidate'? just a hunch, Greg.
Though i bet the Clinton campaign hasn't thought of it this way - they're not that calculating.
You started this off defending Clinton's racism.
And you get reduced to saying:
"CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 1:48 AM:
LOL! You really can't stand it when you lose an argument, can you Jeff."
Is this about me?
Or about the racist comments of Hillary Clinton's campaign (you included)?
Stevie wrote on January 12, 2008 1:59 AM:There'es nothing wrong with the Obama Campaign that can't be fixed by what's right with the Clinton Campain!
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 2:01 AM:Stevie,
So you think maybe it was actually Clinton who put Jesse Jackson Jr up to that making sexist character attack on her? Ooh, she's good.
Genghis wrote on January 12, 2008 2:02 AM:Thanks for the atricle Long Time Democrat. You got me to read the Cuomo transcript more closely, which I should have done when Steve originally included it, and I'm going to retract my accusation against Cuomo. I had originally thought that he implied that Obama was shucking and jiving, but rereading the transcript, I no longer think that's the case. Indeed his point seems to be that none of the candidates are doing that. In which case, I think that it's really just an unfortunate choice of words. (Though I still believe that Clinton should address to the misperception. Maybe she will after the latest fuss.)
Is "fairy tale" a racist slur?
If Obama was gay, you could accuse Bill of queer-baiting, but racist?
Maybe there's something I don't know about.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 2:04 AM:Yes, She is 'good'.
LS wrote on January 12, 2008 2:05 AM:If you are truly someone whom wants peace and to bring unity to the table, than you are your representatives do not behave in ways to divide others. The Clintons are not racists and I find it sad we are having this debate.
Jeff Barea wrote on January 12, 2008 2:05 AM:LOL........
Notice how CaID, Clinton campaign Intern attcked Stevie who wrote:
"Stevie wrote on January 12, 2008 1:59 AM:
There'es nothing wrong with the Obama Campaign that can't be fixed by what's right with the Clinton Campain!"
Yeah, the Clintons are in trouble letting that Intern have internet access.
pwned in a way I never have to explain.
Racist Hillary Clinton will never get the black vote.
I will go to sleep now in peace knowing that.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 2:09 AM:You'll have to try and forgive Jeff Barea. He seem to be having some sort of episode.
Alan wrote on January 12, 2008 2:51 AM:Really astonished by this in TPM. I come here four five times a day because I take this to be a serious site. Suddenly TPM is behaving like the MSM quoting anonymous aides, trumpeting endorsements and making mischief. Lookit: if Obama's people have proof that the Clintons are racist lets have the evidence out in the open: name, claim and proof. Otherwise a lot of this is a deliberate attempt to undermine Clinton and twist her words. Obama is no angel. His snide reference to Hillary's likeability at the last debate was noted. Both campaigns have their quota of idiots who fancy themselves to be astute. Get real, people. The Republicans will stoke this, and we, full of our moral certitudes will fall for this rubbsih and fight among ourselves. Clinton was referred to as the first Black President. And that was by Republicans and not meant as a compliment.
TPM: what the hell is happening to you?
nogo war wrote on January 12, 2008 3:01 AM:Damn I am still up...
The person quoted here is not some lower level, dedicated person. She is a visible person in the Obama campaign.
I am disappointed but not surprised that this is taking place....
....Why don't the Obama and Clinton campaigns focus on the real issues?
.....oh yeah...That would mean they would..and have...moved toward the candidate that really will try to give us a voice..
you know...John Edwards ..
by the way
http://icasualties.org/oif/
and
Down 246.79 (1.92%)
Instead of following the smell....
When will be the next time you stand on a corner in your town...or attend a rally that proclaims by your attendance...
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH..
(didn't fuckin think so)
Obama will be a GREAT candidate in 2016, after he has paid his dues. His task should be obvious: establish his credentials as a loyal Democrat and a seasoned campaigner, without damaging his reputation in the long term by letting idiots like Candice what's-her-name and shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson turn him into a "black" candidate. He's the first viable crossover candidate--a black man who can attract loads of support from non-blacks--in history. But he's not going to do it in 2008. Hillary will be the nominee in 2008. Obama needs to keep things cordial so it won't look to strained when he embraces her at the convention and campaigns his behind for her in the general election.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 3:48 AM:Clinton pushes back:
"Well, I think its regrettable because both of these accusations are baseless and divisive and any fair reading of what both of us said would be clear and I think it's regrettable that these are being in a way used to try to divide people in our country during this election and I'm not going to have any part of it," Clinton told ABC News. "I personally find it offensive."Desider wrote on January 12, 2008 4:16 AM:
Probably too long for anyone to be reading.
Piling everything together?
Shaheen was removed from the campaign, as were the people who did the Moslem mailers. Anyone who supports Hillary becomes the "Clinton Campaign" - Ferraro, Cuomo in this case. Cuomo's comments in full context were less than explicitly about Obama. Ferraro's were about beating up on Hillary, which became the "gender card".
Jackson Jr., one of Obama's campaign heads, said Hillary was faking her tears and should have cried for Katrina (message: should have cried about black people). That was truly dumb.
But Obama is turning any criticism of "hope" as a message into racist criticism. I stated before - MLK brought hope to people, but he wasn't a politician - he could only push politicians to enact his agenda. Very important, but it required an executive. (Thurgood Marshall on the other hand pushed through his/the NAACP's agenda via the courts - very effective).
Anyway, we have a black candidate and a female candidate. Not every mention of race or gender is beyond the pale. Let's get used to discussing things without being paranoid.
Desider wrote on January 12, 2008 4:20 AM:Oh yes, and the "Bradley Effect" meme that's going around - which is calling the electorate racist. Look folks, this is the least racist election I've ever seen. People are focused on issues and precedents (racial and gender) and comfort with personalities and electability and whatever else. There's probably more of a "Hillary Effect" - people don't want to admit they support Hillary to pollsters. But who cares? The candidates are making their pitches, the voters decide in the voting booth/caucus, and we see the results. Even if they lie to pollsters, it's their business. The candidates' job is to work the final vote.
dynasysman wrote on January 12, 2008 6:33 AM:Greg --
It's been clear since Iowa that until voters (white, black, Hispanic) "got" the idea that Obama truly is black, they wouldn't stop leaving Hillary. The problem: Bill's standing in history and Hillary's view of herself. The solution: say subtle things that play on racial stereotyping without crossing the line (I think Andrew Cuomo was simply running his mouth).
