« Both Camps Scramble To Roll Out Post-Pennsylvania Superdel Support | Home | DNC Dropping $500,000 On Anti-McCain Ad »
Top Hillary Surrogate Disagrees With Bill: No Candidate Played Race Card
A top Hillary surrogate appears to disagree with Bill Clinton's now-infamous assertion the other day that the Obama campaign played the race card against him.
New York governor David Paterson, who's African American, was asked on a Hillary campaign conference call moments ago whether he agreed with Bill's assertion.
"I don't think that either of the candidates has played the race card in this campaign," Paterson said, after wondering aloud a bit about the context of Bill's remarks.
In a reference to both race and gender, Paterson continued: "I don't think either candidate pushed that button."
It's obviously a delicate spot for Paterson, but he could have sidestepped the question, and he didn't.
Late Update: Here's the audio from the call:
Advertisement
BS, he played the race card after wrightgate.
The tide has turned.
Stop whining and start winning.
"Iran ready to discuss nuclear dispute-Ahmadinejad"
Yup, don't mess with Clinton.
April 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winning like as in delegates, popular vote, states won, national polls, African-American votes, youth votes, fundraising, and ability to deflect controversies?
Yup.
April 23, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT WAS NEVER A "RACE CARD" IT WAS A "RACE CAR"
There's a difference you wankers! Barry asked if he could play with Bills toy "race car" and that hearing impaired spoogebag Andrea Mitchell wrote it down wrong!
Now can I just eat my waffle?
Yours truly
Bay Buchanan
I gave all my spare "Change We Can Believe In" to Harvard student loan deadbeats.
April 23, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this is ironic. You have spent all day complaining about how a superdelegate went to Obama and now you are telling people not to whine? You? You're the biggest whiner on this site, and the least consistent.
You said Hillary would win PA by 30, then 20 now you say you meant 10 all along. Are you, like Hillary, unable to tell the truth?
As to the race card, yes, Bill tried to morph Obama into the "black candidate" in order to marginalize him. Luckily it didn't work.
April 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's obviously a delicate spot for Paterson, but he could have sidestepped the question, and he didn't."
Indeed. He just lied.
April 23, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paterson never wanted to be governor. His dream is the Senate. He backed Clinton to please Spitzer, figuring Spitzer would then appoint him to fill Clinton's Senate seat when/if she won the nomination -- and this was at a time when everyone thought she would effortlessly waltz into the nomination. So far, he seems to be sticking to his support of Clinton. However, this statement actually tells me he might be getting a bit shaky on it. And he's now a superdelegate since becoming governor. I think he's publicly a superdelegate for Clinton, but I'm not sure. And even if he is, I've thought for a while that he might change his mind.
April 23, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He always was a superdelegate. Clinton simply lost one with Spitzer's resignation.
April 23, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, he was, I forgot that.
April 23, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. Answering the question doesn't earn the guy a medal.
April 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are going to keep fighting this same battle, based on what I read.
Bill has moved himself and his people right into the campaign offices. No one can control him.
Her entire campaign structure is breaking down and the situation there is so volatile that it could just blow at any time.
April 23, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't she going after his job if she doesn't get the nomination?
April 23, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems that they should just trade now. Paterson's always had his eye on the Senate.
April 23, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, watch your back.
April 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would he do that exactly?
April 23, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well to be perfectly honest neither candidate has used the "race card".
The campaigns on the other hand, are a different story. Clinton surrogates in particular are at the point of self-parody.
April 23, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And for Bill Clinton to say they were playing the race card and then deny saying that, 24 hours later, is, indeed, self-parody.
April 23, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
but did they reject and denounce President Clinton's statement, or the lie about the statement afterwards?
April 23, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
(1) "...now infamous..." OK
(2) "...top Hillary surrogate.." Huh????
So I guess he's a top surrogate because he's on a call. Like Ed Rendell.
And he knows FOR A FACT that Obama didn't play the race card because he's as black as Obama. Or even blacker. Or perhaps because he and Obama are buddies and Obama told him privately?
And how could he have sidestepped this issue without looking stupid and/or provoking more media blah blah?
News, TPM-style... no surprises
April 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Paterson's wording is interesting. He says "[n]either candidate has played the race card". But that leaves open the possibility that Bill himself played that card -- and I think we all know that Bill *did* play that card, at least in South Carolina. And in a Rovian move, Bill accused Obama of doing what he (Bill) had done.
