NY Times again reported Bill Clinton accused of "racial[]" remarks without noting denial by campaign, others
SUMMARY: The New York Times' Mark Leibovich wrote that "supporters" of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign "were accused of racially tinged attacks and innuendo against" Sen. Barack Obama. But Leibovich neither identified the "racially tinged attacks and innuendo" that he said Bill Clinton and other supporters have been accused of making nor noted that her campaign has vigorously disputed such accusations.
In a February 2 New York Times article, headlined "Clinton's Gradual Education on Issues of Race," reporter Mark Leibovich wrote that "supporters of Mrs. Clinton's campaign -- and chiefly, her husband -- were accused of racially tinged attacks and innuendo against" Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "before the South Carolina primary." But Leibovich neither identified the "racially tinged attacks and innuendo" that he says Bill Clinton and other supporters have been accused of making nor noted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) campaign has vigorously disputed the accusation that it has engaged in such attacks.
Additionally, Leibovich asserted as fact that the Clinton campaign engaged in "charged rhetoric" in South Carolina, writing: "Even as the charged rhetoric of South Carolina subsides, race will no doubt persist as a theme for as long as Mr. Obama is running, the contest is close and emotions run raw." Leibovich gave no indication that what he was presenting as fact is sharply disputed by the campaign.
Reporting on a January 27 Hillary 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 Bill 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, in writing about 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," Times reporter Katharine Q. Seelye noted in a January 28 post on the Times' political blog The Caucus that Jackson himself 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."
Leibovich's article follows a February 1 Times article by Seelye and Raymond Hernandez that asserted that "Mr. Clinton thrust himself into his wife's campaign ... with remarks that various Democratic officials have labeled racial and divisive," but, like Leibovich's article, neither identified any "racial" remarks Bill Clinton had purportedly made nor noted that the Clinton campaign has vigorously disputed that accusation.
From the February 2 New York Times article:
Mrs. Clinton has seen her support among blacks as central to her political identity. She has had many African-American friends and advisers, racially diverse staffs and a Senate voting record that has earned straight A's from the N.A.A.C.P. Even her rival, Senator Barack Obama, said in a debate that he is "absolutely convinced" of Mrs. Clinton's commitment to racial equality.
But that career's worth of good will became somewhat frayed after supporters of Mrs. Clinton's campaign -- and chiefly, her husband -- were accused of racially tinged attacks and innuendo against Mr. Obama before the South Carolina primary. Mr. Obama went on to rout Mrs. Clinton on the strength of strong support from blacks, a constituency Mrs. Clinton had courted hard.
The tone of the Clinton campaign deeply dismayed some African-Americans who had been close to the Clintons, including Eric Holder, a former top Justice Department official and Obama supporter. "It places their legacy at risk," Mr. Holder said.
Even as the charged rhetoric of South Carolina subsides, race will no doubt persist as a theme for as long as Mr. Obama is running, the contest is close and emotions run raw. "I think everyone is trying to find their way, here," Mrs. Clinton said.
Well, this is all because accusing the Clintons of something doesn't require proof as far as the media is concerned- if it's negative, it's taken as fact, no evidence required.
Now, if Saint Barack of Obama or Senator Maverick is accused of something, the media will either dismiss the accusation out of hand or at least demand proof. The Clintons get no such treatment- it's always Guilty until Proven Innocent with them.
BTW, I find it distressing, but not at all surprising, that the one piece of "evidence" the article gives for stating "the tone of the Clinton campaign deeply dismayed some African-Americans who had been close to the Clintons" is a quote by an Obama supporter. Typical.
I have to say that I don't understand your argument. Is it that the tone of the Clinton campaign did not deeply dismay African-Americans? Is it that the tone of the campaign has not shifted drastically following the rather lopsided Obama victory (in a state where all three candidates actually campaigned)? Are you denying that there was charged or remotely insensitive language being used from the weekend before the NH primary through to up until the polls closed in SC? If that's your argument, I'm really interested in hearing it. If that's not your argument, please clarify.
I mean, I can tell from your second paragraph that your pro-Clinton bias has at least a hint of anti-Obama in it, so I'm curious as to how you'd formulate a defense of what some label a Clinton campaign 'southern strategy.'
And I thought that Hillary and Bill were "playing the race card" BEFORE South Carolina, and this was one of the factors in Obama's overwhelming victory in South Carolina- are you saying that the Clintons changed their tactics AFTER South Carolina? This doesn't make any sense to me- mainly because there's no evidence of it.
Unless, of course, the only "evidence" you need is a comment from an Obama supporter.
It's actually very simple. The media wants to accomplish several things, including: picking a fight between Clinton and Obama, and driving down the Clinton campaign to Obama's benefit. Therefore, any suggestion that Bill or Hillary Clinton may have said something to irritate Obama or an Obama supporter is assumed to be accurate and gets huge media coverage. Before you know it, we get 24/7 coverage of the "controversial" Hillary Clinton campaign and it's "race-based attacks" on Obama and his supporters.
