Bob Johnson's "Neighborhood" Line: The Video
Here it is, video of BET founder Bob Johnson's remarks yesterday at a Hillary Clinton rally, alluding to some unnamed activity Barack Obama was doing "in the neighborhood":
And here's Johnson's statement in which he said he was not referring to Barack Obama's youthful drug use, and people are being irresponsible by suggesting that he was:
My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.When Hillary Clinton was in her twenties she worked to provide protections for abused and battered children and helped ensure that children with disabilities could attend public school.
That results oriented leadership — even as a young person — is the reason I am supporting Hillary Clinton.
Comments (87)
Nam wrote on January 14, 2008 11:38 AM:This is the first time i actually saw the moment that everyone has been referring to.
It is clear from his tone and the almost wink that he was reffering to Obama's drug use..
To claim he was talking about Obama's organizing is ridiculous and too steal a line from him..
"insulting to my intelligence"
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 11:40 AM:Shorter Clintons: You can believe us or your lying eyes.
It is amazing. When you read the transcript, it is fairly obvious what he is referring to, but when you watch the actual video, with his tone of voice and body language, there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER what he is referring too. He couldn't be any more obvious without flat out saying "Obama is a crackhead drug dealer". There is no way to spin this for the Hillary camp, there just isn't. Any Hillary supporter who defends this as a reference to "community organizing" (which of course is sooo taboo it can't be mentioned in public) should be ashamed of themselves.
And Bob Johnson is scum to begin with, it is hard to be more out of touch with black America than to be the head of a corporation that has made millions off bolstering racial stereotypes in the media. It is obvious why he supports the Clintons too, because when Bill continued with Reagan and Bush Sr's deregulation of the media it helped push other minority ownership of media into bankruptcy, while BET was safe because it was able to get started back in 1981. Bill Clinton secured his monopoly over minority media. He is a sellout among sellouts. And just because the Clintons can send a black man out to do their work for them doesn't make their past comments and their surrogates' past comments any less despicable.
Keith wrote on January 14, 2008 11:44 AM:What's the saying, a picture is worth a thousand words. The look he gives when he delivers the line in question tells you all you need to know about what he meant.
The Clintons can try to play this off if they want, but this one is firmly in their lap.
Bobbot the Fraudbot wrote on January 14, 2008 11:46 AM:Let's not get on the innuendo bandwagon, Hillbot. We don't want to speculate on what Billbot is doing with his cigars these days, or which of your staff members has mysteriously died, or whether it is Billbot or Hillbot who hangs out with that hot intern we see on TV sometimes... Not that we are saying anything, Bobbot certainly wasn't.
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 14, 2008 11:46 AM:Bob Johnson is down there with Condi and Clarence Thomas on my list of African Americans who are good spokespeople for their people.
He disgusts me.
Tom wrote on January 14, 2008 11:47 AM:Didn't the Clinton campaign know this video would get released?
Do they really think we're this stupid?
What I have been witnessing from the clintons is sooooo sad. The lies and distortions from the clintons and their supporters are really depressing. We can't believe a word these people say and they aren't even in the white house yet, if they ever get there. I would take honesty and integrity over this garbage any day, regardless of party. How on earth do you really know what they are going to do anyway. They lie about everything. It is really, really depressing.
Keith wrote on January 14, 2008 11:50 AM:Tom:
If the last week of half-truths, poopr paraphrase and out right lying has shown us anything, is that the Clinton campaign really does believe that were stupid.
Southpaw wrote on January 14, 2008 11:51 AM:Hey Kleefeld, mind posting the next 20 seconds of this speech, when Johnson goes on to brazenly compare Obama to Sidney Poitier in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"? I will for the moment give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are too young to be familiar with the plot of the movie (despite the fact that they remade it with Ashton Kutcher not long ago), and thus don't realize how racially charged the reference was.
I of course wouldn't want Sargent to claim we're taking anything out of context.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 14, 2008 11:54 AM:I notice that the TPM main page points to this as part of the extremely "subtle... 'provokatsiia'" game which the Clintons are playing here. The idea is that they use a million racist code words in the hope that Obama will be obliged to respond, at which point they can feign indignation with wounded innocence and Obama will look like some sort of Black Panther will far less cross-over appeal than he started out with. I suppose that, especially in like of Johnson's line above, that is a plausible enough theory.
One does have to wonder, however, what the Clintons' end game is then. As many have pointed out, Sen Clinton cannot just expect to waltz through OH, PA, WI, MO, FL etc and have folks throw themselves at her feet to be permitted to vote for her. Especially if she is running against John McCain, she will need every last vote that she can get to win these critical swing-states, and while black voters might not be as numerous as white voters, they are numerous enough to make a difference in a close race. Is she really willing to play this game in order to secure the nomination, even if in so doing she alienates so many black democrats that she cannot win the general election. This seems a rather pyrrhic victory to me, and scarcely the sort of thing that we democratic primary voters who wish to win in Nov should reward.
NCSteve wrote on January 14, 2008 11:58 AM:Okay, we've all beaten the ridiculousness of Johnson's pullback to death. Bill and some of the braver Hillarites have tried to defend it, many have attacked it. But, I think there are some more important questions that aren't getting asked.
First, and most important, how is it possible for for the Girl Power candidate to stand on the same stage with, and smile approvingly at the comments of, a man who made billions by actively promoting misogyny as a valid lifestyle choice for young black men?
How can any person who believes Hillary's gender is in and of itself a reason to consider voting for her reconcile that belief with her willingness to use a man who made videos that enthusiastically celebrated the degradation and denigration of women as a spokesman? We're not merely talking about eagerly accepting his sweet, sweet campaign contributions, we're talking about actively touting his endorsement as a benefit?