If it came from someone with a sincere thought in her/his brain, I might think differently. But, as even Clinton supporters have noted, Billary has a history of skirting the truth, he's facile, and she's inauthentic. Of course it's racially tinged. As a white man who hoped we could get past this crap, I hope it fails, and she loses.
Will wrote on January 12, 2008 7:17 AM:They're Rockefeller republican racists...blacks to them are just a means to an end.
For posters like me, interested but wrestling to read the large number of posts, here's a helpful strategy:
Ignore everything posted by
dcshungu and CalD
It is pure Clinton-fed propoganda. Then ignore anyone who responds to them, because responding is enabling the Clinton attack dogs to disrupt otherwise substantive, respectful debate.
That will reduce the postings you read on this thread and EC by half and geometrically improve the quality of the content you encouter.
Nickal1 wrote on January 12, 2008 7:42 AM:This entire discussion is ridiculous and Obama supporters had better quit fanning the flames because it is going to backfire on them. First, getting totally bent out of shape by an alleged comment from an annonymous "advisor" leaves one to wonder if the Obama campaign is just looking for a wedge issue on the verge of the SC primary where 45-50% of the voters are African American.
Again, look at the Clinton record. Is there any indication that she (or Bill, for that matter) has ever worked against the interests of African Americans? Of course not. Contrast that with Obama's support of a 2% sales tax in Chicago. A tax that most negatively impacts the poor, many of whom are African American in Chicago.
When I say this race baitng will backfire, I mean that many whites are sick and tired of trying to navigate the PC minefield and will identify with those being attacked for what they perceive as unintended sleights.
They have both lived in the south and understand the coded langauage very well.
Black=Incompetence
JC, I know that she meant 'part-time' to insult his level of experience as a legislator, while he meant it to explain that he liked that fact that he still got to keep up his lawyer/activist work while serving in the state senate. It is a campaign. You are allowed to throw some elbows without it being interpreted as racist. He has said the equal level of things about her, such as that she is "being disingenuous" when discussing her Iraq war vote. I agree with that, by the way.
Instead of pretending she called him lazy, he or his supporters could respond by pointing out that the founders never meant legislating to BE a full-time job, so that representatives could keep one foot in their communities and avoid corruption.
We need so much to keep this campaign at a higher level than this. At the end of this discussion I agree that everyone on the Clinton team needs to be more thoughtful in the way they describe Obama, and of course stop any despicable intentional racial attacks if that is indeed what they are doing. In fact, stop describing him altogether, and talk about their candidate and the issues. The Obama campaign in turn needs to stop interpreting everything in the worst possible light. You may win the Democratic nomination, but that is the road to disaster in the general election. John McCain will get every Independent voter who does not want to be having this kind of discussion for the next 9 years.
Jean wrote on January 12, 2008 8:13 AM:Due to the last awful 7 years with a Pres. that by choice divided this country for politics and votes it is as if we cannot remember the heartache that came to us during the Clinton years.
If you think it is bad now, if the Clinton's get back in our house from day 1 they would be hounded 24/7. The hatred would be just as bad as now or even worse.
Gloria Steinum stated a woman in the Whithouse would be a real change. Perhaps so, but it would rapidly go back to politics as usual.
My fear is that Americans will be duped again and we will turn away from a true possibility of change by not electing Obama and Michelle. I have no doubt they would be outstanding.
We are being given an opportunity that probably won't come along again if we refuse it now. It would mean politics as usual won again.
Question: when did "kid" become a racial epithet? Is this a generational thing?
I'm a baby boomer and "kid" is just a word liberally applied to anyone. Now,"boy" when applied to an adult black male? That's a vicious epithet.
Nickall --
The Clinton's "past track record" doesn't give them a free ticket to making racial comments or race-baiting to win a nomination, and that's what they are doing.
Put it this way - - If I was an African American and had a white friend who was in competition with me for a job, and that white friend decided to use racial slurs against me to win it, in the hopes that (after he had achieved his goal – winning the job) his “past track record” with me would allow him to claim that he wasn’t racist, that I was “misinterpreting his actions”, “over blowing” the situation, and probably “just a sore loser”, I would dump that “friend” so fast his f**king head would spin.
You know, life is short. My thinking is, if a person can’t decide whether or not they’re racist, I’ll make the decision for them. I don’t have to listen to their bullsh*t as they work desperately to cover their asses and justify their nastiness. No way. I know people are human and make mistakes. If it’s one small, one-off borderline comment that MAY have been just a poor choice of words, then OK. But a series of comments like what we’ve seen above? Forget it. F**k them!
What’s even more interesting about this is the mentality that whites adopted that nothing short of lynching a black person can be defined as racist, and that somehow as long as you’ve got “one good black deed” to point to – where you’ve done “something nice” for one black person anywhere on this earth at any time in your life – that act serves as your get out of racist jail free card, the next time you engage in racism. It’s, “well, I did this or that for a black person in the past so that PROOVES that I’m not a racist!” Or, “since I have ‘black friends’ that PROOVES I’m not capable of being racist TO YOU”. Alternatively, you might hear, “If you try to say I’m a racist, I’ll just call my black friends to testify for me.”
Like I said, if a person can’t decide whether or not they’re racist (or sexist, or a homophobe – whatever), I use their behavior as a guide (as well as what I feel is the intent behind it – not what they say) and make the decision for them. I won’t allow them to waste my time with their word games.
Someone in one of the above posts referred to a Dick Morris quote, indicating that he (Dick Morris) felt that “even though she’s not racist”, Hillary is not above using race-bating to win. If you’re using race-baiting to win, you ARE a racist, no matter what you’ve done on the past. If I were a person in a minority group and someone I knew did that to me, or I observed them doing that to someone else, I would never trust that person again. Relationship OVER.
Liam wrote on January 12, 2008 9:49 AM:Bill Clinton is not new to playing the race card to appeal to the crypto KKK types. Go back and read about how he did it in his first presidential campaign with his Sistah Soljah comments.
The Clintons pre-date Karl Rove with the politics of destruction, and race baiting. The just call it Triangulation instead. All that means is play every side against each other regardless of the right or wrong of it. The Clintons and Mitt Romney are cut from the same cloth.
ShutupNvot wrote on January 12, 2008 10:09 AM:You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED change, You NEED Obama, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED Obama, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED change, You NEED Obama, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED Obama, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED change, You NEED Obama, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED Obama, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED change, You NEED Obama, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED Obama, ahhh but I support You NEED change, You NEED hope
ahhh but I support Senator Clinton, then you are the old guard who refuse to CHANGE and have no HOPE as you are a RACIST you NEED to BELIEVE US
I really think Hillary will be an excellent president. I in no way believe she is a racist.
