Slate's Kaus theorized racial motives for why "Hillaryland Hates Obama"
In a December 4 entry on his Slate.com blog, Mickey Kaus cited a CQPolitics.com blog entry by Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn in writing that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign "[h]ates" Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Kaus quoted Corn writing that Clinton staffers "don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser," and went on to ask: "Is this just because Obama's presumptuous enough to deny her rightful nomination? Or is there another root-cause complaint that the citizens of Hillaryland can't voice because even though it's true it wouldn't help them: that Obama's an 'affirmative action baby' who's been promoted faster than his merits would ordinarily permit? If he weren't black he'd be [Sen.] Dick Durbin [D-IL]! (Or a more appealing but less experienced version of Dick Durbin)." Kaus continued: "That Hillary's cadres can't voice or even permit themselves to think about thinking this thought, of course, might tend to make them even madder," adding: "Of course, Hillary is not an affirmative action baby. She got her position the old fashioned way -- by marrying it."
According to the Nexis database, Kaus' blog post was republished in the December 6 print edition of the Chicago Tribune in the "What Others Are Saying" column.
From Kaus' December 4 blog entry, titled "Hillaryland Hates Obama: Is It Just Arrogance?":
Hillary's people "despise Obama," reports David Corn in a fine piece of schmoozalism. They "don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser." Hillary has (not uncleverly) asked, """How did running for president become a qualification for being president?" ... Is this just because Obama's presumptuous enough to deny her rightful nomination? Or is there another root-cause complaint that the citizens of Hillaryland can't voice because even though it's true it wouldn't help them: that Obama's an 'affirmative action baby' who's been promoted faster than his merits would ordinarily permit? If he weren't black he'd be Dick Durbin! (Or a more appealing but less experienced version of Dick Durbin) ... That Hillary's cadres can't voice or even permit themselves to think about thinking this thought, of course, might tend to make them even madder. ... P.S: Of course, Hillary is not an affirmative action baby. She got her position the old fashioned way -- by marrying it.
Corn's December 4 CQPolitics.com blog entry said that in "talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama." He also cited unnamed Democrats who have "report[ed] encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people." Corn also quoted an unnamed "Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign" discussing the Clinton campaign's attitude toward Obama. Corn wrote: " 'It's his presumptuousness,' this operative says. 'That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?' You mean, he's, uh, uppity? 'Yes.' " Corn's blog post did not contain any first-hand quotes from Clinton campaign staffers or anyone associated with the Clinton campaign. From Corn's December 4 CQPolitics.com blog entry:
When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes." A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible."
I wonder this to sometimes, why do they hate Obama so much?
They are competing against eachother for the right to represent the Democratic Party in the 2008 election. As a competitor, I hated my opponent until until the clock read zero. I would say they have the same feelings in this race. After the Primary is over, hate will turn to respect, which turns into a VP pick. I could be wrong, I think media types like to stir things up way too much. This is another example IMO.
Jesus christ, Sue ! Do you do ANYTHING but post on MMFA ??? I hope you aren't on a government payroll, I'd want you fired.
Dude, WTF? We all post here as much as we want to. Your comment was uncalled for.
Just making an observation. >:-)
Btw, I'm female.
Scientific report:
Of the latest 10 MMFA articles, Sue was the #1 poster in 3 of them. The number probably would have been 4, but she was pre-empted by Snoopy's "countdown to Sue ..." remark. >:-)
(Btw, Tommy was only #1 in one of the 10 articles, but he was #2 in two, #3 in one, and #4 in one.)
Man you've got too much time on your hands.
Who the hell keeps score here?
Obsessed much? And you're picking on SueEld?
I'm just being scientific. I had observed something and I wanted to verify that my observation is correct. It's not like I scanned ALL of the MMFA articles. It took me a whole 2 minutes, 1 to scan the first posts of the 10 articles, and 1 to write my post. And you know what ? I feel good about it. >:-)
LOL. (Not sure what the female equiv is, so I'l stick with...) DUDE! WTF? LOL
You do realize that you've now doen research to document how obsessed someone else is with posting on MMFA. (I'm not playing the hypocrasy card - that would be going to far, but it does seem a little silly.) ;)
Sue may be obsessed, or she may just have really good iming and know roughly when most of the stories hit. (I can usually count on 2 or 3 new ones right around my lunch break, for example!) I prefer to respond rather than post first, which I have done, but it's fairly rare. (And more often just cause I'm late rather than by choice!)