How can any person who was alarmed by BET's continual use of violent, mysogynstic gangsta rap as its main revenue base throughout the time this man owned the network find anything that morally distinguishes Johnson from, say, a tobacco executive who made his name marketing high-nicotine menthol cigarettes to inner city youth or, for that matter, from a crack kingpin?
And, finally, how can anyone who attacked Obama for allowing poor, pathetic Donnie McClurkin to sing some songs at a gospel concert Obama did not actually attend in person possibly defend Hillary's willingness to stand by, and defend, this piece of trash?
Hillary supporters, I honestly seek your responses because I am truly baffled.
Publicus wrote on January 14, 2008 12:00 PM:Folks, it's not about us. It's about Clinton. She's going to do or say whatever she can to win--that much is clear. I'm no longer shocked by anything that emanates from the Clinton campaign, at least once you view it through that lens.
She's counting on the fact that most folks are cynical about politics, and that in the end, we'll all rally around her as the eventual nominee. And this may be true. But I'll be willing to bet dollars to donuts that she's going to have a hard time raising money from Obama's donor list in the fall. And certainly won't pick up any volunteers.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 14, 2008 12:00 PM:Er, in my above remark, "in like of..." should really be "in light of..." Sorry for that.
Dan wrote on January 14, 2008 12:00 PM:Bob Johnson is worst than Clarence Thomas. To think that a man at his capacity would even say something like that that is beyond comprehension. Then to add to further insult he says that he was referring to his community service is even more insulting. Bob Johnson looked just like a House N---er for the Clintons. I can assure you that I will make sure that me or my family will be buying anymore of his products.
Common Sense wrote on January 14, 2008 12:01 PM:NCSteve:
Good questions. I'm doubtful that you will get any answers though.
grover_rover wrote on January 14, 2008 12:01 PM:Greg, exactly, there is no way she will ever win the general election even if she manages to destroy Obama enough to squeak out of the nomination race. The Clintons aren't looking that far ahead. They are blinded my personal ambition and thirst for power and no one, friend or foe, will stand in their way. Maybe they think they can win the general with the same kind of filth, but there isn't a chance, especially against McCain.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 12:02 PM:Damn. Edit of second question.
How can any person who believes Hillary's gender is in and of itself a reason to consider voting for her reconcile that belief with her willingness to use a man who made his money showing videos that enthusiastically celebrated the degradation and denigration of women as a spokesman? We're not merely talking about eagerly accepting his sweet, sweet campaign contributions, we're talking about actively touting his endorsement as a benefit.
Gawd, I miss the "edit comment" functionality.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 14, 2008 12:02 PM:I'll be willing to bet dollars to donuts that she's going to have a hard time raising money from Obama's donor list in the fall. And certainly won't pick up any volunteers.
Well, that is certainly true. I am already convinced that, should she take the nomination, she will get nothing more from me than my vote. Indeed, even that is no longer clear. I hate myself for saying this, but if it comes out that she really is involved in the NV lawsuit (I am reserving judgement pending more facts still) then I might not even show up to the polls (although who knows if I will still feel that way come Nov 2008).
I Give You Bubba wrote on January 14, 2008 12:13 PM:"Ironically, this is the first time I've heard it, what you just said," Mr. Clinton said. "I listened to it on the tape and I think we have to take him at his word."
From his interview with Roland Martin this morning.
Gregg, if she wins the nomination and mccain wins the republican nomination, november 08 will be moot. McCain will win hands down. The clintons have demoralized and spit on the democratic base and will have energized the republican base like there is no tomorrow. Four more years of republican rule, but at least mccain has a modicum of integrity. You can't say that about the clintons.
RS wrote on January 14, 2008 12:14 PM:I'll be willing to bet dollars to donuts that she's going to have a hard time raising money from Obama's donor list in the fall.
You can count me among that group.
I don't see a tremendous benefit in having Clinton in office instead of McCain. But I can't bring myself not to vote for a Democrat given the slew of appointments to key (and sometimes overlooked) positions in the federal government that would go to people with like-minded political views. Given the scope and power of the administrative state, this strikes me as fairly important.
Whatever else they are, the Clintons are still Democrats, which may be about the only good thing I have left to say about them.
I'll vote for her if she unfortunately gets the nod but no money, no time, no sticking up for her. This was vile. Bill's swarmy defense of it even worse.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 14, 2008 12:17 PM:there is no way she will ever win the general election even if she manages to destroy Obama enough to squeak out of the nomination race.
Gosh, I would not go so far as to say "no way," but certainly it would be much more difficult. If you look at the bigger picture, however, the reality is even worse. Not only would a Clinton candidacy endanger our chances of taking back the White House, her name at the top of the ticket would galvanize the wing-nuts on the other side in such a way that it could be very detrimental to democrats further down the ticket. We could be looking at not only another four years of Republican control of the presidency, but also of governors' offices, secretaries of state's offices, attorneys general's offices, congressional seats, senate seats, etc and so forth.
Audacious_One wrote on January 14, 2008 12:18 PM:This is all getting very depressing. Scanning through headlines today has shown me that we are in a full blown RACE ROW according to the MSM.
Short of Jessie Jackson Jr being a moron, Obama's campaign has been trying it's damndest to ignore all this but it doesn't matter. They are "fighting" over race to anybody not paying too much attention and, if this is the Clinton's goal, it's surely working.
The best part is how all the "fighting" is being done with surrogates so HRC gets to say "Hey we ain't racist" and if Obama responds in any way, he loses.
