Clyburn May Drop Neutral Stance To Punish Clintons
A big development in the South Carolina Dem primary: Rep. James Clyburn is suggesting that he may drop his neutral stance, largely out of dismay over the now-notorious comments made by Hillary about Martin Luther King. The Times reports:
Mr. Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights movement and a power in state Democratic politics, put himself on the sidelines more than a year ago to help secure an early primary for South Carolina, saying he wanted to encourage all candidates to take part. But he said recent remarks by the Clintons that he saw as distorting civil rights history could change his mind.“We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics,” said Mr. Clyburn, who was shaped by his searing experiences as a youth in the segregated South and his own activism in those days.
The thing is, though, that there's some disagreement about what Hillary actually said or meant. This is not at all to defend Hillary's comments -- they were clumsy and inartful, and she later backtracked. And in many ways an endorsement of Obama by Clyburn would make sense on its own terms. It just seems surprising that Clyburn would be basing his re-evaluation of Hillary based almost entirely on this one remark.
Comments (130)
green heron wrote on January 11, 2008 10:10 AM:"It took a president to get it done." What an insanely stupid thing to say.
Greg wrote on January 11, 2008 10:16 AM:agreed, it was very crude and inartful.
Michael A wrote on January 11, 2008 10:19 AM:Good for clyburn. The stuff coming out of a former president's mouth and clinton herself, while claiming to be so progressive is really pathetic. It evidences that all the clintons care about are the clintons and nothing else.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 10:19 AM:You reap what you sow. They spent the last week misrepresenting and distorting Obama's record (the abortion mailer was indefensible) and now folks are taking a look at them. Moments of stress tell you a great deal about a person.
When the Clintons are under stress, they will say or do anything.
Dan S wrote on January 11, 2008 10:19 AM:Reading the entire statement, it becomes clear that Clinton was comparing Johnson's ability to get things done with Kennedy's. Here is the quote linked to above:
"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."
It is unconscionable that the Times should cut out the entire center section. How the political reporters and editors can sleep at night is beyond me.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 10:25 AM:Obama playing the race card?
Rhoda wrote on January 11, 2008 10:26 AM:Mr. Sargent,
You seem to be ignoring the fact that President Clinton called Sen. Obama's candidacy a fairy tale while distoring the Sen. position on the war and trying to conflate it with that of Sen. Clinton. You ignore the context of the personal and borderline racial comments the Clinton's made those five days in New Hampshire. You and a lot of the media may have brushed these off as the Clintons fighting with fire and succeding; but a lot of AA people and myself included have been talking about this. The Clinton's have hurt themseleves with many African American's with their comments and their dismissal of MLK and Barack Obama, again subtly conflating the two issues and rejecting the messengers.
Reasonable people may disagree, but there is a real sense of hurt among many African Americans who had NOTHING but respect for the Clintons and to see them tearing down a smart African Ameican politician like that is just painful.
Maybe others don't see it as that; but I know I do.
In what world would it be acceptable to call a major candidate for the nomination a fairty tale? After having earlier called him naive for holding the same position you do?
These aren't things that go unremarked.
BJ wrote on January 11, 2008 10:29 AM:I'm TOTALLY DISAPPOINTED in both the Clintons. . .and being a middle aged woman, who supported Edwards in the past, I am certainly in the OBAMA camp now. . . because I've been so disgusted with the Clinton comments. . ."fairy tales"; "throwing the dice"; and an examination of Hillary's Senate record is the same as Obama's . . .so what is she talking about. . ???? Not to mention the Kyl-Lieberman mess. . .I want REAL CHANGE in the RIGHT DIRECTION.
The Clinton's are NOT ALL-KNOWING, and ABSOLUTE. . . let's Move On !!!!!
President Clinton's remarks at Dartmouth the day before the NH primary were pretty classless. As prior Clinton supporters, sorry, but they were.
Karl wrote on January 11, 2008 10:34 AM:Good lord, what a bunch of whiners. It's not denigrating the struggles of the people on the ground to point out that things usually only really change once the president is firmly on your side. The catastrophe of the last 7 years is ample evidence of that in the other direction.
vicissitude wrote on January 11, 2008 10:34 AM:Sorry Sargent
Both versions sound like Hillary is saying she is LBJ to Obama being MLK.
Both say the same exact thing bottom line.
Particularly, if you understand the entire context. Which flows from the debate where she claimed that change requires action and otherwise is nothing but words.
Obama told her that words inspire people in the debate.
He went on to say to a crowd the next day imagine if JFK had said going to the moon was to far or if MLK had not had a dream. He said that leaders and presidents are suppose to expand people's dreams and opportunities and not limit and constrain their possibilities.
Those are the remarks that Hillary then followed up with her LBJ/MLK retort to underscore her being a doer vs. Obama being nothing but words.
Hillary was clearly and plainly wrong. First and foremost she was wrong because words are the only currency politicians have. Their jobs are to use words and language to persuade, influence and cajole people to stand with them on specific issues and to vote for the legislation they are advocating. Hillary would know this had she every actually passed any legislation on a significant issue OR if she had learned from her FAILURES to reach outcomes on significant issues she tried but failed to convince others to support.
Words are powerful and words are meaningful, without words there are no changes in the status quo nor on any issues of importance in this nation.
For Hillary to have trivialize that while exalted the executive role as being the ultimate power tells us once again that she is not a powermongerer who lacks the judgment to lead the nation as she does not have the skills to bring people together and reach the goals. She thinks being 'the decider' is what enables the President to get things done just like that clown we have in the WH now.
Clyburn understands that Hillarys remarks here are a continuing PATTERN on the part of the Clintons to make denigrating racial remarks and create an overall racially discriminatory tone within their campaign. Obama has been called a 'kid' by Bill and 'naive' by Hillary...not to mention Cuomos' shuckin and jiving racially derogatory slur along with Bill Clinton saying that Barack is a 'symbol' and nothing but a fairytale.
The Clintons crossed the line a long time ago, it is just that Clyburn being the shrewd politician that he is knows that when he stands on MLK being the pivotal point he will have LOTS of support in the black community. Southerners have been tired of the Clintons ongoing racial antics and southern strategy for awhile ...that was clear when Brazile spoke out against Clinton.
Bill Clinton's vituperative remarks in NH will long be remembered in the black community as he has tarnished his stature as a former US President by bashing a rising star in the party. Supporting Hillary is one thing but his bashing another Democratic is an entirely different thing.
The racism oozing out of the Clinton campaign is vile and nasty.
It cannot be spun with comparing and contrasting two remarks as the two remarks were merely a difference without significance.
The Clintons are taking the Democratic party down the divisive path on wedge racial issues that we need not go. They want to take us not just back to the 90s but to the 60s when racial tension was at an all time high in this country. Southerners in the south know full well that MLK's dream was more than words, it was hoses, jailing, lynching without due process and Bloddy Sunday. Hillary and Bill have torn their draws with the black community they just are not aware their asses are hanging out yet.
Clyburn does and what he is telling Bill and Hill is that no matter what politic favors he owes them, they do not have enough political capitol to engage in race baiting.
I am waiting to hear from John Lewis who was beat down walking with King and trying to cross the Pettus bridge on Bloody Sunday.
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 10:36 AM:It was a very tasteless remark, made I'm sure out of her burning desire to trash Obama at all costs, more than any racist motivation, but it doesn't make it any less offensive to African Americans. She did basically imply that Obama, like King, is all talk and no action. By virtue of her attacks on Obama, she is implying that King was all talk and no action, and it took a doer (like her apparently) to get things done. The assertion that King's "talk" (and action, because he did a hell of a lot of action, just not in the white house) wasn't what gave traction to the civil rights movement and that somehow his inability to be president in the 60s was his fault and not the fault of a racist country, it is incredibly offensive and disgusting. Her attack was about "talk vs action" and MLK did both and he had great successes. Obama also obviously has to talk part down, but he ALSO has a history of ACTION, from grassroots to legislative achievements. Hillary's attacks are even more pathetic when you look at her so called "experience" with "action" and see that it rests on a bunch of hype. The most she ever worked on anything was healthcare reform in the 90s, and that FAILED MISERABLY. That isn't the kind of "action" we need.
Anyway, the whole thing was just demonstrative of how low the Clintons will go to attack Obama in any way possible (you may recall her even using her tearful moment to work in a couple attacks against Obama, although the media rarely played the whole tape), no matter how ridiculous or false the attacks are. She'll do anything to get ahead, and she should be ashamed. I'd love for it to once, just once, bite her in the ass.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 10:37 AM:Greg- Do you people read? It wasn't just one comment. It was also Bill Clinton demeaning Obama's candidacy as a "fairy tale." I wonder what Gloria Steinem think if an ex-President had called a female candidate's campaign a "fairy tale." What if they said, say, about, Shirley Chisholm who had the same amount of Congressional experience (she was elected in 68 and ran in 72) as Obama when he ran. Would she have liked that? I doubt it because she supported Chisholm (as I did). Now Steinem thinks Hillary's "experience" as corporate lawyer, first wife and a few more years than Obama in the Senate voting for a tragic war and amendments like Kyl-Lieberman is more valuable than a man with the core integrity to oppose a needless war in a time of viscous and ugly McCarthy like accusations.
Why should Clyburn have to put up with this shit? The whole quote doesn't excuse it at all. Of course there "some disagreement" etc. blah blah. Hillary has apologists that can excuse anything from Shaheen (at first) to Cuomo etc. etc. At a best case non-racist interpretation she's basically saying history is made from the top. The truth is neither Johnson nor Kennedy would have given a fuck about civil rights if King, Clyburn and millions of others had risked their lives to force the issue. As Allende said, "History is made by the people"
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 10:38 AM:Dan S:
LBJ only got something done after MLK's considerable words and actions, and in the wake of JFK's death. You don't get one without the other, and to place emphasis on LBJ's political efforts to the exclusion of MLK's and JFK's efforts is both tone defeat and optically dumb.
And this from the most experienced candidate with the most disciplined and professional campaign in the field. She should be judged by a higher standard. That experience has to mean something.
anita thomas wrote on January 11, 2008 10:39 AM:I must say I am extremely disappointed in Clyburn's effort to use Senator Clinton's distorted statements on the civil rights movement as an effort to use the race card and support Senator Obama. What he should be offended is by the fact that despite failing to hold a legislating hearing on the Foreign Policy Committee he chairs, Barack Obama claims he is a foreign policy expert. What he should be disappointed in is the fact that Senator Obama claims to avoid the politics of fear, yet accuses Senator Clinton of giving President Bush the authority to invade Iran by voting to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a Terrorist Orgniazation. If Senator Obama really thought it was a rush to war, why didn't he actually show up to vote on the resolution. If Senator Obama is against using the politics of fear, why doesn't he mention the fact there was a separate resolution that clearly indicated that this was not a war authorization bill and that President Bush would have to come back to Congress to get it. In regards to the race card, if Clyburn is consistent, why isn't he offended by the fact that Jesse Jackson Jr. said Mrs. Clinton cried about her appearance, but where were those tears during Katrina. Are you serious? I have no problem with Congressman Clyburn endorsing Senator Obama, but he shouldn't use the race card in doing so. It diminishes our community and it will in fact hurt our chances if Senator Obama is to be the nominee.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 10:39 AM:So first, an Obama campaign co-chair makes sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton. Now they come out and accuse her of racism for simply pointing out a historical fact. Desperation is an ugly thing.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 10:40 AM:CalD:
Obama did nothing. Clyburn made comments about HRC and her other surrogates comments. So far as I know, Obama hasn't gotten into any of this (I think he had no comment on her statement).
So I think your suggestion is a little far-fetched.
Allen wrote on January 11, 2008 10:43 AM:Greg, let me see if I can explain so you understand. It wasn't just that what she said was crude and inartful, it's the fact that what she said completely goes against history.
First, Dr. King's dream began to be realized way before the civil rights act of 64. did she forget the montgomery bus boycotts in 1956? That's a full 8 years before the civil rights act was passed. does she think he was just sitting on his hands the whole time?
Second, the only reason that the act was passed was because black people protested. The whole world saw jim crow segregation, firehoses, lynchings, etc... If MLK and the whole civil rights movement hadn't forced America to confront this, then nothing would have happened.
Does anybody seriously believe that the civil rights act would have been passed without the pressure that the civil rights movement put on this country?
Yes, Johnson saw the handwriting on the wall and made sure the bill got passed. But I hardly think that he "got it done." The civil rights movement got it done, Johnson just smartly decided not to stand in their way.
Russ wrote on January 11, 2008 10:45 AM:Greg,
I find it to be quite telling that most commentators believe Rep. Clyburn's decision is based solely on one comment. The Clinton campaign has adopted Karl Rove-lite code words as Senator Obama has surged. Andrew Cuomo's "shucking and jiving" comment, Bill Clinton's "kid" comment, I can't even begin to address Bob Kerrey's comments, and lest we forget, Shaheen's "drug dealer" comments.
Instead of having such a narrow perspective to think Clyburn is only addressing the civil rights contretemps, perhaps it might behoove you to think that Clyburn, as well as many other African Americans, has seen these comments for their race baiting totality, and reject the Clinton campaign. These Sister Souljah moments make it entirely clear that HRC intends to throw African Americans under the bus until the general election, when no Democrat has a snowball's chance in hell of winning without the most loyal voting bloc in the coalition.
I, for one, as an African American, a Democrat, and as an Obama supporter, will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election unless she immediately repudiates her remarks, her campaign's remarks, and her surrogates' remarks. In discussions with my friends in colleagues from DC to LA, mine is not a minority opinion.
Clinton's antics will ensure 4 more years of Republican rule.
Russ
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 10:46 AM:Kieth,
If Representative A decides to endorse presidential candidate B, do you thing A just calls a press conference and let's B first hear of it by reading it in the newspaper? That's not how it works.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 10:46 AM:'It was also Bill Clinton demeaning Obama's candidacy as a "fairy tale."'
More distortion...
What Bill Clinton said is that the media (and Obama's supporters)narrative regarding Obama's anti-war rhetoric is a 'fairy tale'.
Nice try.
wglad wrote on January 11, 2008 10:47 AM:Isn't the real lede here that Mrs. Clinton associated herself with LBJ and conceded to Mr. Obama's argument that he is like Dr. King. She didn't say "you're no Martin Luther King," and she didn't compare what Mr. Obama has done to what Dr. King did. Her remarks were very conciliatory. What I don't understand is why the Obama campaign is so determined to make the race about race right now. Maybe they feel they need that in SC.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 10:48 AM:I meant "think" (not "thing").
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 10:48 AM:In CalD's world, nothing is far-fetched as long as the Machine keeps rolling.
Note how his only 2 comments in this thread have been to imply that the Obama campaign is "playing the race card."
Don't worry CalD, we can go back and see Bill's Dartmouth remarks on youtube whenever we want. If that's the kind of smug, arrogant pol you want in the WH the next 4 years, you know what to do.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 10:49 AM:Geez, you Hillarybots are determined to get your little "race card" meme out there today, aren't you? Penn get the fax out late last night?
onceler wrote on January 11, 2008 10:50 AM:this was a new low for the Clintons, really. between the Cheney-esque fearmongering and this blatant, shameless attempt to marginalize the sacrifices of civil rights activists and protesters by saying basically that LBJ did the heavy lifting on civil rights while MLK was akin to a "fairy tale", i have really lost respect for these two figures that i did have some for at one time.
i hope Clyburn does switch, and i hope the personality cult which powers Clinton's candidacy will really stop and think for a minute about what she was saying here. remember, this is someone who supported Goldwater at the height of the Civil Rights protest era. she was young, yes, but that really, really says something. oh those lovely, idealistic black people who got attacked with dogs and firehoses and lynchings, what a bunch of naive, irresponsible dreamers, just waiting for a white man to come along and validate them!!! brilliant, Mrs. Clinton. can you sink any lower?
NCSteve wrote on January 11, 2008 10:51 AM:I wasn't dissing Martin Luther King, I was actually dissing John F. Kennedy? That's her defense? At what point did it become okay for Democratic presidential candidates to denigrate JFK, as long as they don't denigrate MLK? I must have missed that.
And she was actually arguing that we should elect her because I'm more like Johnson whereas Obama's is like Kennedy? What we need now to turn around our image in the world and lead us out of a military and diplomatic quagmire is another Lyndon Johnson? That's her arugment?
jbentley wrote on January 11, 2008 10:51 AM:Personally, I thought that the Clintons' lowest blow were Hillary's insinuations that Barack Obama's desire to bring the country together was just as disengenuous and potentially just as dangerous to the country as George W. Bush's totally insanely bogus claim to be a "uniter, not a divider." That was totally uncalled for.
I also think that it is totally unbecoming, indeed it is revolting and embarassing, for Bill Clinton, a former President and the Democratic Party's most prominent elder statesman by far, to be trashing one of the party's brightest and most talented young stars, Barack Obama. If he wants to champion Hillary's agenda and her record, that's fine, but for him to run around questioning Barack Obama's integrity and his record, and to call Barack Obama things like "kid" (Barack Obama is the same age as Bill was when he became president) is totally uncalled for.