Aaron wrote on January 12, 2008 10:32 AM:Had any of you actually bothered to read the very brief and unambiguous statement Hillary made regarding MLK and LBJ, you would see she was only expressing the value of cooperation to make the greater good possible. Advocates for change cannot on their own make change happen - it's ultimately a partnership between those demanding their constitutional rights and those with the power to make laws to guarantee those rights. Hillary clearly shows tremendous admiration and respect for MLK, suggesting in her comments that it's usually the people, not the government, who are the agents of change, and that it's the government's responsibility to fight for right.
Regarding Bill's comments on "fairy-tale", again, a very brief comment, easily read, which clearly focuses on Barack's supposedly being "against" the war, even while his voting record since 2004 indicates otherwise. Fair point, hardly racist. A bit edgy, but not controversial in any rational sense.
Finally, there is the matter of the Clinton "adviser" - didn't Curveball teach us anything about anonymous sources, especially when politics are involved. Me, I would refrain from making any judgment based on that single quote as characteristic of the entire HRC campaign until hard facts are presented. Supposition certainly doesn't make me feel any better. You?
ShutupNvote wrote on January 12, 2008 10:32 AM:But but you say your not obliged to believe you are a racist then repeat again after me…
You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED change, You NEED Obama, Cause Im a racist, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED change, You NEED Obama, Cause Im a racist, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED change, You NEED Obama, Cause Im a racist, You NEED change, You NEED hope, You NEED change, You NEED Obama, Cause Im a racist,
ahhh but I still support Senator Clinton, CHANGE RACIST
Look I don't believe for a moment that the Clinton's are racists, butlooking over the string of seemingly racially tinged and or charged comments slipping out of Hillary's campaign of late does make me wonder what the heck is going on. I mean "shuck and jive" is pretty poor choice of words for a democrat from Al Sharpton country. And something's occurred to me … that no the Clinton's aren't racists, but they are incredibly smart (as in play three dimensional chess smart) and they are cynical enough to know that prodding Obama into crying "racism" would be one way to kill him off as a serious contender. Think about it, that's what did in Harold Ford, and he didn't even cry racism, the media just cried it so loudly on his behalf it seemed like he had (exactly whats happening here based on some of the comments above). I mean, the minute white voters start associating Obama with Sharpton's ilk; it is over for him nationally. Bill knows that as well as anyone and he still called into Sharpton's radio show today to explain his comments about Obama.
You know, now that I think about this, I kind of wish they were just good old fashioned racists – this cynical is probably worse.
Bill wrote on January 12, 2008 10:47 AM:You'd best stop thinking about tomorrow
We'll do our best so it won't soon be here
It'll be a little more divided than before
Yesterday's here, Yesterday's here.
Has anyone here considered that Cuomo used "shuck and jive" because it was simply the best phrase to use in that context? The screen saver on my work computer is "Come Correct!" Is that racist? Isn't it possible that people use phraseology that makes sense, rather than for some loaded purpose?
I guess that's just the rope-a-dope of politics.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 11:10 AM:When is Hillary going to come out of the closet already? Bill's sex addiction is already accepted?
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 11:14 AM:Isn't a bit interesting that in the lst 24 hours Obama has gotten some major endorsements that most would think would go to Hillary including conservative Democrat Senator Ben Nelson from North Dakota. Yet, TPM would rather push this racist crap than reporting the news. Josh, you have lost a lot of respect from some loyal members of your audience. The fact that you keep Greg Sargent on your staff is bad enough.
Sandokan wrote on January 12, 2008 11:15 AM:Ah, the new meme, as floated by Jesse Jackson Jr. and echoed by (mostly white) Obama supporters around the blogs:
If you don't vote for Obama, or question Obama's chances, or imply that Senator Clinton is a superior candidate, why, obviously, you're a racist.
Memorize the updated (but oh, so very ancient) formula:
Accusations of sexism: always false.
Accusations of racism: always true.
spero wrote on January 12, 2008 11:16 AM:Barrea,
I find it interesting - alarming - disheartening - to see posters here linking to, and quoting "Politico" and "Drudge." WTF?
And you, Barrea, not CalD, strike me as the "operative."
As an early supporter, and one who pledged to work locally for the Obama campaign, let me say that the actual Obama supporters/phone bankers (as distinguished from yourself?) are often very nearly as obnoxious and off-putting as you are. In fact, early on, I wondered if those who called, day and night, often to my work phone, and were so overly aggressive and even hostile when told "this isn't a good time," - it occurred to me that they might not really be from the Obama campaign - perhaps they're from some rethug dirty-tricks machine.
I think that may be the case with you, Barrea.
It's certainly the case with those who like to quote the Politico/Drudge types.
Lyndon Johnson, in partnership with MLK (in the beginning), got the legislation passed that gave the South to the rethug party "for a generation" - knowing that would happen. That's called, "Country over Party." That is just "the facts."
How does recounting that fact take anything away from MLK?
Isn't that why we care who is elected?
If the Obama trolls here are really Democrats, they need a good spanking, followed by a short history lesson, some milk and cookies, and a nice nap.
If they're not, IMO more likely, they need to STFU, RETHUG LOSERS, BACK TO FREEPER WORLD.
Then all of us need to consider voting for John Edwards, the anti-corporatist candidate.
Not for Barack, or for Hillary, who both have voting records we should care deeply about.
Liam wrote on January 12, 2008 11:19 AM:Bill Clinton will tell a given audience what he thinks they want to hear, and he will go to another audience and say the opposite, if he thinks that is what they want to hear. He calls it Triangulation, but all that means is he is playing all sides against each other regardless of the right or wrong involved. He is cut from the same cloth as Mitt Romney.
Look at how he played the Sistah Soljah card in 1992 to appeal to the crypto KKK types.
Bill Clinton has no moral core, and Hillary has tolerated his 35 year Bimbo Eruptions marathon, If Hillary did not stand up for her own sense of pride, and dignity, do not expect her to do so for the pride and dignity of the nation.
cece wrote on January 12, 2008 11:44 AM:i'm from Illinois. obama has a pattern
of not showing up to vote on important
issues from the time he was in the
state senate, on guns, choice and
lending.
and now, in the U.S. Senate, same
thing. he has missed far more votes
than other presidential candidates.
how about that Iran vote? did not
show up to be my senator.
also, his policies and voting record
are super leftist but his politics
are democrat hack support. his
most recent Illinois endorsements
are not reform minded.
maybe that is why the Independent
Voters of Illinois have not endorsed
him for the primary.