I am Pro-Clinton, but I'm not Anti-Obama. I am, however, thoroughly sick of the Anti-Clinton, Pro-Obama attitude of the media this election cycle. I didn't know it was the media's job to trash one candidate while praising the other to the heavens. And I don't like the fact that the Obama campaign is taking advantage of the obvious bias to toss darts at the Clintons, knowing that the media has made it all but impossible for Hillary to respond effectively without being accused of being a "racist."
It's actually very simple. The media wants to accomplish several things, including: picking a fight between Clinton and Obama, and driving down the Clinton campaign to Obama's benefit. Therefore, any suggestion that Bill or Hillary Clinton may have said something to irritate Obama or an Obama supporter is assumed to be accurate and gets huge media coverage. Before you know it, we get 24/7 coverage of the "controversial" Hillary Clinton campaign and it's "race-based attacks" on Obama and his supporters.
Okay, it seems like you're allowing your bias to help define the motivation of others. I would not deny that the media and the Clintons have a difficult relationship. But to suggest the Clintons are forever the victims of bad press and not the occasionally at fault for the bad press they receive is not a very objective perspective. Unfortunately, your position is further weakened by the vague conceptualization of an example. There are a number of clear examples of the Clintons or their surrogates making clearly insensitive remarks that have racial undertones. If you'd like to talk about how specific coverage is unfair, then please do that.
I am Pro-Clinton, but I'm not Anti-Obama. I am, however, thoroughly sick of the Anti-Clinton, Pro-Obama attitude of the media this election cycle. I didn't know it was the media's job to trash one candidate while praising the other to the heavens. And I don't like the fact that the Obama campaign is taking advantage of the obvious bias to toss darts at the Clintons, knowing that the media has made it all but impossible for Hillary to respond effectively without being accused of being a "racist."
Or maybe you're overly sensitive to what you perceive to be anti-Clinton. Maybe, out of habit, you're too quick to defend the Clintons against criticism. Maybe if the Clinton campaign had not continually made reference to drug use throughout the primary season, if a key supporter had not said Obama had been educated in a 'secular madrassa' while calling him Barack Hussein Obama, if Hillary Clinton had not seen it fit to lecture Barack Obama on the civil rights movement, if they hadn't, during that same period found it necessary to provide misleading statements with regard to his war position (to avoid talking about her own), maybe had they not directly lied about his Reagan/Republican quotes, and if Bill Clinton had not during the last days of SC said that Hillary didn't have to win SC because there were so many African-Americans voting, and compared Obama as a candidate to Jesse Jackson as a candidate, maybe had all of that been true, then I could feel sorry for Senator Clinton for not being able to safely criticize Obama.
And as a point of fact, I don't believe there's a huge movement of people calling Hillary Clinton a racist. New York's chapter of NOW, on the other hand, essentially called Ted Kennedy a misogynist for his endorsement of Barack Obama. In the end, it's been the Clinton campaign that has stumbled through the campaign from the moment it became competitive. Maybe it's because she's never had real opposition in a campaign for office, but they don't seem to know how to sell her, and lacking that, they've tried to tear Obama down. She may still win, but this has been an ugly campaign, and most of the ugly stuff (by far) has come from the Clinton camp. It's a sad, but not surprising truth.
What I've noticed is that the Clintons, both of them, have been put into a box by the Obama campaign and the media- "don't let Bill give speeches, or we'll misconstrue what he says.." "Don't question Obama, or we'll accuse you of playing the 'race card,' etc."....Yes, the result has been that Hillary has had to back down from challenging Obama. Not because she or her husband did anything wrong, but because the media and the Obama camp repeatedly ACCUSED them of doing something wrong. The Clintons could keep fighting, with no change of winning an argument against people who had no interest in listening, or they could back off, treat Obama with kid gloves, and hope that their lead holds up next Tuesday. That's what they are doing.
And oh, by the way, I really appreciate the accusatory "your Pro-Clinton bias is coming through" line-- as if there is something "wrong" with being Pro-Clinton that I should have to apologize for. I really beg your pardon for not falling madly in love with the Media Star of the Moment and getting on board the Obama Bandwagon, I guess I'm just not one of the Enlightened yet. I'm a good Democrat and I'll vote for Barack if he's the nominee- unlike a lot of his worshippers, who I hear on the radio every day telling me that they WON'T vote for Hillary if SHE wins- but I'm getting pretty sick of the star treatment and free ride he's getting from the media. Obviously, it doesnt bother you at all, because he's your guy.
Yes, the result has been that Hillary has had to back down from challenging Obama. Not because she or her husband did anything wrong, but because the media and the Obama camp repeatedly ACCUSED them of doing something wrong...And oh, by the way, I really appreciate the accusatory "your Pro-Clinton bias is coming through" line-- as if there is something "wrong" with being Pro-Clinton that I should have to apologize for.
I never said you had anything to apologize for. I think one must view your defense of Clinton from the perspective of somebody that wants Clinton to win. To suggest that nothing the Clintons have said or done was remotely inappropriate is telling of a bias. It reflects an inability to see something that is clear to anyone whose support for the Clintons is weak or nonexistant.
You can be upset with Obama supporters who will not vote for Hillary Clinton all you want. The fact of the matter is, many of us do not look upon being a 'good Democrat' as a sign of virtue. Party loyalty is entirely irrelevant to many Obama supporters. The party is supposed to be loyal to the people. Not the other way around.