Plus, while I disagree with 90% of what Sue, Tommy & Justice post here, I LOVE reading their stuff, and replying to it. Makes the discussion so much more fun! So I say - post away!
But whatever, now I've taken it too far! LOL
I love your handle, BTW. :)
They hate on Obama to take away negative attention from themselves.
Damn! You gotta hand it to Mickey Mouse Kaus: he sure has an uncanny ability in his writing to hit two birds with one stone.
I’m not even a fan or supporter of Obama and Clinton, but his take on why the Clinton Camp despises Obama sounds like a subplot straight out of a soap opera.
Oh please, MMFA just doesn't like this point of view - that Hillary is miffed that anyone is seriously challenging her coronation as the Democratic nominee......after all, Bush, then Clinton, then Bush II, now a Clinton. I have no doubt her and Bill feel that way, that this is hers and anyone dare challenge her seriously is just getting in her way. Why is this so hard to believe?, or any misinformation?
Obama has been a very serious and honorable opponent of Hillarys. He has not dumped on her, or dragged her through the mud. He has treated her candicacy with respect, I, for one, admire his class.
Hillary is digging in her heels and if she loses Iowa to Obama, and especially New Hampshire, lookout Barack.
If Hillary loses in Iowa she will spew the most vile hate toward Obama that anyone has witnessed since the Bush smear of McCain. I would even think on December 26 the hate will fly. She is that shrill.
I don't know about that, but I have to admit the way she tried to discredit him by citing one of his school teachers on his ambitions to become President was pretty silly.
Agree. It was ridiculous, and made her look far more foolish than Obama.
It almost makes me believe it was a joke. Now I know tone is hard to convey sometimes on message boards, maybe the same can be said of Press Releases. It also makes you wonder what the hell these top notch political advisors are being paid the big bucks for. Her ace in the hole is the intrigue of Bill being back in the White House. Play that card, get off the Obama opportunist card. She sounds like a Republican.
She sounds like a Republican
Nah, she sounds like a Clinton.
Hilary Clinton is quite Republicany in many ways in my opinion. She's seems more right leaning than Bill. I don't know if she became Republicany in an effort to get the Republicans to stop hating her, but if she did it was a dumb calculation since they still irrationally hate her guts. I honestly fear for H. Clintons safety should she be elected president because of that. I know her joining in the Republican Iran hysteria is going to subtract some credibility points especially in light of the NIE report; I had already been deducting points for stuff like her wing nutty like support of the flag burning amendment. I still believe that H. Clinton is a smart woman and that she will probably make a decent president if elected but every time I see her and Romney they appear to be salivating for the presidency. They want it bad.
I totally agree with everything you said, Lynn. That's why if Hillary is the nominee it will difficult to push myself to vote for her. With Obama I'm willing to compromise a bit and vote, but with Hillary...? I don't know. I can't afford to sit this one out, but at the same time, she leans too far to the Right for my taste. She'll be better than a Republican if elected, but I don't want someone that's simply better but superior to the Republicans and their platform. This is one of the best chances for the Democratic Party to reinvent itself and push forward a strong progressive agenda. I just don't think Hillary is offering that.
Lynn & Preston, I agree with both of you.
On the one hand I hate hearing Hillary dump on Obama but on the other I actually hope she'll continue cause the more she does the more she sounds like a raving, screaming, screeching nag. She is NO Bill Clinton, who I voted for twice. Her policies and ideas lean far to close to the right for my taste, however I have to be honest, if she is the nominee, she'll get my vote. That does not mean that I'll stop trying to get Obama the nomination, I'll fight for him to the bitter end. It just means I'll hold my nose when I vote for her in the general election.
I'm with all of you on Hillary. I don'tlike her. I'll vote for her, just because I won't vote republican until the religious nuts are out of the party, and the supreme court no longer has it's current fascist aligmnemt. (So it will be a long time!) But yeah - Hillary would be the lesser of two evils here. I really hope Obama get the nom and ges on to win. He may not have the experiecne (that's not necessarily a bad thing!) but he's the only one with any actual ideals. He's the only one I see that really gets what wrong with the whole system. I say: give him a solid democratic majority in both houses and let's see what happens. I could get excited about that prospect. But Hillary and the thin majoriy the dem's have now? That would stuts quo ad nauseum.