To tao jones and anyone else unfamiliar with the history of the phrase "shuck and jive":
"Shuck and jive" is a phrase that is at best racial in nature, but I would argue that it is flat out racist.
From the Greenwood Encyclopedia of African American Folklore:
" Shuckin’ and jivin’ are sometimes used interchangeably or simultaneously and include verbal acts, nonverbal acts, or any combination thereof. In some contexts, they refer to lying. Generally, jivin’ occurs when an individual wants to reap some benefit or advantage. Shuckin’ is a defensive maneuver African Americans developed during slavery."
"Historically, African Americans have constructed elaborate ways of surviving slavery and various forms of racism and oppression. Shuckin’ is an effective means African Americans use to evade harm or danger. During the shuckin’ performance, they demonstrate cunning verbal and nonverbal prowess. On the other hand, shuckin’ reinforces white superiority and African American inferiority."
"In fact, by the twenty-first century, shuckin’ or “tomming” behavior is associated with “the old days” and is generally disparaged."
Because the phrase is so racially charged, Cuomo did not need to directly link Obama and the phrase. The racial nature of the phrase implicates Obama. It in many ways is no different that using the phrase Uncle Tom or "tommin'."
colonpowwow wrote on January 12, 2008 12:17 PM:Can I call a spade a spade here?
First of all, I have yet to have anyone explain the supposed Clinton “strategy” of releasing her racist spokespeople at selected times, thus alienating black voters – the most reliable single bloc of Democratic voters and longtime Clinton lovers and supporters. Can someone explain how this possibly makes any sort of sense? Is she trying to garner the huge Democratic racist vote? This is ridiculous on its face.
Second, none of us so-called Clinton-supporting “racists” like me, who grew up in a mixed race housing project in Milwaukee in the late 50s, lived in the inner city for their first 20 years, who actually marched with Martin Luther King once in Milwaukee, and who supported Civil Rights and issues of racial injustice in every way, are fooled for one second as to whose cynical and divisive “strategy” this is, if there is, indeed, one.
It’s well known (and admirable in many ways), that most black people will rally around another black person whenever they feel that white people, or their surrogates, are attacking this person and that there are racial overtones inherent in the attack. Sometimes it is admirable (Rodney King), and sometimes it is not (OJ) – but I don’t think anyone, including the Senator from Illinois through his surrogates, is unaware of the vote-gathering potential offered by this fact, and by the benefit to them if they can somehow tar Clinton and her supporters as being racist or even insensitive.
This cynical, divisive, twisted, Rovian, tactic reached its laughable zenith when the race card was played by Obama supporters regarding a comment made by Donna Brazile. HELLO?!?
BTW, “calling a spade a spade” does not have a racial origin or meaning. It is merely an unfortunate choice of words that I used that can now be seized on (by cynical ignoramuses panning the depths for votes), to paint me as racist. It’s kind of like Cuomo using “shuck and jive.”
Do you have any idea how funny it is to those of us who have worked and played with black people their whole lives and who have many black people in their own family (I’ve got five brothers and five sisters and a huge multi-racial family) – to see people pretending to develop a severe case of the vapors over "shuck and jive." I respect the power of language and certainly respect people’s sensibilities, but LOL over this one.
BTW, here’s where the phrase comes from (per Nicolas Udall, in his compilation Apophthegmes, that is, Prompt Sayings) – and first gathered by Erasmus – translated in 1542 : “Phillippus answered that the Macedonians wer feloes of no fine witte in their termes but altogether grosse, clubbyshe, and rusticall, as they whiched had not the witte to calle a spade by any other name but a spade.” – Plutarch’s Apophthegmata, 178 BC.
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 6:09 PM
"Look! It takes a racist to see racism everywhere."
Wrong.
It take a victim of racism to spot racism. Racists rationalize their behavior and see themselves as deciding on the "merits." They have no interest in seeing racism as it might make their own perspective look a bit nasty.
The Clinton campaign is digging in the trash.
mgm wrote on January 12, 2008 12:54 PM:It's fairly obvious that the race issue has now drowned out all other issues, many of which are also urgent ones. Who does this benefit? Is race going to be THE topic of the 2008 campaign? If so, I suggest we find out now, because the majority of American voters may have a difference of opinion. They say they want a change of direction, not the same old bickering. Before I'd blame the Clinton campaign for this internal divisiveness, I'd look a lot more closely at Karl Rove. Again, who has the most to gain? Clue: The answer is not the Democratics.
AliceInWonderland wrote on January 12, 2008 12:59 PM:I cannot believe that all this derogatory diatribe is now fueled by some pundits' accusation of racism in the NH election process! Do you not remember that Bill Clinton was considered the 'first Black President' negatively by those who used it as a spin to give real racist another reason for hating him. Please, do not be blinded! Neither Bill nor Hillary, in their deepest reservoirs as politicians, would attack anyone because they are Black or Mexican American.
TheraP wrote on January 12, 2008 1:08 PM:I'm beginning to wonder if there ought to be a limit to how many times any one person can post on a thread. I'm not going to count them, but clearly some people are doing the lion's share of posting on this one.
For the record this campaign is getting very divisive very fast. I doubt tpm will drive folks away... but these partisan posters will sure not help the Dems win the White House or do the Constitution any favors.
I urge civility. And likely this comment, which seems civil to me, will provoke a backlash from this thread's "frequent posters."
anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 1:19 PM:Funny that Obama supporters are oblivious to the pattern of misogynistic comments and actions coming from Obama and his supporters.
Then again, not so funny after all and not so unexpected from this fraudulently "clean" Obama campaign.
Justin wrote on January 12, 2008 1:21 PM:Pattern.
Drug dealer
Imaginary Hip Black Friend
False Hopes (aka Dreamy Negro)
MLK
Hussein
Cocaine
Kid (our new "boy?)
any more out there?
Justin wrote on January 12, 2008 1:23 PM:Oh yeah.
Shuck and Jive.
"Funny that Obama supporters are oblivious to the pattern of misogynistic comments and actions coming from Obama and his supporters."
What misogyny is coming from the Obama camp?
Let's make lists.
I doubt you will see civility, TheraP, as long as Obama supporters continue with their "tendentious interpretations" of Clinton campaign statements and the justified push-back from the Clinton campaign and the equally tendentious interpretations proferred by Clinton's supporters and defenders to combat the hypocrisy flooding from the keyboards of Obama acolytes.
moondancer wrote on January 12, 2008 1:31 PM: I don't think the Clintons are racist, unless being racist would garner a vote. They are the consumate political whores and would pivot and run against their own core beliefs in a New York minute.