I really beg your pardon for not falling madly in love with the Media Star of the Moment and getting on board the Obama Bandwagon, I guess I'm just not one of the Enlightened yet. I'm a good Democrat and I'll vote for Barack if he's the nominee- unlike a lot of his worshippers, who I hear on the radio every day telling me that they WON'T vote for Hillary if SHE wins- but I'm getting pretty sick of the star treatment and free ride he's getting from the media. Obviously, it doesnt bother you at all, because he's your guy.
There are a number of clear examples of the Clintons or their surrogates making clearly insensitive remarks that have racial undertones. If you'd like to talk about how specific coverage is unfair, then please do that.
Like what?
maybe had they not directly lied about his Reagan/Republican quotes
There was no lie there. If I didn't know where those quotes from, I would have swore some sycophantic republican made them.
Well, why don't we ask the folks at FactCheck.org?
"Clinton falsely accused Obama of saying he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans" including private Social Security accounts and deficit spending. Not true. The entire 49-minute interview to which she refers contains no endorsement of private Social Security accounts or deficit spending, and Obama specifically scorned GOP calls for tax cuts."
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html
Of course, there were a number of misleading statements with regard to the comments that one could argue were the result of misinterpretation, but this was a clear lie. She said he SAID something she knew he did not say. That's a lie.
That's dirty politics for sure, but how is it racist or racially charged? Personally I wish I wasn't going to have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary when the DLC gets it's way after all this, but there are plenty of real reasons to question Both Hillary and Obama. Instead we keep getting generated controversies and superficial coverage.
For example, the "fairy tale" comment was a good political tactic to negate Hillary's pro-war voting record by pointing out that Obama had only a hypothetical vote to compare to. Yet somehow it became a racially charged controversy in the hands of the media.
That's dirty politics for sure, but how is it racist or racially charged?
I was responding to the assertion by Loonz that there was no lie in the Reagan comments. I didn't call the lie racially charged. I haven't called any comments racist.
For example, the "fairy tale" comment was a good political tactic to negate Hillary's pro-war voting record by pointing out that Obama had only a hypothetical vote to compare to. Yet somehow it became a racially charged controversy in the hands of the media.
It became linked to the racial narrative for a couple of reason. One happens to be the fact that it was uttered during the same weekend when Clinton decided to give her civil rights lecture to Obama. The same weekend when a supporter introduced Clinton by addressing comparisons of Obama to JFK by reminding everyone that JFK was assassinated and it took LBJ to get civil rights legislation passed. When seen through the lense of that weekend, it's not difficult to understand how the language 'fairy tale' could carry a tone of condescension that would leave a bad taste in the mouth of many African-Americans.
I think the real problem with that quote was that it was entirely misleading. It was a dishonest cherry-picking of quotes designed to mislead the American electorate by misrepresenting Obama's historical position on the war to avoid talking about Hillary indefensible position(s) on the same topic.
Narratives are like lies in that way: The fact that you didn't see it does not mean it's not there.
Remind me about how Hillary Clinton didn't lie to the American people about what Barack Obama SAID.
When Clinton said Obama liked the ideas of republicans, he could have easily retorted that he thought the republicans were the party of ideas. He didn't do this because it wouldn't have sounded any better.
And we were talking about this so called racial narrative.
You're again avoiding the admission that it would be a lie to say he said something he didn't say. That's a sort of necessary admission for you to be taken seriously as somebody capable of seeing the Clintons with a critical eye.
As a point of fact, this part of the thread began with the suggestion by you that it was not a lie.
As another point of fact, about thirty seconds after the quoted passage, Hillary said correctly that Obama had called them the party of ideas, to which he said, quite correctly, that he didn't say they were good ones.
You're again avoiding the admission that it would be a lie to say he said something he didn't say.
He said the republicans were the "party of ideas" as though Democrats didn't have any ideas. I don't see much of difference between what he said and what Clinton said. Again, he could have retorted that he said the republicans were the "party of ideas" but there wasn't much of a difference between the two.
The only people I see saying 'racism' are the people defending the Clintons against charges that aren't coming. Racism is not the same as racial insensitivity. Nor is it the same as racial prejudice.
The Clintons are singularly to blame for things they and their surrogates have said. The longer you complain about how unfair it is without accepting that any wrong or even shady comments were made by the Clintons, the less compelling your argument becomes.
The Clintons are singularly to blame for things they and their surrogates have said.
I would say the people who don't like Hillary are to blame.
i posted this on another thread about the irrationality of some on the left about the clintons. doug thompson of capitolhillblue.com saying that the clinton prosperity of the 90s was none of bill's doing. thompson says the credit should go to poppy bush. straight out of the mouth of limbaugh.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4398
This is really the problem with the kind of blind partisanship people like the Clintons and Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh have come to symbolize to many. Partisans from both sides view politics as a war in which victory brings virtue, and as such they feel it would be an act of treason to show sympathy for the opposition or a critical view of your own side. The word for that is fanaticism. And it's exactly the kind of world view that needs to be fought both domestically and internationally. Progressives like to believe in this perspective from an international point of view, but totally dismiss its relevance on the domestic stage.