-- ARG
April 23, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
African American voters sure seem to disagree (quite rightly.) Hillary really needs to prove that she can win over this core group of Democrats by making a strong showing in North Carolina. Without the African American vote, there's no way we beat McCain in November.
Close the deal, Hillary. No more whining about caucuses, no more crying to Dean about FL and MI, no more insulting the base, just win by the rules you agreed to at the beginning of the game. You need 70% in all of the remaining contests. Go get it. Show us what a "fighter" you are.
April 23, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on what "Race Card" means. If it only means people of color defending themselves by pointing out that they are minorities, then clearly Obama hasn't done that, and Hillary couldn't.
If it just means using race to score points, then accusing someone of playing the race card is in fact playing the race card in and of itself.
April 23, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Del moi
You hit it on the head. Accusing someone of playing the race card, who isn't, is playing the race card perfectly. Whether Obama sanctioned it or simply tolerated it, that is what his campaign did. There is no doubt that Bill Clinton was trying to diminish the significance of Obama's victory in SC with the Jesse Jackson analogy, but "racism" - give me a break. Likewise, giving credit to LBJ and the political process for the passage of civil rights legislation is hardly evidence of disrespecting the work of Martin Luther King or of racism, yet it was portrayed that way. Conversely, the "Bradley effect" keeps being dragged out to explain the failure of pollsters to accurately predict how well Hillary may do in a given primary. Give credit to Eugene Robinson for being the first to invoke that. As a Hillary supporter who also thinks that Obama would make an excellent President, seeing the race card played so cravenly on the Clintons has been very disillusioning and the only thing to date that has made me wonder if Obama may be just another politician.
April 23, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you blame Obama for what Eugene Robinson says? Lots of people have claimed that the Clintons played the race card around S.C, but you can't hold Obama to blame for the comments of African Americans who are not affiliated with his campaign.
April 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right that the Obama campaign cannot be blamed for what Robinson says or does as a commentator.
April 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eugene Robinson's a COLUMNIST, not a campaign surrogate. How stupid are you? Lumping in everyone in the world who might have a public opinion into one campaign or the other is inane.
April 23, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not stupid at all and I certainly know what Robinson does for a living. Is that all you have to say?
April 23, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Patterson certainly didn't SEE any candidate use the race card - hey-oh!!
April 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know ... I almost posted a comment upthread about "well, he can't literally watch his back - he'll need someone to do it for him" but I thought it was too crass! Thank you, Sinbad, for going there!! ;)
April 23, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
why does everyone make a big deal out of obama not winning the "ethnic white" vote, but no one worries about hillary's inability to win the african american vote?
April 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
in fact, obama is doing better among "ethnic whites" than hillary is doing among african-americans. why shouldn't the SD's be worried about that?
April 23, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the votes of black folk do not matter. Just as caucus states don't matter. States she did not win do not matter. The youth vote does not matter. The independent voter does not matter. It's Hillary's world and only PA, OH, CA, NY, MI and FL matter.
The rest of us live in an America she could do without. The Clintons as Ma and Pa Democratic Party take us for granted at their peril. More and more of us are independents.
And this:
April 23, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
{the full thing did not go through}
And this:
I want him to define "race button" and "gender button" before he deigns to deny.
April 23, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should worry about it. It's always been a reliable voting bloc, and it's never been so energized or come out in such numbers.
April 23, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because people assume that the white guys will go to McCain, but figure the black vote has no choice but to go to Hillary.
That is, of course, a huge assumption, and we all know what happens when we ass-u-me!
April 23, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/dead-actor-roy.html
No wonder Obama raises so much money, he takes money from dead people.
April 23, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sort of the opposite for Clinton?
She's taking money from living people for a dead campaign!
April 23, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Roy Scheider's heirs didn't cancel the credit card, then the automatic payment would have gone through anyway. I'm not sure how that's Obama's fault. And if we're going to go there with credit card issues, Hillary has her own.
April 23, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a Roy Schneider who's an actor, could be someone misspelled the name.
April 23, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am starting to get Dem primary fatigue. this thing needs to come to an end..........