I'm with all of you on Hillary. I don'tlike her. I'll vote for her, just because I won't vote republican until the religious nuts are out of the party, and the supreme court no longer has it's current fascist aligmnemt. (So it will be a long time!) But yeah - Hillary would be the lesser of two evils here. I really hope Obama get the nom and ges on to win. He may not have the experiecne (that's not necessarily a bad thing!) but he's the only one with any actual ideals. He's the only one I see that really gets what wrong with the whole system. I say: give him a solid democratic majority in both houses and let's see what happens. I could get excited about that prospect. But Hillary and the thin majoriy the dem's have now? That would status quo ad nauseum.
Yes it was.
Ok sue, duly noted. I've got a note on my calendar to check up on this nearly hateful statement on said date. I think you are dead wrong, I've met both of the Clintons while working in Vail and I'll guess that she may come out swinging, but she is a realist first and foremost, and to say that she hates Obama is whimsical fantasy promoted by a lazy press anxious to sell some advertising.
(applause)
tommy theorizing a venal motive that you pulled directly out of your rectal database is a smear. If he has any EVIDENCE that Hillary is racist or harbors racist sentiments then he ough to cough it up but this is PURE conservative misinformation. It is easy and useless to just assign venal motives. I could say that Bush lied to America and took us to war because he is an al Queda plant that secretly wants to push their agenda. Its a worthless and dishonest tactic that SHOULD be called out.
First of all, Obama has gone negative on Hilary many times in recent weeks, as Huffingting Post and others have chronicled. She has done the same towards him. I hardly think its her slinging the mud and him rising above it all, statesman like. Especially the random "Hilary, tell us what dirt you THINK you know about me" press release from Obama.
More to the point of the MM post - more AFRICAN AMERICANS support HC than Obama in national polls, as do more black and Hispanic members of Congress. Are they racist too? No, I think they are just rallying behind "the establishment."
I believe those racial sentiments are solely Kauses. I'm a real Obama gal and YES I believe that Hillary has it in for anyone who gets in the way of her march to the Whitehouse yet I don't believe for a moment that there is a racial component to it. Maybe I'm just naive because although I believe that there are a significant number of Republicans of the wing nut variety who aint that crazy about Blacks I believe that is mostly politically motivated as well. They hate Democrats and since the majority of AAs vote Democratic well they hate us. I think that flimflam guy that posts here is atypical of most Republicans/conservatives.
Lynn,
You don't think that Hillary is even more pissed off because she is be so strongly challanged by a relatively inexperienced two term Senator? This is where the affirmative action comment comes in, as if, possibly, according to Kaus, she feels he hasn't "earned" the right to compete against her......if he were white, he would just be another Biden or Dodd, I don't think Kaus' analysis is that far off, actually. It is a definite possibility.
It's not surprising that you would agree with Kaus's affirmative action comment, but Kaus ascribed the sentiment to Hillary. That is the misinformation that's escaping you.
It's not surprising that you swoop in for this topic........there is no misinformation in an opinion piece such as this, it is one person's opinion of political strategy and inner campaign workings.
If you disagree, fine. Although frankly, I could care less.
Isn't it true Tommy that you routinely have gay sex in bathrooms with minors ? Some attendants unaffiliated with any particular bathrooms have said that it's true.
(Hey, I'm just posting an opinion, it doesn't need to be at all truthful, right ?)
Feel free to post whatever you want, I am not the moderator nor am I bothered by whatever you post, believe me.......keep at it.
I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate such a rumor if 1) you were running for public office and 2) it was spread nationally via the media.
Yes there is your constant nonsense about how opinions cannot be misinformation is dumb. I think you molest small furry animals. Is that TRUE? Assigning venal motives without a shred of evidence IS misinformation by definition. It is a dishonest tactic period. I could say that I think your hatred for Hillary is because you just hate women and are afraid of having one be president because of your misogyny. That is pretty much EXACTLY what Kaus is doing and it is flat out dishonest.
Allow me to just highlight again what you've written on the previous page:
"[I]f he were white, he would just be another Biden or Dodd, I don't think Kaus' analysis is that far off, actually. It is a definite possibility."
So Kaus attributes racial motives to Hillary's rivalry with Obama, you then openly agree with Kaus's "affirmative action" comments, and then you become apoplectic when somebody suggests that you have some...shall we say, issues?..when it comes to race? I think it's high time that you took another sabbatical from posting on topics of race. You're only digging a deeper hole for yourself.
