Clyburn Confirms He'll Remain Neutral In South Carolina Primary

Comments (42)

dhs wrote on January 12, 2008 9:03 AM:

The country can ill-afford to get into a discussion of race and gender in the Democratic primaries. It seems now that Clinton and Obama are going to have a long slog at winning the nomination, and that is to the good.

Both candidates have resorted to attacking the other in the race; but they should get off the personal stuff and onto laying out the specifics of how they would deal with the major issues facing the country:

the breakdown of the rule of law; violation of civil rights, including voter rights; the very real possibility of criminal action in the current administration; the exploitation of labor around the world by the so-called free trade agreements; the ultra-militaristic and self-defeating foreign policy of the U.S.; universal health care; lack of adequate education and housing; discrimination; an economy built on consumerism and credit, rather than on investment; the very real threat of global warming.

So far this campaign has been dominated by distractions from the real issues facing us and dividing us. That distraction is the fault of the news media that seems to focus on personalities, rather than on issues. The candidates should rise above it.

The candidates who have shown the most leadership on the real issues so far are the second tier candidates: Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel (but not Biden). It is time for Clinton and Obama to follow their leadership.

The best thing that could happen for the country is for the two leading candidates to get off the personal crap and onto the real issues. I would be delighted to vote for either one of them in the fall if they would do this; and a joint ticket, with substantive attention to the real issues, would be a godsend.

Discussion of race and gender are a diversion from the real issues.

J. Hallmark wrote on January 12, 2008 9:10 AM:

I'm glad that Rep.Clyburn is not falling for this "race-baiting" ploy. It's enough that the Clinton surrogates are whispering it.

We now have the Mitt Romney of the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, spinning so fast that it makes your head spin.

Let's see.....who do you want Hillary to be today....Hillary the tough as nails feminist...Hillary the "I'm your girl", No, No, I wear asbestos pantsuts Hillary, the "men are ganging up on me,
Poor little old me who has her Evita moment Hillary or the Hillary moment in the Las Vegas barrio with the regular people.

Does she get up every morning, stick her finger in the air and say, Wonder who I am going to be today?

Yep, just like Mitt !!!

Tom wrote on January 12, 2008 9:15 AM:

It's interesting that he spoke to Bill and not Hillary. Why is the Clinton campaign sending him out to confront this issue instead of Hillary?

JoeCHI wrote on January 12, 2008 9:17 AM:

The idea that the Clintons are racist is beyond absurd.

Further, if the Obama campaign continues to cry "racism" every time a compliment (read Biden) or criticism is made of him or his record, he will lose a big chunk of his potential white vote.

While I don't doubt Obama's desire to bring people together, I question that the best way to do it is by decrying the battles of the '90's while simultaneously embracing the battles of the '60's.

Cy Guy wrote on January 12, 2008 9:23 AM:

"Mr. Clyburn, who aides said spoke with Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama, said"

I guess it's good that they are making Bill clean-up his own mess, but I wonder if this is telling us something about whether Clyburn's loyalty is to the candidate or to the former President?

Considering that a lot of the comments aren't coming from Bill, I would want to get the candidate herself on record that no more comments will come from Mark Penn, and that anyone that has endorsed the candidate (such as Cuomo, Kerrey, etc.) will not be used in any future advertising or events by the campaign if they again make any comments seemed to fall into a stereotype, or that reference the religious heritage of members of Obama's extended family. Only the candidate is in s position to make such a binding promise.

hello_world wrote on January 12, 2008 9:23 AM:

Discussion of race and gender are very real issues even today. As the one party looking to take on these issues though, we cannot allow these discussions to devolve into divisive and embittering battles in an effort to exploit votes. Thus far, Senator Clinton has been doing exactly that with gender, and some recent comments have threatened to split the party sharply along racial lines, which wouldn't be good for the party as a whole.

I applaud Congressman Clyburn in remaining neutral, even though his involvement probably would have helped my choice of candidate. It also would have left a more divisive cloud around the SC vote. But I do thank him for standing up and raising the issue that needed to be raised after what has definitely become a pattern of "noise" coming out of Clinton corners of late.