Michael wrote on January 11, 2008 10:52 AM:CalD--I don't know how you can attribute this to the Obama campaign the whole point is that this guy has been neutral and publicly stated he would be neutral, and if he should re-neg on that promise it will be because he personally is upset by the Clinton's behavior.
The Clinton's have nobody to blame but themselves.
Greg--
While I agree it is arguable Clinton wasn't trying to demean MLK, I think you have to put the quotes in the context of the behavior of the Clinton campaign itself and its surrogates and see the big picture.
Maybe Bill Shaheen wasn't meaning to invoke stereotypes about African Americans with his "drug dealer" remarks.
Maybe Hillary just used really really really poor language choice when discussing "spade work."
Maybe she really meant to contrast LBJ and JFK, not the other 3-capital-letter civil rights hero 60's hero MLK, when she confusingly said, "It takes a president to get it done." (wasn't JFK a president?)
Maybe Bill wasn't obliquely referring to the magical negro when he called Obama's candidacy a "fairy tale".
Maybe her emphasis on hard work isn't supposed to contrast with an implicit stereotype of African-Americans as lazy.
Maybe.
Or maybe there's been a conscious effort to engage in a campaign of subtle race-baiting. Maybe 1 or 2 of the above comments really were innocent. But its hard to swallow the notion that they're all innocent or poorly-worded trip ups, especially given the Clinton's lauded political savvy and their campaign's now-famous discipline. It's just beyond plausible at some point that they're that absent-minded and, to use your word, "inartful".
savvy wrote on January 11, 2008 10:54 AM:@
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 10:36 AM
The only way for these remarks to bite Hillary in the ass is if the media plays them over and over and over, like they did her 'mistyeyed' moment.
When her voice cracked yet she stayed on script with "I don't want this country to fall backwards (inferring Barack was anti-choice) and some of us are ready to lead and others aren't some of us are right and others are wrong"
The only way the media would play her MLK?LBJ remarks repeatedly is if there were enough black journalists, pundits and talking heads to keep it in play like the females did for Hillary.
Only Donna Brazile made note of what Bill said about calling Obama a 'kid' and smearing him as a 'fairytale'.
There is not enough diversity in the news media for this message to get the coverage it deserved in mainstream media.
However, I would certainly like to see it on every network and cable station for the next 3 news cycles like they did Hillary's contrived 'tearyeyes'
Bill has already disgraced this nation and now he is showing how forciful he can be engaging in the politics of personal destruction while squealing like a razorback over the 'boys ganging up on Hillary'
I can't STAND Hilliary and neither can most of America according to the polls and having to endure her whinning and Bills sniveling is just intolerable.
How can anyone see Hillary's comments of MLK as disrespectful? Although JFK proposed the civil rights bill at the time of Kennedy's assassination it was dead in the water. It was Lyndon Johnson as president using his long time skills as majority leader who managed to get it enacted. He said he probably lost the south for the democrats for a generation. Sadly he was right. As someone who was around back then and very interested in politics that was common knowledge and not the secondhand information of todays so called experts.
In CalD's world, nothing is far-fetched as long as the Machine keeps rolling.
Ah yes... the Machines! They haunt your dreams, don't they. And the Voices!
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 10:56 AM:'saying basically that LBJ did the heavy lifting on civil rights while MLK was akin to a "fairy tale", i have really lost respect for these two figures that i did have some for at one time.'
R U Dense?
That's not even what she said.
Did you click the link in the post and read the full quote?
when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.Marc wrote on January 11, 2008 10:56 AM:Not MLK vs LBJ.
JFK vs LBJ.
How hard is that?
This is just ridiculous. Everyone needs to stop trying to inject the divisiveness of racial politics into the equation. Hillary Clinton was not demeaning Martin Luther King or any element of the civil rights movement. Obama supporters are just so quick to point and scream "RAAAACIST!" at anything slightly critical Bill or Hillary Clinton say about Obama's candidacy.
Michael wrote on January 11, 2008 10:57 AM:Forgot to mention both "shuck and jive" and "kid", too. That's 7 different instances off the top of my head that were crude, inartful, and could've been innocent if taken in isolation.
But to suggest that at least 2 crude/inartful comments a week isn't an emergent pattern starts to defy credulity.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 10:58 AM:To use a recent example, John Kerry actually offered his assistance to the Barack Obama campaign months ago, according to John Kerry. So they've been keeping that one in the can until they needed to make some news. Now, they need to make some news.
Michael wrote on January 11, 2008 10:59 AM:Can a Clinton supporter explain to me how the quote, "It took a president to get it done" is supposed to contrast LBJ with another president, JFK?
If you can do that without turning yourself into a complete parody, I would appreciate it.
wglad wrote on January 11, 2008 11:01 AM:Here's how I see it. Those of us devoted to civil rights and women’s rights have a decision to make. Do we put our shoulders to the wheel of racial equality or to the wheel of women’s rights? Mr. Obama’s campaign offers the hope, and maybe the promise, of delivering at long last the realization of the dream of equality that we suffered so much for in the 60s, only to see that dream beaten down time and again over the last 50 years. Senator Clinton’s campaign also offers the hope, and maybe the promise, of shattering the highest glass ceiling in American politics and bringing America fully and dramatically into the 21st century. Either choice, in its own way, is good. I believe that a significant challenge to either the culture of white supremacy or to the culture of male supremacy will be a victory in itself. So it doesn’t matter now if the Democratic candidate is Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, because either cause is good and either candidate represents real change from the politics of the last 8 years. Unlike Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, there is no viable Republican candidate who can be trusted to advance civil or women’s rights, no Republican candidate who will appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court, no Republican candidate who will end the occupation of Iraq, and no Republican candidate who will deliver universal health care. In that sense, the Democratic primary is already over, and we've won.
Athenian Stranger wrote on January 11, 2008 11:03 AM:"It's not denigrating the struggles of the people on the ground to point out that things usually only really change once the president is firmly on your side."
By way of disclaimer, while I'm "fired up and ready to go," I'm not unimpressed by Clinton, and I'll vote for whoever is the nominee.
That said, this comment of Clinton's I think really does point up the major difference in emphasis between the two campaigns and two candidates. Hillary's style is top down. The most negative emblems of that were her cringeworthy ad where she was wrapping and distributing presents to the populace labeled "universal pre-k" etc, and this comment emphasizing LBJ as a prime player in civil rights. She hasn't really backed away from it in its essence, as she shouldn't--because in essence she really believes it. Not that MLK was inconsiderable, but that without LBJ he would have been ineffective. It is perhaps a natural position for a political leader, emphasizing as it does the personal action of the leader.
Obama would see civil rights legislation as simply the natural outgrowth of a popular movement (an emerging working majority, in his terms). Various politicians were friendly or hostile to it, but in reality they are more like surfers riding a wave. Obama is a community organizer. He believes you create action by trying to create the wave, not being the surfer. That's why his candidacy emphasizes firing people up and creating a movement, not detailing the policies you are going to force through on your own. It's why he also shies away from demonizing individual politicians, the stock in trade of everyone nowadays and the heart of "partisanship." He doesn't really believe they matter all that much. It's the wave that matters.
So I think this is one of those rare cases where a sound bite really is kind of an instructive glimpse into fundamental character, although I feel sympathy for Hillary that it plays very badly for her. Other instances could make her case with more validity. Both top down and bottom up have some legitmacy, but I think more good students of political history will side with Obama.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 11:04 AM:Hey Willyjsimmons
Is this the "fairy tale" that Bill Clinton was referring to?
Come on, take your blinders off.
Barack Obama 2002:
I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda
Hillary Rodham Clinton 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons ….This is a very difficult vote…but I cast it with conviction. Perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 11:05 AM:Michael
The "shuck and jive kid" who is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign? (And wasn't even talking about Barack Obama anyway, as it turned out.) As opposed to, say, the Obama campaign co-chair who made sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton on national TV in obviously calculated remarks for which the Obama campaign has yet to apologize?
Careful.
johnwilson wrote on January 11, 2008 11:06 AM:Russ -
I know a lot of influential Indian Americans who will not vote for OBAMA at all costs because of his D-Punjab remarks. We felt it was worse than George Allen's Macaca moment.
But beyond that, I guess the Indian American community would rather vote on merits than play the whole victimization card.
If Obama's campaign continues to use the race card, it will drive people to the Republican party. A lot of people already feel that if Obama wasn't black, nobody would care about his candidacy on the merits.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 11:06 AM:@Michael
You're parsing.
And you know it.
Any one of us could sit here all day and take 7 words out of larger quote in an attempt to stir up false controversy.