CC:
Kauses speculation is probably well understood for people who can't get the concept that people are just people. This is the same sentiment that leaves Bill O'rielly wondering why Blacks don't act like a herd a Buffalo when they're in a restaurant. His example obviously is the extreme; but Kaus's speculation and projection of his speculation onto H. Clinton is a strain of that kind of mindset. Everything has to be put in the concept of race to define the issue; damn we still got a ways to go huh?Tommy, I believe that both Clinton and the DC aristocracy (both the politicians and the DC punditry world) feel that he hasn't put his time in and that he is being too presumptive in running for the highest office in the land with out kissing the proper amount of butt for the proper amount of time and how dare he challenge that status quo; but no I don't believe that Obama's popularity with the American people has anything to do with affirmative action. That's ridiculous. The people of IL voted him into office and he obviously has supporters including myself that believe that he is fully capable and willing to take this country out of that nasty political DC quagmire into a positive and smart direction, and his race has nothing to do with that IMHO.
Lynn, I never said his popularity with the American people at all, where did that come from? I am talking about rising within the ranks of political parties, and Kaus' point asking the question that perhaps Hillary, not the American people, feel that he hasn't properly paid his dues.
This has nothing to do with his popularity with the American people.
His rise in the ranks of the political world is due to initially the support of the people of IL and now it's a significant portion of the American populace that is propelling that rise. He was not appointed Senator nor a presidential candidate because he is Black, so to even bring up the AA argument is too ridiculous. I'm surprised you don't see that. Obama is where he is because of three things, brains, charm, and ambition. He asked for political support outside of the ranks of those who maintaint the DC status quo and he got it, and the DC status quo which includes the Clintons are not happy about that. But to introduce this race talk into this is race baiting pure and simple.
Lynn, You're missing the point of Kaus' article then, sorry.
What's the point Tommy besides that Obama has somehow reached a level of success that he didn’t earn and that his elevated place in the political world is somehow due to being promoted because of his race. Please explain the point to me because you’re correct, I'm not getting it. I believe that Kaus is projecting his own ridiculous assumption that Obama’s station is due to his race onto Hilary Clinton, and MMFA was correct to call him on it.
Lynn,
Kaus is asking the questions from the viewpoint of the Clinton campaign and what possibly could be in their thoughts regarding Obama's rise. It has nothing to do with the public's perception or anything else. As I said, it's his opinion, he may be all wet where Hillary is concerned, I have no idea, none of us do, I guess. But it is an interesting piece and a plausible possibility that that is the way the Clinton camp might feel. Like "dammit, what gives him the right, he hasn't earned this!"
That is all he is saying. He, as I read it, is not saying that Obama is not worthy or deserved of anything - he is merely opining on what the Clinton camp may feel about it.
He may be way off base, but he might be right, who knows?
Why would he even ponder such an asinine question if somehow this non-sense hadn't occurred to him? There are a few idiots usually on your side of the political persuasion that think in these types of hypotheticals. Rush comes to mind, whenever a Black is reaching a high level of success in anything somehow it's due to social promotion-engineering. Obama got what he got on his own merit and for Kaus to even put this forward as a hypothetical is stupid and then to project this stupidity on to someone makes it worse. If I were Hilary I would be ready to slap him for thinking that I’m so stupid that I would speculate that a man duly elected Senator and is has achieved a respectable level of success as a presidential candidate because he’s Black. One day Tommy I hope we get beyond this non-sense where it would never occur to someone to speculate about if someone thinking this.
Kaus is asking the questions from the viewpoint of the Clinton campaign and what possibly could be in their thoughts regarding Obama's rise. It has nothing to do with the public's perception or anything else.
It has everything to do with perception. Why did you comment on this article? It is my opinion that this is the way you, the left wing, Clinton bashers, and those that continue to use the same tired old affirmative action argument to create dissension, doubt, and hatred.
Kaus article doesnt HAVE A POINT. Baseless speculation isnt a point its a smear. Its a guess. Guesses arent points. I guess YOU are missing that THERE IS NO POINT.