Bob wrote on January 14, 2008 12:25 PM:I am a long-time fan of the Clintons, in spite of their faults. But their apparent playing of the race card is very troubling. There will be a racist campaign against Obama or a sexist campaign against Clinton in the fall. We do not need to start the dirty work now. And even if the Clinton campaign needs to play the card in order to win, they may find they have achieved a pyrrhic victory, having destroyed both their own moral base and the Democrats' chances to win (or, having won, to govern).
hwc wrote on January 14, 2008 12:27 PM:Why is talking about Obama's coke problem off limits?
Is it because he's black? Is it because he's a saint?
Why shouldn't he answer questions about his drug problem? When did he quit? Did he ever sell drugs?
evie wrote on January 14, 2008 12:28 PM:Like others here, I'm really trying to fight off bitterness toward the Clintons. I'm disgusted with them both. Prior to this primary, I couldn't have been more supportive of Bill -- and I respected HRC, though I decided to support another candidate.
Not anymore. If she wins the nomination, she'll get my vote because a Dem president is extremely important to me. But unless something were to drastically change, should won't get a second of my time or a dime of my money to make it happen.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 12:29 PM:So it turns out there were no abridged quotations here. What say you now, Billary?
At this point, Hillary is only going to get my vote for president if she's running against the fascist Mr. 9/11.
zonk wrote on January 14, 2008 12:29 PM:Wow.
We're seeing an absolute implosion of the Clinton campaign and the Clinton legacy.
This is the supposedly disciplined and airtight campaign apparatus we were going to be treated to?
zonk wrote on January 14, 2008 12:29 PM:Wow.
We're seeing an absolute implosion of the Clinton campaign and the Clinton legacy.
This is the supposedly disciplined and airtight campaign apparatus we were going to be treated to?
Michael A wrote on January 14, 2008 12:32 PM:Hey hwc,
Why is talking about clintons' drug problem off limits?
Is it because they're white? Is it because they're saints?
Why shouldn't he and she answer questions about drug problems? When did they quit? Did they ever sell drugs? Are they providing free drugs to their supporters?
Are they still doing wacky weed? How much did they make off of the sale of wacky weed? Did they ever inhale at any time?
hwc - Should we be asking HRC if she's really an Islamic Terrorist? Where's her proof that she's not?
Is Bill still sleeping around? Did Hillary ever inhale? There are always questions you can ask, but the stupider ones shouldn't get any attention or airtime.
Obama didn't hide anything and they are trying to paint him as the stereotypical black druggie. Was Bill a stereotypical white pothead? Is there any real point in asking?
pkoso wrote on January 14, 2008 12:34 PM:i find it interesting that none of hillary's partisans are on this chat...calling attention to this or that (nonexistent) inconsistency in obama's statements or charging that he's the one injecting race into the election. your silence speaks volumes. (though i'm sure you'll be back in force when it's less obvious your candidate is pulling the choicest nuggets from a rovian playbook.)
JubleJohnson wrote on January 14, 2008 12:36 PM:It's the 90's all over again.Shows you exactly what will happen if she is the Prez:The lieing & sliming of critics will be like we have never seen.It's time we turn the page & get rid of Clintons' type of politics.They are a disgusting type of people.
phil james wrote on January 14, 2008 12:43 PM:The Clintons are counting on Dems who can't stand them now, coming back to them in the general election because they really have no alternative but to vote a Dem into the White House. That's pretty much a given. So really, no matter how nasty, underhanded, dismissive, irrational, vile, borderline racist, flat-out racist, prevaricating, or otherwise mendacious Hill and Bill and Johnson and Cuomo and Kerrey and all the other Clinton flaks are to win the nomination, THEY believe it won't make a difference, so they don't have to defend themselves or disavow any of this rotten strategy. Problem is they are destroying much of the promise of the new Democratic majority in its crib. Sudden Democratic Majority Death Syndrome. Brought to you with no apologies by the morons from Hope.
grover_rover wrote on January 14, 2008 12:44 PM:Exactly Audacious_One, the MSM doesn't seem to be picking up on the fact that no one is trying to say that the Clintons are racist, the REAL point is that they are willing to inject racism into the debate, not because they believe in it, but because they believe it can help them WIN (at all costs). They definitely want to provoke Obama into responding, so they can paint him as a divisive figure, or someone that white people don't want to vote for. They want to make him into Jesse Jackson so they can stroll unopposed into the nomination. Hence the term race baiting. Obama hasn't taken the bait, yet the Clintons have even jumped on a few independent Obama supporters mentioning the disturbing (and very real) number of racially charged comments dropping from the Hillary campaign like landmines and started yelling "SEE?!! OBAMA IS BRINGING RACE INTO THIS!! SEE?!! RACIST!!" and then they continue with the obvious "we aren't racist, that is ridiculous!!" which is promoted in the media, missing entirely the race baiting, win at all costs campaigning that is the REAL story here, and succeeding, at least in white America, in making Obama look like he is trying to make the election about race. It is a brilliant strategy, at least in the short term, and it relies on the media (yes, that same media that is supposedly sooo hostile to the Clintons) to help it by asking the wrong questions, and only mentioning a few of the examples of racially charged comments, all of which make Obama look silly while making Hillary look like the victim. It is disgusting.
So much for being the victim of the media...Hillary has gotten a free ride this whole time on her "experience" and on many of the biggest issues. The media is her biggest ally, and playing the victim to it makes the entire thing that much more ridiculous.