April 23, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh ... another Hillary conference call, and another post. This time we're getting a quote from a Hillary superdelegate who's been on the job for all of a month (and who, quite frankly, is not off to a good start with his confessions of cheating on his wife). What in God's name was he going to say - yes, he has played the race card? He's not stupid - he sees the writing on the wall as well as any other superdelegate else. Do you really believe he would risk alienating Obama by admitting to something like this?
April 23, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but any possible (tendentious, parsing, hair-splitting, disbelief-suspending) defense of the candidate and/or the Clintons not "playing the race card" went out the window at last week's debate.
"Farrakhan! Boo!"
If anything, given Farrakhan's particular history, that was doubling down on ethinicity, playing the racist and anti-Semite cards.
April 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Greg - If I'm not mistaken, Obama himself said this first - that he didn't think the Clinton campaign had played the race card against him, and when asked specifically again about Bill's statement, Obama said - you'll have to ask Bill.
That was about 2, 3 days ago.
April 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, it only counts if a Hillary surrogate says it. LOL!
April 23, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
...if a surrogate said it in a conference call, Carol.
;P
April 23, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, so does he disagree with Bill that Obama played the race card, or does he disagree with Bill that Bill said he never said what he was recorded saying?:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/04/bills-desperation-turns-to-more-lies.html
I can't keep up with the layers of lies in their campaign.
But the Clinton campaign did play the race card, sorry David:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/01/jesse-jackson-plan-or-clinton-plan-b.html
April 23, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess he did not have someday read Obama's memo on the President.
Or listen to his speech after wrightgate.
April 23, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another day, another non-sequitur from gotalife.
April 23, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
o darlin - another 5 minutes, another non-sequitur from gotalife.
LOL!
April 23, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that was a pretty generous estimate, wasn't it?
This was reported on the Politico:
MCCASKILL: Well, it's a really difficult decision. I mean, no one in the Obama campaigns wants -- I mean, Senator Clinton talked about her baggage in the debate last Wednesday. And everyone is very respectful and deferential to the Clinton family in our party and we don't want to do that. But, frankly, they keep throwing nails in front of the bus. And as voters are considering whether or not some of the controversies around Barack Obama will be an issue in November, people do need to remember, there will be controversies about the Clintons that will also be an issue in November. And I think that's what we hope superdelegates also focus on.
Thank you, Senator, for pointing out the obvious freaking elephant in the room.
April 23, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't always been happy with McCaskill, but you've gotta give credit where it's due: She ain't afraid to throw a punch or speak an inconvenient truth. She and Webb (who I'm also not always happy with) are quite a pair of freshmen.
April 23, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re McCaskill's quote, I wonder if Hillary struck a deal with Mellon Scaife to leave her alone, and if so, what does he get out of that deal?
April 23, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question....Bill's sloppy seconds?
April 23, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why go there? It helps no one including Obama to make such comments.
April 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama isn't "hurt" when someone makes a comment 99% of us realize is simply a joke. Relax.
April 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who voted for Bill and was proud of it, watching his clown act during this campaign has been particularly depressing. What a train wreck... he's lost it and is just stumbling around in the outfield like the old Willie Mays, pissing all over his legacy.
I know Monster's Inc's got no money, but they should bounce another check to buy a cage. Bill needs to be put in a cage.
April 23, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, that might be the best avatar that I've ever seen.
Well played sir. Well played.
April 23, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is "someday"? What in the hell are you talking about? Did you, perhaps, mean "somebody"? I think a little judicious review of your posts is in order before you hit that send button. We'd all be better off...
April 23, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Urg ... that was meant for our friend GetaLife above. Stupid comments!
April 23, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He meant Billy Sumday.
April 23, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had that thought as well LOL! GetaLife made a funny!! ;)
April 23, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of surrogates, Carville vs. Richardson tonight on Larry King:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/
April 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Shiite, Batman!
April 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I know that people like to talk tough and use a lot of rhetoric about fighting. I have always believed that if you are tough, you don’t have to talk about it," Senator Barack Obama
April 23, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent quote! :)
April 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, tough guy is scared of a debate because he will have another complete melt down.
Tough guy flips off his opponent but hides it by scratching his face.
Tough guy lies and goes negative. Claims he is different and can't admit mistakes.
Real tough guy.
April 23, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to miss reading your posts in a few weeks.
While we're winning in November, are Hillary folks gonna go to Liars Rehab?
In the immortal words of Motley Crue....
Don't go away mad...
...just go away.