So which is worse, being a subtle racist? Or using racism as a political tool when you aren't? I see them embracing a Rovian smear of Obama, which is probably good politics, but disgusts me and prohibits me from EVER voting for her.
The following excerpted TNR piece might be a bit too erudite for most in this forum but please take a look anyway. Hillary's LBJ/MLK/JFK comment could not possibly be interpreted by anyone with any gray matter between the ears as a racist remark. Hillary is no racist, and nor is Bill. The remark refers to the fact that great ideas/proposals/policies (e.g., civil rights act of 1964) need their champions within the government in order to ensure their passage into law - a truism that only a racist would think is a racist remark, and I mean that. I provide just the end of the piece but it is worth reading in its entirety -- if it is the only thing that you read today, make that piece be it.
The New Republic
by Sean Wilentz
To understand Hillary Clinton's "race problem," we must better understand the history of civil rights.
Post Date Saturday, January 12, 2008
[...]
Martin Luther King led the movement; Lyndon B. Johnson supported that movement, played the politics, guided the legislation, and signed it into law. Both were indispensable to the civil rights successes of the 1960s. To acknowledge both denigrates neither man. Describing such an acknowledgment as a denigration of Dr. King is, at best, bad history. At worst, it is a manipulative and inflammatory racial appeal concerning a crucial era in American history--an era that needs very, very careful consideration indeed. Either way, the current heated rhetoric demonstrates that the utopia of post-racial politics has hardly arrived.
The following excerpted TNR piece might be a bit too erudite for most in this forum but please take a look anyway. Hillary's LBJ/MLK/JFK comment could not possibly be interpreted by anyone with any gray matter between the ears as a racist remark. Hillary is no racist, and nor is Bill. The remark refers to the fact that great ideas/proposals/policies (e.g., civil rights act of 1964) need their champions within the government in order to ensure their passage into law - a truism that only a racist would think is a racist remark, and I mean that. I provide just the end of the piece but it is worth reading in its entirety -- if it is the only thing that you read today, make that piece be it.
The New Republic
by Sean Wilentz
To understand Hillary Clinton's "race problem," we must better understand the history of civil rights.
Post Date Saturday, January 12, 2008
[...] Martin Luther King led the movement; Lyndon B. Johnson supported that movement, played the politics, guided the legislation, and signed it into law. Both were indispensable to the civil rights successes of the 1960s. To acknowledge both denigrates neither man. Describing such an acknowledgment as a denigration of Dr. King is, at best, bad history. At worst, it is a manipulative and inflammatory racial appeal concerning a crucial era in American history--an era that needs very, very careful consideration indeed. Either way, the current heated rhetoric demonstrates that the utopia of post-racial politics has hardly arrived.Dirk wrote on January 12, 2008 2:35 PM:
Gotta say, I'm with moondancer (and who ever it was who mention Harold Ford above) on this one. In a climate that didn't include that Don Imus mess, I'd be willing to give the Clinton's the benefit of the doubt but what kind of New Yorker (or person under 50 for that matter) just up and says "shuck and jive" ... seriously?
Either there's a method to all these misinterpreted statements, or the Clinton's are a lot dumber than we've all been led to believe.
Goldspinner wrote on January 12, 2008 2:36 PM:"tendentious interpretations"?
So, how did Hillary Clinton respond to Andrew Young's well-publicized assertions including "Bill is every bit as black as Barack."? (A sly play on the "Is Obama black enough" meme). Race has always been an issue in American politics and will continue to be a key factor in the 2008 elections. What happened in Florida in 2000 led to this week's SCOTUS oral arguments concerning Indiana's voter ID requirements. From lynchings and poll taxes to voter caging lists and DOJ Voting Rights attorney purges, guess which members of the electorate are routinely targeted for disenfranchisement? If the initial front-runner of the Democratic Party doesn't recognize how critical the African-American vote is to her campaign, shame on her. Damn right we're calling Hillary out.
Oh, I'm still voting for Edwards.
myiq2xu wrote on January 12, 2008 2:42 PM:In reply to Captain Obvious:
Dick Morris claimed that the Clinton's would attack Obama just like Bill Clinton attacked Sister Souljah regarding the national anthem in an attempt to play the race card against Jesse Jackson in the NY primary.
But Morris was factually incorrect. Jesse Jackson was not running in the 1992 primaries, and Clinton's criticism of Sister Souljah was for her comments about killing white people.
michael wrote on January 12, 2008 2:48 PM:this isn't about categorical racism or equality, it's about divisiveness. (and to peruse the comments above, it is working.)
first, there is a clear difference between (a) a candidate highlighting their own struggles to appeal to voters and inject the notion of transcendence, and (b) injecting divisive comments, no matter the interpretation as racist or not. those people suggesting obama is raising the issue might benefit from stepping back and taking a bit more sanguine view.
second, the media is helping obscure this issue by sensationlizing the racism aspect.
lastly, and most importantly, the only issue i see is this: either you believe that divisiveness is a perfectly fair, if not necessary, tactic, or you want to move beyond that.
i was very recently undecided and open to letting any of the candidates convince me. hillary's campaign has thusfar shown me not so much to support someone else as not to support her. i, for one, do not want to turn the clock back to the 1990's, to the shutdown of governement, to witch hunts, to yet more rancor. it is the very last thing i want when there are so many issues already confronting the country.
How about a reverse Bradley effect. Blacks are very quick to believe these comments regarding the Clintons, who have always supported Blacks. The idea that Bill Clinton had to explain the entire comment, which has been redacted over and over again, is proof that Blacks are not listening to him. They have ears only for Obama. What will we label it when Blacks overwhelmingly vote Barack, regardless of whether he proves worthy. The idea that Obama cannot be criticised is sophmoric and doesnt go beyond the race factor. Noone bats an eye at criticizing Hillary! From clothes to tears, her every move is analyzed and reanalyized to distraction. I think a lot of Blacks are looking for any reason to dump the Clintons and take up the Obama flag whether he is qualified or not.
Desider wrote on January 12, 2008 3:22 PM:Michael, the Democrats have held a majority for the last year and have been shut down time and again. Go join the Republicans if you think you're looking for that kind of "bipartisanship" - how many times did they filibuster this year? How many times did Dems roll over and die? Now whose fault is that? The witch hunts still exist - don't you recall the Congressional vote to condemn MediaMatters? Over what, an independent organization speaking its mind over our war in Iraq? The clock has been turned back to the 1950's. If we get it turned forward to the 1990's we wouldn't be doing half bad. The whole call for "bipartisan" started the day the Republicans lost in November 2006, and suddenly it became ultra-important that Democrats "play fair", something Republicans hadn't done in at least 6 years. Echoed by the "Wise Men of Washington", it's gotten far more press than it deserves. If someone's getting raped, you don't ask them to be magnanimous and just get along.