Bupalos wrote on January 14, 2008 12:47 PM:I think the Clintons looked at NH and determined that race had a lot to do with it. Despite wanting to, I can't really come to any other conclusion either. Exit polls (EXIT) had him up by 4 or 5. And while she won among women, her real margin was provided by the higher turnout among poor whites. As it became clear after Iowa that blacks were going to be willing to go ahead and back him after all, the Clintons needed a countervailing force. So it's been nothing but subtle racial stuff since.
Now all that said, I don't know that this is going to work long term. First of all, this crap is starting to look too obvious by half, and they will pay a big penalty if ugly racial politics motivates young people against the Clintons. Also, it's likely that NH had several other factors going too, one being the "soft, crying Hillary." Can they keep her "new image" while playing an ugly game? If I were to judge by this weekend, I'd say maybe not.
Nevada is going to be instructive on this racial strategy. We'll see how Hispanics respond.
phil james wrote on January 14, 2008 12:49 PM:On the other hand, maybe the Clinton camp is just tuning up for the nasty gutter politics of the general election by practicing some of what they believe will be their more effective techniques. This I would expect they believe to be just what the thug party will do to them. If Hillary does, god forbid, get the nomination, an Obama/Edwards Independent ticket might be the only way to rescue this nation from the sewer.
Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 14, 2008 12:51 PM:"Why is talking about Obama's coke problem off limits?
Is it because he's black? Is it because he's a saint?
Why shouldn't he answer questions about his drug problem? When did he quit? Did he ever sell drugs?"
If Dubya gets to say that he's not going to talk about his past, when it included cocaine use and at least one DUI (supposedly), then I think Barack gets to say that he's talked about it enough and it's no longer an issue.
From reading Obama's book, it does not sound as if cocaine was a drug he used frequently. If Barack had a "problem" with any illegal drugs, it was marijuana. Occasional recreational drug use does not qualify as a problem; at no time has Obama qualified himself as a frequent user of cocaine.
If we're going to harp on Obama's illegal drug use, let's be honest that the majority of it was not cocaine. Then, if we're talking about cannabis, it begs the question of whether the grass should really be illegal anyway, in light of the legality of alcohol in particular.
The drug dealing question is a new one, and absolutely absurd given the context. Consider: in the 2004 Democratic primaries, most of the candidates admitted to marijuana use. Now, from this collection of white men who admitted their marijuana use, none were questioned about their involvement in the sales of illicit drugs. This guy Barack Obama though, upon admitting his illicit drug use of the very same drug-and infrequent use of cocaine-is questioned as to whether he ever sold drugs. The question then becomes whether the question of Obama's potential drug dealings stems from his admitting that he occasionally used cocaine, or whether it has arisen due to the color of his skin. I find it difficult to believe that it's just from his mention of occasional cocaine use.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 12:51 PM:I would rather not vote for Hillary but would if need be, for one reason: Supreme Court.
Bob wrote on January 14, 2008 12:54 PM:Phil, you have a point. The Democrats will largely return to HRC rather than voting for a Republican. Some will choose to stay home, I guess, or support Ralph Nader or Mike Bloomberg. As a Republican who had no use for GWB told me in 2000, no matter how bad the Texas governor was, he was more likely to behave like a Republican in the White House than was Vice President Gore. Similarly, no matter what one thinks of HRC (or any other Democratic candidate), she is more likely to please Democrats than anybody in the Republican ranks (think of all the judicial nominations that will continue to go to the right wing if the Democrats lose - even DINOs will tend to be less objectionable to Democrats than most Republican nominees).
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 14, 2008 12:56 PM:I would rather not vote for Hillary but would if need be, for one reason: Supreme Court.
Yeah, you are probably right about that. Come Nov, I will probably be able to see clear enough to swallow hard and take that line. That said, if she really does have a hand in trying to suppress union voters in NV, I am going to find it really hard to make myself check her box on the ballot. Hopefully this will all turn out to be a merely academic point, of course. Hopefully it will turn out that she really has nothing to do with this obnoxious lawsuit.
AJM wrote on January 14, 2008 1:08 PM:Not taking Bob Johnson at his word, what is the argument here? That because Obama put his drug usuage in his book Bob Johnson can't allude to it? Attacking who Bob Johnson is doesn't change the fact that Obama used drugs.
What lends more credence to the stereotype of the black drug user -- the FACT that Obama used drugs and mentioned it in his book or the fact that someone else mentions it?
At equivalent points in their lives Hillary was working for abused children and Obama was using drugs. What does this say about their judgment? I recognize that people grow and mature but the Presidency is not something I wish to take chances with.
All this outrage and panic over the discussion of Obama's drug usuage in the Democratic primary. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THE AVERAGE VOTER IN THE GENERAL WILL BE MORE LIBERAL IN THEIR VIEW OF PAST DRUG USUAGE? If they aren't, Obama doesn't stand a chance in the general election.
Time to take a reality check.
At equivalent points in their lives Hillary was working for abused children and Obama was using drugs.
Sen Obama used drugs in high school when he was a teen-ager. Do you mean to say that Sen Clinton was working for abused children when she was a high-school student? If so, from where did this information come? The only biographical detail about Sen Clinton's teen-age years that I have seen mentioned is her canvassing for Nixon and Goldwater.
DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 1:19 PM:Just as telling as his tone and inflection is the crowd reaction. You see one girl over his right shoulder laugh at the line, when everyone else in the room stiffens up like a board with an "oh shit" look on their faces. I know what he meant, you know what he meant, they know what he meant, and most importantly, Bill and Hillary know what he meant.
Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 14, 2008 1:21 PM:"At equivalent points in their lives Hillary was working for abused children and Obama was using drugs. What does this say about their judgment? I recognize that people grow and mature but the Presidency is not something I wish to take chances with."