It's sad when right-wingers do it.
Pathetic when it's 'liberals' doing it.
wglad wrote on January 11, 2008 11:07 AM:"Can a Clinton supporter explain to me how the quote, "It took a president to get it done" is supposed to contrast LBJ with another president, JFK?"
Sure. I think she meant to contrast herself with both MLK and John Kennedy, two names Mr. Obama put forth in defense of dreams vs. experience. Talking off the cuff, she failed to make the point that it took a politically effective president to get it done. To me the critical thing is still that she is willing to associated herself with LBJ, and that Mr. Obama's campaign is not willing to go after her on that.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 11, 2008 11:09 AM:I rarely use this term in this sphere, but the tone of this discussion makes me thing of something sociologists call "white privilege." I think most of us are missing one important part of this discussion. What Senator Clinton might be inferred to have implied by someone acutely aware of the history of civil rights (I am not saying she did) is "the black guy had some great ideas but it took the white guy to get it done." The statement can easily be interpreted as an implicit insult to the African-Americans who gave their lives to end the post-bellum era of racist terror that lasted well into the 1960s in parts of this nation.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 11:12 AM:'Is this the "fairy tale" that Bill Clinton was referring to?'
I think Clinton referred to Obama's post Iraq AUMF voting record, along with Obama's statements from 2004.
Clinton also referred to the idea that the Iraq AUMF was not a 'blank check' for war.
That Condi Rice lied to senators (Chuck Hagel in particular) in order to get it passed.
Bill Clinton did not refer to Obama himself as the 'fairy tale'.
Nice try.
jbentley wrote on January 11, 2008 11:13 AM:Take a look at the next post, in which Hillary spews more bullshit about Barack Obama's record and his experience. This guy has been fighting for civil rights and working people his entire adult life. She needs to lay off and concentrate and championing her own agenda and record. If she wants to debate policy differences with him, that's fine, but to mischaracterize his record and his life's work is totally unbecoming. And Hillary Clinton should be the last person to accuse anybody else of being politically ambitious.
Michael wrote on January 11, 2008 11:14 AM:I think she meant to contrast herself with both MLK and John Kennedy, two names Mr. Obama put forth in defense of dreams vs. experience.
That may be true, but it doesn't get Clinton or her supporters to where they want to be, which is that she wasn't contrasting herself with MLK or denigrating his work at all.
The spin from their camp was that her message was LBJ was more effective than JFK...and I'm not sure how her quote gets that across at all.
I find it hard to buy that the one bit she omitted was literally the core of her message: that LBJ was more politically-effective than JFK, even though he was less inspiring.
We can leave aside the discussion aside of how effective or motivated LBJ would've been w/o the movement behind him.
wglad wrote on January 11, 2008 11:16 AM:White privilege? Interesting. If you were there, you know that blacks were in control of the civil rights movement all the way. Although white men and women gave their lives for that movement as well as blacks, I don't know any whites who participated in the movement who thought then or think now that civil rights is something we gave the blacks. It just didn't work that way. When you're in something together, that kind of thinking doesn't even come up.
Athenian Stranger wrote on January 11, 2008 11:17 AM:>>>>"Or maybe there's been a conscious effort to engage in a campaign of subtle race-baiting. "
Obama supporters,
You need to do yourselves a favor and realize that if Clinton is engaging in "race baiting" (and I'm not saying they are) then they are doing it precisely to draw your fire and call attention to the fact of race--REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY DO IT. They can win some significant votes among the lower middle class if race becomes and open issue. That's why Barack never takes this bait. Especially on things that they can have a plausible defense for ("oh come on, you're reading into it...).
No one who was going to vote for Hillary is going to vote against her because they've been convinced by this stuff that she is a racist. Some people are going to vote against Obama simply because race becomes a prominent issue. So if you want to help your candidate, follow his lead. Too many democrats think that because they are free of racial predjudice, their whole party is. Taint so. Word to the wise. Every time race comes up in any context, it helps Clinton generally. Her "minority" is a 53% majority. Barack's is an 8% real minority. Don't think you are on even ground here.
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 11:17 AM:johnwilson,
You know damn well the (D-Punjab) thing is a load of crap. It was a light hearted reference in a memo directly following an event where Hillary herself said she could run for the Senate in Punjab and win, responding to her supporter who introduced her as the "Senator for New York and Punjab". So it isn't offensive to the Indian community when she is introduced that way, or when Hillary herself jokes about it, but when it is lightheartedly references in a campaign memo and then (much later when Bill is pissed at Obama for interfering in the Clintons' political ambitions) yelled about by Bill and portrayed as somehow racist, all of the sudden it is a horrible attack on the Indian community and blah blah blah. No, this is just another example of Hillary/Bill and Clinton supporters taking crap out of context, misrepresenting facts, and distorting reality in a desperate attempt to slime Obama.
So if you want to try to spread these disingenuous lies for the Clinton campaign, how about you do it somewhere else because I think most people here are informed enough to know better.
You people make me sick..
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 11:19 AM:'The spin from their camp was that her message was LBJ was more effective than JFK...and I'm not sure how her quote gets that across at all.'
Because you don't want to.
LOL.
The argument is one of 'hope' vs. 'action'.
Simple as that.
It's interesting how people will defend Hillary's remarks here, but then attack Edwards' remarks after Hillary's crying incident. Who are they kidding? If they don't understand how offensive these remarks are to African-Americans, they're just out of touch with that community.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 11:23 AM:willyjsimmons
how many contortions are you capable of?
Clinton referred to the idea that the AUMF was not a blank check?
Good lord, why wasn't it exactly? What was in it that made it not so?
Read the history, the Levin amendment which Hillary voted against, wasn't a blank check. The AUMF was a blank check. That's why Bush went to war unilaterally, duh.
'If they don't understand how offensive these remarks are to African-Americans, they're just out of touch with that community.'
Huh?
LOL.
wglad wrote on January 11, 2008 11:27 AM:Well, I think she was contrasting herself with Dr. King, in so far as she was associating herself with the LBJ side of the equation. I don't think it denigrates Dr. King to say that LBJ was more effective than Dr. King in forcing legislation through the Congress. We all understand that Dr. King worked through LBJ, and, ultimately, put his faith in the humanity of the people who held political power in this country. That's what passive resistance is all about. You don't put kids in front of police dogs unless you know that America will not tolerate police dogs tearing the flesh of children. To say that in LBJ Dr. King found an effective instrument is not to denigrate either of them.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 11:29 AM:Well actually it was LBJ who rammed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress -- a particular talent of his -- and then signed it into law. For that matter, he was also the president who actually got us to the moon.
Athenian Stranger wrote on January 11, 2008 11:31 AM:I can accept some of the attempts to say that Clinton's statement isn't really quite as bad as it sounds at first. But there really is no way to get away from her implication that she thinks MLK is overrated. Just distill it. Barack said "MLK, JFK" and Hillary said "NO! LBJ." You can't really talk too far around that.
And she did say "it takes a president" not "it takes an effective president as opposed to an ineffective one.
Clinton really does believe more firmly in a top down style. It's unfortunate that she tried to make her point in a context that quickly becomes hopelessly incendiary and loaded. Although as I've said, every time race comes up, she wins.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 11:31 AM:'What was in it that made it not so?'
*sigh*
H.J.Res.114 Section 3c part 2:
Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
**prays my html is okay**
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107sJ5bb2::
What it all boils down to:
Unitary Executive:
Top down politics
"Took a president LBJ to get it done"
Fearmongering
Gordon Brown was attacked on his first day. I'll be a president ready on the first day.
Always talking in the first person "I" instead of we.
Her campaign encourages cynicism with remarks like "fairy tale" "naive" and "boy". Does not know that American History is all about making the impossible possible.
Please explain how Clinton is listening to "the people"? We desperately want a president to represent us, our ideals as a whole.
If we want more of the same all powerful executive - Vote Clinton
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 11, 2008 11:34 AM:WGLAD,
I don't see where we disagree. Of course, African Americans were in charge of the civil rights movement, as were African Americans the effective leaders in the antebellum Underground railroad in the North and a large part of the Union Army that won the Civil war. That is why I was so distressed by Clinton's comments and the impliict tone of much of this discussion. By imploying the sociological concept of "white privilege" I meant seeing Clinton's comment through white eyes, not any reference to the actual events themselves. My academic slip must be showing showing a little. At any rate, I am very uncomfortable with the implications of the dicey course the Clintons are taking by going down this path.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 11:35 AM:'But there really is no way to get away from her implication that she thinks MLK is overrated.'
If you can divine what Hillary Clinton 'thinks'...
