« Hillary Camp Pressuring Super-Delegates To Not Endorse For Now | Home | General Election Alert: McCain Mocks Obama Over Iraq »
Lanny Davis: It's Hard To Criticize Obama "Without Being Accused Of Playing Race Card"
Hillary supporter Lanny Davis added a new dimension to the Hillary camp's bash-the-press-for-being-soft-on-Obama strategy, asserting on Morning Joe that "it's very hard to criticize Senator Obama without being accused of playing the race card"...
This seems a bit over the top. It would have been fair if Davis had said that there have been times where people were too quick to tar Clinton criticisms of Obama as playing the race card, rather than suggesting that this applies across the board.
Advertisement
Dear Lanny:
STFU. BTW, you're exactly the type of Democrat that we don't need any longer, you conciliatory jerk. Just. Go. Away. Please.
I notice that CNN takes the LA Times/Bloomberg poll results and concludes "McCain will be hard to beat in a general election". The manlove for McCain continues.
February 27, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. As a CT voter, I'm sure you remember Lanny stumping for Lieberman and making frequent use of the anti-Semitic card whenever people would have the gall to criticize Joe's support of the war in Iraq. That's what makes this new episode of whining from Lanny all the more pitiful.
February 27, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're exactly the type of Democrat that we don't need any longer
Well sonofagun. I've been told the same thing by several other drooling Obama fanboys. How many voters do you plan to get rid of before the general election?
February 27, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, if you're the kind of Democrat that likes to defend rape-gurney Joe, "we criticize the President at our peril" Joe, "I endorsed a Republican because none of the Democrats would even talk to me" Joe, then good riddance to you, dude.
February 27, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I was watching and the asshole also attacked the media for not bringing up Bill's previously debunked arguments about Obama on Iraq to use against Obama. And of course Joe didn't feel it was necessary to point out that he was presenting a half-quote, totally out of context.
This guy is a jackass, a shameless Clinton tool. I'm pretty sick of seeing them on every show I watch.
February 27, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to criticize Lanny Davis without being accused of playing the jackass card.
February 27, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
February 27, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious!!
February 27, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's time to root out prejudice against jack asses.
February 27, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto CT Voter and wwjb. This guy is always, always over the top. He is a total putz, I don't think that descriptive word was used yet. I am looking forward to 3/5 and no more of his nonsense.
February 27, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that this is largely correct. To the extent that Mr Davis is wrong, your added nuance serves to remedy the inaccuracy of his exageration. That said, I think that Mr Davis is more right than wrong here. It is difficult to lay a glove on Obama without coming off looking like a racist, which strikes me as yet another advantage for us if we make him our nominee. Dirty tricks that could work against folks like Gore or Kerry will be robbed of some of their power when used against Obama, and that is all to the good for everyone.
February 27, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
to Greg: Exactly! And the negative reaction to this guy's comment proves his point!
to Frog Let: Exactly! Obama never has and never will play the race card. That's the beauty of it.
It's an unfair advantage and we'll take it! After all, they've consciously taken exploited the unfair advantages of homophobia, xenophobia, Christian superstition, etc.
Obama is a great candidate AND he has this inherent unfair advantage.
February 27, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama never has and never will play the race card. That's the beauty of it.
LOL!
February 27, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right On! Obama gets 90% of the black vote and you can't say anything about race!? Please! If Clinton was getting 90% of the women vote do you think we would be tip toeing around saying she is a woman??? Hell No!
It will be just as difficult for the fascist party to find a way around this .... but they will get there I am sure as they have a long history of finding a way to get white racists bigots to vote against niggers, fags, and bitches. Stay tuned!
February 27, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
BS. No one accuses the Clinton camp of racism when they stick to policy.
February 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes oh Yes. I just came from the New Republic's site reading Sean Wilentz's hit job article saying the Obama campaign has somehow managed to play the Race Card. I guess this is the Clinton campaign's last ditch strategy to save her abysmally run campaign. It's always everyone else's fault. She never accepts responsibility.
February 27, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somewhere, Howard Kurtz is nodding in approval.
February 27, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to know of a single criticism of Obama that was responded to by playing the race card.