They were not at equivalent points in their lives. Obama has talked about using in high school and college.
And honestly, it's just pot. It makes me nervous to have someone in the presidency who readily accepts the craziness of doing something just because the government tells you to. I would prefer that my leaders not to be frightened by government anti-drug scare tactics or to be so calculating and ambitious as to avoid drug use as a means of keeping a clean record. Given when and where she was in college, it frightens me more that Hillary never smoked pot than it does that Obama did.
evie wrote on January 14, 2008 1:21 PM:AJM - no one is disputing that Obama used drugs. Bringing it up in a campaign in this way, however, is gutter politics. We expect it from Republicans, but we do not tolerate it from our own party.
What would happen if one of Obama's supporters stood up on a stage, right next to Obama and said, "I don't know what those Clintons are thinking. Obama was fighting for real people -- organizing real people in Chicago -- while Bill Clinton was doing you-know-what in the Oval Office. He's like Richard Gere in the American Gigolo!"
Gutter politics, that's what it would be. And I don't believe Obama would stand for it.
(And then after the event, the offender would put out a statement saying he obviously meant Bill Clinton was making important calls to international officials in the Oval Office. Any suggestion otherwise would be ridiculous.)
Exactly Audacious_One, the MSM doesn't seem to be picking up on the fact that no one is trying to say that the Clintons are racist...
Well, no one except the Obama campaign. I don't thing that's been working out as well as they might have hoped so far though. Still no apology from/about JJ Jr's sexist character attack on Hillary Clinton the other day, I note. But also no further attempts so far to cintinue with that particular line of attack.
My take is what we were seeing last week, with the JJ Jr. thing and then going nuclear with the race card in other, was a combination of peevishness at having lost New Hampshire, combined with the more rational imperative to try and blunt Clinton's momentum going into NV and SC. The simultaneous playing of the gender and race cards appear to have been a calculated two-pronged assault to designed to try and dehumanize Clinton with voters on the one hand and insulate themselves from pushback on the other, by playing the victim.
It was only the ferocity that appeared born of rage. The Obama campaign has usually been much smoother than that in wielding the hatchet up to now, but this time they crossed the line. Perhaps not by all that much though, at least in terms or realpolitik. As out of bounds as their attacks have been in the last week, if the press were still generally doting on Obama the way they were a month ago they probably would have gotten away with it -- and I still would not swear they won't.
jen wrote on January 14, 2008 1:22 PM:I think it is absolutely disgusting that
Mr. Obama played JayZ's song 99 problems at his Iowa campain event. I cannot believe a presidential candidate would play such a filthy song as their theme. Forget the swipe it was taking at Hillary - what about the total disregard for women portrayed in this song - calling them bitches and whores. What is the world coming to? This is Mr. Obama's message of hope? Give me a break. I listened to the lyrics of this song - I'll fast forward right past Mr. Obama. I will never vote for him!
Sudden Democratic Majority Death Syndrome
Right on target. SEnator Clinton is catnip to Republican voters, who, no matter how unmotivated by their own candidate will be highly motivated to vote against Senator Clinton. Goodbye White House, goodbye Democratic majority.
NCSteve wrote on January 14, 2008 1:26 PM:At equivalent points in their lives Hillary was working for abused children and Obama was using drugs. What does this say about their judgment? I recognize that people grow and mature but the Presidency is not something I wish to take chances with.
See, AJM, the problem with greasy, rancid innuendo and insinuation like Johnson's, as opposed to just making a straighforward allegation of fact, is that it allows people like you to build on the insinuation with made up facts. Obama said he did drugs as a teen and gave up dope altogher in college. Comparing apples to apples, at "equivilent points in their lives," i.e. in collge, when Obama was smoking some weed, so was Bill (but, of course, he didn't inhale.)
But, hey, I guess we just have to take them at their word when these two:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_kC5MT2r5U8s/RyHbwHCdiTI/AAAAAAAACQQ/gjUpsZU8yoI/s1600-h/Bill+and+Hillary+Clintons_college+years.jpg
say they never smoked dope, despite the fact that admitting pot use was politically fatal until about 1999 and they thus had every incentive to lie.
At "equivilent points in their lives" after college, Obama was doing grassroots work in Chicago and applying to law school and Hillary was practicing public interest law.
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THE AVERAGE VOTER IN THE GENERAL WILL BE MORE LIBERAL IN THEIR VIEW OF PAST DRUG USUAGE? If they aren't, Obama doesn't stand a chance in the general election.
Ummm, the fact that they elected W, notwithstanding the fact that he as much as admitted it, the fact that it was a total nonissue with Gore, who did admit smoking dope, and the fact that the percentage of voters who never used, and do not know anyone who ever used, drugs is smaller now than it was in 2000 and continues to diminish as people old enough to say this continue to die off.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 1:31 PM:Jen:
First, there was only one party Obama attended on that night, and the song was from U2. Unless you have evidence to support your contention, then I'd say drop it.
Second, you clearly have no idea what 99 Problems is about. If you did, you'd know how this is a non-troversy.
So, please, by all means fuel your faux outrage, but don't ever say no one told you that the event never happened and the song doesn't remotely mean what you think it does.
NCSteve wrote on January 14, 2008 1:31 PM:Okay, CalD, put up or stfu. Give me one link, one single link, quoting a person employed by the Obama campaign accusing Hillary or Bill of being racists.
Common Sense wrote on January 14, 2008 1:35 PM:CalD:
I see the #1 sock puppet has awakened. Yes, the Obama campaign is responsible for people's natural reaction to Clinton and her surrogates comments. How he got her to make those comments is just beyond me, but it's clearly his fault. Right.