Tim Russert Should Grill Hillary On This wrote on January 12, 2008 9:31 AM:

Hillary will get a chance to clear this up on Meet the Press on Sunday. Hopefully, Tim Russert spends a good amount of time on it. Race-baiting cannot be tolerated.

kaspian wrote on January 12, 2008 9:40 AM:

I'd just like to make a preemptive comment. Most of these threads eventually spawn a fair amount of anti-Hillary rhetoric, some of it quite angry and vitriolic. Some posters sympathetic to Hillary assume this is coming from Obama supporters. I don't believe this is true.

There is a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment on progressive blogs. But it's been around for a while, and if you think back just a couple of weeks ago -- before the race became clearly Barack-vs-Hillary -- you'll remember that the Obama contingent was either (a) inconspicuous or (b) all dreamy-eyed and holding hands and "Kumbaya," compared to, how shall I say ... supporters of Other Candidates.

My guess is that the extreme anti-Hillary language that predictably appears in these discussions is NOT coming from Obama supporters (like me) but rather from people whose candidates are not in serious contention and are kind of pissed about it. And many of those folks, as you'll recall, really heartily disliked the Clintons from the get-go.

BDB wrote on January 12, 2008 9:47 AM:

I'll believe Obama is close in New York when I see a poll. The most recent poll taken on Jan. 9-10 had Clinton up 56-29. It's true Obama has risen from 17 since December. But Clinton was 55 in the last December poll.

I know polls blew NH, but is the media just going to stop basing its stories on any empirical data whatsoever. That headline shouldn't be "Obama Giving Clinton a Race..." It should be "Obama Planning to Give Clinton a Race..." Because it is all about his efforts in NY, which is fair enough, but it acts like he's already competitive and there's simply no evidence that's true.

Kevin Hayden wrote on January 12, 2008 10:02 AM:

If Hillary waits till Sunday to address it, it'll look like more staging. As I noted at American Street, either she leads her own campaign and quells this fast, or she risks much by waiting.

And the criticisms do not originate in the Obama campaign.They've come from all over, from many longtime Clinton supporters. It's not a partisan issue between campaigns, it's about an American value and what Hillary intends to do about it.

grover_rover wrote on January 12, 2008 10:07 AM:

Of course the assertion that the Clintons are racist is absurd, but that isn't the point, the real question is, are they willing to seed the electorate with racial disharmony through a dispersed but continuous stream of comments coming from high level campaign staff and lesser surrogates in order to win? They could do this all they want, and claim plausible deniability, and claim the obvious that of course they aren't racist, but that doesn't mean they aren't willing to race bait this thing to try to make their upcoming crushing defeat in SC look like a race thing, and try to make Obama into a Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson type candidate.

I think there is definitely a trend here coming from the Clinton campaign and nowhere else. I think they will do anything to win, and they have shown that they will fight dirty as hell and lie all they have to to win. So I think the answer is yes, they would race bait to win.

Ni Daye wrote on January 12, 2008 10:39 AM:

I think Clyburn is very smart. He has let his preference out. He is no longer neutral while staying neutral. It deprives the rationale for the Hillary compaign to skip SC.

eorse wrote on January 12, 2008 11:16 AM:

I predict a Clinton Victory. (Do you know if Clyburn talk to Bill Clinton? I bet he did in the last 24-hours.)

I have lost interest in the primary. It started the day before NH primary. But, I should have realized it started before IA caucus. It just takes a slow process. What do I mean?

- Bill chasing after The Register editorial board.
- Bill on Charlie Rose demeaning Obama's experience (and lying about his [Bill's] decision to avoid running for the White House in 1988). Press buying Bill's story.
- Ditto with Shaheen, Kerrey, etc.

Now, in NH,

- Obama got success. His supporters grew. But, so did McCain's candidacy. With HRC in tears, older white women feeling sorry, press showing HRC in tears, Bill referring to fairy tale, HRC mentioning MLK Jr., etc.
- HRC saying that she is vetted, tested, and my goodness, the MOST INNOCENT of ALL.