April 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Goaty, Obama has this wrapped up and put away now. What's left to debate?
April 23, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam - Carol
That is also frequently put this way:
I don't need no one to co-sign no shit.
:)
April 23, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." HG Wells character in the movie "Time After Time"
April 23, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've met many African Americans while canvassing for Obama in five states, and you wouldn't believe the amount of anger and fury among the AA community towards the Clintons. If Clinton is the nominee ( and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of this) she shouldn't expect the AA to come back to her,because they won't. She and Bill are really really stupid to have been so divisive. I expect that in the next two weeks one or both of them is going to to something so stupid that even the press is going to start asking when she's gonna give up.
April 23, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
As in , "What if they threw and election and no one showed up?"
April 23, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton says she has been given
a 'great vote of confidence' from Pennsylvania voters
Basking in her 10-point victory in yesterday's Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton told ABC's "Good Morning America" today that her win gave her a great "vote of confidence" moving forward."
Obama went all out in PA and could not seal the deal.
It goes to June 3.
Stop whining and start winning.
April 23, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Basking in her 10-point victory in yesterday's Pennsylvania Democratic primary"
It is actually a 9.2 point margin. And when you round that down, it is a 9 point win, not 10 points. Yes, a mere 10% inflation of the actual victory margin by you Clintonistas, but what else could we expect from the Warrior Queen of Tuzla?
April 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
I am trying to understand the significance you seem to be attaching to Governor Paterson's comments. I don't know what else Paterson could have said. I think this would be more relevant if Paterson was somehow seen as reprimanding President Clinton, or rebuking an official position of the Clinton campaign, rather than, from what I gather, attempting to diffuse another round of finger pointing about race. Sounds to me like Governor Paterson was being appropriately political about this incident, and it's yet another reason that I like the fact that he's my governor.
Bruce
April 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any guy who gets into office via his predecessor resigning over a scandal and immediately says, "Oh, by the way, I cheated on my wife with scads of other women and I did lots of drugs too" is okay in my book. If only all politicians were so forthright.
April 23, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, I found that a little TMI if you know what I mean, but there is definitely something to be said for that kind of candor.
April 23, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how I feel about it ... he's my Governor too, but I'm not sure I needed all that information. I also don't think he had any choice but to confess - there were rumors swirling all over the place and they had to be confronted. So was it brutally honest or politically expedient? Perhaps some of both.
What I find interesting is that Joe Bruno (majority leader of the State Senate) is giving him a pass on this because of his absolute hatred of Spitzer. He was so glad to get rid of Spitzer that I think he would forgive Paterson for anything - what a tool LOL!
April 23, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
People were already well aware of the Paterson's marital difficulties. If he didn't nip it in the bud, it would have been on the cover of the New York Post.
April 23, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course she is. She actually lost a lot of her core support in Pa.
Her internals have been terrible - she's losing ground in the trustworthiness ratings constantly. He's gained.
His national approval rating continue to go up. The only things going up for her are the interest on her debts, and her negatives.
April 23, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying that Hillary belittled Martin Luther King when she stated the fact that it took Lyndon Johnson to push through the civil rights legislation of the 1960's is definitely playing the race card. And on the radio yesterday I heard yet another black voter saying that was the moment when she switched support from Hillary to Obama. Obama definitely and absolutely played the race card early in the campaign when he needed to give black Clinton supporters an excuse for abandoning Clinton. It worked very well for him, and all his claims that it was Clinton who played the race card are as false as his claim that he is a uniter.
April 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what the hell, I am a glutton for punishment so allow me to respond to this. I dare say that anyone willing to read the remark in context would actually see that Sen Clinton's remarks were, in point of fact, a rather egregious (and uncharacteristic) act of patronizing diminishment of Dr King. This is, no doubt, a bit foggy in most of our memories by this point, but a refresher on the context surrounding these remarks helps to make plain the rather ugly gaffe that Sen Clinton committed (I say "gaffe" because while I think that her remarks really were ugly, I do not think that she was being deliberately ugly, so much as just letting her mouth get ahead of her brain).