You don't think that Hillary is even more pissed off because she is be so strongly challanged by a relatively inexperienced two term Senator? This is where the affirmative action comment comes in, as if, possibly, according to Kaus, she feels he hasn't "earned" the right to compete against her......if he were white, he would just be another Biden or Dodd, I don't think Kaus' analysis is that far off, actually. It is a definite possibility. Tommy
LOL Tommy
Hillary wants to be President PERIOD! Her opponent could be a 5 legged mule who challenges her and she would still be pissed. Affirmative Action has NOTHING to do with Obama's rise and his race has NOTHING to do with Hillary going after him. Kaus brings in race for two reasons, one to get a dig in about Obama's race and second to try to blame that dig on Hillary.
Obama's rise is do to Obama!! It's what he says and how he says it that strikes a cord with so many people.
Kaus's analysis is soooo far off the mark it's funny.
I agree with you Tommy, I don't think he's too far off base here. I think that being black helps him in this case, but I don't think it's because of the skin color, but because it represents something new and fresh, that perfectly matches the (perceived ?) newness and freshness of his ideas and delivery. He's the whole package, and being black is part of that "shake up the elite" package.
Thank you Fawlty - the "affirmative action" that Kaus theorizes may be in the thoughts of the Clinton campaign have as much to do with his meteoric rise, freshness and "not having paid his political dues" as anything else.
Considering the level of vitriol the Clintons have towards anyone that gets in their way, and the fact that we all know they feel she deserves this nomination, it's hers, nobody elses, why then is Kaus' theory so "out there"?........to attribute some nefarious thoughts to the Clintons is hardly far fetched.
It is amazing all these liberals dumping all over Hillary, saying she is this, and she is that - but approach this possibility in her race against Obama and then it's "why NEVER!'.
With the Clintons, the lengths or depths they go to is far and deep, they are capable of just about anything.
There are some people who think in terms of race about everything, and then they suggest that those of us who don't are being naive, silly or dishonest, furthermore this belief that being Black is new and refreshing, well I guess I don’t get that me. I’ve been Black for pushing on 50 years now and there is nothing new or novel about that; being Black or White is a coincidence of birth and it should have nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. It certainly doesn't for me but obviously judging by Kaus's article and the agreement of you and some others we aren't on the same page, but such is life it takes all kinds to make a world my dear old Mamma use to say. As far as defending Hilary Clinton on this specific issue. I think the other posters like me are judging her on her past behavior and record. Hilary Clinton has never said or done anything to make me think that Obama's race is an issue to her, so I'm judging this based on her past history and not speculation like you and Kaus. Tommy one day we shall truly overcome this silliness where the race, ethnicity, and religion is even a topic of discussion for presidential candidates.
Lynn,
Your comments are thoughtful and well said, and from your heart, I appreciate them.
And you are right, I have often said that Obama's race is irrelevant to me, I judge him based on factors that one should evaluate anyone who is seeking to the president - the color of his skin has nothing to do with any of those factors.
I will admit this is a tough call for me here, and while I don't necessarily agree with Kaus, I honestly believe that it is a possibility, that is all I am saying. But whether it's true or not, or just Hillary hating, it does not influence my view of either candidate, since it is an opinion piece and everyone is entitled to theirs - Kaus included. Some hate Hillary and their agendas are very clear - and some hate many candidates for one reason or another, I try and judge independently of all that partisan rancor and be fair and impartial.
And if Obama or Hillary wins or loses maybe we will all make strides in putting race and gender as silly irrelevancies behind us when judging presidential candidates. If that happens, it has been good for our country, for sure.
It's also possible that Guiliani is a white supremacist who has dozens of bodies buried in his basement.
Give me a damn break. They're competing for the same job. She's losing steam, and he's the most obvious benefactor. She can hate him for that, and that he has a more popular position on the war. Maybe she just doesn't personally like him.
What's really hilarious about this is how you railed against people who "injected" racism where it didn't belong on the "third world" thread, but when some moronic right-winger injects racism into a simple campaign rivalry, that's a "distinct possibility". Why aren't you complaining about it when he does it?
Utterly transparent hypocrisy, as usual.
Your partisanship is what is so evident. "Moronic rightwinger" - that is your beef, isn't it? If this were an opinion piece about a Republican rivalry between a fading candidate and a rising newcomer, and the same theory was presented, you would think it perfectly logical - give me your damn break and save your admonition for someone who cares.
Excuse me? How do you figure that I would accept such ridiculous theorizing about anyone? What could I possibly have written here to justify that?