Now, we are at present. With one all (IA for Obama, NH for Clinton). The comments that HRC gets the press to report (Iron my shirt, no woman is illegal, etc.) are all to build HRC.

There is simply no way Obama can win now. Laugh if you will. The Clinton Machine never stops. Someone recently said that people stop smelling when they are asleep. The Clinton machine never sleeps. It plots, plots, and plots every little or big thing to put HRC ahead. Any belief that HRC is playing nice or innocent or has done a mistake is a figment of imagination.

Take it from here. Obama cannot win. The Clinton machine is a turtle. It will win. There is nothing you can do. Should you run fast, should you raise more money, should you have big rallys, this is all a waste.

What a tragic story? In this reality, David always loses to the Goliath.

dcshungu wrote on January 12, 2008 11:56 AM:

Separately, in some good news for Obama, The New York Times reports that the New York primary is shaping up as the most competitive one in 15 years, a show of Obama's surprising strength in Hillary's home state.

This is the sort mindless statements that got the press humiliated in NH. I live in NY and find the notion that Obama has a chance in the state to be a ploy to draw attention to a contest lacking in excitement... or is the NYT 'projecting' Rudy's troubles in the state onto Hillary?

Frank wrote on January 12, 2008 12:01 PM:

dcschungu: exactly.. the latest poll from NY (yesterday): Clinton 56 Obama 29.

Competitive? Hardly.

What the Obama campaign currently seems to be trying to do is to keep their momentum going, to create a further bandwagon effect, while trying to stop Clinton from using her NH momentum.

But claiming that NY is competitive is, well, far-fetched.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 12, 2008 12:05 PM:

Good news, this. The strife between the Clinton and Obama camps over issues of race and gender serve no one's interests but the Republicans. Hopefully Clinton & al will quit making bone-headedly tone-deaf racial remarks and the Obama camp will quit making unseemly remarks about weak women and both can return to campaigning on issues about which the government can actually do something.

latts wrote on January 12, 2008 12:26 PM:

I think there is definitely a trend here coming from the Clinton campaign and nowhere else. I think they will do anything to win, and they have shown that they will fight dirty as hell and lie all they have to to win. So I think the answer is yes, they would race bait to win.

Sure... I don't think anyone is surprised that they (and their online supporters, IME, & I've been around since the Dean wars) use snide, insulting, and generally dismissive language against opponents. After all, they were pushing the inevitability/coronation/restoration narrative, and their bitter resentment over it not materializing as planned is painfully obvious. But that language against a black man is definitely more loaded, more dangerous, so they don't know what to do-- one of their selling points has always been that they 'know how to fight the Republicans' (which always makes me wonder which GOPers were defeated by the Clintons instead of their own hubris, but never mind), but their methods involve a lot of under-the-radar nastiness & character aspersions that blow up bigger than expected when applied to Obama. So what do a bunch of condescending, insult-lobbing surrogates do?- after all, that was supposed to be their job.

ABC wrote on January 12, 2008 12:51 PM:

Maybe Congressman Clyburn hasn't heard this new gem from a Clinton pollster: “The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.”

Mary wrote on January 12, 2008 1:06 PM:

I am sure he talked to Obama who probably told him not to make a big deal about this. Obama is a smart cookie and he does not want his campaign to denigrate into a racial war. While I am sure he would love the endorsement, he is intelligent to look at the whole picture. He is not reactionary and seriously considers the consequences the moves of others on the campaign. That being said, I think it shows the wonderful leadership quality of the Obama campaign. He knows exactly how he would like his campaign to run and I'm sure he talked to Clyburn to relay his thoughts on the subject. Good judgement, that is what this country needs - not the monkey crappola that the Clintonistas are flinging. Haven't we had enough of that? Obama is not making race an issue - the Clinton's are with their desperate attempt to peel away minority voters. These attempts will backfire on them.

TPM - I know you don't want to pick sides in this thing - but really - you've got to take a stand. Fox News started out "Fair and Balanced" too right?