I've yet to see Senator Clinton apologize for any confusion of her own words. Apparently the listeners should apologize for taking her words at face value.
In reality, it's just one more piece of evidence that Senator Clinton is unwilling to take responsibility for her own words and actions. Very Bush-like indeed....
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 1:37 PM:At equivalent points in their lives Hillary was working for abused children and Obama was using drugs.
When Hillary Clinton was in her twenties she worked to provide protections for abused and battered children
The basis for Mr Johnson's statement (the second quote) is an article which Sen Clinton authored in 1974, when she was 27 years old. By the age of 27 Sen Obama was long past his youthful misadventure with narcotics and was working for low-income public-housing residents in Chicago and applying to Harvard Law school.
In other words, if you really wanted to make a fair comparison, at equivalent points in their lives, Sen Obama was (among other things) using drugs and Sen Clinton was (among other things) canvassing for Nixon and Goldwater. Meanwhile, at equivalent later points in their lives Sen Clinton was working to help abused children and Sen Obama was working to help low-income public housing residents. To my mind, both come out of that examination looking pretty admirable, but the attempt to make Sen Obama look the poorer depends on a rather slimy mischaracterization (as if age 17 is somehow the same as age 27).
It's integrity and honesty, stupid. wrote on January 14, 2008 1:37 PM:Um...yeah...little news flash for the Clinton campaign...there's this new little thing on the internet called YouTube...it's like this web site where you can watch videos and stuff. you might wanna check it out sometime.
Hillary rules! wrote on January 14, 2008 1:41 PM:Screw Obama and his drug dealin', muslim worshippin', harvard-schmarvard self - Bush and Clinton forever, baby!! Only question now is does Jeb Bush run against Hillary in '12 or does he wait til '16??
http://www.bushandclintonforever.com
AJM wrote on January 14, 2008 1:47 PM:So people voted for GW despite his past drug usage. That worked out really well.
Okay, I should have remembered that Obama stopped using in college (of course, given the tenor of the times perhaps I should worry about that?)
Point remains -- I'm far more worried about Obama's drug usage than Hillary's non-usage in the context of the Presidency.
And, yes, I do mean to imply that GW and Obama are similar -- both are very ambitious, willing to take on tasks for which they have little background, willing to smear their opponents and given to unfounded claims of taking the moral high ground and talk in broad sweeping terms of uniting not dividing.
zonk wrote on January 14, 2008 1:50 PM:If I could have one and only one wish for the entire blogosphere for the rest of the campaign -- it would be that "hillaryis44.org" never, ever be used a source of talking points and discussions by anyone ever again.
Working in IT myself, I don't usually wish this on anyone... but I really do wish their host would experience a massive Data Center collapse - redundancy and all - that would take that worthless site offline for a while.
Name the sleaziest, most poorly sourced smear against Obama (or Edwards) - you can trace it back to that vortex of suck.
Every morning - Hi44 puts out new crap, willing Hillbots spread it everywhere.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 1:51 PM:AJM:
Clearly, Bush being a bad president is tied to his past drug use. Please.
As for the presidency being a task for which W and Obama have little background, you're beating the same dead horse of Hillary's phantom experience.
The Pop View wrote on January 14, 2008 1:55 PM:There's just no way to interpret Johnson's remarks as applying to community organizing. And above discussion over whether Obama's past use of drugs is fair game shows that the technique may be effective.
This just adds gasoline to the fire. It's stupid that this campaign has turned into a civil rights battle, but the Clinton campaign has only itself to blame.
On a number of occasions, over the course of her political career Hillary Clinton has gotten herself in trouble for her words. You can go back to Tammy Wynette and baking cookies & having teas, but there is a history of Clinton expressing a thought that may be appropriate, but it’s expressed in a way that starts a firestorm.
I sympathize with her, I really do. I've never been a big supporter of her politically, but I do respect her and if she becomes the nominee, I will vote for her. But she has always been tone deaf in certain ways and believes she should be judged by what she meant to say and not by the actual words that came out of her mouth.
She said that MLK was fine, but LBJ was the one that got the job done. Well, Martin Luther King wasn't Congress and wasn't President, so he can't take direct credit for the Great Society legislation. But none of that would have happened without the pressure of the Civil Rights movement and it was stupid to suggest that MLK was a dreamer, but not a doer. "It took a president to get it done," is an offensive remark. Neither Kennedy nor Johnson has an unblemished record on this issue.
The racist point on drug use isn't hard to see if you have even the slightest degree of critical thinking. Speaking of the first time it was brought up, it wasn't racist that the Clinton campaign brought up the drug use (although it was a bit hypocritical considering Bill's drug use, which obviously didn't hurt him any), it was that they implied that he (unlike Bill or George W, both white if you haven't noticed) should be questioned on if he ever sold drugs or supplied drugs to other people. The racial double standard isn't hard to see, and I guarantee it is painfully obvious for African Americans who have seen these subtle and not-so-subtle double standards repeatedly their entire lives (some of the double standards have even been codified into law, for example the different sentencing for crack use vs cocaine use, crack being primarily a drug of the poor, and cocaine being the drug of choice for the rich, and predominately white). So why should Obama be questioned about whether or not he sold drugs when Bill and George weren't? If anything Obama should have less to answer for because he, unlike the other two, was completely open and upfront about these teenage mistakes. The most obvious, and really only, variable to explain this discrepancy is racial.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 2:16 PM:It is soooo nice to hear Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh today backing Obama. They love him so much. They want him to be the Dems pick. They are defending him on the radio today as if he was a Republican. Maybe he is a Republican.