You can't address your own flaming hypocrisy, so you irresponsibly say I "would" do the same thing. Way to own up to your own actions there.
Excuse ME? You're the one who couldn't post without a typical partisan childish swipe such as "moronic righwinger" simply over an opinion disagreement, so yes, it is quite natural to assume that your rabid partisanship drives your every opinion - which is why I take it for what it's worth, typical foaming of the mouth partisan hatred.
Too bad though, sometimes you make valid points, but when your claws come out, well, Yawn......
So take your own advice and own to up to your own actions.
I'm not denying I called him "moronic". So what? That's specific to him, because I'm familiar with his work. I can use that term the same way Jeter can use the term "moonbat", because he specifies it to a type of behavior, not a general political outlook.
So what's your point? So first I can't call you out on your hypocrisy because I would supposedly do the same thing (based on...?), and now I'm supposed to be ashamed for calling a moron a moron just because he doesn't have the same political views as I do. What lame attempts to deflect from your own hypocrisy, even by your usual standards.
You called him a "moronic rightwinger", that definitely goes directly to political outlook. If it went to behavior, "moron" would have been sufficient.
As for my "hypocrisy", you have your opinion. The "third world" thread is up for anyone who wants to read my posts.
Admittedly, I did consider this to be race baiting at first, but after reading the analysis, knowing the history of the Clintons, and realizing that the racial overtones that Kaus ascribes to the campaign could be a definite possibility, then it's not baiting as I see it.
Race baiting has no basis in reality and is just inflammatory to stir racial divisiveness. This, however, considering all the factors that I have already explained, could definitely have a very distinct basis in reality. I will say it does stir the racial pot directed at the Clintons, and without actual proof that is troubling, I admit that - but as I also said, it could be true - so for that reason I saw it not as race baiting, but as a controversial opinion that one can agree with, or not.
Sorry, that is my opinion - maybe I am splitting hairs and maybe Kaus is full of it.......I just believe that it is a possible and plausible look at the Clinton campaign.
"You called him a "moronic rightwinger", that definitely goes directly to political outlook. If it went to behavior, "moron" would have been sufficient."
Wrong, for two reasons. First, the phrase "moronic rightwinger" does not suggest that all rightwingers are morons. I think my history here shows very well that I don't believe that all conservatives are stupid. Secondly, it was relevant to the reason that you overlooked it.
To further that second part, the issue isn't "race-baiting". I didn't use that term. I said "inject" racism, as you said where it doesn't belong. That's what Kaus did, and if it angers you that liberals do it, then it should anger you that Kaus did it...except he's a right-winger, or maybe more fair to say that his target is Clinton. Or maybe it's just because MMfA complained about the exact same thing you complained about, and you had your knee-jerk anti-MMfA moment. Whatever caused it, it was thoughtless and hypocritical.
If Kaus' opinion is unassailable just because it's his opinion, then so are the opinions of liberals who said that "third world" has racial overtones. And if they can be criticized for that, then Kaus can be criticized for the merits and basis of his opinion.
Where did I say Kaus' opinion is unassailable, I never said any such thing and you know it. I specifically said it was controversial and he may be all wet - if that's unassailable in your dictionary, you need a new one.
And for the record, "injecting racism" is the same thing as race baiting. Race baiting is injecting racism into a situation where it is flat out not there. However, Clinton's feelings toward Obama regarding "affirmative action" is an absolute possibility, considering all the factors involved. Therefore it very well could be "there".
I have made my opinion on this clear, as have you. We disagree.
"Race baiting is injecting racism into a situation where it is flat out not there."
As I note below, to say it "could" be there does not help your case. As it stands, it is not there, so then it's race baiting. It's utterly absurd to say something might be possible, therefore it should be treated as if it is.
Also, I said "if his opinion is unassailable", not that you said that. It's clearly pointing out that either way you look at it, you have to treat both sides the same way. If one is unassailable, then they both are...if one is assailable, then they both are. But since you objected, note your very first post on this thread, where you said the item was here just because MMfA disagreed with his opinion. Don't they have the right to question his opinion? Why not?
"This, however, considering all the factors that I have already explained, could definitely have a very distinct basis in reality."
I need to add on about this. There is no validity to the phrase"could have a basis in reality". Anything could have a basis in reality, for all we know. The question is whether it does or not. You could make just about any charge against anyone and defend it in such a way. "Huckabee is a pedophile". Well, that could have a basis in reality. If he ever took a picture with a child, then you could ratchet it up to "definitely could have a distinct basis in reality". It doesn't mean a damn thing.