This is really the problem with the kind of blind partisanship people like the Clintons and Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh have come to symbolize to many.
You forgot to include yourself. Your hatred for Clinton shows with every post.
breaker, do you really believe that link i posted supported your argument? it was exactly what i said, someone on the left spewing right wing talking points to discredit the clintons.
Shhhh...making that statement opens you to charges of Racism! Don't EVER quote Saint Barack of Obama's words back to him! What are you, a paid agent for the Clintons, or the KKK, which might as well be the same thing?
GROW THE F*CK UP!
NO ONE called Bill or Hillary a racist, in fact most folks while criticizing Bill's actions go out of their way to explain that they don't think either of the Clintons are racist but they did cross the line. Just because Bill and Hillary support black folks DOES NOT EXEMPT them from criticism when they cross the line. Unlike you, ADULTS can publicly criticize Bill, not call him childish names (Saint Barack of Obama) and still vote for Hillary.
What's true is that Hillary Clinton said during a nationally televised debate that Barack Obama 'said he liked the Republicans' ideas.' Well, that statement is demonstrably untrue. And she knew it was untrue before she said it. You can do your best to try and rationalize that away from being what it is (a lie), but it's not going to get you far. Not only was it a lie. It was a lie designed to play to the Democratic base's hatred of Republicans. It was a lie designed to continue divisive politics. It was a lie that goes at the heart of why Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States: she hates Republicans or, at the very least, wants us to hate Republicans.
Any sycophantic republican prasing Reagon could have easily said what Obama said. If I remember correctly, Bill Kristol said something similar to in the documentary "The Power of Nightmares".
Believe me, I understand how compelling you think your argument is. I understand how difficult it is for you to grant the Republicans even the most benign complement, so I understand where your inability to get beyond that quote, or even see it for what it is, comes from. If I sound condescending, I apologise, but it's difficult to take seriously, your inability to recognize a LIE when it stares you in the face.
Say it's a lie, and say you're okay with it. But don't say it's not a lie. It makes you look foolish.
Not only did she suggest HE SAID HE LIKED the ideas, she went one step further and said THE FACT IS.... The fact that she said it was a fact that he said this, she prevents herself from rationalizing it as an interpretation of what he said. She said it was a matter of fact that he said something that she knew he did not say. That is a lie.
You can read whatever you want into Obama's quote, but you cannot say as a matter of the fact, that he said something that he did not say. The fact that you don't know that is troubling.
Not only did she suggest HE SAID HE LIKED the ideas, she went one step further and said THE FACT IS.... The fact that she said it was a fact that he said this, she prevents herself from rationalizing it as an interpretation of what he said. She said it was a matter of fact that he said something that she knew he did not say. That is a lie.
Again, he could have corrected Clinton by saying he thought the republicans were the party of ideas (as though the Democrats had no ideas?) but it wouldn't have sounded any better.
Well, why don't we ask the folks at FactCheck.org?
"Clinton falsely accused Obama of saying he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans" including private Social Security accounts and deficit spending. Not true. The entire 49-minute interview to which she refers contains no endorsement of private Social Security accounts or deficit spending, and Obama specifically scorned GOP calls for tax cuts."
What Obama said sounded like an endorsement of Reagan. As I said before if I didn't know those words came from Obama, I would have swore they came from some sycophantic republican.
And the Fact Check article is misleading. They cropped what Clinton said.
How's this then:
CLINTON: Well, I couldn't agree more. But I do think that your record and what you say does matter. And when it comes to...
(APPLAUSE)
... a lot of the issues that are important in this race, it is sometimes difficult to understand what Senator Obama has said, because as soon as he is confronted on it, he says that's not what he meant.
The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote.
Now, I personally think they had ideas, but they were bad ideas. They were bad ideas for America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21demdebate-transcript.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&fta=y&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1202050910-3VQLeCrPXUxjGdxTqwUItg
The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote.
I don't see a big difference between what she said and what Obama said. He said the republicans were the party of ideas for the last 10 to 15 years which most Democrats would say is completely false.
I don't see a big difference between what she said and what Obama said. He said the republicans were the party of ideas for the last 10 to 15 years which most Democrats would say is completely false.
And it's that world view that makes you look foolish. To say someone said something they did not say, and you know they did not say, is to tell a lie.
You are the only one adding adjectives.
s this fall. Obama's lack of experience and canned "hope" speeches are not going to work against the Republcan attack machine. This is why Clinton has my vote.
s this fall. Obama's lack of experience and canned "hope" speeches are not going to work against the Republcan attack machine. This is why Clinton has my vote.
I am sure there are plenty of things I have said that could be taken as “racial” remarks, even though anyone who knows me personally also knows that there is not an ounce of racism in my body. The same holds true with Bill Clinton’s comments.
It seems so strange to me that these people (Conservative Republicans) who were the most reluctant to jump on the “political correct” bandwagon, and ridiculed and mocked the phrase - as well as mocked those who tried to enlighten them and make them aware of insensitivities, are the same people who are now nit-picking and twisting a phrase echoed by Bill Clinton into something they see as “politically incorrect” - as if they have mind-reading capabilities that allow them to tell the rest of us what (they think) Clinton was “really saying”.