But there is such a thing as pointing out what is spin and what isn't. There is such a thing as peeling away the layers to the bare facts. Half quotes don't cut it. Misleading headlines dont cut it. The fourth estate has to tell the people the truth with no spin if we are to elect truly honest people. In every article you write - you need to give the full story - not just half. Please be the shining example of non biased journalism I know you want to be. Regardless of which candidate you back - you have to tell the whole story.

pacc wrote on January 12, 2008 1:27 PM:

BFD.

If Senator Clinton wins So. Carolina, it's a HUGE win.

If O-Bomb-A wins So. Carolina, it's because black voters supported the black candidate - a fringe thing that will detract from O-Bomb-A's overall chances among the rest of (meaning the overwhelming majority of) Democratic primary voters around the country.

JubleJohnson wrote on January 12, 2008 1:38 PM:

After threatening to drop his neutral stance in his state's Dem primary in reaction to recent comments by Hillary and Bill about race, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn confirmed last night that he will remain neutral, after all:

***Clyburn was just covering his ass,why did he go public in the first place as opposed to privately informing the Clinton camp ?I am sure Clyburn constitutents were the ones who forced the public stance.

dcshungu wrote on January 12, 2008 2:25 PM:

Today's Must-Read: Hillary and Racism

The following excerpted TNR piece might be a bit too erudite for most in this forum but please take a look anyway. Hillary's LBJ/MLK/JFK comment could not possibly be interpreted by anyone with any gray matter between the ears as a racist remark. Hillary is no racist, and nor is Bill. The remark refers to the fact that great ideas/proposals/policies (e.g., civil rights act of 1964) need their champions within the government in order to ensure their passage into law - a truism that only a racist would think is a racist remark, and I mean that. I provide just the end of the piece but it is worth reading in its entirety -- if it is the only thing that you read today, make that piece be it.

The New Republic

The Power and the Inspiration

by Sean Wilentz

To understand Hillary Clinton's "race problem," we must better understand the history of civil rights.
Post Date Saturday, January 12, 2008

[...] Martin Luther King led the movement; Lyndon B. Johnson supported that movement, played the politics, guided the legislation, and signed it into law. Both were indispensable to the civil rights successes of the 1960s. To acknowledge both denigrates neither man. Describing such an acknowledgment as a denigration of Dr. King is, at best, bad history. At worst, it is a manipulative and inflammatory racial appeal concerning a crucial era in American history--an era that needs very, very careful consideration indeed. Either way, the current heated rhetoric demonstrates that the utopia of post-racial politics has hardly arrived.

jessejacksonjr wrote on January 12, 2008 2:48 PM:

JESSE JACKSON JR.. KATRINA TEARS!!!

Joe wrote on January 12, 2008 2:49 PM:

I think Bill Clinton really cared for brothers and sisters. It is not fair to accuse him a racist merely to win votes.

ShutupNvote wrote on January 12, 2008 3:20 PM:

Sorry not buying it makes no difference now the damage has been done the feathers cant be return to the pillow.

Senator Clinton is not as Black as Senator Obama, agreed….. nor it appears are any of the rest of us non blacks obviously, But it is not our obligation to accept Senator Obamas demand that we believe poorly of our selves as Americans because we are not enamored with Senator Obama that has only now hardened.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 12, 2008 4:04 PM:

I live in NY and find the notion that Obama has a chance in the state to be a ploy to draw attention to a contest lacking in excitement...

I am broadly inclined to agree. That said, if I were to give the NYT people the greatest possible benefit of the doubt, I would say that you could read "competitive" (as they use it) to mean merely that Sen Clinton is not going to take every delegate from NY. Rather, Sen Obama is going to make her actually work to earn her delegates there (even if, in the end, she is going to take away the more-than-lion's share of them). Nonetheless, I agree that polling 29% to Clinton's 56% does not quite amount to "Obama is competitive" in my book either.

CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 4:07 PM:

"Separately, in some good news for Obama, The New York Times reports that the New York primary is shaping up as the most competitive one in 15 years, a show of Obama's surprising strength in Hillary's home state."

It should probably be noted that "a show of Obama's surprising strength," in this case, refers to losing to Clinton by only 27%.

CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 4:09 PM:

Once more with a close tag:

"Separately, in some good news for Obama, The New York Times reports that the New York primary is shaping up as the most competitive one in 15 years, a show of Obama's surprising strength in Hillary's home state."

It should probably be noted that "a show of Obama's surprising strength," in this case, refers to losing to Clinton by only 27%.

(Much better.)

CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 4:37 PM:

"...Despite Clyburn's neutrality, there is a very real backlash underway in the black community towards the Clintons for their recent remarks that could present a real problem for Hillary, and her campaign is working overtime to repair the damage."

That may not be the ideal choice of words for what's going on here. The term "backlash" really applies only to a response to something someone actually did. And I'm very sorry, but the supposed case for any tinge of "racism" -- let's come right out and call it what they're trying to call it -- on Bill Clinton's part is specious.

The problem with this line of attack of course is that you would have to start with an assumption of guilt to make the reaches they're trying to make. So if this were George Wallace or David Duke we were talking about, that would be one thing. But the Clintons' record on racial issues is sterling pure and very simply unassailable, to the point that Bill Clinton himself has often been referred to as the country's first black president.

Barack Obama's need to fortify post-Iowa gains in SC on the other hand, particularly among black voters, is very real. It's also painfully obvious, given remarks earlier in the week by Obama campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr., and the Obama campaign's tacit condoning of those remarks by their subsequent silence about them -- no resignations, no reprimands, not even so much as an apology or a disavowal -- that they're by no means above using sexist innuendo to attack Senator Clinton if they think it suits their objectives. So I really don't think one need to look any farther than that for the most likely source of this brouhaha. And if they're starting to backpedal on it now, then the most likely reason would be a more conventional application of the term, "backlash."

Nick wrote on January 12, 2008 4:38 PM:

I hope this "Clinton Machine" remembers to oil itself for the general election, and dismantles McCain. If not, say hell to Bush Term III.

SC Progressive wrote on January 12, 2008 4:52 PM:

After this Easter Sunday conversation, the President and Ms. Lewinsky had a sexual encounter in the hallway, according to Ms. Lewinsky. She testified that the President touched her breasts with his mouth and hands. According to Ms. Lewinsky: "I think he unzipped [his pants] . . . because it was sort of this running joke that I could never unbutton his pants, that I just had trouble with it." Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex. The President did not ejaculate in her presence.

During this encounter, someone called out from the Oval Office that the President had a phone call. He went back to the Oval Office for a moment, then took the call in the study. The President indicated that Ms. Lewinsky should perform oral sex while he talked on the phone, and she obliged.

Desider wrote on January 12, 2008 4:55 PM:

I really can't understand how this would be a race-baiting ploy. Hillary wants to piss of her black support? Whites or Hispanics need it whispered to them to notice Obama is black? What in the world does this gain? If they wanted to do a whispering campaign, why wouldn't they do it through a 3rd party, someone professing to be a Giuliani or Huckabee supporter - kill 2 birds with one stone.

Sue wrote on January 12, 2008 5:08 PM:

4 Reasons why Hillary should NOT be the democratic nominee:

Hillary Clinton might win the nomination, but there are a number of problems with selecting her:

(1)Recent polls have shown that 50% of the country won’t vote for her in the general election under ANY circumstances, so she’s already playing on a really short field. It’s tough to win if half the country has turned its back on your candidacy and you don’t know for sure if you have the full support of the other half.

(2)The republicans want to run against her because they have 20 years’ worth of dirt against the Clintons to regurgitate in swiftboat ads during the general election.

(3)She needs independents to win, and Obama polls better than her with independents in general election match-ups.

(4)Bloomberg’s group, Unity08, has made it very clear that unless the parties nominate candidates that are NOT polarizing, they will place a very well-funded independent candidate (i.e. Bloomberg – who has up to $1 BILLION to spend) into the race. In other words they will throw in a SPOILER. Bloomberg is Ralph Nader X100. Hillary is the most polarizing candidate in either race, and she’s the one who 50% of the country won’t vote for in the general election, and who has a greater problem attracting independents – and the polls show this is in a two-party race WITHOUT a spoiler. So, the presence of a spoiler in the race is going to hurt Hillary (i.e. democrats) the most. Given these facts, I think Unity08 has been formed to stop Hillary from becoming president.