Huckabee is a pedophile considering he may have taken a picture with a child? Wow, now that's a analogy for the books.
You should have stopped before you "added on about this"
"It could have a basis in reality". How is that statement not true for the Huckabee example?
You can't be serious. A basis in reality requires circumstances and factors that when evaluated and considered could result in a very real basis for possibility.
Your ridiculous, out-of-the-sky analogy regarding Huckabee has no circumsantial evidence or any factors that would lead one to believe what you imply. There is nothing in his backround or anywhere else that makes that statement even remotely true or even borderline intelligent. By your standards, common sense is out the window and anything could be said - Hillary has had a sex change, for example. Much like Solon's oft repeated "molest small furry animal" idiocy. There is no relevance or "basis in reality" for any of these. It's flat out asinine.
Kaus lays out his reasonings and one is free to agree or disagree, but he doesn't just put it out there as you did with no relevance.
What's the basis for Kaus' comment? You said you remembered "the history of the Clintons" as a justification for thinking it could have a basis in reality...why? What "history" led you to think that Hillary might hate Obama because he's getting ahead by "affirmative action", like a black man doesn't deserve to be considered for president?
What "reasonings" is Kaus laying out to justify this theory? If there are none, then what's the difference between that and the Huckabee example?
I want concrete examples.
You didn't even read the piece, did you? One example is Hillary asking how does running for President become a qualification for being President?
If you don't think that goes directly to the entitlement she feels, and the "not paying his dues" regarding Obama - hence the "affirmative action" rise speculation about how her campaign feels, then you are just being argumentative. Kaus gives others. If you want more "concrete examples", then demand them from him.
I am done.
"One example is Hillary asking how does running for President become a qualification for being President?"
So a question about inexperience somehow evolves into a racial issue? That comment could be made about anyone if you're questioning their qualifications.
So one completely useless example justifies such hypothesizing? If that's the case then it's exactly like the Huckabee example. Thanks for bolstering the analogy.
You are done, indeed.
No doubt Obama is bugging the crap out of the Hillary crew, but a racial motive? Very doubtful, IMO.
I think Hillary would "hate" anyone who she thought stood in the way to her throne.
Hey Jeter, I can't post in the Romney thread, so I'm responding to your "trash" comment here.
You wrote: "Maybe you better go consult that bag of trash you worship? "
I rely on science. If you want to refer to science as a "bag of trash", by all means go ahead. But make note of how many times during each day you rely on that "bag of trash" to accomplish tasks or even exist, starting with the computer you're using to publish your wingnut babble.
Nice, I love to tell bible thumper clients that I fixed their digital woes with PFM. That's pure intercoursing magic, for the non techys. I love the ones who argue that god has changed the speed of light and that is why distant objects appear to be so far away in terms of time. (How they explain the conflict between their young earth myth and reality) Yet, they are perfectly willing to take advantage of all the technical wonders that depend on a strictly constant speed of light to work.
I've also thought it to be extreme hyprocrisy that a cult member will:
Consult a weather report instead of ask their supernatural being what the weather will be like.
Call a doctor or take medications when they are ill, rather than rely on their supernatural being to heal them.
Pray aloud rather than just think their messages to their supernatural being .. it is, after all, omniscient.
Suffer the grief of permanent loss even though they claim that the person who died is going to heaven, the most wonderful place, and they will ultimately see that person again.
I could go on for another 20 paragraphs ...
Amazing.
At least try to put my comment in context.
For anyone mildly interested...It began this way:
but they don't particularly care what brand of faith it is so long as the person has American valuesGrrrrrr. What exactly are "American values" ? And why do I need to believe in supernatural beings to have them ?- atheist / Thursday December 6, 2007 02:18:11 PM EST
You can believe in a bag of trash if you'd like But most folks still want their leaders to declare their faith in God & Jesus. Doesn't matter to me personally, so you'll have to take it up with those still hung up on it I guess....- jeter2 / Thursday December 6, 2007 02:30:17 PM EST
Then later on--not connected to our first encounter:
You expect me to do your homework, & I'm the lazy one?Ah Moonbat logic, gotta love it ;-) jeter2 / Thursday December 6, 2007 02:46:34 PM EST
Now I know why you believe in supernatural beings.- atheist / Thursday December 6, 2007 02:47:53 PM EST
Huh? That didn't even make sense. Maybe you better go consult that bag of trash you worship?::eye roll::- jeter2 / Thursday December 6, 2007 03:02:00 PM EST
Nice try though attempting to make me look like a religious nut by simply using something out of context... just more of your Moonbat foolishness Miss or Mister Atheist.
::eyes still rolling::
Since we can post in the Romney thread again, I've posted my reply to you there.
You'll find my reply to you there.
Is anyone addressing the problem of the sources ? "Clintonites" ? "Other Democrats" ? A "Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign " ? (Why would someone who is unaffiliated with Clinton's campaign speak for Clinton's campaign ?) Who are these sources ?
This is as bad as "some people say".
Agree, whenever they want to interject their own feelings or spin into an argument they do that.
Exactly! My thoughts on seeing quotes attributed to any sort of unnamed sources is to insert "An imaginary person whom I invented to bolster my own thesis said..."
Actually, the whole idea of "experience" is such a slippery slope. Typically, the more "experience" a candidate has in the Senate, the more their record can be used against them. ("He/she voted against the widows and orphans bill") That is why almost no Senators ever get elected. The last sitting Senator to be elected was Kennedy, and his Senatorial record was short and undistinguished. Actually, Hillary's only elected position is Senator, while Barack is a first term Senator who has also served in a state legislature. Richardson has a lot more experience than either of them--he has been a governor (chief administrator experience), a US Rep (legislative experience), an ambassador (foreign policy experience) and a US Secretary of Energy (Cabinet level executive branch experience). And he is also a minority, if anyone thinks that being a minority helps one to get ahead faster as this thread suggests Hillary thinks about Obama. But Richardson is still a third-tier candidate. Go figure.
Destroying The Democratic Front Runner
What I dislike most about the media crazy directed at Hillary Clinton is has divided the Democratic Party. This divide could hand the Republicans the next Presidency.
Lead my Chris Matthews, the Republicans have initiated a campaign to destroy the Democratic front runner. Recall, Clinton had a huge lead. This lead would of been too much for the Republicans to overcome.
Matthews, on a daily bases, acts like he is Braack Obama's unofficial campaign manager. With one Washington Post poll, he's generated this conception the Democrats has a soon to be new front runner. Matthews knows this country will not elect a Black as president. As a Black man, I truly believe this country is not willing to elect a person of color. Make no mistake, this is not a statement people of color are not qualified to be president. There many who are very capable running the oval office.
I have come to dislike much of what Obama has to say and do. He feels desperate and willing to except the false sense of support from the conservative media. Not once has he disarmed this attempt to take Clinton out. I hope he don't get this false sense of being "just that good" he is beating the socks off Clinton. From what I see, the media is doing that for him.
Whatever, happen to sticking to the issues? It has been put to the side by a conservative dynasty that feels they are about to lose it all.The media's attempt to keep the politics negative will also be the downfall of the Democratic Party. This negativity is totally generated by the media, who is acting like a third party instigator pushing two sides to fight it out. Check out Matthew's roll of late.
I call for Democratic unity. Talk about the issues. At the end, pick the best candidate. Keep the Republicans suggestions and propaganda out of the Democratic mix. The Republicans have messed this country up for years to come. There is nothing worth while about them.
Joseph
Obama always seems pissy to me. But what really disappointed me was his buy-in to the rumor that H Clinton had dirt on him. The rumor came from a wingnut and Obama scooped it up, assumed it was true, and issued a public statement about it !! Meantime H Clinton was saying they had no such dirt and the story was complete fabrication. So Obama took the word of a wingnut over the word of a fellow Democratic senator. Not good !
I don't normally post but I've read all the post and had to add my $.02.
Joseph is RIGHT ON SPOT>>>the conservatives and the media have gone after Clinton from day one cause she CAN win...Against any of the repugnantcans. I'm angre that the dems are eating each other alive and the result will be a) a repub like gulliani or romney gets in and we have 4 more years of deconstructng the middle class or b) Obama, who is a great statesman in the future, But unready to tackle the mess that Bush is leaving (and we know it's bigger than we can see yet) And fails... then the Dems won't win again for a long, long time.
We NEED to win the white house back, but also be able to fix it properly and I think Clinton is best prepared to tackle it.