The controvery erupted amid a flurry of criticism from Sen Clinton's campaign that Sen Obama's promises of "hope" were just empty words. Because this was happening in January, Sen Obama responded to this repeated criticisms by referencing Martin Luther King Jr and inviting his listeners to imagine
To this rejoinder, Sen Clinton in turn offered the rebuttal
Now Obama was running for President already, so considered on their face, her words were entirely inapt. Obama was bidding to be LBJ's successor, not MLK's. He was simply pointing out that inspiring rhetoric is a useful tool in any leader's toolbox. The only way, as such, that Clinton's remarks can actually serve as a logical counterpoint to Obama's is if we begin from the implicit assumption that only white guys can hold real power. While I think that it goes far too far to say that Sen Clinton actually endorses that view, such is the unspoken assumption upon which her remarks were premised and an ugly assumption it is indeed. Those who were offended by the remarks were rightly offended and (to her credit) Sen Clinton rightly backed away from them. That said, if there is a "race card" being played in this exchange, it is being played by Sen Clinton. Sen Obama, in his response to the remarks was being just as generous as he was shrewd when politely overlooked this and said "I don't think it was in any way a racial comment."
April 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice synopsis. Thanks!
April 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey dumbass. You can't blame Obama because Hillary fucked up and said something that offended some people (rightly or wrongly). Hillary made her own damn mistake and it's not Obama's fault!
The ability for Hillary Clinton to somehow pin the blame on her own mistakes on her opponent is pretty spectacular.
Thank god it's not working on most people.
April 23, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama definitely and absolutely played the race card early in the campaign when he needed to give black Clinton supporters an excuse for abandoning Clinton."
So Obama is responsible for people being offended by HER comments? And that makes sense to you?
April 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, many did. She tried to minimize the real agent of change -- MLK -- and tried to assert that the prime driver of change was Lyndon Johnson. We tend to get a bit peeved about that kind of minimization.
However, given her attitude to grass roots activists, I can see why she would assert that social change is gifted to us – the unwashed masses -- by our enlightened masters. As opposed to the other view, where change is brought about only because people react against injustice and actively struggle and push and bring about justice.
Obama never said Johnson was not important, but Hillary marginalized MLK. This, before we heard that on the day MLK was assassinated, she threw her school bag across the room and cried. Geez.
April 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, of course, was one of Hillary's failed attempts to point out that Obama's far-superior public speaking abilities may make him similar to MLK Jr., but that she would be the leader that actually could accomplish things.
April 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the reasons she would marginalize MLK are the same basic reasons she marginalizes MoveOn and any other person or organization that speaks truth to power.
She likes top down power and control. These "movements" are messy.
April 23, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess y'all know that the minute Clinton drops out, Otto F here will be back under a different nym and he'll be here throughout the campaign, supporting McCain.
April 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
word.
April 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess since he's Black and he doesn't think the race card's been played, it must be true, right?
Sheesh. Why is this even a fucking thread?
April 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Solomon, Gov. Paterson cut the baby in half and didn't take the side of either party.
April 23, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Patterson has reason to play along with Hillary. I'm not sure people around the country are aware of what's behind his becoming gov at all.
I think the connection to Patterson's answer is in two parts. One, it's long been known in NYState politics he wanted to run for Senator Clinton's Junior Senate seat - when she was a shoo-in for the presidency.
Then came Eliot Spitzer and the prostitutes, and his resignation, and so much for that idea! He is our RELUCTANT governor. He does not want this gig, but he'll do it. He is not expected to easily win reelection.
Second, well, if you haven't seen the Rolling Stone piece from Matt Taibbi - "The Queen Of Pork," I will remind you, Patterson's main base is Harlem. The preacher in the RS story is in Harlem. Yes, they know each other. And the gist of the RS story is Hillary gave Preacher Butts a lotta money and got his endorsement.
I am waiting for a breakthrough article pointing out that Hillary is paying the WALKING AROUND MONEY of Ed Rollins/Christie Todd Whitman fame. While Obama is not.
Here's the RS link - the two events are related...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20306341/the_queen_of_pork
April 23, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the Obama camp that interjected race into the discussion on the night of their defeat in New Hampshire. Their suggestion was that many of Clinton's supporters must be secret bigots. The next morning, Obama's co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr. invoked race again, while suggesting that Clinton had "faked" her tears for the African-Americans who suffered at the hands of Katrina. Nothing either Clinton has said comes close to such racial demagoguery.
April 24, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe JJJr could have used a better example. Hillary doesn't shed tears for the children maimed by the cluster bombing she's supported as Senator. Would that have been a better example?
April 24, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink