Obama Spokesperson Says There's A "Pattern" Behind Bill And Hillary's Race Comments
This is pretty interesting. Check out what an Obama spokesperson said to The Politico about the backlash that's brewing in the black community to Hillary's recent Martin Luther King assertion and Bill's "fairy-tale" comment:
“A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements,” said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.“There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months,” she said. “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?”
What is this "pattern," this "something bigger," that the Obama spokesperson is suggesting might be lurking behind the Clinton comments? Anyone know what this is a reference to?
Comments (334)
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 5:58 PM:Um....for starters see the below "imaginary hip black friend" comment. Then go from there.
Dave wrote on January 11, 2008 6:03 PM:I think the idea is the Clinton campaign is deliberately goading Obama into making explicitly racial defenses/appeals, something he hasn't done in the past and (so the theory goes) something that could cause him to lose support among whites.
Not sure this is what they're actually doing, but it's an interesting theory.
Captain Obvious wrote on January 11, 2008 6:03 PM:Greg- This is a reference to something Dick Morris said would happen: the Clintons are injecting race into the campaign through a series of statements that when viewed in isolation can be spun to look innocent. As a result, race becomes an issue and not only can the Clintons claim innocence, they can play the victim if Obama or anyone else dares play the race card. I think it's becoming clear this is what's happening, and I'm afraid it will play into Bill and Hillary's hands.
Tom wrote on January 11, 2008 6:05 PM:There's definitely a pattern here.
Bob Kerrey's comments...the smear e-mails...the NH co-chair's comments. And more recently, MLK comments and the "imaginary hip black friend" comments.
There is clearly a pattern of racially insensitive and bigoted attacks. As usual with these kinds of subtle attacks, white commentators are blind to them, but black folks know exactly what's going on.
Jeremy wrote on January 11, 2008 6:05 PM:Hillary's campaign seems to be taking cues from Karl Rove. First there's the "boo terrorists!" campaign fear tactic. Now there's this "Obama's a lazy, jive talkin', do nothing Senator, with nothing but shuck and jive" stuff.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 6:07 PM:Translation:
Clinton is now cutting back into the massive majority support Obama had corraled among African American voters in South Carolina before New Hampshire. The Obama campaign will use any means at their disposal to arrest that erosion. This is definitely going to get ugly.
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 6:09 PM:Look! It takes a racist to see racism everywhere.
Even if there is a racial undertone, you cannot argue with that because you are impunging other people's characterwithout hard evidence and solid proof. The same thing happens with "hope". Who can argue with "hope"? You can say "hope" can be "wishful thinking" but it is just very difficult to say "People, you need to get real."
It is beyond stupidity for some Obama supporters to blame Bradley effect to argue for his loss in NH. There is no evidence for that. Even if there is, will your blaming of Bradley effect help you in later contests? By blaming your loss on Bradley effect, you are calling some white people racists. Do you think this will shame more white people to vote for you or get more white people angry to vote against you?
Bernice Lefkowitz wrote on January 11, 2008 6:09 PM:It's obvious to me that they have decided that their only viable strategy left is to draw out Obama in a racial discussion, making him less attractive to mainstream voters. It is disgusting, particularly in 2008 and serves to show just how desperate the Clintons really are and why they can no longer be entrusted with leadership of our country.
Mike wrote on January 11, 2008 6:10 PM:Greg - you are a partisan hack.
Kevin wrote on January 11, 2008 6:12 PM:The Clinton campaign wants nothing more than to bring race front and center in this election. There is nothing that could help her more politically. If she prods Obama to point out how her remarks about (how MLK needed Johnson to actually accomplish anything) or her campaigns several other remarks are racist she wins over support of the remains of racism in the Democratic party. At the same time, she wins over support of all whites who aren't following the issue and immediately see Obama as making it about race. Since there are many more whites than blacks in the democratic party, Clinton knows that this will help her (as discusting as it is).
At the same time, Clinton can also make the race about gender as much as she wants (ie. making it look like the "boys" are ganging up on her). Since women outnumber men in the democratic race, this also helps her win.
In conclusion :) if the race becomes about either race or gender, Clinton wins.
Who loses (besides Obama): The democratic party, who will have sucessfully alienated: men, african americans, inteligent people who can see this, and younger voters.
Who wins (besides Clinton: The republican party, who will win the best chance the democrats have ever had at a real majority party because the Clintons (and their campaign staff) will do anything to stay in power
Jimmy Nakasone wrote on January 11, 2008 6:13 PM:
1) Shuck and Jive
2) MLK was assassinated - it took a (white) President
3) Secular Madrassa
4) Fairy Tale
5) Hip Black Friend
I was a Clinton supporter but this is too much.
wow. now it's partisan and biased to merely quote someone and ask what they meant by what they said.
tough crowd.
Grace wrote on January 11, 2008 6:15 PM:To Josh Marshall:
Re: your piece at the top of your blog right now
Nice try to stay above the fray and act like this is balanced but it is obvious based on Bill and Hillary's recent comments (not their "advisor's") who is initiating all of this.
I have loved your blog and frankly did think you were above it all (unlike your flak, Greg), but you have really surprised me this cycle. Maybe it is time to look in he mirror.
Grace
Terje wrote on January 11, 2008 6:15 PM:The pattern?
- HRC's comments suggesting that LBJ did more for civil rights than Dr. King - and by implication, suggesting that Obama couldn't actually accomplish anything
- Bill Clinton's repeated references to Obama as unqualified, too risky, etc
- Billy Shaheen's drug comments, followed by Mark Penn's repeated reference to "cocaine" during a national television program
- Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comments
- The "imaginary hip black friend" line quoted today in the Guardian
-- The Bob Kerrey comments about his middle name, followed up with a comment about a "madrassa"
A pattern? A set of unconnected dots?
---
Look, I don't think Hillary or Bill Clinton are racist, nor do they want to run a racist campaign (not a good way to win a Democratic nomination) - but they face the unprecedented and challenging position of running against a series African-American candidate -- the media and the country will be watching for code words, people will be sensitive to remarks, and going negative carries significant risk.
The same applies to the Obama campaign facing the first serious female candidate for President -- many potential places to say or do the wrong thing.
We live in a country that is still horribly divided by race and sex (and class, and....) - at such a historic time, all of the candidates (and their campaigns and surrogates) need to take great care to avoid saying and doing things that will divide us further (or, worse get, attempt to subtly take advantage of those divisions).
We're facing a few weeks of intense campaigning that will inflame passions. Let's not let it tear the Democratic party and key constituencies apart. We're going to have to pick up the pieces after it is all over.
Previously, I wouldn't have taken seriously the idea of Obama and Clinton on the same ticket -- but I'm increasingly coming to think we will need to do that to heal the internal struggle (as well as take advantage of the tremendous strengths both candidates have)/
Here's how this strategy makes sense for the Hillary campaign. They can see from Clyburn's comments that they are on the verge of losing the black vote in a big way. So how can they counteract that?
By making it seem like Obama is gaining those votes by playing the race card. This will enable them to pick up enough additional white voters to win.
Brandon wrote on January 11, 2008 6:17 PM:Jeez, and Dan Abrams wonders why everyone hates the Clintons so much!
Rhoda wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:Right under this artical you have one stating a Clinton staffer said Obama was the candidate for those wanting a "young, hip, black friend." She called him naive after one of the debates for a position she herself had held recently. Her campaign was found circulating the Obama is a Musilm emails and the orignal Insight report said this was a charge coming from the Clinton camp. Shaheen intimated that Obama was a drug dealer. She and her husband and campaign from the top down constantly claim he hasn't been "vetted" and intimate revelations will occur during the election if he is the nominee without saying what those revelations will be. Her husband called his campaign or the questioning of his war record a fairytale, after distorting that record and quoting him out of context. This is solely from the top of my head. There is a clear pattern of surrogates or campaign aides off the record saying remarks that have to be walked back by the campaign or are said to simply not mean what they mean: the shuck and jive Cumo comment comes to mind. If you don't see it, I know a lot of AA people who do and hear the coded innuendos loud and clear. A part time senator, calls to mind a lazy black man. A good speaker, not a doer and then the King/Johnson comment. A fairly blatant attempt at conflating issues and demeaning Obama's ability to get people on board his campaign. The Clinton's arent' racist, but even non-racists have coded sterotypes that they implicitly hear and connect to black people. The clear example of this is how everyone jumped on that shuck and jive comment Cumo made and immediatly connected it not to Clinton, but Obama. Even through Cumo claims to be speaking abstractly.
It's intellecutally dishonest for you to ignore this Mr. Sargent.
bbln wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:most of you have no idea how much the Clintons have done for the African American community - Let Obama's surrogates cry "racism" because then they will have to go up against the Clinton record of DEEDS for that community vs. Obama's false accusations of racism.
Moishele wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:Obama's campaign spends 90% of it's time telling us how others are injecting race into this campaign when they themselves put the issue front and center every single day.
blackstar wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:What is this "pattern," this "something bigger," that the Obama spokesperson is suggesting might be lurking behind the Clinton comments? Anyone know what this is a reference to?
--------
i don't know, "journalist"; if a candidate and their campaign's staff repeatedly come out with statements easily construed as racially insensitive, why wouldn't YOU ask if there was a "pattern" at work?
how many times do Clinton surrogates or the candidate herself need to make these sort of statements ("it took a President to get it done", "this whole thing is a fairy tale", "Obama's just the imaginary hip black friend you wish you had", "i wonder if he sold crack?") for YOU, ostensibly the "researcher", to raise questions about the possible intentions of what has been touted as the most disciplined, ironclad campaign?
Jimmy Nakasone wrote on January 11, 2008 6:19 PM:Well, Greg, it's a little weird that you are such a close observer of politics and had to ask what the pattern was. It was obvious to many of us.
I think they are deliberately trying to deflate the hopes of blacks and liberal whites, and stir up whatever "concern" they can.
I thought we were beyond this, and I really thought only the GOP would stoop this low.
"Previously, I wouldn't have taken seriously the idea of Obama and Clinton on the same ticket -- but I'm increasingly coming to think we will need to do that to heal the internal struggle (as well as take advantage of the tremendous strengths both candidates have)"
You've got to be kidding. Barack has a bright future and is not a political hack like John McCain (who was treated equally as pathetically by Bush in SC in 2000). He should NEVER do anything with the Clintons.
If she magically gets the nomination, count me as another one for Bloomberg or even McCain. At least you know what you are getting.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 6:20 PM:Greg:
Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are kidding. I like this website a great deal. I visit all day. But please tell me you are fucking kidding.
Jesus, TPM has run how many stories over the last three months about the Clintons or their surrogates making veiled racists comments? In the last week, you've got Andrew "Shuck and Jive" Cuomo, Hillary "MLK and JFK didn't do nothing for the Civil Rights Movement" Clinton, Unnamed Clinton Aide "Hip Black Friend", Mark "Cocaine" Penn and last, but certainly not least Billy "Drug Dealer" Shaheen. I'm not even going to go with the coded "part-time senator" bullshit.
Just note that there's not much difference between what the Clintons have done the last week and the slimy emails circulating around the web. And if you don't recognize that, then this country has a much larger problem
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:20 PM:Greg wrote on January 11, 2008 6:13 PM:
wow. now it's partisan and biased to merely quote someone and ask what they meant by what they said.
tough crowd.
Greg Sargent - you really are fucking pathetic.
dougFL wrote on January 11, 2008 6:22 PM:Yes, of course. The pattern is racism. Obama's campaign plays the race card, over and over again, while doing so with plausible deniability. Ugly. But then again, it's all fair in politics and I don't think less of him.
Bupalos wrote on January 11, 2008 6:22 PM:There is definitely a racial strategy here, and unfortunately I don't think there's any way Obama can completely avoid adressing it.
My guess is the Clinton's have determined that race was a significant factor in NH, and they know that as long as they can bring it in "innoccently", they can only win. CF. Amy Mays' statement here. This is depressing.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 6:22 PM:So to recap:
Yesterday we had an Obama campaign co-chair mounting a calculated, sexist attack on Hillary Clinton's character, implyin that she cared more about her "appearance" than Hurricane Katrina victims.
Today, they're out there playing the race card with everything they've got. The only question I can't answer is are they really that desparate? Or are they just that reckless?
Seriously. What's in their internal polls? How badly could the wave they were riding out of Iowa have petered out in just two or three days? Can it possibly be dire enough for them already to feel they need to risk going nuclear like this? This some mighty serious fire they're playing with here.
W wrote on January 11, 2008 6:23 PM:More for the pattern: Bill repeatedly calling Obama a "kid". Donna Brazile said on CNN that if anyone else had been saying that she would call them out-as she said, he is a U.S. Senator elected by the people of Illinois, certainly not a kid.
Greg - way to play the "aw shucks" routine and blame the "tough crowd". Clearly, you're aware of what's been going on with these racial comments - maybe you caught the "RACE WAR" headline on Drudge today. No one's buying the "Anyone know what this is a reference to?" garbage.
Personally, I think that this approach is probably turn into a very big loser for the Obama campaign.
When African-Americans make claims of racism that white voters just don't buy, fairly or not, those voters tend to feel very resentful about it. For most, I think, it's a big turn off. It's particularly a big turn off when your overall message is one of coming together, and your campaign makes accusations of racism that are perceived to be false.
It's very hard to see most white voters buying into the idea that Bill's "fairy tale" comment was meant in a racist way, for example.
And it is simple fact that even in the Democratic primaries there are many more white voters than black voters.
Obama's people had better be very, very careful how they try to push all this because it is only too easy for it to backfire in a big way. It may be that this sort of approach will work in the African-American community in SC, but the larger electorate is likely to have a different idea.
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 6:23 PM:My momento again:
It takes a racist to see racism everywhere. It is the Obama people who bring up racism front and center. Now the Clinton's should just shut their mouths up? Anything they say can be interpreted as having racism behind it. You Obama supporters are sick. Only people with twisted mind will go out their way to twist other people's innocent comments. Don't we have enough division already. Now you want to bring sympathy to your cause by claiming the first "black" president as racism. That's too much! You guys are beyond sick!!!!
NCSteve wrote on January 11, 2008 6:24 PM:The Politico story does a pretty good job of summarizing all the comments, aside from the new anonymous foulness of the day.
If they aren't doing it deliberately, then Hillary needs to do what Obama did after that tacky "D-Punjab" oppo piece: come down on her people like a ton of bricks and tell them to stop.
But if they are doing it deliberately, I think its because she's lost Sourth Carolina and wants to marginalize the victory by having the vote be racially polarized. If the blacks in South Carolina get mad enough, they think the white Democrats there could get uncomfortable and move to Edwards or even Hillary. That lets her people characterize the vote (oh so off the record, of course) as just all the angry blacks rallying around their bo ... er, man.
If we don't hear word of the "coming down like a ton of bricks" option coming out of the campaign, and, instead, we just get more "Obama is trying to turn it into a racial thing in S.C." crap from their "anonymous staffers," I'm going to have to go with the second theory. I'm also going to move out of the "would hold my nose and vote for her if she gets the nomination" category to the "applying for immigration to Australia because whoever wins will be too repulsive for me to stay here" category.
If that's their game, it doesn't mean they're racists. It does, however, mean they've become so pathologically cynical that they make Nixon look like Jimmy Carter.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:24 PM:Nice try CalD.
The only thing desperate right now is Hillaryland watching all of the endorsements unfold after NH and seeing zero bounce out. Really, just ask Mark.
And now they have taken it lower than Bush. No wonder Karl Rove endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday.
blackstar wrote on January 11, 2008 6:26 PM:Today, they're out there playing the race card with everything they've got. The only question I can't answer is are they really that desparate? Or are they just that reckless?
---------------
are you retarded? Clinton and her surrogates are making these comments, and as far as i know the Obama campaign isn't responding to the majority of them as though they were the target of what could easily be seen as racist attacks. they're not playing the race card, they are avoiding them altogether.
but you're saying its OBAMA'S fault that Clinton surrogates keep making these statements? what planet are you from?
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:27 PM:Maybe this is just a ploy by TPM to get more page views for their advertisers and Greggie's bonus is tied to it. It is obvious that serious journalism no longer rules the day at TPM. They are relying on us to make them money.
ShutupNvote wrote on January 11, 2008 6:28 PM:
“To say that there is a pattern of racist comments coming out of the Hillary campaign is ridiculous,” said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. “All of the world knows the commitment of President Clinton and Sen. Clinton to civil rights issues — and not only the commitment in terms of words but in terms of deeds.”
Are the Clintons Black enough is the question going into South Carolina , I believe the obvious answer is no that cant be…………but I am with Representative Tubbs Jones from Ohio no slouch on this subject
yeah, don't forget the crack dealer shit
it is a pretty brilliant plan really...she carefully disperses these ideas into the collective consciousness via surrogates using plausible deniablility as her shield, she can point to her obviously (I'd assume) not being racist, yet she benefits from capitalizing on and manipulating the racial feelings of voters.
it isn't really a stretch at this point...the first time, sure, a mistake, second time, okay...you need to get some control of your organization, third time, are you serious? fourth time, jesus christ, fifth time, there is definitely a pattern..etc etc..
greg wrote on January 11, 2008 6:28 PM:Just the Obama camp playing the race and victim cards. Too bad so many fall for it.
sue wrote on January 11, 2008 6:29 PM:The Trend:
(1)The “Obama is a radical Muslim” chain email smear – in Iowa in December, it seemed like every week it was revealed that another Clinton staffer was caught spreading that email. Of course, the Clinton camp made a big show of “disavowing” the behavior and asking them to step down, but of course it kept happening.
(2)Billy Shaheen (Hillary’s NH campaign chair) raised Obama’s teenage drug use and implied he may have been a drug dealer (he wasn’t). Obama wrote about his teenage years in his memoir and spoke to high school kids about the ills of drug use on the campaign trail.
(3)Another Clinton surrogate then gave CNN an interview in which he started talking about Obama’s “Muslim background”
(4)This week in NH, one of Hillary’s supporters criticized Obama’s references to JFK and MLK and indicated that like them he was also an “inspirational” speaker (i.e. in line with Hillary’s new “he’s a talker, not a doer” theme), only unlike them he hadn’t been assassinated yet. Hillary did not apologize for or disavow this comment.
(5)Hillary then gave several TV interviews in which she brought up the same comment mentioned above in (4), only sans the “assassination” part. She added that it took LBJ to get the civil rights act passed, MLK only gave great speeches – AND DIED!
(6)In NH this week, Bill referred to Obama as a “kid” (he’s f**cking 46 years old – nearly 50). Are they trying to call him “boy”? He graduated from two ivy league colleges, was the head of the Harvard law review, was a civil rights lawyer, has 11 years experience in elected office (4 more than Hillary and 5 more than Edwards), and isn’t try to ride to the presidency on his spouse’s coat tails.
(7)In NH this week, Bill implied Obama’s campaign was a “fairy tale”.
I don’t know, do you see a pattern? They are clearly using a race-baiting strategy to win the nomination.
Hillary seems to have two strategies to win the nomination. (1)the gender card (weeping her way to the white house), and (2)race-baiting.
This woman is one of the most polarizing candidates I have ever seen. She hasn’t even gotten the nomination yet and she’s dividing her own party.
Trouble on the plantation for Marse and Missus Beeyul eh?
The larger picture though should be equally as troubling to Democrats. As Jonathan Alter rightly pointed out, if Billary wins the nomination she will have to run "a flawless campaign" to beat the Republican in November.
Down slate Democrats are becoming increasingly nervous as well they should be over a campaign that has bungled virtually every day since October and is doing so now BIG TIME
Missus Bill cried when Obama threatened to bury her prematurely. If this is the sort of campaign she's running now, this vaunted "Clinton Machine", is doomed if Dems are foolish enough to fall for the Clintons one more time
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:31 PM:greg wrote on January 11, 2008 6:28 PM:
Just the Obama camp playing the race and victim cards. Too bad so many fall for it.
You really are fucking pathetic, Greg. And good luck getting another decent journalism job. Your are destined for Star Magazine.
By the way, Obama is a CHRISTIAN.
clintons 2 smart wrote on January 11, 2008 6:32 PM:I think the Clintons are trying to push the Obama campaign into making charges of racism. Such a response might help in the short run, e.g. in SC (tho Obama doesn't need help there, it seems). But Billary knows that Obama would be painting himself into a Jackson/Sharpton corner if he gave any indication of being a "victim" of "racially charged" remarks.
Here's hoping Obama '08 does not take the bait. The positive message of hopeful change, policy solutions over partisanship, and grassroots involvement will defeat this kind of cynical crap. Billary should be ashamed (though they never have been before...)
what's next CRY or CACKLE?
NCSteve wrote on January 11, 2008 6:33 PM:If we're toting up the pattern, let's not forget the "Obama is lazy" thing they've been floating. Given that its transparently false, racially charged, stated in such a way that they have plausible deniability on the latter.
fillphil wrote on January 11, 2008 6:34 PM:The subject of race is a favorite one for the Right Wing. With their Party disintegrating they know that race will help fire up their base. They have never seen race discrimination as a problem . Only as an opportunity. This is one of them, but it's only going to get worse. The slimy emails have already started and will continue as long as we keep pointing fingers at ourselves. The Clintons have always been one of the African American community's best friends. No one doubts they are intelligent. Do you really think they want this? There seems to be an abundance of Clinton Haters on the Net these days so I expect plenty of snide comments from them. You watch.
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 6:34 PM:“To say that there is a pattern of racist comments coming out of the Hillary campaign is ridiculous,” said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. “All of the world knows the commitment of President Clinton and Sen. Clinton to civil rights issues — and not only the commitment in terms of words but in terms of deeds.”
Here is the obvious response: "of course Bill and Hillary aren't racist, these allegations are ridiculous"...but that doesn't mean they aren't willing to exploit these historical racial divisions to their political gain if they need to to get back to the White House.
It is Rovian as hell and for months the Clintons ran the most tightly controlled campaign ever, the media noted the complete absence of missteps or slips, yet lately there have been "whoops" racial slips from campaign officials and high profile supporters left and right. Just like the tear, I'm skeptical of any time the Clintons show a strategic lack of control that helps their campaign in a pinch.
john mccutchen wrote on January 11, 2008 6:35 PM:Greg Sargent is so obviously a whore for Hillary that it seems hardly worth mentioning any more.
His cut and paste jobs routinely if not invariably distort the articles he pillages for propaganda.
READ HIS ARTICLES FOR YOURSELVES:
“For him to go after Obama, using a ‘fairy tale,’ calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing,” said Donna Brazile, a longtime Clinton ally who is neutral in this race, on CNN earlier this week.
Yes Greg Sargent is a whore. But many may not realize just how cheap he is
Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton are doing what they do best: dividing the nation. black against white, men against women, old against young. Obama is very threatening to the political establishment, corporate-fueled status quo. If he unites a signficant majority in the nation, we might actually address sky-rocketing health/drug and energy costs, preditory lending, environmental distruction, explortation of immigrant labor, importation of cheap/inferior/uninspected/dangerous food and products, bankrupted social security, warmongering... all the things esstential to unchecked corporate greed and profiteering.
The Clintons are agents of the corporations and they want to protect the status quo. They are dishonest, self-serving and dangerous. The only difference between the Clintons and the Bushes is party registration and hollow rhetoric. Their values, loyalties and agenda are THE SAME.
ava wrote on January 11, 2008 6:36 PM:It's important to remember that, until now, Obama has not replied to the Clinton's constant race/religious smears except to say (today) that "there seems to be a pattern."
The media and other prominent African Americans (e.g. Donna Brazile on CNN) called Bill on it this week.
It's not Obama's bloody job to defend the Clinton's if they are constantly injecting this sort of negativity into the media. They need to explain themselves.
Obama has been great about NOT taking the bait.
Joan Jacobs wrote on January 11, 2008 6:37 PM:Remember Bill Clinton's attack on Sister Soldjah? The same stuff.
Joan Jacobs
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 6:37 PM:If I didn't know any better, I'd think I was on RedState or some other conservative website. This is truly eye-opening and informative.
Wow. I don't think I can frequent this site anymore. You all are going too far in the name of partisan bullshit. Too far.
What it is going to take (and it will happen) is for more mainstream "establishment" pols, to come out and endorse Obama.
Just give it a little more time. The fact that Napolitano, Kerry and Bradley, and soon Biden, Richardson and Gore, will go against Hillary is all it will take to blow back this silliness and say goodbye to the Clinton drama once and for all.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:39 PM:But Lynch, the Clinton consultant who is advising Clinton’s South Carolina campaign, said he wouldn’t advise Clinton to fight on this terrain.“The more you kind of defend it, the worse it gets,” said Lynch.
$20
Whoa. A little vitriolic on the old comment board.
As an Obama supporter, I think it stinks what they're doing. But the reality is, this is what Rove was doing earlier today/yesterday with his "lazy" "basketball" "trash talking" comments. We knew stuff like this would come.
But AS an Obama supporter, I strongly believe that he's going to address the RIGHT way. He's not going to come out screaming racism. I think it's appropriate that some people do, but I think he will have a straight answer for this. He won't pin it on Hillary or Bill. He'll take it broader and pull what Bill Clinton did back in his day: let's have an honest discussion about race. Let's not be afraid to talk about it. Let's note that there are stereotypes, like lazy, jive, not up to the job, and trash talking. These stereotypes are not true -- and he'll display that in his speech. He'll note we need get beyond petty name calling and innuendo. And you will get chills when he does...because, dammit, the guy can give a killer speech that makes a ton of sense.
This is what I'm hoping anyway...please prove me right, Senator.
brad wrote on January 11, 2008 6:40 PM:Ah, gee Greg...
You strike me as...
Naive.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:40 PM:Hasn't Mrs Clinton taken more money form lobbyists, the drug industry, etc. than anyone on either side of the debate?
Greg wrote on January 11, 2008 6:41 PM:just to clarify, the Greg above who accused the Obama camp of playing the race card wasn't me, guy who writes on this site
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:42 PM:Nice try, Greg. Your overt partisanship has already indicted you.
Noonan wrote on January 11, 2008 6:45 PM:Greg, TPM Folks
I come to this site all the time throughout the day. But I'm truly dumbfounded at this post. The Clintons seem to be trying to bait the black community into a race war. If Obama gets into it too that's just icing on the cake.
For you to ask why the Obama folks have a reaction is playing into the Clintons' hand.
What the hell are you guys doing?
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 6:45 PM:Moishele wrote on January 11, 2008 6:18 PM:Obama's campaign spends 90% of it's time telling us how others are injecting race into this campaign when they themselves put the issue front and center every single day.
As long as other made a case about race and Obama appeared to be above it all, it was fine. But I do not think that it would benefit the Obama camp to directly emphasize the race issue, especially as an attack on the Clintons, for a couple of reasons:
1. The Clintons strong record on race issues, which caused the African-American community to famously dub Bill Clinton as the "First black president", somehow immunizes them against this line of attack. They did have a lot of support among leaders in the black community. When did that that changed?
2. Obama's appeal to many non-black voters has been his apparent desire and willing to transcend race. If his candidacy becomes about his race, he'll lose, as white voters would hear past echoes of blacks saying that they were victimized by slavery and segregation and therefore are "owed"... hardly "Politics of Hope."
The unintended consequence effect of this tack would be reemergence of the real "Bradley Effect", especially in the south...
crys wrote on January 11, 2008 6:45 PM:dick morris knows the clintons and advised bill for president and hillary for the senate. they used race against jesse jackson with the "sista souljah" moment. and dick morris says hillary is not a racist but is not above pulling the race card to win.
BluePuppy wrote on January 11, 2008 6:49 PM:Obama's people know that SC is there last stand, that's why they are playing racial politics. Pathetic and digusting.
Random wrote on January 11, 2008 6:49 PM:Mrs. Bill Clinton has certainly taken more money from defense contractors than any other candidate of either party. Begin to understand her Iraq and Iran votes? Any prospect she will end that war and deprive her patrons of certain billions and billions in profits if the war continues. Not in our life times.
awrbb wrote on January 11, 2008 6:49 PM:Anonymous, wtf?
They're not the same Greg.
Nathan Avinbl wrote on January 11, 2008 6:50 PM:There's a certainly a pattern of stupidity in the Clinton camps.
1) Bill Shaheen, wondering out loud whether Obama dealt drugs in his youth.
2) Mark Penn talking about cocaine with Chris Matthews.
3) Bob Kerrey, praising Obama for attending a 'secular madrassa'.
4) Hillary Clinton asserting that LBJ made civil rights a reality, not King.
5) Andrew Cuomo saying that candidate can't 'shuck and jive' with the press.
6) Clinton advisor saying that people are voting for Obama because they want a hip, imaginary black friend.
Race-baiting? Maybe. Idiots? Oh, hell yes!
For whatever little my opinion on this subject is worth, I tend to agree with what Josh Marshall wrote on the main TPM page on this subject. I found myself feeling very incensed with Andrew Cuomo's remarks yesterday afternoon, but as I was riding home on the bus and looking around at the other people there, some of whom are really hurting, I realized that it cannot be beneficial to the overall commonweal for us to turn the nominating process into a battle of competitive outrage. If we do so, we are letting ourselves be distracted from the real issues by the media noise-machine. At the very least, this issue is not nearly as important as to justify the number of blog posts and responses devoted to it.
Katherine wrote on January 11, 2008 6:53 PM:I'm not getting into what they meant because everyone always believes their candidate & disbelieves their opponents about this stuff.