I am sure there are plenty of things I have said that could be taken as “racial” remarks, even though anyone who knows me personally also knows that there is not an ounce of racism in my body. The same holds true with Bill Clinton’s comments.
Racial and racist are not synonyms. Nor is racial insensitivity the same as racism. In fact, racism isn't the same as racial prejudice. So many people like to claim that people are jumping on the Clintons for being racists. In fact, I haven't seen or heard that many accusations of Clinton racism. I've seen accusations that the Clintons were trying to make Obama into the black candidate to strengthen Hillary's support among white and latinos. If anything, they're being accused of trying to profit from the prejudice of others. That's not the same thing as calling them racists. It does, on the other hand put into question their scuples.
It seems so strange to me that these people (Conservative Republicans) who were the most reluctant to jump on the “political correct” bandwagon, and ridiculed and mocked the phrase - as well as mocked those who tried to enlighten them and make them aware of insensitivities, are the same people who are now nit-picking and twisting a phrase echoed by Bill Clinton into something they see as “politically incorrect” - as if they have mind-reading capabilities that allow them to tell the rest of us what (they think) Clinton was “really saying”.
There's actually a couple problems with this: 1. You're suggesting the only people who've displayed dismay with the post-Iowa Clinton rhetoric are conservative Republicans. On the contrary, there are many people within the Democratic party that have taken direct offense from the conduct of the Clintons over the month of January. And they're not all black, but many of them are. 2. Your pot calling the kettle black line is off-base because all it does is criticize the critic. What about the person who has lectured people on the need for sensitivity that makes clearly insensitive remarks? Isn't that worthy of being called into question?
Perhaps if we didn’t use race as a demographic for polling and election results we wouldn’t have to worry about this problem. But the fact is the demographics were known in 2004 and they are known now in 2008. This is why it would be ludicrous for Bill Clinton to ignore them as a contributing factor of election results, or to not point out a similar scenario in years past.
The Obama flock is making way too much of this. Anything seen as pandering to or against any one racial demographic is not necessarily being racist – or intentionally “trying to profit from the prejudice of others”. It might turn out that way, but to accuse someone of intentionally “playing the race card” is a subjective observation being made by Obama supporters.
Is Hillary (or Obama) being sexist if they pander to women voters? Or, for example, if Obama panders to male voters using some subtle innuendos - are you going to agree that Hillary supporters are correct if they raise a stink about it and say that he is “trying to profit from the prejudice of others (i.e. women-haters and those who think women don’t belong in politics)”? Same difference. You're making this into an "if you're not for us, your against us" argument.
I look at it all as “politics as usual” – nothing more, nothing less.
And when is MMFA going to have their server problems corrected so that we don’t see these multiple posts?
All of this "race card" stuff is about nothing more or less than Obama's attempt to construct a shield around himself, making it more or less impossible for one to legitimately question his experience, character, or ideas. If you do any of those things, you are arguing against Hope, Vision, Courage, Optimism, oh and you are also being racist.
Meanwhile, voting for Obama does not make you a Sexist. Nope, it just means you are voting for Hope, Vision, Courage, Optimism and all that other stuff.
Here's the problem: In the general election, the Republicans won't care if they are accused of racism when they attack Obama's positions and experience. I'd rather not wait until this fall to find out that Obama isn't capable of answering questions concerning these issues because he's become used to hiding behind his starry-eyed supporters.
Also, your premise is that Obama is not electable. There's a long way to go, how do you know he won't be elctable or Hillary will be?
Anyway, before you blow your top like some petulant child about me being a Clinton hater, save it. I would be happy with either one as President. I just think you do Clinton a disservice with your crybaby nonsense. I mean seriously if all you can do is complain about one or the other having a perceived edge in the media than you more than likely don't have too much faith in either one's message or political skills.
I never said Obama was "not electable." That's another straw man you create here, because you can't refute my argument that Obama is getting a free ride. And what a sad state of affairs when someone who asks for honest, fair coverage of both candidates is dismissed as a "whiner." I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that the media is piling on Clinton and giving Obama a free pass, and I'm not going to be dismissed as a "whiner"- you sound like someone who stuck a "Sore Loserman" sign on his lawn when the 2000 election was stolen.
Again, if Obama is going to be tested, I'd rather he be tested NOW, not in the fall against a ruthless GOP smear machine. Or do you think that the media is going to be Obama's BFF after McCain is nominated? I can't wait to see who the "whiner" is when the media is no longer throwing roses at Obama's feet.
Another thing is that it is obvious that they both enjoy the fray. Both are very credible at making their point. I love this campaign season and the way these two treat each other. Whoever wins, I shall be so glad to give, work and vote for either one!!!!!
It's obvious. You don't need to make it explicit. You said in another thread, after Obama's win in Iowa, that the Democrats there just handed the Presidency to the Republicans in 08. You also say in this very thread, "I'd rather not wait until this fall to find out that Obama isn't capable of answering questions concerning these issues because he's become used to hiding behind his starry-eyed supporters." If you don't think these are not denials of his ability to win or denials of his electability, I really don't know what to say.