I warned you of rovian tactics to disrupt and divide Democrats here. Take a look at these people - jeff barea- runs or ran conservative student newspaper (also ran a glbt org.-hows that for confused) He thinks he is a black man.He is not. Conservative= illogical hatred of all things Clinton.
Why let this strange creature cause uproar?
Know there are others.They will divide us going after our STRENGTHS and the coalition of the white middle and blue collar class voting with the minority black voters has been a democratic strong suit for decades. Attack the coalition from the inside, divide and conquer.ROVE
This is about hate baiting they traced the memo back to Senator Obamas campaign, ya know those people beginning to see a, which they acknowledge they created but did not give to the media that part I guess was MAGIC, we knew that though did we in our souls, not sure what that says. Sure it’s a powerful tool to inflame and engage against some group, Republicans use it all the time, but it also cuts very very deep, this is something I believe to have been cruel. My close friend a now former Senator Obama supporter just could not believe it he was in shock.
Ok so what could be next or worse when approaching politics rough and tumble Chicago style.
Jimmy Nakasone said, "I thought we were beyond this, and I really thought only the GOP would stoop this low."
This behavior is not exclusive to Republicans. It's what big money does to win. See also corporations and incumbents. As others have noted, this is what people in power do to retain power.
The problem with winning at all costs is that the victory might cost more than one has. This is the mistake that King George made in the French/Indian War: He bankrupted the Crown to win, after his advisers assured him that he could simply tax the colonies to relieve the staggering debt.
But, I digress. Hillary is unelectable--not because she's a woman, because her last name is Clinton. Who in his or her right mind is going to believe that Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton has anything at all to do with change?
The establishment doesn't want Hillary because they know how to beat her. They want her because she's connected.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 4:28 PM:Yeah right, Brad. That's why Karl Rove endorsed her. He doesn't know how to beat her. LOL.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 4:30 PM:JOKE OF THE DAY:
What's the difference between Karl Rove and Mark Penn?
About 2 1/2 pounds.
mike/ wrote on January 12, 2008 4:38 PM:i may be missing something here, but isn't bringing up the "race-card" issue the same thing as using the race-card issue?
andrew lenaghan wrote on January 12, 2008 4:41 PM:whatever their stategy, the clintons are being disgusting and once again for the god knows how many time endangering the hopes of all progressives with their out of control antics....fuck them on their way to purgatory!....DETROIT BASKETBALL!!!
random wrote on January 12, 2008 5:03 PM:Funny about Rove and Penn. Which leads to the question, what's the difference between Bush and Hillary? Hillary's registered as a Democrat.
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 12, 2008 6:16 PM:One pattern is clear whenever things are going so
well for the Obama camp someone associated
with the Obama camps suggests the Clintons
are being at best racially insensitive if not
racist. The hope seems to be that the White
PC crowd to trumpet the clima.
However when the charges are looked at more closely
what they appear to be phoney, or even worse.
One other trend that is noticeable in New York.
Women are growing more and more incensed at
the sexism that these racism charges imply.
This is especially true given the silence over
the obvious sexism of the Media.
One pattern is clear:
The Clintons will do anything, say anything, and lie about anything to retain power. Does anyone really dispute that?
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
This is all race baiting by the Clintons. And now, today, that is proven as they are now trying to blame it on Obama. They must be down by a ton in SC. And the cry won't work this time.
I used to love them,
but it's time to leave them.
Obama '08!
First Rove and now Gingrich. Does that speak volumes or what?
Gingrich Heaps Praise on Clinton
Newt Gingrich’s "on-again, off-again adulation" of Sen. Hillary Clinton "appears to be back on," according to The Politico.
After Clinton finished third in Iowa, Gingrich says “it would have been very easy for her to have broken, accepted defeat. Instead, starting on Saturday night, she fought back with greater and greater intensity, and she opened herself up. She talked as a person, without all the protection, without all the discipline, and she became more and more appealing.”
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 9:15 PM:HUGE:
Nelson, McCaskill backing Obama
By ANNA JO BRATTON and SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writers
8 minutes ago
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has won the endorsement of two fellow Democratic senators from the heartland — Ben Nelson, a popular moderate in largely Republican Nebraska and Claire McCaskill from Missouri, historically a bellwether in presidential contests.
Nelson said Saturday he believes Obama has ability to bridge the partisan divide and to carry Democratic candidates across the country to victory in 2008. Nelson, pledging his support for his Illinois colleague, said Obama has "the greatest potential to ending the bitterness and poisonous atmosphere in Washington."
McCaskill plans to announce her support for the Illinois senator Sunday, according to an Obama aide and a McCaskill staffer who spoke Saturday on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement.
Her endorsement is expected to be a major boost for Obama in Missouri, one of nearly two dozen states holding primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5, and could help Obama woo female voters in his race against New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination.
The backing from Nelson and McCaskill caps a slew of big-name endorsements for Obama over the past week, including former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano.
McCaskill has praised Obama often and was widely believed to favor the Illinois senator over Clinton. But the Senate freshman had resisted openly supporting a candidate until now, saying she wanted to preserve working relationships with Senate colleagues.
She said last week that she identifies with the desire for change that Obama supporters have reported to pollsters.
Nelson said Obama's victory speech after winning Iowa's Jan. 3 caucuses was an effort to reach out to Democrats, independents and "enlightened Republicans," and that Obama's campaign epitomizes what Nelson has tried to do in Washington.
Obama is the "prototype of what we need today," said Nelson, who served two terms as governor.
Nebraska Democrats will choose a presidential candidate Feb. 9.
Nelson often votes with his GOP colleagues, and in 2005 won praise from President Bush, who called Nelson "a man with whom I can work."
Republicans hold all statewide offices in Nebraska except Nelson's seat, and enjoy a heavy majority among voters.
Race baiting and now voter suppression?
Bush?
No. Clinton.
Allen wrote on January 12, 2008 10:19 PM:Reading over the comments, I can't help but wonder how the Clinton supports who've chimed in think their behavior has been good for the democratic party. It's bad enough that nominating Clinton will mean a weak second half of our ticket (seriously does anyone here think Evan Bayh could get elected on his own steam), but to resorting to tactics that presume a Hillary victory in the fall is just too much. What if she looses to McCain! I can tell you Clinton supporters have developed an active dislike of Obama but can you name a stronger candidate to run in 2012 if it's necessary?
The patronizing experience attacks could even be rolled out against the runner up on that score (Mark Warner).
And going after Obama in ways that will find their ways into republican attack ads just strikes me a selfish and short-sighted to say the least. If they can't be bothered to act with a bit of party loyalty in mind, how can they expect Obama supporters to turn out for Hillary in the fall?
Evil wrote on January 12, 2008 10:33 PM:The "pattern" of comments is just like the B3 bomber. What is the B3 Bomber? i don't know, what do you mean B3 bomber? Does the military have a B3 bomber?
See, the b3 bomber is an issue, and it doesn't even exist.
Obama is using the race card to woo black voters in South Carolina. I'm predicting some personal renditions of 1863 Jubilee and we shall overcome.
He'll go back to speaking like Tom Brokaw when he hits the other states.
I simply do not understand everyone's obsession with this guy, save for hatred of Clinton. Obama stands for nothing. He hasn't taken a real stand on anything, he has no record. He's an empty shirt. Sure, he's a great speaker and he can motivate people who are starved for a messiah. Other than that, I can't stand the guy. I feel like I'm being sold a time share.
J.Irons wrote on January 12, 2008 11:45 PM:Josh, to some presently unknowable extent, Barack Obama is going to have to be the Jackie Robinson of American Politics. Jackie Robinson took the high road. When it comes to the issue of racism, the high road is the only viable perhaps winning road, as was proven by Dr. Martin Luther King.
Whatever racial abuse Mr. Obama is going to have to face - and I think it will be copious, clever and vicious - we progressives should be in the business of giving him the strength to deal with it. That the Clintons are racists doesn’t wash with me. And I hope Jessie Jackson isn’t as politically tone-deaf and condescending as he appeared per Hillary’s emotional moment.
Two suggestions:
1. Bill Clinton needs to come on stage when Chelsea comes on stage, and not too much more.
2. Jessie Jackson Jr. must be kept off tv, or completely scripted when he appears.
It looks more like Obama is trying to drum up support by claiming something that is not happening. Obama is playing the race card not anyone else.
JC wrote on January 13, 2008 2:18 AM:@dawn. you miss my point. he could not but have been a "part time" senator because it is a part time position. i am not suggesting that comment was racist, i don't think it was; my point is that she has twisted a reality of state politics and state budgets into some kind of talking point. if we are worried about mccain we do not tear down candidates on the basis of what our state party chairs may worry the other party candidates may be said to have done. it does not need to be said, but they said it, apologized, then repeated it. there are elbows and then there are flagrant fouls. the candidates have to establish a reputation for honesty if they want to appeal to the electorate--the clintons have not done that. the recent direction her campaign has taken only underscores that point. their clumsiness also has the effect of offending many people--regular people like me who are not affiliated with his campaign. i saw bill on the news, i heard what he said, no one told me to draw the conclusion i did, it was as plain as day. you do not call the only sitting black U.S. Senator a "kid" unless you are tone deaf or you mean to. Clinton ain't tone deaf.
warm and fuzzy wrote on January 13, 2008 4:16 AM:Its a double standard:
Your white and you say you support white people, your racist.
Your black and you say you support black people, your proud.
Those comments are blown way out of proportion. Maybe we should just elect a black president and get it out of the way, that way black folks can stop blaming the white man for everything. lol
Desider wrote on January 13, 2008 4:31 AM:J.Irons,
Thanks for bringing up Jackie Robinson. Robinson was chosen by Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, to be the first player of color (he had a list to choose from). Rickey notified Robinson that he had to be "strong enough not to fight back". Robinson agreed to for a year. Robinson's success came about through both his excellent playing, his restraint, and the efforts of others, especially manager Leo Durocher, NL President Ford Frick and several of his fellow players. This process was several years in the making as Branch Rickey worked up the players through the minors/farm clubs, dealing with the intial racism there first.
Desider wrote on January 13, 2008 4:34 AM:JC, it's simpler.
If people point out Hillary has 3 years more in the US Senate, Obama's team says he had 8 years in the Illinois legislature, so that's 11 years. But if you count the legislature as 1/2 years, then it's basically 4 years in Illinois + 3 in Washington, and the 4 years aren't nearly as important as the latter 3.
It's the experience game, very simple.
Grant wrote on January 13, 2008 5:31 AM:The only "pattern" is that Obama will revert to anything - anything - including accusing his fellow Democrats of racism, to amke sure that no one is discussing him being Rezko's busboy.
jarm wrote on January 13, 2008 12:23 PM:Someone should ask Paul Begala about this as he is spreading the story for Clinton to try to get an overreaction from the Obama camp and really start to inject race into the discussion. Classic Clinton denial and indirection (see Meet the Press today).
shirley wrote on January 13, 2008 2:36 PM:Check this out and it shows why Obama refuses to recite The Pledge Of Allegiance or to hold his hand over his heart also..It also exolains why he removed the flag pin from his lapel..Go to site of his church: Trinity United Church Of Christ..Click onto ABOUT US...It states, "We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization"...Read more on its site: 4. "A congregation with a NON-NEGOTIABLE committment to Africa."....And more.." A black worship service and ministry that addresses the black community"..No whites allowed?? Non-negotiable commitment to Africa??
Nickal wrote on January 13, 2008 3:11 PM:
It's happening already. Many Obama supporters I know are becoming Clinton supporters because they see Obama as whipping up a racial story where one does not exist. Give it up already. This race baiting and misconstruing of words has tremendous blowback potential and Obama. He will lose support and money if he keeps this up.
Wow, just wow on all the ugliness from the Clinton folks in this thread.
Kudos on so starkly illustrating the difference between Obama's politics of hope and turning the page verus the Clinton's message of the politics of personal destruction and 90s partisan redux.
Nickal wrote on January 13, 2008 6:24 PM:Hope? The only hope going on here is the hope that Obama has that by continuing to stir the false claims that Clinton is racist, he will escape scrutiny of his own pathetic record.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 10:42 PM:he will escape scrutiny of his own pathetic record.
By all means, please compare and contrast it to Hillary's record. It's a little harder than a lazy drive-by slam but it may sway some folks into the Hillary column.
I see the Clinton's racial strategy to make Obama appear like a "challenger" instead of the "negotiator" he is. By doing so, the Clintons hope to peel off his white support. Some supporters refer to the Hillary quote on Martin Luther King, saying that it's Obama that is playing the race card. This is patently false. Let's be very clear about the timeline of events:
• The Clinton campaign says Obama is just words, not action.
• The Obama campaign responds that words inspire, i.e. Martin Luther King.
• Clinton herself responds, “Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”
She's not giving Americans a random history lesson. She is very clearly saying that you need a Johnson/Clinton/doer/person of action, not a King/Obama/talker in the White House. Now, if you can't see why people would thinking she is demeaning King's role for her own petty political gain, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
But let's be very clear in the facts of the case: it was CLINTON, not Obama who made this analogy. And then she accused Obama of misconstruing her quote despite the fact that Obama NEVER spoke about her quote, NOT ONCE. He didn't say a word! He only responded today, after she accused him of playing the "race card". So, frankly speaking, the Clintons are accusing Obama of something he didn't do, because that is the narrative they think will help them win the election. Obama has nothing to gain from playing racial politics. He has nothing to gain from being seen as a "Jesse Jackson." The Clinton campaign knows this.
Now, it seems pretty clear that they are in the wrong. Yet, some supporters accuse Obama of race-baiting. That is exactly the outcome that the Clintons want and that's why they are using this tactic. It works!
Teddy wrote on January 13, 2008 11:58 PM:I see the Clinton's racial strategy to make Obama appear like a "challenger" instead of the "negotiator" he is. By doing so, the Clintons hope to peel off his white support. Some supporters refer to the Hillary quote on Martin Luther King, saying that it's Obama that is playing the race card. This is patently false. Let's be very clear about the timeline of events:
• The Clinton campaign says Obama is just words, not action.
• The Obama campaign responds that words inspire, i.e. Martin Luther King.
• Clinton herself responds, “Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”
She's not giving Americans a random history lesson. She is very clearly saying that you need a Johnson/Clinton/doer/person of action, not a King/Obama/talker in the White House. Now, if you can't see why people would thinking she is demeaning King's role for her own petty political gain, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
But let's be very clear in the facts of the case: it was CLINTON, not Obama who made this analogy. And then she accused Obama of misconstruing her quote despite the fact that Obama NEVER spoke about her quote, NOT ONCE. He didn't say a word! He only responded today, after she accused him of playing the "race card". So, frankly speaking, the Clintons are accusing Obama of something he didn't do, because that is the narrative they think will help them win the election. Obama has nothing to gain from playing racial politics. He has nothing to gain from being seen as a "Jesse Jackson." The Clinton campaign knows this.
Now, it seems pretty clear that they are in the wrong. Yet, some supporters accuse Obama of race-baiting. That is exactly the outcome that the Clintons want and that's why they are using this tactic. It works!
Liam wrote on January 14, 2008 8:21 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!
KC wrote on January 14, 2008 10:18 AM:One of the things I determined I would watch from these two was how they handled the "diversity" issues. Let's face it, there are people in this country who will not accept that a woman or a black man should, can or are capable of running this country. These issues were bound to pop up at some point from some sector the way I looked at it.
So I decided when they came up to look more at how the candidates handled them. In a country all ready divided, how were they going to handle a potentially divisive topic. A great test of skill in what they're claiming to offer - a change in the way things happen.
Hillary so far has successfully put down all "she's a woman" or "she's playing the woman card" attacks. I'm sure there will be more and much worse to come, but so far she's shunted them aside and moved on with the issues.
Now this race issue has begun boiling for about a month now. The timing of it breaking out is disturbing, the comments directly misleading people about what Bill Clinton was commenting about (her husbands Senate voting record) made by Michelle Obama are upsetting, and lastly this staffer memo that's appeared specifically targetting the Clinton's comments to use in the public venue as racist remarks.
Obama was at the top of my voting list. I figure he has about until the end of this week to show us the Presidential side of him and deal with this issue in a manner that won't further divide and already divided country or lose my vote.
I've been called traitor for the past 8 years for disagreeing with the Bush administration. I really have no desire to be called a racist if I found reason to disagree the Obama administration. Right now, it looks like that is what the man is willing to allow to happen.
We need a person who is willing to stand up and represent all of us. All of us. I don't care what color or gender or religion the President is, as long as that person can put it aside and work for the betterment of OUR country. Prove to me that you can Obama and hang on to my vote. The only person who can lose it for you is you.
Cokie Roberts of NPR has risen to the race bait in a way the Clinton's must be gleeful about. Roberts (a southern white woman) poised the question, "If Obama wins in South Carolina, can we ask if he is he the candidate of Black America." Nice try Cokie! Has she conveniently forgotten Iowa, NH and Nevada?
It is clear to see that Roberts suffers from short term memory loss of a profound degree, or is she the the closet racist many have believed her to be for many years.
I find it amazing that Obama supporters believe that Clintons have initiated the race card. The credentials of the Clintons in supporting African Americans is well known, and they have worked hard for them throughout their entire career. Without dishonoring MLK or any other person, she sought to make a point initially that the President has tremendous power and through Johnson's transformation he was able to use that power to push the Civil Rights Act through the political system in Washington. Obviously, this was not done in a vacuum; nor do I think that the Clintons would deny the critical role activists played, without which nothing would have happened.
For Obama to take this statement that essentially praised Johnson and his success in using the power of the presidency for something good and turn it into a race statement appears to me to be a deliberate act of smearing the long Clinton record of support for African Americans. It is Obama who turned it into a race issue, not Clinton.
Geoff Cohoun wrote on January 28, 2008 9:30 AM:The fact remains that President Clinton is dammed if he does; and dammed if he dose'nt. So many people are so quick to judge President Clinton on anything he says. All I know is that under his watch he balanced the budgit and left a surplus when he left office. Under his watch my 401k plan did the best ever. Schools improved so much. This president was and is welcomed with open arms anywhere on earth. Every world leader respects him, even Mr Putin. The dollar is down, foreign investments are moving away from America and we are in a recession. If America chooses Hillary, the Clinton team will be productive from day one. There will NOT be a 2 to 4 year learning curve. Foreign investment will start pouring back in to our country
our dollar will start getting stronger and America will be out of a recession.
President Clinton has earned the right to speak his mind. Will any American Husband let anybody belittle his wife????
Come on people, what you are seeing is one of the most brilliant Presidents of this centuary, taking up for his wife in a mild manner, controlling himself in everything he says. Did anybody else raise a Billion for the Tusnami??? A poor kid from Arkansas worked his way up, became a Rhodes scholar, governed a state many times and did what he said he will do, when he came to the White House.
America did prosper under his watch!!!!
Hillary forgave him when he stumbled. So who the hell are we to hold anything against him. All I can say is the Whole world thanks God for Bill Clinton. By the way, I'm not a Democrat. I take a person for what they have done for others.