I will say: acrimony about gender & sex will certainly have the effect of helping her campaign and harming his. Female voters sensitive to coded gender attacks are a majority of the primary electorate; blacks just aren't. And if he's going to win South Carolina because of record African-American turnout no matter what they do, it certainly creates less momentum if it happens after a tense, ugly back & forth about race, instead of being an inspiring symbol of progress. I am 100% certain that Obama gets this, but he needs to make sure his whole campaign knows it.
TD wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:The pattern? The Clintons are interested in themselves and power, period. L'etat, c'est moi. The means justify the ends. This is pure Rove. Insinuate, then deny. Of course, no one really MEANT to say anything racist! The hell they didn't! Whose racial prejudices are being aroused through these remarks? The same working-class white people that voted for Clinton in New Hampshire.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:I don't get the acrimony directed at Greg. I mean people, come one, the Clintons are trying to pull a really dirty one - Turd Blossom would be proud of them...
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:You know month ago, Obama probably have gotten away with this -- not to say it's a done deal that he won't pull it off now. But of course a month ago there would have been no need to try it. A man basking in the warm glow of an adoring and starry-eyed MSM obviously has no need of brass knuckle political tactics.
Pretty amazing though, how fast a guy can go from being Mr. Only-I-Can-Bring-the-Country-Together to apparently being pretty OK with tearing it apart if that will get him the Democratic presidential nomination. Welcome to politics Chicago style.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:CalD spins "massive support Obama had corraled among African American voters in South Carolina before New Hampshire"
CalD you are a Hillary-paid hate-monger. You know that Hillary has led among Blacks in South Carolina. The Clinton machine plays dirty, and it won't be any different if they get back into the White House. This nation needs to move forward and leave the scuzzy Clintons and Bushes behind.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:Obama's people know that SC is there last stand...
Rather a too-confident sentiment, that. Nevada is not in your column yet, and if Obama wins that SC will be the least of your ilk's worries.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:dcshungu:
Pardon me, but I'm not in the mood for your sanctimonious pontificating today.
1. Whatever goodwill the Clintons' had in the black community has disappeared in the last few days. That's not the black community's fault, that's the Clinton's fault. If they are so intune with African-Americans and our culture, you'd think they be sensitive to know just how far they've alienated themselves. Apparently, they weren't that intuned, or they don't give a shit. Take your pick.
2. If it's a matter of speaking out against racism and losing the race, that's something I could handle. Obama and no other person of color should have to be an apologist for someone else's tone deafness or insensitive comments. The Clintons and their surrogates own their words. Shifting the blame to the recipient is cowardly.
Truly an illuminating display of ignorance and a testament to just how far we have to go in this country.
Finn wrote on January 11, 2008 7:00 PM:Well this about drives the nail in the coffin of my ability to s
upport Hillary in the general if she wins. For the first time in my adult life I will not be voting for a Democrat in the general election.
Finn wrote on January 11, 2008 7:01 PM:Well this about drives the nail in the coffin of my ability to s
upport Hillary in the general if she wins. For the first time in my adult life I will not be voting for a Democrat in the general election.
And dont give me in BS about she is better than any of the R's etc etc etc. She isnt and the Clintons (cause really your'e getting a package deal) will be more of the same.
john mccutchen wrote on January 11, 2008 7:03 PM:We're all discovering something important about the Clintons that perhaps most democrats never quite grasped - the sheer audacity of their disingenousness and the depth of their lust for power
George Bush maybe a moron but at least a penny ante fascist is what we saw and what we got
Incidentally, I wonder how these sorts of fracases play out among those who do not follow political blogs (a category which I imagine would encompass the overwhelming majority of the American electorate). Do most folks even know what Andrew Cuomo and Jesse Jackson Jr said two days ago? Do most of them know what this "anonymous Clinton adviser" and this "Obama spokesperson" said today? How much does any of this matter?
Lawanda wrote on January 11, 2008 7:04 PM:Hey people..My subrime mortgage is the issue. Nobody with a few unpayable bills on their kitchen table gives a hoot about a bunch of yakking.
I read Edwards stimulus package.
Heard Clinton's today.
Am waiting for Obama.
I got 2 months before the loan resets.
Working single mom here.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:05 PM:BluePuppy wrote on January 11, 2008 6:49 PM:Obama's people know that SC is there last stand, that's why they are playing racial politics. Pathetic and digusting.
If Obama wins SC by playing the race card, he'll lose the nomination the same way: resurrection of racist instincts in white America, which would lead to a major GE debacle:
1) Obama the "Uniter" would become the "polarizer", losing his appeal.
2) The ante bellum mentality in white America, which is laying just beneath the surface, would quickly boot up its latest version and go to work, especially in Dixie, ensuring an Obama defeat.
3) The polarized Dem party would then go on to lose in the GE, as many blacks, furious that Obama was done it by racial bigotry, would stay home on GE day, handing the White House to the Repubs.
In the long run, this is a lose-lose proposition for the Dem party. The sooner this goes away, the better!
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 7:06 PM:CalD:
So this all part of Obama's master plan is it? Make the Clintons and their surrogates spew out a multitude of tone-deaf statements to infuriate the African-American base and rip apart the base. He's one tricky guy, that Obama. How inflitrated their minds to plant these statements is amazing. Just imagine when he's president, he'll be planting thoughts into everyone's heads. Wait, I guess that explains the tin-foil hat you are wearing....
I seriously can't believe you are such a partisan hack that you'd have contorted your brain to make this Obama's fault. Simply amazing. I guess next you'll say African-Americans should apologize to white folks for making them feel guilty about slavery?
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:07 PM:It is disgusting for you guys to accuse other people of being racists in orde to win an election. You are no better than the republians. You try to find something out of a so called "pattern"? You know no shame? If you have no proof, you should not do that. Have you no decency! Totally disgusting!
Zach wrote on January 11, 2008 7:08 PM:Here's a Bill Clinton quote, from his interview with Charlie Rose last month, that didn't get any attention but might look worse in light of this controversy:
It depends on what the American people — and the Democrats, in these first instances — believe is more important. Is it more important to have somebody who is basically, by his very nature, a compelling, incredibly attractive, highly intelligent symbol of transformation?> Or is it more important to have somebody who also would symbolize change by being the first woman president but has actually done incredible numbers of different things to change other people's lives?
Wasn't Clinton sort of saying here that Obama'a only value is his potential to be the nation's first black president? There was also this exchange in the same interview:
CLINTON: I think vision's important, and I think programs are important. But I think symbol is not as important as substance.ROSE: But are you suggesting by that that Senator Obama is more symbol than substance as an agent of change?
CLINTON: Well, that's not— He can't help that.
ROSE: But is that the reality? That he's more symbol—
CLINTON: Well, no— Other people— What I'm suggesting is...
Clinton's focus on "symbol" is troubling and borderline racist. I'd expect to see it disappear from his and the campaign's criticisms of Obama.
Here's video with the above quotes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_45KK8jwJR0
Tapper wrote on January 11, 2008 7:10 PM:Obama thinks the word "fairytale" is now a racist insult.
What could be more stupid? Must whole sections at Barnes and Noble now be torched to prove the stores non-racist?
It is Obama and his Bamaniacs who are playing the race card here. They want it both ways: OK to note the Blackness of THE GREAT ONE when arguing how great it would be to have a Black President but immediately shouting RACIST if anyone else even casually alludes to his being Half Black.
Did Obama play pick up b ball? Is it racist to note that he did? Did he trash talk on the court? Who knows but every player I've known does.
Is the story of his antiwar activism overplayed, a fairytale so to speak? Well he has consistently voted (when he voted) to support the war.
It is not racist to note this fact. Worse (for me) he has supported the Patriot Act.
And by the way, somebody tell me what his much vaunted "community activism" actually accomplished. Please.
Don't take this as support for HRC; a pox on both their houses...
But Obama's continuous (yes, if HRC is responsible for her supporters' words, so is he) cry of racism is just playing into the GOP game plan.
It is a losing game.
I agree with those who say that this is dangerous territory for the Obama campaign. While it's the Clintons that are in the wrong here, the Obama campaigns need white surrogates to be addressing this, not official campaign spokespeople.
BTW, the Clintons are wrong for the very reasons that Rep. Clyburn stated.
P.A.M.B. wrote on January 11, 2008 7:11 PM:Hold On!
This is a Rove/Morris type ploy, only it is being played on BOTH campaigns.
Read any of the comments in total and you will quickly see NONE of them are racist, with the exception of some blind quotes from someone who claims some title or other.
The these "quotes" are chopped up and reformulated for the Drudge and Politico. The discussion is picked up on liberal blogs and suddenly a swarm of attacks.
Does anyone else smell a big, fat, cigar chewing, and a toe licking rat?
Aaron M wrote on January 11, 2008 7:12 PM:First, I think everyone needs to lay off Greg a little bit. After reading Election-related blogs (TPM EC, Marc Ambinder, Ben Smith, etc.) over the past several months, it is clear that getting accused of bias is just part of their job.
Having said that, I think it is fair to point out to Greg (in response to his question) there have certainly been quite a few incidents (most of them listed above by other commenters, with some examples more concrete than others) over the past several months in which people associated with the Clinton campaign have said racially insensitive things.
Now whether they were said on purpose as some type of subliminal-type strategy (which is not unheard of, see: Rove, Karl), or whether they represented nothing more than individual slips of the tongue, I don't know. (If you do not trust Sen. Clinton or her team it is likely the former option, if you like and support Clinton, it is likely the latter).
But because these types of statements (Shaheen's comment, the e-mails, Cuomo's comment, Kerrey's comment, and now this new statement about Obama being a "hip black friend") have been made repeatedly now over the past few months- I don't think it's unfair for the Obama campaign to say, "What is going on?"
ScanDroid wrote on January 11, 2008 7:13 PM:Well, we are on the fast track in proving a very, very sad reality:
Our society can't handle a white woman and a black man running against each other for president. The wounds of racism and sexism might not allow it without HUGE resentment and division.
Trying not to weep,
Sincerely...SD
So this all part of Obama's master plan is it? Make the Clintons and their surrogates spew out a multitude of tone-deaf statements to infuriate the African-American base and rip apart the base. He's one tricky guy, that Obama.
Indeed. Well said. I think that it is regrettable the way that we are being tricked by the cable-news cycle into focussing on this issue instead of things that the government can actually fix (like mortgage meltdowns and environmental degredation) but to say that it is all the Obama campaign's fault takes a special sort of distortion. Nobody in our camp can make the Clintons and their allies say dumb and insensitive things - they do that all on their own.
Bill R. wrote on January 11, 2008 7:15 PM:Classic Rovian strategy- use surrogates to diminish and attack the person and integrity of your opponent. This is Clinton politics. Anything to maintain power.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:16 PM:Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 6:54 PM:dcshungu:
Pardon me, but I'm not in the mood for your sanctimonious pontificating today.
You are in no mood to listen to reason. I remember that you were the one pushing this MLK/LBJ/JKF canard on the night that Hillary won NH. You had predicted that this would be a big deal and so it is. I read the whole exchange and I am not sure what the big deal is. The Clintons cannot be accused of being racists...Really. They may be lot of things that have been accused of but racists, they are are not. Teapot has been raised to the level of a tempst because of Obama camp's desire to ensure a win in SC. He might not even need this to win there [unless their internal polls are telling them otherwise]! But by playing this card, he'll win the battle butlose the war...Just you watch.
I hope you are at the least in the mood to use your head.
Raralex wrote on January 11, 2008 7:17 PM:Personally, as an Obama supporter, I don't think there is a strategy here other than to try to cast Obama as lacking substance. I think many at the top of the Clinton campaign, however, view Obama with what can only be described as a sort of withering, disrespectful scorn. And what's happening here is that they are showing their scorn in ways that inevitably, in the context of Obama's race, echo uglier kinds of scorn in our nation's past.
I don't think they mean to go after Barack because he's black. But they do mean to disrespect him, and they're showing a really stunning level of insensitivity to the short historical road, in this country, from disrespect to more nefarious kinds of disses.
And yes, I think that Jesse Jackson Jr.'s comments were idiotic as well.
Zach,
Only problem with your theory is that Barack Obama has been making the claim himself for months that he is, by his very nature, transformational -- even though he doesn't have a very long record of actually transforming very many things.
amberglow wrote on January 11, 2008 7:18 PM:Neither Clinton nor Obama were unprepared for any of the racism and sexism they expected to encounter (or at least they shouldn't have been).
Obama's in a tougher position tho, i think, because Hillary can and does use her gender as a plus when needed (esp for sympathy when attacked).
Obama is always conscious of not being allowed to act in certain ways (for fear of reinforcing stereotypes? or of alienating whites?) He can't ever come off as angry, or mean, or as someone who is only targeting his message to blacks, etc. He's much more boxed in overall.
c wrote on January 11, 2008 7:19 PM:It's certainly possible that some of the less-scrupulous folks in the HRC camp want to goad the Obama campaign, figuring either way they win: if he turns the other cheek (as he did with Rush L several months back) he looks weak, if his campaign lashes back then the usual swine will say look, another black man crying race.
But: any campaign attracts a lot of fiercely competitive people. It's easy to imagine any number of folks in the HRC camp, shocked to find themselves in a competitive race, indulging in the sort of cheap pop-psych that the _Guardian_ quoted, or more or less losing it as Bill C did. I'd be reluctant to attribute to plan what can be explained by confusion, incompetence, panic.
The best response is to be firm and positive on that you believe. No matter what there will be more of this goading, if not from official campaigns then from other sources.
Erik wrote on January 11, 2008 7:21 PM:Greg,
Are you really asking that question? It's obvious the something larger would be exactly what Nixon through Bush I did? Subtly rile up the electorate's racist preconceptions to worry people about a more progressive force taking over. Madrassa comments, Mlk needing LBJ talk vs. action, Fairy tale, Shuck and jive, Hilary vs. Mandela, imaginery hip black friend. It's disgusting. That along with deliberately misrepresenting Obama quotes and positions (Bill's half-quote for the "fairy tale", anti-abortion mailer) Whether it is conscious or not, the Clinton campaign is disgusting.
Anne wrote on January 11, 2008 7:21 PM:I understand this site's desire not to fan flames, but I think you're being too generous to Clinton in the process. I haven't read all the comments, but did see a few outlining all the comments and incidents.
I only pray that Obama's camp handles this in the best way possible.
joelle wrote on January 11, 2008 7:23 PM:To Lawanda
Senator Obama was the first candidate to lay out a plan on the mortgage issue. He has introduced a bill on the matter in the senate, it was over a year ago. Do some research on all the candidates before any ill-considered statement. He wrote an op-ed in the wall street journal last month.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#mortgage-issue
jjcoop wrote on January 11, 2008 7:29 PM:First off, I hope people will begin to talk about this issue with an eye towards distinuishing racial politics from racist politics. They are not the same thing.
Second, I agree with c about being reluctant to attribute this to a plan. The masters of message are more than likely just f'in up lately, and Cuomos comments about shuck and jive were just ridiculously unwise.
What I most suspect is that the Clintons could be practicing some racial judo, trying to get Obama or his supporters to make the move they hope will be seen as too much for America.
This was expressed in a Politico article last january:
Far from conceding African-American support to the most credible candidate ever of African descent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the Clintons are pushing aggressively for the help of their longtime allies in the black business, political and entertainment elite. Clinton's supporters say she intends to make the Illinois senator fight for every black endorsement and every black vote. It's a strategy that pushes Obama to decide just how black he can afford to be: Will he pitch himself to African-American voters as the black candidate, or hew to the post-racial line that's helped make him sensationally popular with white Democrats?
In other words, since its seems that voters aren't willing to concede that Obama isn't quite experienced enough for the White House, maybe it's time to remind voters that they're the ones who aren't ready for a black president.
Marc wrote on January 11, 2008 7:30 PM:All this back and forth between the campaigns really makes me want to just quit paying any attention to presidential politics.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 7:31 PM:Anne,
Handles what well? The Obama campaign's remarks to Politico are what's known as floating a trial balloon. They're trying to see if they can get any mileage out of calling Hillary Clinton a racist.
And this, after cynically mounting a sexist attack on her character just yesterday, trying to assert that she cared more about her hair than Hurricane Katrina.
freddy wrote on January 11, 2008 7:32 PM:"most of you have no idea how much the Clintons have done for the African American community - Let Obama's surrogates cry "racism" because then they will have to go up against the Clinton record of DEEDS for that community vs. Obama's false accusations of racism."
Please refresh my memory, and outline in detail the Clinton record of DEEDS for the African-American community.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:33 PM:Great minds think alike! Noam Scheiber over at TNR sees The Minefield That is South Carolina, just as I did on January 11, 2008 7:05 PM:
Obviously the endorsement of South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn would be a big deal for Obama. But, if it comes at the cost of awkwardly moving race to the center of the nomination fight (both in South Carolina and elsewhere), it could end up being counter-productive. From today's New York Times: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. “It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal.”
My sense is Obama's going to win African Americans in South Carolina by an overwhelming margin with or without Clyburn's endorsement. But if the form of the endorsement, or the run-up to it, were to somehow drive a wedge between the black and white communities there, that's a problem, since Obama should be able to attract a lot of white votes there, too.
In his defense, Clyburn doesn't say anything especially controversial here. But implications matter a great deal. And these are the Clintons we're talking about, not Bill O'Reilly. I don't think anyone doubts their purity of heart on race, which might make Clyburn's comments sound a little unfair.
Anyway, this is all so fraught I get queasy just thinking about it...
I agree, I too get quite queasy about this...a lose-lose proposition for the Dem party, if there ever was one.
keith wrote on January 11, 2008 7:36 PM:Byron:
Perhaps you can explain why the Obama campaign should have someone white handle this?
TD wrote on January 11, 2008 7:37 PM:Obama needs to make a major speech on the economy and shake a few hands. Tit for tat.
jjcoope wrote on January 11, 2008 7:39 PM:CalD_
That's the kind of bs that's being fomented. No one from Obamas campaign said anything about comments being racist. The spokeswoman is acknowledging the issue, nothing more. She is asking, rhetorically, is it a pattern?.
Whether it is a pattern or not, it's now in the public realm, so cool the hyper spin.
And yeah, Jesse Jackson Jr. probably should have been a little more cool yesterday himself.
Greg, please tell me you are kidding? What pattern?! You guys have been posting on all the incidents, even since Shaheen up in NH. Please be more responsible.
dr. duh wrote on January 11, 2008 7:42 PM:TPM's tiptoeing around this issue (see also Josh's "deep breath") is surprising and unfortunate. Don't any of you have a hip black friend who can explain what's going on? The Clinton's are race baiting.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 7:44 PM:This probably isn't the right place to air this complaint, but i really dont know where else to air it. If you look at Mr. Sargent's posts, both on his blog and here at tpm, they all have a "pro-clinton" slant.
Whats worse is, he has his blog comments disable "due to repair". Uhhuh. thyeve been disable for months. I'm not expert but i dont think it takes months to repair something like that.
I'm not sure thats entirely relevant to the discussion but when he says "what's this all about?" as if there really isn't any substance to back up the claim Obama's staffer is making, when in fact there is ample evidence of it.
Anyway...i'm sure most people will think i'm crazy for pointing it out but the bias is there, no matter how subtle it is.
Greg, since you obviously love hillary so much, why don't you just disclose that fact?