It is very disturbing to hear them talk as if they will vote for him. As if they love him. Playing music on the show about the Civil War. Trying to play up the racial fires. Just like they will do in the summer of 08.
For those who like misrepresenting Hillary's early career,it looks like she started working at the Yale Child Study Center around 23, and started working on other child abuse legal services as well as migratory labor issues for Mondale. Obama was heading off to be a community organizer about then, so it's not like the comparison works badly for either.
chigger wrote on January 14, 2008 2:51 PM:Is it possible that Bill Clinton is showing early signs of Alzheimer's?
P wrote on January 14, 2008 3:04 PM:I would have to being "doing something in the neighborhood" to vote for Hillary Clinton in Nov. of '08. By that, I mean tons of drugs, not community organizing.
Instead, I'll enthusiastically vote McCain. Race-baiting is for jerks, and I couldn't give two fucks if your a Democrat or a Republican...
sfam wrote on January 14, 2008 3:15 PM:Having Bill "I didn't have sex with that woman" Clinton telling us, "I think we have to take (Johnson) at his word" that he didn't mean "drug use" when he clearly did is literally creating a caricature. Could they have possibly come up with a worse spokesman to tell us to believe an obvious lie???? I don't think so.
And seriously, Mr. Johnson, we get that you're rich and all, but that doesn't give you the power to convince us of clear and obvious lies. Too bad you didn't have the integrity to go along with your money.
steve wrote on January 14, 2008 3:27 PM:I am very tired of seeing Obama's drug use described as being in his "teen" years or his "childhood/youth." He has admitted using cocaine (and, depending on how you define the terms, heroin) well into his 20s. That's what he admits to.
DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 3:28 PM:I did not have sexual relations with that intern - take me at my word.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 3:29 PM:It is soooo nice to hear Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh today backing Obama. They love him so much. They want him to be the Dems pick. They are defending him on the radio today as if he was a Republican. Maybe he is a Republican.
It is very disturbing to hear them talk as if they will vote for him. As if they love him. Playing music on the show about the Civil War. Trying to play up the racial fires. Just like they will do in the summer of 08.
I know exactly how feel. I felt the same way watching Bill Kristol vehemently defending Hillary Clinton on a Fox roundtable. I thought, man, is Hillary Clinton a closet Republican or what.
And then I remembered that Hillary started her political life as a Goldwater Republican, supporting the candidate who was trying to stop the civil rights movement, and then after getting elected to President the Clintons pushed for NAFTA, turned the Congress over to Republicans in '94 and then spent the next six years signing all kinds of Republican legislation into law, including DOMA.
And then after getting elected to the Senate, Hillary went along with Republicans in starting a foolish war in Iraq while my imaginary hip black friend showed remarkable judgment in opposing that foolish war. And if that wasn't bad enough, she supported the Republican's Bankruptcy Bill that her war pal George Bush went on to sign into law, a bill that Chris Dodd called a blow to working families.
Thanks for being such a great Republican, Hillary.
RaymondA wrote on January 14, 2008 3:31 PM:The statement that the refernce was to "community organizing" is the most obvious and transparent lie by a public figure since, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." An all-time historic whopper. Will Leno, Letterman, Stewart and Colbert take a whack at it? Or is it too easy prey for them?
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 3:33 PM:I am very tired of seeing Obama's drug use described as being in his "teen" years or his "childhood/youth." He has admitted using cocaine (and, depending on how you define the terms, heroin) well into his 20s. That's what he admits to.
The only evidence we had of any drug use of Obama's part is his own candid admitting of such activity in his first book. Obama never gave a time frame.
Contrast that with Bill Clinton who never admitted his marijuana or cocaine use and we only know about it because the women he was screwing around with behind Hillary's back ratted him out to the press! And rather than be a man and admit it, he said whether or not he took drugs depended on the word "inhale".
For those who like misrepresenting Hillary's early career,it looks like she started working at the Yale Child Study Center around 23...
Near as I can tell, I am the only one here to have contributed any specific claims about Sen Clinton's early career, so I think that this is directed towards me. With that in mind, I would like to plead guilty of the "like misrepresenting [Sen Clinton's] early career." I do not "like" misrepresenting anything. I was trying to be as fair as possible, and I simply did not see any mention of any such work at age 23 on any of the issues' sites I checked.
With that in mind, I welcome your correction. That said, I would be obliged if you could flesh the claim out more fully (if you have the opportunity). What was/is the "Yale Child Study Center" and what did/does it do? Where did you find the claim that Sen Clinton was working for it at age 23? Any info you might be able to supply would be much appreciated.
Splitting Image wrote on January 14, 2008 3:44 PM:"It is soooo nice to hear Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh today backing Obama. They love him so much. They want him to be the Dems pick. They are defending him on the radio today as if he was a Republican. Maybe he is a Republican."
Speaking of Limbaugh, what bothers me the most about Hillary Clinton's current behaviour is that she's doing the same thing Rush did when he made the "phony soldiers" remark.
Instead of admitting he goofed on the air and the comment didn't come out the way he wanted, he went ballistic and denounced everyone who attacked him for not understanding what he "meant" to say.
There is a great essay on Huffington Post by Earl Hutchinson about what Clinton "meant" to say about MLK and LBJ. I agree with most of Huffington's points and hope that Clinton had something similar in mind when she made her remarks. But even if she did, it is her fault as the speaker that it was not received correctly and she is not helping her cause by unleashing the attack dogs instead of issuing a clarification.