"That's another straw man you create here, because you can't refute my argument that Obama is getting a free ride."
I gave specific examples of Obama getting trashed by the corporate media. Is being called a terrorist, a pothead, a drug dealer, a wimp, a black seperatist high praise?
Anyway, I've said my peace cordially this time. And that leads to my apology to you, jjamele. I posted in anger earlier and said horrible things to you. I am truly sorry.
While I admire your passion, it draws anger from me because I believe both Hillary and Obama are astonishing candidates. One of them will be the next President. I will proudly cast my vote for either one of them.
However, you might want to consider that if you believe Hillary has been strategically boxed in, unable to make criticisms of Obama that that is a testament to his ability to leverage the circumstances in his favor. That's a fine trait for a candidate. What other abilities does Obama have that will aide him against the rebubbas? I agree with you though, the repubs will have no such compunction, as does Hillary, over being overt racists. Nor will they mind being mysoginists. But, why hasn't she leveraged her position similarly to Obama? I am honestly asking for your thoughts on that.
Again, I'm sorry for being a jerk to you.
You call Jjamele a "whiner" for pointing out the obvious -- first, at the moment, the media likes Obama and hates Clinton. Second, lots of Obama supporters tell us every day that they won't support Clinton if she wins, while few, if any, Clinton supporters say the same about Obama.
Obama supporters would do themselves a favor by not repeating GOP talking points about Clinton -- if she is nominated, we don't really want a Republican to win, do we?.
like Jjamele, I'm willing to support either Clinton or Obama. But by God, if Obama is nominated and wants to win, he's going to have to learn to get criticized and have the issue of race dragged into the campaign constantly from the day he's nominated until the day of the general election, because Republicans will attack him every single day, and the "you're being a racist" counter won't work, because the Republicans not only don't care if they're called racists, they secretly REVEL in being called racists.
And Oh BTW, you'd be more convincing as a non-Hillary hater if you didn't describe Rupert Murdoch as her "pal."
Also, I'd like to point out that the Republicans have been running the smear machine against the Clintons nonstop for more than sixteen years now. And all they've done is beaten it, every time. And they didn't do it by hiding behind phony, flimsy shields like race and gender.
Obama better grow a spine and a thicker skin, FAST. Because he's the one doing all the whining here- from "above the fray," of course, through his surrogates in the media-- and blogs like this one.
Wow, you have no class man. Someone has the grapes to apologize and you just keep piling on.
You are a Hillary Shill and for your benefit I'll post this again, something no Dem should forget and I qoute,
"I don't think it was by accident that Al-Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister," Clinton said, referring to two devices which did not go off in London and a car which was crashed into Glasgow airport in June.
"They watch our elections as closely as we do ... they play our allies."
This is the same BS Rove gave Bush to use to discourage voters from picking John Kerry. You go ahead and vote for Bush Lite, I'll take Obama any day. In fact if Obama doesn't get the nod I'm voting Communist. Hillary can rot for what she's said and done to court conservative votes.
To be fair, edenscape, if you look back at the time signature on the post you're responding to, you'll notice Jamele put it up before my apology.
But to be fair to you, jamele has posted on this thread after my apology was posted, which would at least suggest he read it and decided to ignore it.
Perhaps if we didn’t use race as a demographic for polling and election results we wouldn’t have to worry about this problem. But the fact is the demographics were known in 2004 and they are known now in 2008. This is why it would be ludicrous for Bill Clinton to ignore them as a contributing factor of election results, or to not point out a similar scenario in years past.
On the face of it, this seems like a well-reasoned argument. The problem asserts itself when one questions the notion that 1984 and 1988 have anything to do with 2008. For starters, in the 1980s, the SC primary wasn't a primary at all; it was a caucus. If you want to find somebody espousing the limitations of caucuses, look to the Clintons remarks of Iowa (after losing Iowa) and Nevada (when they were afraid they were about to lose). Further, Jesse Jackson, while an African-American, was also a favorite son of South Carolina. He was not a US Senator. He was not running as a viable candidate. He had not won Iowa. He was not running against the most famous woman in the world. He did not have a popular president running an aggressive campaign against him. Oh, and he did not poll 20 points behind in the African-American vote just a month before the caucus. So, beyond race, there's not much similar to their campaigns.
The Obama flock is making way too much of this. Anything seen as pandering to or against any one racial demographic is not necessarily being racist – or intentionally “trying to profit from the prejudice of others”. It might turn out that way, but to accuse someone of intentionally “playing the race card” is a subjective observation being made by Obama supporters.
Again, the calls of racism are not that overwhelming. That being said, nobody said pandering was designed to profit from the prejudice of others. The problem Clinton supporters have is in their inability to accept when either Bill or Hillary are wrong. Or dishonest. Everything is dismissed as misinformation. Every admitted slight is forgiven with an apology. Look at iit this way, Bob Johnson was brought out as a major black supporter...okay that's pandering (racial, not racist). But what did he do again? Oh, yeah, he brought up Obama's drug use. Isn't it interesting that the people who've brought up drug use most recently (Johnson and Rangel) are also black? That seems like a race card twofer to me: Diffuse the race accusation by having the black guy be the one to talk about drugs. I mean, that's fairly transparent.