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 7:45 PM:JJCoope,
OK, then what exactly was meant by:
“Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?”Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:45 PM:
greg,
i wish you would just offer the same kind of editorial comments about coverage that josh does.
you clearly have opinions. what are they? you stand by them, you're a smart guy, trust us to listen to your perspective.
this teasing shit isn't what you guys are about.
i appreciate josh's post. i've been hoping and waiting for it.
now, please write (or, josh, let him write) your take.
the argument can't but help.
jhv wrote on January 11, 2008 7:45 PM:greg,
i wish you would just offer the same kind of editorial comments about coverage that josh does.
you clearly have opinions. what are they? you stand by them, you're a smart guy, trust us to listen to your perspective.
this teasing shit isn't what you guys are about.
i appreciate josh's post. i've been hoping and waiting for it.
now, please write (or, josh, let him write) your take.
the argument can't but help.
diogu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:47 PM:It is hurts the Clintons more. If Hillary does not get over 90% of Black votes in the General Election she loses. And with this crap, she won't get it.
The Clintons have decided that it is Hillary and no one else. And the Democratic Party be damned. That is why the Establishment Democrats are now backing Obama.
hank55 wrote on January 11, 2008 7:49 PM:People who write things such as this are the silliest people in the world:
Aimey Mays wrote on January 11, 2008 6:09 PM
Look! It takes a racist to see racism everywhere.
This is the lamest form of argument.
keith wrote on January 11, 2008 7:51 PM:Dcshungu
Actually I never suggested the MLK comment was racist. It's demeaning to those who fought and died in the pursuit of civil rights. Now 40 years later I have to read comments blaming Obama for Clinton's comments. Why? Cause it may offend someone. Guess what? It already has. Maybe the Clinton's, the great friend of the American Negro, should set the tone for their campaign. I mean how many times is the most disciplined and professional campaign going to make these tone deaf arguments? This isn't about politics; this is real life and I, other African-Americans, have come to expect more from the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:52 PM:that statement from Obama's adviser is ALMOST enough to drive me to contribute to the Republican, if Obama wins the nomination. What a total scumbag.
His campaign is obviously searching out any quote which could possibly be interpreted in a racially insensitive way, and using these aginst Hillary.. all the way talking about taking the "high road".
The scent of desparation among the Obama camp and his supporters on here is palpable. Obama needed to kill her off in NH and couldn't and with Feb 5th approaching, they're freaked. Doesn't matter what happens in South Carolina at this point. NY, FLA, NJ, CA will decide the race now and he's not closing the gaps fast enough.
The only tactic they can pull off now is to exploit the feighned outrage over non-events like some quote from the Guardian attibuted to "an annonymous Clinton Advisor". please. Andrew Cuomo? Supporter of Clinton, not a campaign member or advisor. Same with Kerrey.
Should I as an outraged white guy be holding Obama responsible for every racially charged bit of stupidity that ever drooled out of Sharpton or Jackson's mouths? Tawana Brawly or any Hymies from NY have an opinion on this one? Come on blue-eyed devils, one of you must have an opinion on this one. I'm hoping that Obama has the decency to offer me an apology for these outrageous statements made by a few of his key "supporters".
Obama campers - Stop acting like a bunch of sniveling twists and go out and fight on the issues. With Hillary there is plenty to fight on. The more you grind yourselves down with the racial outrage angle the worse it's going to be for your man. It also suggests that he's made of glass and if elected we'll be spending 8 years talking about the offensive remarks of so-and-so rather than concentrating on issues.
Karl Rove must be laughing his ass off.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 7:53 PM:dr. duh wrote on January 11, 2008 7:42 PM:TPM's tiptoeing around this issue (see also Josh's "deep breath") is surprising and unfortunate. Don't any of you have a hip black friend who can explain what's going on? The Clinton's are race baiting.
By the above I assume that you mean that the Clintons are trying to draw Obama into abandoning 'color-blind politics' in favor of racial politics. If you're right, and Obama has plenty of black friends "who can explain what's going on" or he can figure it out himself, why in the hell would he fall for it? He'd lose easily if this turns into a black v. white race...but so would the Dem party.
If you are a loyal Dem, you'd want to this to just go away fast.
It is Friday night in Big Apple, so I am closing shop and hitting town...(read: "beam me out of here Scotty; there is no sign of intelligent life in this forum!").
Jonathan wrote on January 11, 2008 7:55 PM:This goes back to the Sister Soulijah comments Bill made to shore up his centrist bona fides back in 1992. But i dont know what use that has now.
MariMuri wrote on January 11, 2008 7:59 PM:This is nastier than any general election campaign that I have ever seen. I can't believe the filth the Clinton campaign are dishing out. Bush, Cheney and Rove (or their surrogate swiftboaters) weren't even this nasty, not by a long shot. The Clintons are below low with this entire dirty campaign. If there weren't a handful of Democrats that I really respect (and if I didn't care about being able to vote in this primary) I would switch my registration to Independent because I'm flat out disgusted that they are in the same party as me at this point. If she gets the nomination I will officially switch to Independent because I'm not going down with that ship.
dcshungu wrote on January 11, 2008 8:03 PM:Chris wrote on January 11, 2008 7:52 PM:The scent of desparation among the Obama camp and his supporters on here is palpable. Obama needed to kill her off in NH and couldn't and with Feb 5th approaching, they're freaked. Doesn't matter what happens in South Carolina at this point. NY, FLA, NJ, CA will decide the race now and he's not closing the gaps fast enough.
Scotty, stop! There is some sign of intelligence here, after all. This poster just put the finger on the sore point that is causing Obama to abandon the "politics of hope": His path to the nomination involved fatally wounding Hillary in the early states; however, with Hillary winning NH, that scenario looks unlikely, especially since most polls that have been taken since IA and NH show Hillary's strength elsewhere virtually unaffected, suggesting that Super Tuesday might still be a Hillary slaughter house.
When reasonable people begin doing unreasonable things, you must wonder why, but usually self-preservation instincts are the root cause.
Scotty, energize...
hubris wrote on January 11, 2008 8:04 PM:I think someone close to Clinton told urged Kerry to keep his view "deliberately vague."
No sir prize here.
I'm with Keith: Clinton supporters trying to blame Obama for all of the nasty stuff coming out of the Clinton campaign is just fucking disgusting.
That aside, here's the dynamic: the Clinton Inevitability '08 Tour wins either way for the reasons described above by more astute political observers.
It's people of color who lose, again.
It's not like we "Hillary-haters" haven't been warning ya for years now, Keith. You just have to resolve no matter what, you'll cast a vote for the candidate in the general who can most certainly relegate the Clintons to political history.
withering, disrespectful scorn
You pick up that in the comments from the Hillary supporters, don't ya? I guess apples don't fall too far from the tree.
If Obama thinks Clintons are racist then what's he going to think of republicans if he is the dem nominee in the general election..
Goldspinner wrote on January 11, 2008 8:10 PM:Why don't we ask Marian Wright Edelman, Lani Guinier, and Sister Souljah whether the Clintons ever play the race card?
colbertocrat wrote on January 11, 2008 8:14 PM:Given that this race pits an African American man versus a woman, even if a comment isn't intended to be racist/sexist, there will be a tendency to view it through one of the two prisms.
The predominant culture in the US still has racist and sexist tendencies, despite the major changes of the last 40 - 50 years. This won't change any time soon. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask Harold Ford.
From a wider perspective, the fissure that is developing is the 2008 Republican wet dream - a bloody Democratic primary that irrevocably splits the base and provides the GOP with the only chance they have to win.
Both sides need to take a deep breath and cease with the reactive vitriol.
DBH wrote on January 11, 2008 8:17 PM:If the Clintons are intentionally baiting Obama, then they must be conceding the black vote, which they previously thought they could win. The calculus must be: if we've lost the black vote, then lets make him lose the white vote, and we'll win. Of course, a lot of ifs, still not clear yet. And risky because Obama has everything to gain and nothing to lose by staying silent and letting the Clintons hang themselves...
Still, I find the image vile, and really unfortunate. I hope Obama doesn't have to get into the gutter with her...
Mary wrote on January 11, 2008 8:19 PM:Not to worry, Barak.
You're likeable enough. :)
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 8:19 PM:"If Obama thinks Clintons are racist then what's he going to think of republicans if he is the dem nominee in the general election"
just because the republicans are going to use these tatics doesn't mean its ok for the clintons to use them.
Chris wrote on January 11, 2008 8:20 PM:Sorry Goldspinner, Lani Guinier had views on quotas that were never going to make it through the nomination process and you know it. Even Mosley-Braun and Kennedy suggested her name to be withdrawn. If anything, Clinton's nomination of her in the first place is more of an indication of his bending over backwards to nominate a black woman, even though there is no way in hell she would have EVER been nominated.
As for Sister Souljah, she was always just an asshole, regardless of color.
pacc wrote on January 11, 2008 8:22 PM:Like I've said before... if Obama wants to make race the issue in the campaign, let him.
Americans of all stripes are sick and tired of black Americans always playing the race card when they think it might help them in the polls.
Obama will lose that.
The majority of Americans - in good faith - support decades long efforts to right old wrongs, but will no longer simply cow-tow to black America whining about victimization.
Hypatia wrote on January 11, 2008 8:22 PM:It's blindingly obvious that if she is the nominee, Clinton's going to need the black vote in November - this will not be a landslide no matter who the respective nominees are. Exploiting the racial divide would not be the cleverest way to go, methinks. It's possible the Clintons are that stupid (and racist), but I kinda doubt it.
I'd also point out in passing that the bluntest possible sexist slurs (no need to suss out any 'coded language,' it was right up front where you could see it) have been aimed at H. Clinton since the beginning, and until quite recently very few took note. It's also been considered fair comment by pretty much everybody to accuse the Clinton camp of playing the gender card, not always with much evidence to back it up.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 8:25 PM:"always playing the race card when they think it might help them in the polls."
and hillary didnt play the gender card when she conveniently cried one day before and election?
Obama isnt making race an issue. The clintons are. His camp is just trying to respond.
dawn pentenrieder wrote on January 11, 2008 8:37 PM:I believe that the American people are far too wise not to see through this transparent political tactic by the Clintons and I am confident that they will find it as distasteful as I do. I don't trust the Clintons and I don't think that any trick is too dirty for them if it helps win the election.
Pepp wrote on January 11, 2008 8:37 PM:Senator Clinton does have to accept in this race she is not Black enough compared to Senator Obama ......Obama is Blacker period,
Juts like if Senator Obama tried to be the Woman candidate compared to Senator Clinton he would not be Woman enough …move on
She has nothing to apologize for and the raging charges of racism are unconvincing……
..........one of the main stream media editors just said white people should not discuss the MLK story hmmmmmmm, ok
Oh and former Governor Dean Chairman of the DNC really good choice you made their moving up the powder keg to the beginning of the primary with the promise of neutrality that was dumb in hind sight, yeah sucker…………
Josh,
You seem to be solidly in the Obama camp. Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. But, like Rachel Maddow and Mike Malloy and other "liberal", "progressive" people, you need to be up front about your position. Weren't you one of the "pundits" who pushed Obama after he won Iowa.
I emailed you saying just what you are saying now. Wait, two small states is not a good way to select a nominee. Remember?.
State your preference. It's ok. Then we can weigh your comments properly.
RobK wrote on January 11, 2008 8:41 PM:If Hillary gets the nomination, she will not only lose due to lack of male votes, lack of Independents, but she'll lose the black vote.
She'll be forever known for being the one who stopped the only possible chance of there ever being a black President of the United States.
Black folks will stay home on election date, knowing again the disenfranchisement started in NH due to the Bradley effect, and has continued on during the whole campaign.
onceler wrote on January 11, 2008 8:41 PM:I'll take a stab at an overall analysis. There is a pervading mentality in America, and white American liberals are certainly no exception, whereby people see themselves as fit to comment on racial matters to a degree that black Americans are not quite comfortable with, at this point. Thus a statement like the one Clyburn made in response to Hillary Clinton's comments about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson; tepid, but pointed enough where I can't imagine such feedback wouldn't reach the Clintons directly. Commentary which sounded fine among an insular group of friends or constituents in describing Obama comes under much greater scrutiny once it's in the public eye. You can't have anyone under your employ who will talk to the Guardian about how Obama appeals to people looking for a "hip black friend", as if his supporters' knowledge of the candidate or the issues involved necessarily went no further than that. Pop psychology diagnoses of Obama's supporters which describe them as naive followers will also be met with a great deal of resistance.
I just watched Keith Olbermann interview Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post on Countdown. Robinson summed up his feelings pretty well with the statement that "You don't lecture black Americans about the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. You just don't. And you certainly don't do it right before the South Carolina primary!" He was animated, but again, restrained. There is no fury, but in both his and Clyburn's statements there is a definite shot across the bow to the Clintons to shape up or lose that coveted African American love they've been enjoying - and on pretty thin grounds for quite a while now. I am absolutely shure that if you were to ask Obama whether he thinks the Clintons are racists, the answer would be an emphatic negative.
semaja wrote on January 11, 2008 8:43 PM:I really wonder how many folks listened to the entire Bill Clinton clip in New Hampshire? 'This whole thing is a fairy tale' line was very consistent with rest of Bill's 'rant' about his perception that Barack was inconsistent with his war vote and furthermore the press gave him a free pass. Bill's implication is that Barack's stance on the war is a farce. He did not say that Barack's campaign or that Barack was a fairy tale! It won't long be before long that every critique of Barack will be considered racist and I am starting to believe that amplifying certain aspects of Clinton's speeches to ignite a race war is precisely how Obama intends to win SC. Tear away whatever loyalty African Americans have for Bill Clinton and he'll be able to garner more votes. I do like Obama and I am one black person who clearly sees this tactic and am sure others will too. The entire clip is below.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4102345
John Y wrote on January 11, 2008 8:45 PM:"I think the idea is the Clinton campaign is deliberately goading Obama into making explicitly racial defenses/appeals, something he hasn't done in the past and (so the theory goes) something that could cause him to lose support among whites."
Bingo.
Obama does not, and never has, wanted this fight. He has only wanted to run as a CANDIDATE for president, not a BLACK CANDIDATE for president.
Anyone telling you anything different does not want him to get the nomination/presidency, because him picking that fight is the quickest way for him to lose. Remember that.
Obama is trying to shatter the "either you're a black candidate, like Jesse Jackson, or an actual candidate, like (fill in white candidate's name here)" paradigm, plus a million others, from Red State/Blue State to Washington Insider/damn fool.
We need to respect him for that. Perhaps he was naive for trying. I don't think so.
Whatever YOU think, he deserves a lot of credit for trying to do it. That's how he got my vote.
I really wonder how many folks listened to the entire Bill Clinton clip in New Hampshire? 'This whole thing is a fairy tale' line was very consistent with rest of Bill's 'rant' about his perception that Barack was inconsistent with his war vote and furthermore the press gave him a free pass. Bill's implication is that Barack's stance on the war is a farce. He did not say that Barack's campaign or that Barack was a fairy tale! It won't long be before long that every critique of Barack will be considered racist and I am starting to believe that amplifying certain aspects of Clinton's speeches to ignite a race war is precisely how Obama intends to win SC. Tear away whatever loyalty African Americans have for Bill Clinton and he'll be able to garner more votes. I do like Obama and I am one black person who clearly sees this tactic and am sure others will too. The entire clip is below.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4102345
Marian wrote on January 11, 2008 8:52 PM:Why does Obama spin so much? All through the campaign and debates he never gave straight answers to questions on issues and on what he will do with the country's domestic and international problems. It's as if the presidency is a battle in word parsing. Of is it now? Are Americans thar desperate?
It may not be fair to bring his declaration to bomb Pakistan without clearance in the anti-terrorism camoaign because that was early on in the game. But it has been months. He is darling of the media. He gets better treatment and time. Why has not not capitalized on these to tell the American peole what he will do,concretely, for the country?
If just followed up by emotionally-loaded jargon, hope is nothing but a four-letter word. Obama needs to do his homwork very soon if he targets the nomination and really means to lead the country. Otherwise, if he becomes the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will have the golden opportunity to regain the nation's respect and trust. For now, any of their candidates are far better prospects than Obama.
Davidson wrote on January 11, 2008 8:52 PM:Clinton needs to deal with this--now! And Obama needs to tell Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Eric Dyson to just keep quiet. They only do him harm. But again, Clinton has the more serious problem.
Damn. What are they doing?
Celested9 wrote on January 11, 2008 8:54 PM:Sorry Josh,
I just read the "take a deep breath" blog which I mistook for "calm down", we have a long way to go. You were talking about racism which, when discussing the Clintons, is ludicrous.
Still.....I've heard many people, including Bill Clinton, say "any of the Democratic presidential candidates would make a superior President. I wrote you asking for more info about Obama.
Have you done any real journalism regardingthe quote from Rove in the Wall Street Journal..."Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting "present" on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn't know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through."
We simply need more info. I asked you if there is any truth to these statements. Please get it for us instead of this charge..counter charge stuff which is inflammatory and little else.
Let's remember that we are talking about Bill Clinton - serial adulterer, perjurer, the president who achieved little but endless rounds of compromise and triangulation. As for Hillary, other than botching healthcare, ranting about conspiracies, and defending her husband's illicit lusts - what has she done of substance? And now we have a pattern of attacks, aimed at pushing Obama into the "racial conspiracy" counterattack, which would sink his campaign. Of course, any sane person knows Hillary can't win the presidential election, and that these tactics will simply turn off a major democratic constituency - so why spend time destroying the Democrats' best chance of a win? I think the answer is obvious - two colossally selfish, arrogant, and foolish people, who can't allow anyone else to take "their place". I have been a lifelong Democrat, with strong liberal leanings, but at this point I would vote for even Duncan Hunter over Hillary. We can't afford the Clintons any longer. It is time to take back our party from their corrupt, incompetent, and irresponsible hands. For the record, I am white - and I despise the Clintons' racism and use of techniques of racial hatred exploited by Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, and the Republicans we are supposed to be fighting. If we have to put up with four more years of Republicans - and at the end of that we are rid of the Clintons - well, that almost looks like a bargain worth making to me.
ChrisO wrote on January 11, 2008 8:57 PM:Jesus, this is getting worse and worse. I've been reading and contributing to TPM's comments for some time now, and I have to say Obama's supporters have significantly lowered the level of discourse here. Putting aside all of the distortions of remarks from the Clinton campaign, what's with the attacks on Greg? Obama's spokesperson talks about a "bigger pattern," and Greg sincerely asks what people think she's referring to (he has to ask, because her passive/aggressive comments sure don't make it clear.) For this he gets called a whore, and worse? Are you people retarded? It's incredibly ironic how so many people who celebrate Obama as a "uniter" who can provide us with "hope' cam make the nastiest comments. It makes me sad to see what used to be one of the most intelligent comments sections on the web debased in this way.
Obama's supporters, at least in most of the comments sections I see, reveal themselves to be either ignoramuses who have limited reading comprehension, or willful prevaricators. Seriously, look at Shaheen's comments and then show me where he suggests that Obama sold drugs. I can only guess that a lot of you are new to politics, and don't get that campaigns say negative things about each other. All of this puffed up outrage is getting really tiring. Go read the comments at Wizbang or Ace of Spades or any other right wing site, and tell me the level of discourse is any lower or coarser than what you yahoos bring here.
I'm not a Hillary supporter (I liked Dodd), but I'm sure many people reading my comments think I am, because I find myself defending her from you idiots so much. I like a lot of things about Obama, but you people sure make it hard to support him.
And Keith, why don't you just STFU? All of this "I suppose you want me to pick cotton now" bullshit is really annoying. Do you really think it take special insight to respond to every post by attributing the most vile racist motives to everyone? Really, are you going to add some substance at some point? Surely you've seen the black character in comedies who's portrayed as an idiot for saying "It's because I'm black" in response to every slight? That's you, buddy. A laughingstock. But what do I know? I'm just another white racist trying to keep you down.
pol wrote on January 11, 2008 8:59 PM:My, this is awfully Karl Rovian, isn't it?
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 8:59 PM:Let's look at this alleged "pattern" one at a time, shall we?
