NY Times reported "various Democratic officials" have accused Bill Clinton of "racial" remarks, but did not report denial by campaign and others
SUMMARY: A New York Times article stated that Bill Clinton "thrust himself into his wife's campaign ... with remarks that various Democratic officials have labeled racial and divisive." But the article didn't identify any remarks that were purportedly "racial," nor did it note that Hillary Clinton's campaign has vigorously disputed the accusation that Bill Clinton made "racial" comments.
In her February 1 New York Times article on former President Bill Clinton's role in Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign, reporters Katharine Q. Seelye and Raymond Hernandez wrote that "Mr. Clinton thrust himself into his wife's campaign ... with remarks that various Democratic officials have labeled racial and divisive." Simply asserting that "various Democratic officials have labeled" remarks Bill Clinton has made as "racial," Seelye and Hernandez neither identified the remarks to which they were purportedly referring, nor noted that the Clinton campaign has vigorously disputed the accusation that Bill Clinton made "racial" comments.
Reporting on a January 27 Clinton press conference the day following the South Carolina primary, the Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut noted that "Clinton denied that her husband had been adding to harmful divisions within the Democratic party with recent statements about Sen. Barack Obama. In fact, Clinton said, her husband was someone who 'brought our country together' when he was president. He was, she said, a president who sought to 'repair the breaches and mend the divides' between blacks and whites by defending affirmative action and creating a commission on civil rights."
On the January 31 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson dismissed the notion that Clinton injected race into the election. Co-host Mika Brzezinski asked: "Is [Bill Clinton] being mischaracterized in the press. Or what do you make of what's going on?" Wolfson replied: "I think the notion that Bill Clinton tried to inject race into the campaign is untrue. This is a man who has spent his entire life bringing people together, crossing the divides in our nation, and I reject completely the notion that he was engaged in anything like that."
In addition, of Bill Clinton's January 26 comment that "[Rev.] Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator [Barack] Obama's [D-IL] running a good campaign here, he's run a good campaign everywhere," Seelye herself noted in a January 28 post on the Times' political blog The Caucus that Jackson said that he did not "read anything negative into Clinton's observation." The post also quoted Jackson saying: "Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments."
From the February 1 New York Times article:
The red-faced, finger-wagging Bill Clinton has left the campaign trail.
The new Bill Clinton, playing to crowds in New Mexico, New Jersey and Ohio, is earnest and on script, telling crowds to vote for his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, in the 22 Democratic presidential nominating contests Tuesday.
No criticism of her rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. And no extemporaneous interviews with the news media. Staff members have shooed reporters away from the rope lines where hundreds of people line up to shake the former president's hand and pose for pictures.
But even as the campaign reins in Mr. Clinton, his statements from last week in the heat of the South Carolina primary are reverberating among some Democratic voters.
People like Nancy Sabato, 45, a graphic designer who lives in South Orange, N.J., said they had been befuddled as they watched Mr. Clinton thrust himself into his wife's campaign and steal the show with remarks that various Democratic officials have labeled racial and divisive.
In the process, Mr. Clinton also raised the specter of a co-presidency and the possibility that if Mrs. Clinton could not control him on the campaign trail, she could not control him back in the White House.
"He's very smart, and that's why it's a little surprising," Ms. Sabato said as her 3-year-old daughter tugged at her coat. "Now she's in a no-win situation. He's got a big personality, he's a former president, and he's going to be a big presence no matter what."
Democratic officials, too, have been worried. The former president's prominent role on the campaign trail has left some voters wondering "who is running," said Nancy DiNardo, the state Democratic chairwoman in Connecticut.
"He has to be careful not to eclipse her, to overshadow her, so that she is her own person," Ms. DiNardo said. "I do believe he needs to step back and let her be the candidate."
[...]
Among party leaders, there is a concern that Mr. Clinton's bad week could have long-lasting consequences, polarizing the party and dampening grass-roots enthusiasm as Democrats try to win back the White House this fall.
"That's what you jeopardize with this type of sniping," Mr. [Rep. John] Yarmuth [D-KY] said.
Still, Mrs. Clinton could benefit from Mr. Clinton's deep well of support.
"I hope he's a little more careful," said Ms. Sabato, the graphic designer. "You want her to have a fair shot without him saying something that hurts her. Though I love her. And I voted for him."
From the January 31 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
WOLFSON: Look, I think that throughout the entirety of this campaign, the president has been our best surrogate. He tells Hillary's story better than anyone because he has known her the longest and, you know, he is out and about all across the country, drawing very large crowds -- he had 5,000 people yesterday. And we're going to continue to --
JOE SCARBOROUGH (host): So it's not you --
BRZEZINSKI: Well, wait. Howard, you say he tells Hillary's story better than anyone. Is he being mischaracterized in the press, or what do you make of what's going on? Because it sounds like somebody has asked him to maybe --
WOLFSON: You know, I would say this. I would -- I appreciate the question. I think the notion that Bill Clinton tried to inject race into the campaign is untrue. I think this is a man who has spent his entire life bringing people together, crossing the divides in our nation, and I reject completely the notion that he was engaged in anything like that.