As for Johnson, he's doing the same thing only worse. Even I would cut Rush Limbaugh some slack, but there is no doubt at all about what Bob Johnson meant.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 3:45 PM:Folks, we all realize that the only chance Hillary has to win is to drive up Obama's negatives and take away his likeability, right?
These ongoing online scurrilous smears are intended to drive up his negatives. The public race theme injection and drug innuendo by Bob Johnson are to try to bait make him into reacting in a bad way and appear unlikeable.
Obama won't fail us on the likeability question. He is smart, disciplined and cool.
But we've got to push back all over the internet on these scurrilous smears. What I've been particularly successful with is to take their "argument" and show how it quadruply cuts against their own candidate, Hillary. They don't want to talk about Hillary and they certainly don't want her negatives going up even further, so they quickly back off.
It's ugly but it's gotta be done. After we get Obama elected, however, I'm out of the party. I feel like I need a bath after seeing DEMOCRATS do the nasty shit the Hillary folks are doing. I naively thought this stuff was a thing of the past in the Democratic party.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 4:03 PM:Mr. Johnson, that black mogul, is a racist. He should never talk about us black folks doing drugs. Kids in my neighborhood always go to jail for crack. Praise the Lord, Obama got away with doing drugs.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 4:32 PM:NyT's "The Caucus"
The Clintons Lust for Power
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTM1bGttbm1xBF9TAzM2MDQ2MTc4OARjb2wDMQRpaWQDOTk1NDQxMzM0ODc0OTM3NDQ3MARub2gDNQRudGVtAwRwb3MDMgRyaWQDMTI5NDQ2BHJvdwMzBHN1aWQDMTc5MDk5BHQDY29uBHRlbQMw/SIG=153toihs2/**http%3A//thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/the-clintons-and-history/index.html%3Fex=1357966800%26en=dc54ada2846a4730%26ei=5089%26partner=rssyahoo%26emc=rss Gregor wrote on January 14, 2008 4:56 PM:
A psychotic ailment of notable intensity seems to have descended upon the mind of Bill and Hillary, and I must say, when this started to whirl into action several weeks ago I did not think it would go this far. It appears the President is now suffering a series of campaign flashbacks. His body and voice trembles in panic and resentment. I suppose on one hand he is projecting himself on his wife. On the other hand, he remains fully entrenched in his own story. Regardless, the fear of Hillary losing has caught the President in a psychic death-drip. He is not in control of himself.
I want people to seriously consider that the Clintons genuinely believe that this daisy chain of oddball remarks over the past 8+ weeks from them and their surrogates, are, in fact, some how "magically" being triggered, or controlled, by the Obama Camp. Sometimes it's "jut plain interesting" to take people at their word.
Lost in all this, strangely, is Hillary. The former President's behaviour seems once again poised to subordinate her position overall. When she admitted she was very other directed in the midst of her teary moments in NH, on some level, there was some truth to that and this seems a reflection of the marriage.
The bottom line is that I now see the Clintons as totally off their gourds. They are acting like they're high on mushrooms. But it's clearly not a very good Trip they are having. No, it's not a technicolor dream in a field of flowers, but rather, they are being chased by monsters.
I hope the voters put them out of their misery soon.
grover_rover wrote on January 14, 2008 5:07 PM:Oh, here is an article that discusses the "Guess Who's Coming for Dinner" comment by Bob Johnson. For those not familiar with the movie he is basically saying Obama tries to act like a house negro. Anyway, give it a read, good article:
And of course the "horrible and rabidly anti-Clinton" MSM won't report on that part of it, or really barely any of the crap the Clintons say, do and lie about in order to win this election. I could only hope if I ran for elected office that I'd get a media so "hostile" toward me, haha.
DonnaG wrote on January 14, 2008 5:36 PM:I am assuming that Hillary Clinton was on stage with this guy when he made his vile remarks.
If so, then this happening is pretty equivalent to mcCain taking that question from the lady who asked, "how do we stop the b*tch?"
McCain was rightly criticized for not countering the woman's ugly comment, but a bit later tried to defuse the atmosphere. If Hillary was there, then Hillary fails to even come up to McCain's belatedly expressed standard of decorum.
thepoliticalpost wrote on January 14, 2008 6:10 PM:I think this one is going to leave a mark. I've noticed, among an increasing number of Democrats, the same visceral reaction to Sen. Clinton once only reserved for Republicans.
BCXPat wrote on January 14, 2008 6:14 PM:After all these years it took a moral titan like Bob Johnson to make us aware just how unseemly community organizing really is! Whod'a thunk?
ruth wrote on January 14, 2008 7:37 PM:the clinton sacrifices a lot for al of us- sacrifices a lot for the black poeple the evudence is there. this news[aper misinterpret the whole thing plus oabma campgin play the rce card- ;; clinton diid preety much for the black pople -obama then mayeb ehs kid- soemtimes hes a trouble maker- no common sense. now jonson is black he knows how much the clitnon did for them or black people -the essage ehre is clear-we now vote clitnon is the one ly who has cnahe woth epxreience. weall be hapy.v
phil james wrote on January 15, 2008 12:13 AM:Someone called Clinton Republican-lite. To complete the picture, all that's left to do is to actually hire Karl Rove as campaign advisor.
drfranklives wrote on January 15, 2008 10:11 AM:When Bob Johnson left the stage, he was followed by 30 minutes of music videos, featuring scantily clad 18 year old black women, guns, and blatant appeals to drug use.
Oh wait, I accidentally turned on BET.
J.Irons wrote on January 17, 2008 2:10 PM:Well good. Don't you feel better now, Bob?