Is Hillary (or Obama) being sexist if they pander to women voters? Or, for example, if Obama panders to male voters using some subtle innuendos - are you going to agree that Hillary supporters are correct if they raise a stink about it and say that he is “trying to profit from the prejudice of others (i.e. women-haters and those who think women don’t belong in politics)”? Same difference. You're making this into an "if you're not for us, your against us" argument.
Pandering is when you tell people what they want to hear. If you've got an example of Obama making a statement that could remotely be construed as anti-woman, then please post it. If you don't have such an example, it seems like a rather spurious hypothetical to even raise. Do you have an example of Obama using subtle innuendo that suggested women shouldn't be in politics?
I look at it all as “politics as usual” – nothing more, nothing less.
That's a fairly weak rationalization masquerading as justification. In the end, that's the most honest defense any Clinton proponent ever gives for their activity of the last month. Which should say something.
And when is MMFA going to have their server problems corrected so that we don’t see these multiple posts?
When indeed? I did flag myself, by the way.
I never claimed to have an example of Obama making a comment that was obviously pandering to the male audience – just presented a hypothetical “what if”. All I said is that I don’t think it would be meant as anti-female, but would have a good likelihood of being taken as such by Hillary supporters – much like I think Obama supporters are making a bit much out of Bill Clinton’s Jesse Jackson comparison.
I’m not saying that some of the mudslinging last week wasn’t a little below the belt. Bob Johnson’s comment definitely was, and he had to apologize for it. To me, apologies never undo the damage – so I get your point.
At the same time, Hillary is up against a lot more than just Barrack Obama – you should see both sides of the fence. Politics is usually not a fair game - and compared to The Clintons, Obama is just a rookie. He knew that when he got into the game. This is not to say that I don’t think Obama doesn’t deserve “Rookie of The Year”, or that he isn’t entitled to play in the Super Bowl. I haven’t yet made up my mind who I’m rooting for, but I enjoy watching them play and expect it to be a rough game.
Hang in there, and keep fighting for your team! (I almost said “and may the best man win!”…LOL)
What about the person who has lectured people on the need for sensitivity that makes clearly insensitive remarks
I'm curious as to the clearly insensitive remarks to which you refer? Bill's Jesse Jackson comments following the SC primary certainly were odd, but, other than those, what remarks do you consider racially insensitive. Sometimes it seems that people read into remarks connotations that were not intended by the speaker.
Okay, sure. Aside from the drugs stuff, the middle name stuff, and the madrassa stuff (all of which have clear racial undertones), I do think it's blatantly insensitive for a white woman to indirectly lecture a black man (who happens to have been a civil rights attorney) about the various roles of people in the Civil Rights movement. Especially when that lecture seems to marginalize the role of not just MLK but also the countless other people that were actually part of that movement in favor of praising LBJ. I think it's blatantly insensitive. I don't think it was meant to be. But the road to hell is paved in good intentions. And I think Hillary Clinton did herself no help by blaming others for the way her words were interpreted.
The fair tale comment had the bad luck of being uttered at the same time as the LBJ comment. I don't think it was racial at all, but I think it was viewed through the same lense. That being said, it was a terribly misleading statement that MMFA has defended over and over regardless of the fact that it mirrors comments they'd previously criticized.
I do think Bob Johnson was brought out to bring up drugs. I do think Charlie Rangel was brought out to talk about drugs and MLK vs. LBJ. I think the campaign decided they couldn't have white people saying the things they wanted to say, so they got black people to do it. Unfortunately, having a black guy say what you're afraid to say is not entirely free of racial insensitivity.
Barack's born-with shield...
The concept of "race" is a scientifically-debunked myth. Sadly, that hasn't stopped a good part of earth's population from believing in this idiotic concept.
So now, when negative things are said about Barack, they are magically morphed into "racially tinged attacks" by his supporters.
Shame on them! They're are perpetuating one of man's most dangerous myths, much to the glee of the truly hateful.
It is only when we stop using "race". "racial". etc., that mankind will realize MLK's dream of judging people by their character and not by the color of their skin.
Or by their last name.
I find this post quite thought provoking. As a matter of fact it had me flying off on Google for a half hour trying to find more on the “scientific debunking” you write about. Please post a few links if you can.
I have always bought into the theory that man originated as one race somewhere in a tropical or sub-tropical region of the world, was dark skinned, and that all future degrees of color developed as a result of the degree of intensity of the sun (or lack thereof) that the descendents were exposed to as they traveled and created civilizations throughout the world. We later identified these groups as "races".
The first argument I always get is the Eskimos brown skin – to which I remind the naysayer that they are from “the land of the midnight sun” where during summer months, the sun, although low in intensity, is shining for over 20 hours a day. So, unless someone can debunk my beliefs, I stand by the theory.
I know I am flying off topic here, but I would really like you to expound on what you have written, and point me in the direction of further knowledge - if you are still around.
Unless we get into the whole SPADEwork thing again. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume that you haven’t heard that one - and your post was not an intentional use of what “some say” is a racially charged word. Sorry, I don’t know or remember the leanings of all regular posters here – so I guess the question that would most clear up any doubts is: Do you support a Democratic candidate, and if so, who?