SCARBOROUGH: Do you think people are being too sensitive -- overly sensitive on the race issue here?
WOLFSON: Well, I'm not -- look, I'm not going to say that. I'm just going to speak up on behalf of the president because he is somebody who cares deeply about these issues. He is somebody who has worked his whole life to bring people together, to bridge divides, and I know him. I know what's in his heart. And you know, you don't have to look at -- you don't have to listen to me. You can look at the man's public record over a lifetime. This is not somebody who has done anything other than bring people together.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Hey, Howard, good luck tonight. It's going to be a heck of a debate. One-on-one.
WOLFSON: It's going to be great.
SCARBOROUGH: Don't you think that's going to be exciting?
Joe asks, "Do you think people are being too sensitive -- overly sensitive on the race issue here?"
RESPONSE: No, Joe. It's not a matter of "thinking", it's a matter of KNOWING ... and what we KNOW is that the Media is desperate to inject division and race and gender conflict into the Democratic primary campaigning. They will invent it, find it where there is none, FALSELY 'interpret' words said, take isolated phrases completely out of context, and then claim it's getting UGLY amongst the Democrats.
It's the MEDIA, Joe, it isn't the "people". And they aren't "too sensitive", they are INSENSITIVE ... to TRUTH. Perhaps it could be said the Media is indeed "too sensitive" to wishing to gain ratings by flogging conflict. Or "too sensitive" to doing the job of carrying water for the Republicans. But "too sensitive" to RACE? Hell, they're INVENTING racial conflict as hard and fast as they can!
Hell, they're INVENTING racial conflict as hard and fast as they can!
Correct TEX and Morning Joe is a major contributor to this.
One thing Joe has mastered well as an X-Congressman – and I’m sure it’s a result of being from the panhandle of Florida – (And as a transplanted Yankee, who moved to the south 10 years ago, I think I can speak from my experiences) – He’s mastered the art of political correctness. It’s been my experience that what a "southern gentleman" says regarding racial issues, and what he really feels – are usually two different things. Get them in a private conversation with his hick friends and constitutes down at the trailer park, and you’d find a whole new Joe.
Carl Bernstein has been doing the exact same thing on CNN every day-- claiming that "friends" are upset, and that "people have told me" that they are appalled at Bill Clinton, and that "Democratic sources have revealed..." etc. etc, but he never names names or gives specifics.
The Big Lie campaign continues.
you also have people on the left who are spouting right wing talking points to discredit the clintons. in this column on capitolhillblue.com doug thompson says clinton supporters are wrong to say that clinton's policies helped the economy, that a recovery was under way when he took office, and that it is poppy bush who should be given the credit. absolute nonsene. there was a recovery under way, but that does not mean clinton's policies did not contribute to the longest expansion in history. when every single republican voted against clinton's increase of taxes on the wealthy, they predicted severe recession, even depression, and the opposite happened. it's fine to discuss history, but let's do it without buying into right wing talking points.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4398
The cycle seems to get faster all the time.Of course they didn't deteil the remarks, nor the response of other Dems, or what they said- the story is bigger than the facts almost as soon as it happens.
It took a little while, if I remember right, for John Kerry's "I voted for the 87 Billion..." to be permanently truncated and take on a new bizarro life of its own, but Bill Clinton's recent hypothetical "slow down the economy"remark was already spun 180° before his mic was turned off.
Once the lie is out, the truth is just confusing and time-consuming to the mouth breathers.
Perception is reality. That's the simple fact of the matter. It's something Bill Clinton knows too well, and people like John Kerry should have understood better at the time. The facts are simple, the Clinton campaign made many moves and statements over the month of January that can easily be described as racially insensitive. One could clearly make the argument that people were being too sensitive, but that doesn't absolve the Clintons their insensitivity. In fact, the way they responded to the initial cries of insensitivity was by portraying themselves as the victims of their own remarks and actions.
By the time last Saturday came around, and Clinton made the connection between Obama and Jackson (rather than Obama and Edwards, for instance), the narrative had already been established, and his non sequitur response to a reporters question with regard to it taking 2 Clintons to beat Obama only acted to seemingly confirm what the media and Clinton critics had been suggesting for weeks: that the Clintons had a southern strategy of their own.
Name me one communications director or Campaign Leader in any campaign, Democrat or Republican, who doesn’t come across as “a bit scummy”? Their job is to handle the dirt - and shell it out. This IS politics.
My first thought about how things will be after the Dem convention was: we'll finally be DONE with this contrived racial BS, because only one of Clinton or Obama will be left.
But then I thought ... if Obama wins, will the media start accusing McCain of being a racist ?