February 27, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He is a black candidate just like Jesse Jackson"
Oh, wait, that was the race card.. :P
February 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me wwjb...how many people do you know who have a kneejerk/negative response anytime Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton is mentioned? Slick Willie Clinton's subtext in SC was that this guy(Obama)is just like Jesse Jackson politically. When just the opposite is true... Jesse and Al dismissed Obama like everybody else until he kept winning, then as they have done with every white Democratic candidate...they jumped on board. None of these players want to be totally left out in the cold if Obama wins...so they all suck it up and come with their tails tucked. What they find when they get to him is that he doesn't need them, but they need him if they want to be relevant in the current political atmosphere.
They are all pissed at Obama because if he wins t he will not be beholding to anyone but the people/voters who have supported him. Few endorsements have garnered him more than an opportunity for folks to stand still long enough to listen to him and then HE wins them over. The way politics works is you sell your soul early to big donors that as president you are paying back favors your entire tenure in office. The only people who get to pull Barack Obama's coattails are those who voted for him (we presume that those that gave him their money will also vote for him)...and that is as it should be!
February 27, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a convenient memory.
Remember the response when Hillary said MLK needed LBJ to actually change the law re: civil rights and voting in '64 and '65.
Are you saying HIS SUPPORTERS (such as Donna Brazile) don't count? Obama certainly didn't distance himself from those remarks. Come ooooooonnnnn.
Support Hillary, www.hillaryclinton.com. Just 10 dollars from each of us would be great.
February 27, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's very hard to listen to the Clinton campaign without accusing them of playing the victim card (oh, woe is me, we get accused of being racist)
February 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton has being leveling strong criticisms at Senator Obama for the past two weeks, and even during last night's debate, and no one has accused her of playing the race card.
It looks to me like Lanny Davis is actually now trying to play a subliminal race card by framing it the way he did: The message that he is actually sending is: Look at how a black person gets a free ride just because he is black. That is the message that Davis is sending out. That is Lanny Davis actually playing the race card.
Ask the low down dirty creep why Hillary has been able to make all those strong criticisms of Senator Obama, and has not been accused of playing the race card.
February 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam....you hit the nail on the head...this is the same tactic that Bob Kerrey, Shaheen and the poor man's Karl Rove, Marc Penn, pulled out of their butts after I0WA...this is an attempt to use the subtext of race as a rallying cry for folks who only see race...it is such a cowardly act by these so-called Democrats...But that is Hill and Bill's tortured win at any cost consciousness. They will do anything no matter how much everyone around them has to hold their noses.
February 27, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
See?!? He was right! You're accusing him of playing the race card! :D
February 27, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's playing the race card card.
February 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. This is hand-in-glove with the victim card they have been playing since they got their ass handed to them in Iowa.
February 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish everyone would stop knocking down the Hillary camp's excuses for why they have lost the nomination. They are looking for an out, so let's give them one. My vote would be that it's the media's fault since in general they suck anyway. But, we could go with perceived racism. Whatever, as long as we can move forward now.
February 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your idea. Why don't you post this as a blog in the form of a question. People can submit "excuses." Then you can tally them...and there you have it!
February 27, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "us" refers to democrats.
February 27, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad that for democrats, democracy is not important.
February 27, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
whatever...
February 27, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we hate democracy, thus the name "Democratic Party."
February 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign makes a mistake every time they trot Lanny Davis out for public consumption as a surrogate. They should know better and muzzle him.
His appearance on NPR's On Point with Tom Ashbrook was the single worst appearance by a surrogate I have ever heard on the radio or seen on TV. Listen to his complete disdain for Frank Foer of TNR, Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation, and Donna Brazile when they try to make reasonable reality-based points about the race.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/01/20080124_a_main.asp
February 27, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, and Queen Hillary is getting her @$$ handed to her by him. The media will cover that. How much of this is just the "feel sorry for me" card that Hillary is playing.
As for Mr. Davis, the only time I ever hear anything about race is when the media mentions it in context with what I mentioned in the last paragraph. Other than that, it goes back to the "feel sorry for me" card her and her campaign like to play.
February 27, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahaha...not so hard...if you use the N word then you're racist...if you say he's incompetent, then you're wrong..but you can say it. However we will show you Hillary's campaign strategy and prove you're wrong...
For those who are naive enough to think that Bill and Hill have not used nuanced subtext around Obama's race or the race of some of his supporters...you need a few more years of living in the real world. They both counted on their long time relationship within the black community to quell any such observations...but hey if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...guess what?