I need those lotto numbers.
Russ wrote on January 11, 2008 11:35 AM:johnwilson wrote on January 11, 2008 11:06 AM:
Russ -
I know a lot of influential Indian Americans who will not vote for OBAMA at all costs because of his D-Punjab remarks.
John,
That is more than fine; Obama should never have uttered those words (for the record, my wife is from Kerala). Even so, there has been no pattern of Indian American-directed slurs from his campaign.
More to the point, Democrats can and have won without Desis. I can not think of a single statewide or national election where a Democrat was even competitive without African American support.
Since I last posted, I have been on the phone with several AA's who not only have supported HRC, but in one case, has raised over $300K for her, and it aint pretty. The fury in my community is going to unleash a tidal wave against Clinton.
If this is a groundswell rejection of all that is Clinton by the Dem insiders, I welcome it. The veneer of civility is wearing off Hillary. Nothing uglier than blind ambition.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 11:42 AM:Trouble for Marse and Missus Bill and their foreman Little Orphan Andy
green heron wrote on January 11, 2008 11:43 AM:To those of you who insist that Hillary's words were harmless, consider this: CLYBURN thinks her words were demeaning. If he does, many other African Americans do. Therefore, the damage is already done.
'The fury in my community is going to unleash a tidal wave against Clinton.'
LMAO.
johswilson wrote on January 11, 2008 11:45 AM:"The fury in my community is going to unleash a tidal wave against Clinton."
Guess what, a lot of people who happen to be both black, and not black, who above all consider themselves American, will look at that fury and find that its not justified. It will only reinforce that somebody has played the race card, and when I hear Jesse Jackson Jr., I think somebody in the OBAMA camp is attempting to recycle something from earlier in the week to play the race card with a predominantly African American elctorate in South Carolina. I happen to believe that a majority of the American community believes in merit, and if race is brought up, or fury is brought up, and people feel it isn't justified, then people will remind themselves that Obama wouldn't be in the position he is if he was not black.
How about asking a simple question of Hillary and her campaign: what was she, in fact, intending to say?
Let her try to straighten out this obviously ambiguous utterance of hers.
Don't you think she has at minimum a real responsibility to clarify her statement, given the weight now being attached to it?
jedermann wrote on January 11, 2008 11:50 AM:A lot of people who have had cause to support Hillary Clinton are looking, now that Obama has shown himself to be a truly viable candidate, for cover to switch their support to him. Any statement by either of the Clintons that is not airtight will do, and, of course, they are guaranteed to supply an ample quantity of such statements. If they say something that can plausibly be cast as offensive then so much the better for those who are eager to jump ship.
Most of what we know about the Clintons has come to us through the filter of an MSM that clearly despises them and especially her. Do you really think that Hillary Clinton thinks that Lyndon Johnson was a more important figure in the struggle for civil rights than Martin Luther King? This is an election for President not for head of the Civil Rights movement. As a candidate she cannot presume to claim the mantle of a King, but she can legitimately aspire to the political force and skills of a Johnson. She is saying that her credentials as a person who has worked for social change are a matter of public record and that what makes her distinct from her opponents is that she is also a political mechanic in the sense that Johnson was.
There is so much smug hatred of Hillary Clinton that is based upon, what, the reporting of journalists who will not even speak to her or ask her a question when she visits their bus? Everyone thinks they know her because she has lived so much of her adult life in the spotlight, but the media decided she was a very uppity woman way back in 1992 and that is the filter through which nearly all information about her has reached us ever since. She might just be the monster she has been made out to be, but how would we know? You haters think you know her? You’ve been allowed to see her as the Village decided a long time ago that you should and they will continue in every way to make you comfortable with your prejudices about her. Gee, I wonder if the Kewl Kids have any other biases.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 11:51 AM:Willyjsimmons
U.S. Constitutional Law
read it and weep you jackass. You don't know what you're talking about. I'll put it twice for emphasis. This is the line before the one you quoted. The whole point of the resolution was to give Bush the congressional authority that why it specifically states the following:
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
It gave him 60 days to do whatever the hell he wanted.
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water . . . "
A formal declaration of war is not necessary for Congress to authorize the use of force, and World War II was the last conflict the U.S. fought with an actual Declaration of War. Several major conflicts, including the Korean War and the Vietnam War, have been fought since that time without a
Declaration of War. Furthermore, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provides the statutory equivalent of a Declaration of War:
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
The relevant section of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 reads:
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, ...
Per the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a "specific statutory authorization" by Congress grants the same powers as a formal Declaration of War.
JFK didn't "get it done" because he was killed. Really nice comparison. And no matter how she spins this she was talking about the dream and saying dreams don't matter unless you have someone who will get it done. She wasn't just talking about JFK, Johnson and MLK because it's an intersting topic. She was drawing comparisons to this primary. What she did was beyond low and she should have to pay a price for it. These people will really do or say anything and the nasty attacks that are completely void of truth or reality need to stop.
lisa trombone wrote on January 11, 2008 11:54 AM:hmm.. soo Russ Says, Democrats can win without "Desis" , yet they can't win without my community, which produces the tidal waves.
So racism against one community is ok, but it isn't against another.
RIIIIIIIIGHT!!??!!!
As a conservative who wouldn't vote for Hillary or Obama, when will the black stop playing the victim.
It's ok to make fun of an indian accent, or call someone a cracker, but one perceived slight despite a persons record indicating otherwise, is RACISM that unleashes a tidal wave.
Personally, I love Obama and Clinton going after each other. With folks like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Clyburn playing hte race card, it will destroy party unity like nothing else.
I'd love to see a Democratic party that addresses people as Americans, rather than just Black, HIspanic, or something else.
Rusa wrote on January 11, 2008 11:57 AM:Uh, again, lets look at this clearly.
1) EVERY Democrat is dependent on AA support.
2) One of the most influential AAs is pissed over her campaign's tenor, and apparently its not just Clyburn.
3) AAs like myself who are politically aware and involved are pissed over her campaign's tenor.
4) As information about her comments diffuses through the AA community, as is happening now, more AAs will be disinclined to vote for her, or at the very least, be very unenthusiastic about voting for her.
The Democratic Party treats African American voters much like the Republican Party treats evangelicals: be seen but not heard, and vote mindlessly for us.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 11:58 AM:'read it and weep you jackass.'
WOW
'It gave him 60 days to do whatever the hell he wanted.'
We are now in year what of the war?
The simple reality is...
Congress could have put a stop to all of this by now.
They haven't.
sue wrote on January 11, 2008 11:59 AM:Don’t try to trivialize what Hillary said. Her comments were preceded by similar comments made by a woman who introduced her at an event in NH. The announcer said that in terms of his inspirational talk, Obama was like JFK and MLK, only he hasn’t been assassinated yet, and that it took LBJ to get the job done. Hillary’s campaign has been rolling in the mud over the past few months with the “Obama is a radical Muslim” chain emails in Iowa, the implication that Obama might have been a “drug dealer”, the comments about MLK and JFK, Bill calling Obama “a kid” in NH, and Bill referring to Obama’s campaign as “a fairy tale.” I hope Clyburn sides with Obama.
At least Obama didn’t cry to get the black vote, like Hillary did to get the female vote in NH. African Americans might just get pissed off and back him because the Clinton’s are revealing what two-faced racists they really are.
Lisa,
How many Indian Americans are there in the US? Do you have any idea of their voting patterns?
What I wrote was clearly not racist, just demographic facts.
Jessica L Caruso wrote on January 11, 2008 12:04 PM:For all of you that say it was not MLK vs. LBJ it was JFK vs. LBJ I have this to say. That's great. LBJ got it done because he wasn't killed. I have no doubt that JFK would have got it done if his time had not been taken away from him.
Another thing to look at - is she implying that Obama will be assasinated?
Either way you look at this it is really bad. On top of her Putin has no soul -that's going to help with our foreign policy and all the other things the two of them keep saying. I think this country would be way better off with out her kind of experience.
wglad wrote on January 11, 2008 12:06 PM:I'd love to see TPM get a clarifying statement from Mrs. Clinton. I don't think it will change anything, though. I believe Mr. Obama has made a strategic decision to go after black votes with this issue. Will the Clintons put it all on the line by sending Bill into South Carolina to end the Obama movement right there? Can he do it?
gheron wrote on January 11, 2008 12:07 PM:Hopefully Hillary will say something equally moronic about Cesar Chavez and sabatoge the bigger prize--the Hispanic vote.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 12:09 PM:Willyjsimmons
You were wrong and you cannot admit it. You claimed the AUMF didn't give Bush the authority to go to war with a blank check. It did, and it specifically addressed the War Powers Resolution. That is why the Levin amendment required the President to go back to Congress if he couldn't get the Security Council to agree. Hillary Clinton voted against that amendment and for the version of the AUMF that passed. Other Democratic Senators (and one Republican) did not. She gave Bush a blank check. There is no way to spin that.
I do not know why Congress hasn't revoked the AUMF. They should. That is not the pertinent issue. Bill Clinton lied when he said the AUMF wasn't a blank check. It was. Thousands of people died because of it. Hillary Clinton helped enable this madness. Because of that she does not deserve to be President.
So Mr. Clyburn is criticizing the Clintons for their remarks.
I may have missed it but did he criticize Jesse Jackson Jr. for his dog whistle, suggesting that Hillary didn't cry for the victims of Hurricane Katrina?
And has Mr. Clyburn forgotten how Obama voted to certify the Ohio votes in 2004, contrary to many members of the Black Congressional Caucus? I'm sure Mr. Clyburn remembers the long lines of voters in low-income neighborhoods waiting hours to vote. In fact, Mr. Clyburn was one of the 31 who voted in the House to not count the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 election.
Selective memory, I guess.
lisatrombone wrote on January 11, 2008 12:11 PM:There you go again Russ. US, the black community , ME, Me, ME!!
Don't you think Jim Clyburn should endorse Obama based on his merits and not to "Punish" the Clintons. If that isn't the race card, then what is. I agree with the poster above who said this isn't good for the general electorate, because unjustified fury, even if it creates tidal waves, reminds people of MERIT! Obama is underqualified to be president, and if he was John Smith from Illinois, a white freshman senator, nobody would be talking about him. Seriously, he talks about UNITING THE country instead of dividing us, so why doesn't he give abortion rights back to the states. I mean if states can decide gay marriages, why can't states decide abortion limits. SO please tell me how he will unite.
Franklin wrote on January 11, 2008 12:14 PM:I think there was a definite racial subtext to the Clinton comments in all white New Hampshire -- things like the "free pass" (as we all know THEY all get a "free pass" -- at least that's what a certain generation of white folks seem to believe about black folks -- remember Limbaugh's "special treatment" comment in reference to Donovan McNabb?)
I don't think any of this stuff is intended to operate on a conscious level -- but it is a form of code language. Let's see if the Senator from New York (who got her job in part because of a connection to a famous husband) continues to roll out the "free pass" and "false hope" troupe when she's in South Carolina. Maybe the voters of South Carolina will even send her a little "reality check" to let her know what the score is.
On Obama's side he just needs to keep doing what he's doing. Clinton won't attack Obama in an overtly racist manner, but I will be curious to see what kind of phrasing she adopts in reference to the primary race (and race) in a state where the primary electorate has a completely different profile. My guess is we get much more muted language than "free pass," "false hope," and "reality check".
Russ wrote on January 11, 2008 12:16 PM:Lisa,
Senator Obama has the same qualifications as Abraham Lincoln. To suggest Obama is some sort of village idiot from Crawford, Texas who lives on a fake ranch, drove multiple businesses (that his dad set up for him) into the ground, and traded Sammy Sosa, well, you might just be from Crawford yourself.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 12:16 PM:'You were wrong and you cannot admit it. You claimed the AUMF didn't give Bush the authority to go to war with a blank check. It did, and it specifically addressed the War Powers Resolution.'
*sigh*
Whatevs man.
Whatevs.
Continue to ignore everything that happened between Oct 2002 and March 2003.
You continue to ignore the rest of what Bill Clinton said as well.
BLANK CHECK!!!!!!
blackconservative wrote on January 11, 2008 12:17 PM:Russ, I think you should write that as distortions of her comments trickle down to the black community, they won't be inclined to vote for her. I think it's great that Democrats are deciding who to vote for based on surrogates and distortions of statements, rather than what the candidate himself believes.
This is why I love reading Lashawn Barber.
southpaw wrote on January 11, 2008 12:20 PM:Wow.
Is it possible for the Democratic Party to exorcise whatever gender or race-related demons it has in the next ten months? I hope so...
lisatrombone wrote on January 11, 2008 12:21 PM:hahaha.. OBAMA Is no Abraham Lincoln. Did you ever hear Lincoln in the Lincoln Douglas debates? Obama is no MLK either. He is an ambitious political opportunities who has relied on hype to produce results. His ethics bill = politicans can stand to accept bribes, but they are banned if they sit. HAHAHAHAHAH
In regards to MERIT, Obama has not in fact held a single legislative hearing as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee he sits on, but that doesn't outrage anyone. He is a foreign policy expert because he lived in Indonesia for some time.
I really hope he gets nominated. Mccain would trounce him. He would trounce Clinton as well, but I would take more pleasure in Obama and his hype being snuffed more than Clinton losing.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 12:26 PM:'Senator Obama has the same qualifications as Abraham Lincoln.'
Don't know if I would go making that comparison...
Some backstory.
The day Obama made is announcement to run for the nomination (in Springfield Ill., remember), he was supposed to make an appearance at the State of the Black Union event in VA.
He skipped out to make his announcement in Abraham Lincoln's home town.
On the panel that day was a gentleman by the name of Lerone Bennett, Jr., author of a book titled 'Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream'.
The groans of the audience were audible when Tavis Smiley announced that Barack had just announced his run for the nomination and wouldn't be appearing that day. (it was supposed to be via satellite)
Both Mr. Bennett and Cornell West made note of the irony of Obama's choice of city to make his announcement.
Anyone who thinks this issue is going to play well for Obama, might wanna think again.
JubleJohnson wrote on January 11, 2008 12:29 PM:It just seems surprising that Clyburn would be basing his re-evaluation of Hillary based almost entirely on this one remark.
******After denigrating the Dreams of MLK,It's still surprising to you ?Please.
Someone is playing the Race Card, and it isn't camp Clinton.
Why it's Senator Obama.
Clyburn fails to endorse him on his merits alone, but actually because hes angry with the Clintons.
Jesse Jackson Jr., accuses Mrs. Clinton of melting the granite state with her tears, but they were tears for her appearance, and not tears for Katrina victims. In between all this, he BLATANTLY cites the fact that half the South Carolina electorate if BLACK.
HMMMM.. who is playing the race card?
IT AINT CLINTON!
sue wrote on January 11, 2008 12:31 PM:lisatrombone wrote on January 11, 2008 12:11 PM:
There you go again Russ. US, the black community , ME, Me, ME!!
Don't you think Jim Clyburn should endorse Obama based on his merits and not to "Punish" the Clintons. If that isn't the race card, then what is. I agree with the poster above who said this isn't good for the general electorate, because unjustified fury, even if it creates tidal waves, reminds people of MERIT! Obama is underqualified to be president, and if he was John Smith from Illinois, a white freshman senator, nobody would be talking about him. Seriously, he talks about UNITING THE country instead of dividing us, so why doesn't he give abortion rights back to the states. I mean if states can decide gay marriages, why can't states decide abortion limits. SO please tell me how he will unite.
******************
lisatrombone - - The women in NH who flocked to vote for Hillary because her crocodile tears should have thought of that as well, don't you think? If they flocked to her, then they had to flock FROM somewhere (i.e. support of another candidate). Too bad Hillary doesn't really care about getting the nomination "on her merits". She'll slander, employ race-baiting, or even cry to get sympathy. She doesn't care how she looks, as long as the final vote tally in in her favor. The ends justify the means.
mainstreetliberal wrote on January 11, 2008 12:32 PM:" Not to mention the Kyl-Lieberman mess..."
Say, BJ, how did Obama vote on Kyl-Lieberman? Oh, that's right- he didn't vote! Profile in courage.
Among black folks, there was no "ambiguity" about Clinton's statements regarding Civil Rights. It wasn't just that she belittled King, it's that she made it sound like there weren't thousands of other people who bled and died for that cause, people who didn't get holidays named after them.
Sorry. That shit was indefensible.
Homer wrote on January 11, 2008 12:39 PM:Seriously doubt Clyburn is basing his re-evaluation of Hillary based almost entirely on this one remark. I think it's more likely he's never been enamored of Hillary and he's re-evaluating Hillary based on the Iowa caucus results, among other reasons.
Clyburn's a politician; it doesn't make you look very good to say "Well, now that one of my more preferred candidates won Iowa, I'm going to pick a side." Much easier to choose a minor gaffe by someone you probably don't care much for and claim that as the thing that put you over the edge.
anon wrote on January 11, 2008 12:42 PM:Say, mainstreet, how did Clinton vote on the Bankruptcy Bill? Oh, that's right, she voted for it in '01, and didn't vote in '05. Courage is as courage does.
lisatrombone wrote on January 11, 2008 12:42 PM:SUE - NOT that I like Clinton, I just think shes more sane than Obama on matters of foreign policy, but not sane enough... in any case how do you know that women flocked to her because she cried. Do you have any evidence?
People have talked about the Bradley effect, but I actually think there is a Clinton effect. IN a caucus, where your vote is public and everyone can see you, you might be afraid to vote for Clinton even if you like her or for historic reasons. As Chris ROck suggested, (I wonder if he was playing the race card) would you want it to be public that you voted for an old white woman to deny the first black man from the presidency? In a primary, when you vote in private, people vote their concious. You aren't influenced by media hype or distorted narratives.
FYI, I think you should read Charles Krauthaumer's article today in the post and you'll see why OBAMA lost and why OBAMA is hype.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 12:42 PM:@
anita thomas wrote on January 11, 2008 10:39 AM:
go suck on that coke can Clarence left on his desk for you.
Race and gender fights within this Party, if broadcast in the mainstream media, will doom us. Obama and Clinton need to avoid this. Attack each other's stances, voting records, polices, etc. But infighting is the kind of thing that I fear will dominate the media and play to the purient interests of the passive voter.
I'm not saying that the debates are bad in themselves and bad behavior, wherever it originates, ought to be called out but we as a Party need to be united.
Maybe I'm naive...
upper left wrote on January 11, 2008 12:44 PM:It gets down to how people conceptualize change:
Clinton = Top Down
It is the strength and experience of the leader that matters most.
Obama = Bottom Up
It is the commitment of the leader to inspire and listen, and his/her commitment to reduce the control of elites that matters most.
This is why Obama is the "change" candidate, and Clinton no matter what she says is the establishment candidate.
If you want change, don't support a candidate that uses Republican tactics, and views the world from the top down.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 12:44 PM:'Among black folks, there was no "ambiguity" about Clinton's statements regarding Civil Rights.'
Says you.
Pepp wrote on January 11, 2008 12:48 PM:
I read the full comment and disagree with the conclusion that this was a racist attack intended to diminish the legacy of Dr. King. And when I consider her body of politicking or deeds her words for a second she that she is a racist. I have only experienced from her the greatest of admiration for Dr. King, respect and actually awe of the great man he was and the movement he powered. But Representative Clyburn should do what he believes is right without question while I disagree.
The charge of bigotry that I am seeing on these blogs, however, rings false and is not believable. I also hope it dose not intimidate the discourse and her inclusion of black issues and history in her campaign.
looker wrote on January 11, 2008 12:48 PM:If Hill can get the women vote in New Hampshire because Barack said that she was "likable enough", then Barack can get the black vote in South Carolina as a result of Bill ( who is the real Clinton running for president anyway ) saying that Barack's candidacy is a fairy tale. No one in the GOP even said that. Hey, if the Muskie moment works...seems like
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 12:51 PM:'saying that Barack's candidacy is a fairy tale. No one in the GOP even said that.'
That's not even the point Clinton attempted to make.
Nice try.
Franklin wrote on January 11, 2008 12:56 PM:lisatrombone,
FYI --
The Chair of the Foreign Relations committee is Joe Biden.
That subcommittee that you're referring too (the very well known "subcommittee on European Affairs") was last headed by another first-term Senator George Allen. Before that another first-term Senator Gordon Smith also headed the committee.
The committee has not met any time over the past three years -- from what I was able to find it looks like it has met a grand total of about 8 times over the past decade.
Just a little bit of context here.
NATO expansion, for example, was handled by the Armed Services Committee in 1998.
Just a word to the wise -- most Senators are protective of seniority, and they are not going to give a first-term Senator control of a major committee no matter well how informed that person is on issues.
Whatever a person wants to say about Obama, one thing is for certain, he's not trading on a famous family name to advance his professional career, and his warnings about the consequences of the Iraq invasion were more prescient than about what 90% of the inside Washington gang. He clearly has the chops and the intelligence to pick up what he does not already know.
His mode of thinking to is much less rigid, and much less conventional than Clinton's.
NCSteve wrote on January 11, 2008 12:59 PM:Pepp, no one is accusing her of being a racist. Instead, she's being accused, rightly or wrongly, of being a person who won't let mere scruples keep her from doing what she thinks is best for the country. And of being a person who thinks that what's best for the country is for her to be president, whatever the cost to herself, the party, the country or our discourse.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 11, 2008 1:02 PM:'she's being accused, rightly or wrongly, of being a person who won't let mere scruples keep her from doing what she thinks is best for the country. And of being a person who thinks that what's best for the country is for her to be president, whatever the cost to herself, the party, the country or our discourse.'
Ohhhhhh....
at least someone finally said it.
/snark
roy gore wrote on January 11, 2008 1:07 PM:this kind of onion-skinned victimology among his supporters is going to be a major element in the right wing's ability to rip obama to shreds in the event he's the democratic nominee. why does the syllogism involve dissing anyone? no one is being dissed here. the point being made was that the civil rights act was a culmination, a cumulative result of many heroic efforts, clinched by a president who alone can enact legislation into law. johnson's signing the law is not in any way diminishing MLK. as a southerner himself, johnson could have gone along with his fellow democrats (thurmond and his ilk, the latter-day republicans) to stall this movement. it is this kind of mindless hypersensitivity that will give impetus to the tom bradley syndrome -- that a segment of whites will say one thing to pollsters, but vote differently in the privacy of the polling booth. this not-so-subtle playing of the race card focused on south carolina will trigger a backlash in, say, missouri, new york or even california. and we need all segments of the democratic constituency to be highly motivated. we have to take pains to deny the right wing any more ammunition to make americans vote their fears, rather than their hopes. because you better believe it, rush, laura and dr. laura, heil hannity, savage, o'reilly, medved and the echo machine will constantly be repeating three words: "barack HUSSEIN obama." they are going to make barack look like dukakis a month before the general election.
RWN wrote on January 11, 2008 1:14 PM:Ironic isn't it? Clinton benefits from the sexual slight many supposedly felt were piling on a woman and in her attempt to disparage her opponent's credentials she slights (minimizes) the effort of the entire civil rights movement. Revisionism in a political campaign can have many edges.
Here is my take. I have talked with some in NH and there is a strange coincidence between the electronic tallies and incongruencies with the vote count. I am personally aware of the detail how the electronic counting and voting machines are not as secure and how IT technology can easily corrupt them.
In the caucus in Iowa those were hand counted...and in NV it will be the same. Then if SC has a narrative that the Clinton's once considered hero's of the African American community become persona non grata to a degree...what then?
change and movement is a hard thing to deal with and control...
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 1:27 PM:Wow, lisatrombone--referring us to a Krauthammer article to validate your point.
So your point is that you're a closet wingnut?
Are willyjsimmons, aimey mays, johnswilson, and CalID also on board with Krauthammer?
Thanks for playing.
Franklin wrote on January 11, 2008 1:33 PM:I do think that the GOP will use race based attacks that are on a different order than what Clinton has done -- although they risk problems if they go too over-the-top.
As far as LBJ's role in getting Civil Rights done -- there was a political cost for him and his party, but there is absolutely NO comparison in terms of the sacrifices.
Without the work of the activists bringing the issues to the public consciousness, the politicians would never have done any thing.
After King, it could have been Kennedy (if he was still alive), it could have even been Nixon who got the Civil Rights legislation done. LBJ deserves credit for his political manuevering on things like his Great Society program, but the Civil Right work -- the greatest risks, and the hardest work was not done by politicians. It was people on the ground who got things done, and created conditions for the political work to be finished.
We obviously still have quite a bit of work ahead of us.
But let's give credit where credit is due.
Clinton choses to emphasize LBJ -- or perhaps elevate his sacrifice here as comparable to King's.
I think LBJ deserves credit, but that the Civil Rights Movement -- it's leadership and members deserve credit for their sacrifices and work on a different order of magnitude.
lbr wrote on January 11, 2008 1:34 PM:I agree with those who say that HRC did not intend to diminish Dr. King. Seems pretty clear to me that she was saying that even a grassroots movement needs a hard-working president behind it to succeed at changing national policy. Not only is that not insulting, it's true to a great degree. Ask the right-to-lifers, who are still looking for their LBJ.
I think the story here is Clyburn's poor judgment in making this an issue. Who benefits from making an endorsement based on a perceived slight? Not Obama, and not Clyburn's constituents. Are we really supposed to believe that S.C.'s black community can decided who will lead the country in a positive direction by looking at one HRC quote out of context?
This reminds me a bit of Andy Young's ridiculous endorsement of Cynthia McKinney, which was in part motivated by his anger over contributions to McKinney's (black, Democratic) competitor from a police union. Remember that McKinney had been accused at throwing a cell phone at a Capitol police officer. Was that contribution from the union really so bad? And should an endorsement be driven only by identity politics-fueled pique?
Suffice it to say, Clyburn is a poor substitute for LBJ or MLK--or BHO or HRC, either.
Dr R Cumberbatch wrote on January 11, 2008 1:40 PM:I always believed that President Clinton was the master of triangulation. The Clintons attacks are spin, lowdown and an insult to all black Americans. There seem to be fair weather friends and like many high profile liberals they will pretend to support the march for Equality and Justice. However if the black person gets too upperty and forge ahead these folks are even more vicious than the KKK and other openly biased white people.
Unfortunately a percentage of blacks still suufewr from the STOCKHOLM SYNDROME.
The slight wasn't just a matter of perception.
The Clinton argument was tailored to a white audience in a very white state -- and it served her purposes. The slip, whether intentional or not, did give a snapshot into her thinking. Would she have directed those same words at predominantly black audience with a profile that was other wise very similar?
When a politician makes race based appeals -- especially of the dog whistle variety -- it needs to be called what it is.
"Free pass" "False hope" "Reality check" -- I don't think these words are inherently racists. But in a certain context, to a certain group of voters of a certain age, I can very easily see these words operating on hidden prejudices.
The test is South Carolina. What words does she use to frame the argument for her candidacy there?
Raven wrote on January 11, 2008 2:03 PM:"It just seems surprising that Clyburn would be basing his re-evaluation of Hillary based almost entirely on this one remark."
It's only surprising if you never lived in the South.
Clyburn has lived his whole life hearing the code.
He knows that most racism - and most dismissiveness of blacks - is spoken in code, often by "nice" people.
His radar for the code is always on. Has to be.
So to me, having grown up in South Carolina, I'm not surprised at all.
In fact, at this point, he's already spoken in his own code.
He doesn't have to endorse anyone. He's already made his feelings known.
That's how the code works. On both sides.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 2:35 PM:This is fascinating! All this talk about racial identity. For goodness sake, Obama's mother was a white woman and his father was a Kenyan, not even an American. Had he been born in Kenya, he would not even be able to run for President here. This man did not live a day among our community until after he graduated from Harvard Law School and decided to pursue a political career.
Jessy Jackson Jr. talked about Hillary's lack of tears for Katrina. Did anyone see Obama cry for that? He did not even bother to mention Jenna 6.
You are going to identify with a man just because his skin color happens to be like yours?
In terms of codes of racial words, it takes a racist to see racism everywhere. Are you seriously thinking President Bill Clinton playing racial politics? You honestly think he is a closet racist?
Just because Obama, as a dark-skinned man, that has a chance to become the president, the Clintons should step out of the way? It will be totally irresponsible and close to be criminal for them to do that if they truly believe Hillary will do a better job than Obama. Why nobody asks Obama to step out of the way to allow Hillary to become the first female president if you like to play identity politics so much. After all, more than half of the people are female, isn't it high time to have a female president? According to majority rule, African Americans are a minority group and are supposed to have difficult to wrestle the presidency for their own if everybody plays identity politics. Right?
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 2:42 PM:Greg,
I respect so much what you guys do, but that headline is ridiculous.
'punish'?
isn't it more like a 'realization' for Clyburn?
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 3:11 PM:This is simply a case that Clybum is trying to find an excuse to jump off the fence. He is just a typical politician who did not want to bet on the wrong horse by betting too early. Of course he wanted Obama to win but he thought he could not. Hence he chose to sit on the fence. Now he found out Obama is winning SC without him and he is now trying desperately to be relevant.
You know what? Go ahead, Mr. Clybum. Once you endorse Obama, Hillary's compaign will no longer obliged to compete in SC for a very likely losing outcome. We can use this as an excuse and re-deploy our resources elsewhere. Mr. Clybum, you are making too much out of yourself. Get a clue! if you were not black, would you have any chance to be no. 4 in the House Democratic caucus?
exo wrote on January 11, 2008 3:14 PM:VERBOOTEN/FORBIDDEN
By order of James Clyburn the following words are forbidden when used in connection with African Americans:
fairytale
dream
Iraq
Obama
hope
change
Use of these words will result in public shaming. More words forthcoming.
dbak wrote on January 11, 2008 3:20 PM:What is about you Obama supporters. I don't think I've ever seen so much bile and anger from even the most rightwing republican. Do you really think this is the way to support your candidate? You've used a minor point of contention to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is easy to have contempt for LBJ because of Viet Nam but in truth without his legislative skills civil rights might not have passed for long time. Martin Luther King was a movement leader but it takes an elected politician to actually pass laws. If you think that majority of Americans were pro civil rights at that time, well most of you weren't around then. History is a funny thing. What you read now is not always what it really was .
Reginald Jones wrote on January 11, 2008 3:29 PM:Rhoda and Vicissitudes have stated very eloquently my disappointment in the Clinton's behavior in NH. I was hurt, to say the least; however, I will not allow either of them to steal my dream for my country. I can't retrieve the votes I gave president Clinton; but, one thing is certain, I will never, never vote for
Mrs. Clinton, after having witnessed their tactics and behavior in NH.
THE CLINTONS ARE THE ONES THROWING THE RACE CARD
OBAMA HAS RUN ON HIS OWN TERMS AND BEEN AN ADMIRABLE EXAMPLE FOR ALL MINORITIES TRYING TO BE ACCEPTED ON THEIR OWN TERMS
HILLARY WANTS TO USE BEING A WOMAN TO GET ELECTED AND NOW HER CAMPAIGN WANTS TO USE RACE TO KILL OBAMA'S CHANCES
SHAME SHAME CLINTONS!!! I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN. THEY WILL STOP AT NOTHING.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 11, 2008 4:00 PM:Could the Clintons actually be making a kind of mephistophilan bargain, temporarily alienating some African-Americans to gain traction in Latino states like Nevada and California? This is pure conjecture but maybe worth pondering about a little.
Reginald Jones wrote on January 11, 2008 4:30 PM:AlwaysTipTheWaitress: Perhaps. However, what can she now do to ameliorate the hurt and regain the trust and loyalty of people like me before November 2008. As a former Clinton loyalist, if she succeeds in "putting Obama in his place", as it were, then John McCain can count on my vote!!
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 4:38 PM:Reginald Jones wrote on January 11, 2008 4:30 PM:
AlwaysTipTheWaitress: Perhaps. However, what can she now do to ameliorate the hurt and regain th
--- I guess she can do nothing to make you happy unless she drops out, which ain't happening. Get ready to vote for McCain, crybaby!
My mento: It takes a racist to see racism everywhere.
Jarod wrote on January 11, 2008 5:40 PM:OF COURSE HE WILL BACK OBAMA HE'S BLACK, NO OTHER REASON NEEDED
cherry wrote on January 11, 2008 7:33 PM:According to the Arkansas King Holiday committee. The bill making MLK day a holiday Bill Clinton never signed. It was signed by Governor Jim Guy Tucker. The NAACP in Arkansas filed a law suite and won it when Bill Clinton was governor of the State of Arkansas saying he was in clear violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Ask the people of Arkansas about the Clintons. And he refused to take down the confiderate flag that flew over the state capitol in Little Rock, and he honored the confiderate soldier day every year he was governor of Arkansas. The Clintons have pimped the black community.
cherry wrote on January 11, 2008 7:41 PM:According to the Arkansas King Holiday committee. The bill making MLK day a holiday Bill Clinton never signed. It was signed by Governor Jim Guy Tucker. The NAACP in Arkansas filed a law suite and won it when Bill Clinton was governor of the State of Arkansas saying he was in clear violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Ask the people of Arkansas about the Clintons. And he refused to take down the confiderate flag that flew over the state capitol in Little Rock, and he honored the confiderate soldier day every year he was governor of Arkansas. The Clintons have pimped the black community.
krish wrote on January 12, 2008 2:51 PM:I am no way connected to the political race (I am not a native) but I am astounded by what HRC said. The statement does belittle a person who is respected worldwide much as unintentional as that might have been.
Even, in wake of all the explanation given, I find it difficult to believe that she never meant Dr. MLK by that. Dreams might never subsitute actions, but for the dreams actions can never reach greatness. Nothing to take away what LBJ did, all that wrangling costed in his own words "the south for a generation", but then the era will be remembered for MLK, for he not only inspired that generation, but he will continue to inspire more people irrespective of their color,race, gender and identity.
But what I find even more interesting is that the mainstream media never mentionned this ... wonder why ?