(1) Bill Shaheen brings up Obama's drug use, and says the media will ask him about it and whether he sold it to anyone else. This doesn't strike me as overtly racist--don't white people sell drugs too? But even so, Shaheen is fired within days. Clinton later personally apologizes to Obama.
(2) Two Clinton volunteers forward that Muslim smear email to a few dozen people. They're immediately fired. Incidentally, a paid staffer replies to the person who sent him the email saying that it's offensive. Again, I'm not sure how race plays into this--this is about religion, right?
(3) Bob Kerrey endorses Clinton, and in a conversation with reporters, says how much he admires Obama, and that he likes how his African American heritage would make him a good role model, and how the fact that he has a Muslim middle name and some Muslim family would help in foreign relations. A firestorm ensues. Later, in an interview with CNN, he makes the same points, using the phrase "secular madrassa", which he had also used in October without harm. An even bigger firestorm ensues. Again, what this has to do with race I don't know. Kerrey apologizes for what he said.
(4) In response to reporters questions about Obama's point on King, Clinton notes that Eisenhower and Kennedy failed to move civil rights legislation, but LBJ did, thus demonstrating the importance of presidential leadership. A firestorm ensues in which people claim that what she really meant was that black people can't do anything and that they need white people to help them out.
(5) Bill Clinton, in describing the press's coverage of Obama's position on the war, says it's a "fairy tale". For reasons I don't understand, this is apparently racist.
(6) Andrew Cuomo, who supports Clinton but is in no way actually affiliated with her campaign, in a question about how Iowa and New Hampshire affect the race, goes into a long answer about the retail nature of the two states. He notes that it's not just a media war, that you have to meet voters in cafes and living rooms, and not merely shuck and jive at press conferences. Because the latter phrase has its roots in African American communities, this means that he must be using racist code words. This is clear even though (a) he wasn't talking about Obama, and (b) the question related to both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Furthermore, in every one of these cases, including the Clinton volunteers and Andrew Cuomo, who has no role with the campaign, all of these actions were explicitly ordered by Hillary Clinton, and thus reveals her to be a racist or at the very least a race-baiter. That some of the incidents have no connection to race and that those who did the most egregious things were immediately fired is to be ignored.
Racism is still a problem in our society, and a serious one. But this is nothing more than people trying to find a pattern where none exists, using way too much conjecture to find evidence of racism in people who have a long history of good faith in these matters.
Fortunately, we've reached the point in our society where racism is understood to be one of the most repugnant and despicable traits a person can have. But this means we have to be extremely careful in when we accuse people of it. You better be very certain before you call someone a racist. Even people of good faith will become angry if they see the term being thrown about lightly and for political gain.
rashad davis wrote on January 11, 2008 9:01 PM:I go with the Clintons long record with the African-American community. Remarks are being taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Hillary has the support of many african-american leaders, that is enough for me.
I don't like the Obama campaign stoking this issue with emails and press releases.
GMFORD wrote on January 11, 2008 9:03 PM:I do think gender has been a factor in Clinton's popularity. That's based on a small, informal poll of all the Hillary supporters I know. Every one of them says they will vote for her because she is a woman (and a democrat, of course).
I do not, however, think race has been a factor with respect to Obama supporters. He seems youthful and energetic and that appeals to young people. His message of change appeals to people of all ages.
It worries me that Obama's competition might feel the need to say 'but...but..he's black!' I hope that isn't happening. I hope we are better than that.
goldencrumpet wrote on January 11, 2008 9:04 PM:ChrisO - given your recent comments, you look more like a Ron Paul supporter to me. As for your own post - it's pretty rich to come in here and rant about how people are retarded, while santimoniously explaining how they are being insulting. Or perhaps you think using this sort of language is fine -after all, disabled people probably deserve to have you use their misfortune as a term of abuse. As for your use of a racist stereotype at the end, that may fly with Ron Paul, it does not cut it here.
maximus wrote on January 11, 2008 9:08 PM:@Steve
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 8:59 PM:
Let's look at this alleged "pattern" one at a time, shall we?
Might the phrase "wilfully naive" apply to you? You seem overqualified to be a trial lawyer, judging by how you evade the issue, misrepresent the context, and generally whitewash the hateful tactics used by Clinton and her surrogates.
It worries me that Obama's competition might feel the need to say 'but...but..he's black!' I hope that isn't happening. I hope we are better than that.
*****************************************
Interesting. I hope it worries you just the same that Clinton's competition feels the need to imply that all she did was drink 'tea' and dismiss her with a tacky 'you are likeable enough in a debate. There are two sides to every story.
Carl wrote on January 11, 2008 9:12 PM:Personally I think the Clintons are "poor people who made good" and have had to live by their wits all these years. They have studied people, know which buttons to push, and are very good at drawing people into confrontations. We're glad Obama hasn't fallen into their traps thus far.
Hillary's crying act was nothing but BS, but it appealed to women. Bill Clinton's tirade was a speech by a desperate man because he feared for Hillary in New Hampshire, and it showed his true feelings as he did everything but utter the dreaded "N" word. I continue to hope and pray that Black people will become un-enamored of the Clintons and realize that the foolishness about Bill Clinton being the first "Black President" was nothing but a very good (I think) public relations job. I am of the opinion that the Clintons think only of themselves and heretofore have run a very good game.
Goldspinner wrote on January 11, 2008 9:15 PM:Interesting comments, Chris: spoken like a true Federalist Society member. In case you aren't old enough to remember, William Jefferson Clinton threw his OWN nominee under the proverbial bus and repeatedly lied about whether he was familiar with her legal writings prior to the nomination (Bill's lack of candor didn't start with "I did not have sex with that woman!"). Guinier and Edelman were VERY close friends of the Clintons who were publicly screwed over for political expediency, just like Jocelyn Elders. As for Sister Souljah, her rhetorical comments were taken out of context and intentionally used to promote massive white voter turnout. Quite a few of us black folks haven't forgotten Bill or Hillary's hubris...and guess what? We aren't voting for anyone named Clinton.
Steve wrote on January 11, 2008 9:15 PM:No, I'm not being willfully naive. I see a bunch of isolated incidents, few of which are directly related to race, almost all of whom can be explained by stupidity (in the case of the volunteers) or are inoffensive.
When someone who's never been accused of racism before does something that could easily be interpreted as inoffensive, I think that person deserves the benefit of the doubt. Especially for a charge as serious as racism.
For whatever it's worth, I don't think Obama was being sexist when he talked about Clinton having tea with foreign leaders, nor was Edwards being sexist when talking about Clinton's now infamous emotional moment.
Thanks for the personal insults, however.
goethean wrote on January 11, 2008 9:16 PM:frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 6:23 PM:
Personally, I think that this approach is probably turn into a very big loser for the Obama campaign.
When African-Americans make claims of racism that white voters just don't buy, fairly or not, those voters tend to feel very resentful about it. For most, I think, it's a big turn off. It's particularly a big turn off when your overall message is one of coming together, and your campaign makes accusations of racism that are perceived to be false.
It's very hard to see most white voters buying into the idea that Bill's "fairy tale" comment was meant in a racist way, for example.
And it is simple fact that even in the Democratic primaries there are many more white voters than black voters.
Obama's people had better be very, very careful how they try to push all this because it is only too easy for it to backfire in a big way. It may be that this sort of approach will work in the African-American community in SC, but the larger electorate is likely to have a different idea.
frankly0, you just endorsed the Clinton campaign's use of racist tactics against other Democrats.
b wrote on January 11, 2008 9:23 PM:"I am absolutely shure that if you were to ask Obama whether he thinks the Clintons are racists, the answer would be an emphatic negative."
of course the clintons aren't racists. the question is whether their organization will do whatever it takes to win -- including the exploitation of whatever dark yellow fear it is in the lizard brain of hundreds of thousands of american democrats that is tickled into line by racist cheap shots like "shuckin and jivin" and filing mlk underneath lbj on great men chart.
Just when I thought Obama wouldn't play the race card.
Duane wrote on January 11, 2008 9:25 PM:And Keith, why don't you just STFU? All of this "I suppose you want me to pick cotton now" bullshit is really annoying.
I searched the comments up and down and found no reference of Keith saying any such thing so you where did this shit come from? Must be another Clinton supporter "slip"..
Duane wrote on January 11, 2008 9:26 PM:And Keith, why don't you just STFU? All of this "I suppose you want me to pick cotton now" bullshit is really annoying.
I searched the comments up and down and found no reference of Keith saying any such thing so you where did this shit come from? Oops, must be another Clinton supporter "slip"..
stlounick wrote on January 11, 2008 9:29 PM:What onceler said....
mkolb wrote on January 11, 2008 9:36 PM:I agree with Sen. Obama's spokesman that "there is a pattern here", but I think it would be wise to ask who really benefits from this and it isn't (in alphabetical order) Sen. Clinton, former Sen. Edwards, nor Sen. Obama.
The real beneficiaries from this uproar are the Republicans. If Democrats can tear themselves apart as they often do, the only party left standing unscathed is the party of Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Huckabee.
Yes, a lot of people in Clinton's column, Edward's column, and Obama's column have said some stupid things, many of which have been what appears to be purposely misconstrued and publicized far and wide. But, actually, among the anonymous sources, who knows exactly who is saying what? Who is fanning these flames?
Again, ask yourself, who benefits. Gee, it's the Republicans again. Well, the MSM too, because it gives them something to talk about.
There are an awful lot of people with an awful lot of money who want the Democratic nominee to lose: think Scaife of Arkansas (although I don't think he's much in it this round), T. Boone Pickens (one of the Swiftboat funders), the gazillionaire from Utah whose name I don't remember but who is committed financially to having Sen. Clinton beaten, and so on. Don't take the bait.
I'd ask everyone to remember what we are supposed to be doing - choosing the person who can best govern us for the next 4-8 years and stop bashing each other.
Ignore the trolls (of which there seems to be an inordinate number) and stick to the policies of each candidate.