February 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lanny Davis is a first-rate tool. I heard him on "ON POINT" a couple weeks back and he was the worst combination of accusatory, condescending, whiny, and victimy. Tom Ashbrook and the other guest were openly exasperated by with him. I can imagine no upside to having him as a surrogate.
if someone here understands to whom he appeals and why the Clintons want him out there, I would honestly love to hear it.
February 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
After seeing Lanny Davis pop up on CNN and MSNBC several times, I find him to be astonishingly stupid.
He doesn't understand the difference between a voter and a delegate count in caucus states, his generalizations are incredibly flawed and his analogies are non-sense.
Are he and Stephanie "Native Clothing" Tubbs Jones the best the Clintons can do?
February 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did somebody say victim?
February 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
as the drudge picture flap fades away, i am increasingly disturbed by what happened.
so far, there is no evidence that the clinton campaign leaked that picture (drudge is not reliable unless it's confirmed by a credible 3rd party or he has air-tight proof)... but obama's campaign manager issued a scathing comment: "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election"...
as for the fact that the clinton campaign did not isssue an immediate denial i think it's reasonable that they would want to check their ranks (over 700) to see if anyone was responsible so that they didn't end up with egg on their face when they found out that some low level staffer was involved.
at this point, it's starting to look like the obama campaign over-reacted and now owes clinton an apology...
p.s. i hate lanny davis. i will never forget his shameful defense of joe lieberman in 2006.
February 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But they never did check with those 700. Penn said he couldn't do that.
February 27, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's a bullshit answer... guilty until proven innocent?
let's say in the GE some dirty piece of slander emerges about john mccain and mccain's campaign immediately accuses obama and the news media runs it nonstop for 24 hrs only to find that there was no proof to link it to obama... then what?
first off, what's the media doing running unsubstantiated b.s. about clinton posted on drudge? second, why was the obama campaign so trigger-happy to condemn clinton with nothing other than drudge's word? third, how is clinton now responsible to disprove an unsubstantiated allegation?
if you want to play by these rules, then no whining when the republican attack machine gets going in the Fall and the media eats it up like in 2004...
February 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gather that you meant this as some sort of taunt, but honestly I think that "no whining" really is the maxim by which we will need to live. Not in the sense of "no whining on lefty blogs" but in the sense that there is nothing to be gained by attempting a P.R. strategy built around grousing about the unfairness of the attacks or the media's coverage thereof.
In the pure abstract, I grant you that if passing a photo on to Drudge were a crime, there would not be enough evidence to convict Clinton or any of her campaign. Such abstract musings on the justice or injustice of the situation, however, miss the point.
Obama's campaign did not have the luxury of investigating the source of the photo. They had a situation to deal with and they dealt with it. By dealing with it in the fashion in which they did, they scored some P.R. hits on the Clinton campaign. That is how one wins. It might well be unfair, but given Sen Clinton's laborious boasts about the scars she bears, I dare say that no one needs to explain to her that life is not fair. I, for one, was comforted by the sight of the Obama camp's response, because it proved to me that they know how to deal with the knocks that come their way and even to exploit them for their own advantage. One makes one's own luck, and the Obama camp has proven that they are very good at it, demonstrating once again why he is the stronger nominee for our party to choose for the real contest in November.
February 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
good to know that you approve of the obama campaign's use of race to slander his opponent. makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
as long as they don't have the luxury to check it out, then they are free to say ""the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election"?
February 27, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they used race did they? It's no secret the Clinton campaign had to vet some campaign workers who were sending "Obama is a Muslim" e-mail around. This seemed to be in the same vein, so they reacted accordingly. I'll agree they jumped the gun and it seemed the Clinton campaign may not have been responsible, but Islam is a religion, not a race.
By the way, I'm wondering why the Clinton campaign wants to revisit the race issue again? They got slammed for it before, why do they think they will get a different result now?
February 27, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're right... there was no charge of racism, only fear-mongering... i stand corrected.
February 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight. As I said right at the top, I am not at all above enjoying the natural advantage that comes from the social awkwardness that surrounds any criticism of Obama. The Republicans enjoy plenty of unfair advantages themselves, so if our nominee brings one to the table, it just makes things a little more even in a way that all democrats should celebrate. I can understand why you find it unpleasant right now, while your candidate is suffering from it, but think about how nice it would be to watch the same dynamic come into play every time the Republicans open their mouths between now and November.
February 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm not as optimistic as you are... as i have said before, i'll be holding my breath (for many reasons)...