Dave will support a Democrat after hell freezes over and I support a Republican.
Sorry, I don’t know or remember the leanings of all regular posters here – so I guess the question that would most clear up any doubts is: Do you support a Democratic candidate, and if so, who?
So if Dave doesn't support a democratic candidate, then that means . . . ?
THE DECIDING FACTOR IN THIS ELECTION IS BILL CLINTON. HE IS ALL THAT IS STANDING BETWEEN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT. THE MEDIA KNOW IT THE POLITICIANS KNOW IT AND THE PUNDANTS KNOW IT. POLITICAL HACKS HASBEENS AND SCORE SETTLERS ARE BACKING OBAMA IN THE GUISE OF CHANGE. IT COULDENT FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.HILLARY CLINTON IS BEING TESTED BY FIRE BY EVERYONE AND IS HOLDING UP WELL. I BELIEVE PEOPLE HAVE A MIND OF THERE OWN AND WILL ACT ACCORDINGLY. YOUNG PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS IDEALIST AND NOT REALIST. HILLARY IS PART OF A HUSBAND WIFE TEAM. HER HUSBAND WITH ALL HIS BAGGAGE WAS AND IS ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR PRESIDENTS IN HISTORY. SHE HAS HIM AND OBAMA HAS THE PUPPETEERS WAITING TO PULL HIS STRINGS IF HE SHOULD BE SUCCESSFUL. THERE IS NO DEBATE THATS THE WAY IT IS .JOE CAPRIO CITYLIFEPRODUCTIONS
I think Democrats should let both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns know that we are very proud of them for not allowing a big bruhaha that Republicans are trying to stir up regarding race.
You've gotta be kiddin. No doubt that republicans are rejoicing over the infighting between Obama and Clinton, but the whole race issue was neither injected nor perpetuated by the GOP. Irrespective of the validity of the charges, there has been dem's on both sides (HC and Obama) accusing the other of either race-bating or racial insensitivities.
How dare black folks expect better from Bill Clinton. Even though he had the title "first black president" how dare we expect Bill to be different. How dare we black folks expect Bill not to push the same racially sensitive buttons that have been used against black folks for years. How dare black folks expect respect from Bill Clinton, how dare……. Did Bill not foresee the emotional response from black folks? Hard to believe since the main reason Bill was given the title of first black president was because of his unique understanding of black folks. His history of close personal relationships with blacks, growing up and interacting with black folks on a regular basis. He was in no way a typical white southern young man.
I refuse to keep listing the reasons why Bill is not innocent. One only has to remember that he has been running for or holding some type of political office the majority of his adult life. He has won more campaigns than he‘s lost so you bet he‘s an expert at the game. He knows what to say, when to say it and how it will be received, period. He has quite simply a brilliant political mind. Bill plays a great political game from subtle remarks like “fairy tale“ to calling a United States Senator “kid” to finally congratulating that Senator but reminding him that the other black guy had great wins in South Carolina as well so don‘t feel too special. Gotta give the man credit, it’s working really well. Black folks keep trying to explain again and again why it’s race baiting or why Bill’s remarks are troubling while white folks continue to tell black folks they’re too sensitive or they took Bill’s comments out of context or hey he’s your first black president why would he play the race card to finally, the media is to blame. Gotta give the man credit, he is really good at the game of politics.
Do I hate Hillary? No, as much as some would like to label those who CHOOSE to support someone else “Clinton haters” I don’t hate her, I happen to think Hillary is a brilliant, capable woman. Will I vote for her if she gets the nomination? As much as I truly , truly don’t want to, probably yeah. One only has to look at the last 7 years to realize what will happen if either McCain or Romney get into office so Bill was right in his tactics. I don’t have a choice but to vote for her IF she gets the nomination. But make no mistake I neither like nor more importantly respect either Hillary or Bill. I neither like nor accept her lousy explanation for agreeing to allow young men and women to die in an endless war. I neither like nor respect the fact that in the face of her utter and complete error in saying yes to this war she doesn’t have the b*lls to admit it was a mistake. In that respect she’s not any different than Junior when it comes to admitting her mistakes. I neither like nor respect the fact that there is nothing and I do mean nothing that either she or Bill aren’t willing to do or say in order to win. So again, I don’t hate Hillary I simply don’t trust her nor like her but as Bill figured out, IF she gets the nomination, I don’t have much choice.
Pearlene,
That was a great post. I loved reading it.
While I will never vote for Clinton, I'm in the same boat that you are. Mc Cain and Romney are not exactly what I wanted for a President. Both have issues against what I believe in. They are not Conservatives. But I will vote for one of them if only to keep the Dem out of the White House. As bad as they both are, I will reluctantly pull the lever on the R.
Its funny how wingnut supporters have forgotten that Clinton had nothing to do with voter suppression (e.g. Nevada lawsuit). To call Clinton racially insensitive is to call a large majority of this country racially insensitive. A recent meme.
Its not so funny to see the lack of media concern with voter caging by neocon operative. Some drawing the federal dollar while they did it.