I think if democrats insist on nominating Hillary, we will for sure be in for 8 more years of republican rule.

GHB wrote on January 12, 2008 6:36 PM:

grover_rover said: "Of course the assertion that the Clintons are racist is absurd..."

I disagree. If the Clinton campaign is exploiting racial unease to further their goals, that is inherently racist. What I find even more pernicious and cynical is that the Clintons have been known for their good work supporting minority interests, and now they're willing to throw all that away when it matters most.

Chris Corbell wrote on January 12, 2008 6:58 PM:

From where I sit it sure looks like this is being orchestrated by the Obama campaign, who want to draw the Clintons into a fight on this issue to shore up their support in SC.

It's a disservice to the process for everyone. There's a reason John Lewis and Maya Angelou and Quincy Jones are with Hillary - because they know where she and her husband stand and they have a lifetime of work - not a few months of talk - to back it up.

What a shame and what a disservice this divisive winner-take-all media strategy of the Obama camp is to the African-American voters in South Carolina and elsewhere. We should -all- be making our decision based on the quality of the candidates and how well we think they represent our interest. To know this, we need to know the records and realities of each candidate, but it is the Obama camp who is trying to suppress that debate with any charge of racism they can find, however flimsy.

boo wrote on January 12, 2008 8:12 PM:

Not being sarcastic because I really want to know........what is the Clinton's lifetime of work regarding Civil Rights. I always hear this but specifically what have they done? Can somebody help me out?

SarahWest wrote on January 12, 2008 8:51 PM:

doesn't matter who Clyburn supports at this point...every black preacher in SC is trashing Hillary at this point.

roo_P wrote on January 12, 2008 11:01 PM:

kaspian,

Respectfully, there are some rather idiotic Obama supporters here too (as well as a few trolls pretending to be) and I make no bones about it.

roo_P wrote on January 12, 2008 11:16 PM:

CalD,

I definitely lean on the side of caution on the baiting issue but the thing about it is that at best the Clinton campaign has made several bad, undefensible mistakes putting those statements out there.

So when it comes down to it, they are either just incompetent or actually pursuing a racial strategy. The former is the case here, I think, but it is still not a good thing for any campaign.

What I am most disappointed in, though, are the people identifying as Clinton supporters who are not actually bothering to denounce it but just laud it as a great strategic move because pointing out race-baiting could backfire on Obama even if the Clinton camp actually WAS engaging in it. (And no, I do not count CalD in this group at all.)

This is the DEMOCRATIC primary, for fsck's sake! Clearly though only MOST of us are better than this.

RaceDiscussion=ObamaWin wrote on January 13, 2008 2:59 AM:

You tell me who a race discussion will benefit. Here it goes - Hillary: "I'm not a racist b/c x, w, and z", Obama "What? I'm for hope and a better America not the past..." Who do all the minority women vote for when there alone with themselves in the voting booth - the rich white lawyer from Yale or the intelligent, successful, black man. Is the even a question...

AJM wrote on January 13, 2008 12:17 PM:

Sen. Obama continues to offend women -- and he has by his treatment of Sen. Clinton -- he will lose like he did in New Hampshire.

Obama needs to fire Jesse Jackson, Jr. Hillary is asked what keeps her going and she takes it to mean why is it important to her to run. She thinks of the horrors of the Bush administration and how much better she would make it and tears up. Jesse Jackson takes this to mean that she never cared about Katrina.

As to electiblity, yes a high proportion say that they will never vote for Hillary. This last only until they have to choose between her and an actual Republican.

If the Democrats split our constituencies there may be real trouble.

Pres '08 Jan 12 CNN;

Obama(D) 49%, McCain (R) 48%

Clinton (D) 50%, McCain (R) 48%

lifelongvoter wrote on January 13, 2008 4:41 PM:

I have voted in every election for over 30 years. Always a Democrat. I will not, under any circumstance, vote for Hillary. Enough already of this Bush/Clinton dynasty. ENOUGH.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)