February 27, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling this an issue of "race" misses the point. Calling Obama a 'Muslim' isn't a "race" issue, it's a slander. It would be like criticizing Kerry for playing the "veteran" card when attacking the swift boaters.
Throwing that picture around would play into that narrative, and would therefore be as bad as Edwards or Kucinich passing some swift-boat bullshit in '04.
February 27, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to know why this was a story, look how McCain responded to the comments of Cunningham. He did not say, "Duh, I don't see anything wrong with saying HUSSEIN over and over again; is he embarrassed of his name?" thereby insulting the intelligence of pretty much everyone. He said, "That's unacceptable. I did not authorize it and I condemn it and it won't happen again." If the Clinton campaign had responded that way, the story would have died immediately.
February 27, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
and the Obama camp has proven that they are...
Craven swine that plays the race card reflexively? That sums it up pretty well.
February 27, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's bullshit? You explained away the delay in responding (and their response was more than delayed, they tried to turn it around against Obama) by saying they had to check with their staff. But they didn't. Penn said he didn't know anything and "the campaign" (presumably meaning senior staff) didn't sanction it, but apparently didn't bother sending out an e-mail to the staff saying "if you know anything about this I want to hear about it NOW". And he also said he agreed with the sentiment of the alleged e-mail.
Compare this with Obama's response in the Senator from Punjab incident.
I agree the media should be following up with Drudge. There doesn't seem to be any reason he shouldn't be able to release the e-mail he says he has.
February 27, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to know why this was a story that had legs, look how McCain responded to the comments of Cunningham. He did not say, "Duh, I don't see anything wrong with saying HUSSEIN over and over again; is he embarrassed of his name?" thereby insulting the intelligence of pretty much everyone.
He said, "That's unacceptable. I did not authorize it and I condemn it and it won't happen again."
If the Clinton campaign had responded that way, the story would have died immediately. Instead they said, "We don't know who did it but we agree with the sentiment, except, duh, I don't see why dressing in a turban is bad. Is he ashamed of his "native" dress?"
February 27, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kensdad... You can believe that Clinton's campaign dropped that photo. One of the things civilians don't know about campaigns like Clintons...is that staff never ever ever gets involved that way in a campaign unless told to do so /with instructions to deny deny deny until or unless there is proof...then prepare to be sacrificed as the candidate (Hillary) shows shock and chagrin.
One of the first things you learn as a staffer on major campaigns is that your career is toast if you ever presume to do anything on behalf of your candidate that has not been sanctioned. Civilians like to believe that overzealous staffers do these things. Forget it...politicians MUST have loyalty or all of their careers would be down the drain. Loyalty is valued over competence or intelligence. once identified as loyal...you quickly learn that if you muck up you're on your own. However, you also learn that more than likely if you come out of a Marc Penn camp, you will be instructed to muck up and to also be prepared to be sacrificed if caught...but they will get you a good job down the line, when the campaign is over.
Case in point...the whole rap about Hillary's campaign manager, Doyle-Solis mismanaging Hillary's $100 million campaign budget was bull! The fact was Hill and Bill were so arrogant they thought by Feb 5, they would have the nomination in the bag...so they tapped their fundraisers for the max amount and didn't give online fundraising a thought. Then Barack Obama blew their campaign strategy to smithereens in Iowa...Hillary's vaunted experience was now on the line...they underestimated an opponent. Something every freshman legislator is told never to do. Hillary simply could not take the rap for this fundamental catastrophic miscalculation on so many important fronts. So they called Solis-Doyle in the room and told her she had to be the loyal goat in this fiasco! She was going so Hillary could save face. The only way a $100 million gets blown is that it doesn't. Every dollar in that campaign was accounted for...what was not accounted for was that Obama turned out to be the opponent of their nightmares. He had a smarter better financed campaign than the Clintons. The irony is quite a few of Obama's staffers once worked for Bill. Anybody wonder why they chose Obama over Hillary????
February 27, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you watched the debate last night, Obama did accept Clinton's statement that she personally had no knowledge of the distribution of the photo. When a campaign really gets in the mud, you start having people like W saying, "but I didn't direct the Swift Boat adds." All I heard from Clinton and her campaign were hedging and "but we don't know anyone on our staff who did it!" complaints. Not a single indication that whoever did it should knock it off.
Then again, Drudge is chuckling right now by making sure all us rubes are focusing on the negative portions of the Democratic primary and not on McCain glossing over his lobbying relationships.
February 27, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink