Clintons Address Race Questions

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:31:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

After a series of, at best, clumsy, remarks from Clinton supporters and surrogates, and even a misunderstood comment from Bill Clinton, the Clintons have done the right thing and addressed the festering sore in the campaign. Bill Clinton appeared on Al Sharpton's radio show:

In a call on Friday to Al Sharpton’s nationally syndicated talk radio show, Mr. Clinton said that his “fairy tale” comment on Monday about Senator Barack Obama’s position on the Iraq war was being misconstrued, and that he was talking only about the war, not about Mr. Obama’s overarching message or his drive to be the first black president. “There’s nothing fairy tale about his campaign,” Mr. Clinton said. “It’s real, strong, and he might win.”

In addition, Hillary Clinton addressed her NH comments about Martin Luther King and LBJ:

"You know," she continued, "I was inspired by Dr. King when I was a young girl. I considered him one of my heroes, a global symbol, an icon of everything that is the best about America and he worked his entire life to make the changes that we enjoy today so I hope that this kind of unfortunate political activity really just ceases because I don't think this is what we want this election to be about."

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), the highest ranking African American in the Congress, had the best reaction in my opinion:

On Friday evening, Mr. Clyburn, who is traveling overseas, issued a statement saying he intended to remain neutral in the early race. . . . “I encourage the candidates to be sensitive about the words they use,” Mr. Clyburn said “This is an historic race for America to have such strong, diverse candidates vying for the Democratic nomination.”

(Emphasis supplied.) I thought the reaction from the Obama campaign was a bit disappointing:

“Voters have to decide for themselves what they think of this,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, declining to discuss the matter further.

I would have preferred that the Obama campaign agree with and take to heart Rep. Clyburn's comment. But politics is politics.

< Obama Opposed Expanded Gaming in Illinois | Blumenthal Charged With DUI in New Hampshire >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Clintons Address Race Questions | 93 comments (93 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Time to move on for Team Obama, I would agree. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Geekesque on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:53:15 PM EST

Black voters in South Carolina are firmly on board now, so there's very little to be gained from prolonging this.

A voice of reason (none / 0) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:00:21 PM EST

Funny. The real Geek is going to (1.00 / 1) (#67)
by Teresa on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:24:40 PM EST

Not here (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:02:43 PM EST

he isn't. This is the real Geek.

Daily Kos is an utter wasteland.


If this is the real Geek (and I hope so) (none / 0) (#77)
by Teresa on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:20:50 PM EST

then why is he right in the middle of the wasteland? One of the worst Big Tent.


Honestly? (none / 0) (#79)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:22:32 PM EST

I blame the site. It has been a disgrace.


I think it is in danger of getting beyond (none / 0) (#83)
by Teresa on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:34:32 PM EST

repair for when the primary is over. You have a solution?


Honestly? (3.66 / 3) (#85)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:42:13 PM EST

I think the root of the problem is the Obama supporters and the respectability they have given to the lies and smears against Clinton.

Adam Bonin is the biggest problem at the site because he operates with official sanction and is dishonest. Extremely dishonest.

I believe it is likely beyond repair.

For the site's sake, the only thing that can save it is an Obama victory.

If Hillary wins, it will not be put back together.

But at this point, that is no loss imo.


I agree. I'm not sure Adam is the worst (none / 0) (#87)
by Teresa on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:51:43 PM EST

other than he has some official sanction. I agree if Clinton wins, the site will never recover. If Obama wins and gives in too much to be bipartisan, I think the same will happen. I am looking hard for a good place to read. Here and sometimes MYDD. I like Firedoglake okay but the posters are kind of groupie with each other. Any recommendations from you are welcome.


Adam's approval of the lies and smears (none / 0) (#88)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:01:58 PM EST

carries official sanction.

That is why he is the worst.

The continued embrace of icebergslim, who has posted stone cold racist diaries and comments about Latinos is the most despicable thing I have seen from a FPer like Adam.

He has disgraced the Admins at the site.


Even your old friend Elise rec's (none / 0) (#89)
by Teresa on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:18:53 PM EST

everything she writes. Elise also considers both Clintons racist and scummy. I'll be glad when this is over. I think icebergslim is the absolute worst but I see your point on Adam.

Have a nice night BTD. Keep writing good stuff.


: That is to Elise's extreme discredit (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:26:18 PM EST

Icebergslim IS a racist.

Anyway, Obama can always use McClurkin (none / 0) (#54)
by MarkL on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST

if he needs more help, right?


: This is going to be a long campaign. (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:18:17 PM EST

The REAL Clinton's are showing now (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by Denver80202 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM EST

Underneath Hillary's so-called "human-side" we now see her real self emerging the: " do or say anything it takes to get elected" side, in this case, even if that means showing gross disrespect for Dr. King. She didn't notice it at first because like all racism it lies unnoticed in the psyche. It is clearly there in Hillary, she cannot take it back. I wonder how much is there with Bill too. His comment was clearly racist. It is amazing what comes out when a politician's back is against the wall. Obama has no such explanations to make, he is as leader first, not the politician first as we see in Hillary and Bill Clinton.

How was any (none / 0) (#72)
by RalphB on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:39:36 PM EST

disrespect shown for MLK? If you read the whole thing and not some press release, you will hopefully see she gave credit to him for the civil rights movement. LBJ she gave credit for passing the legislation.

MLK and LBJ cooperated with each other for the betterment of us all. It ill behooves us to denigrate either of them.


: Clinton's Disrespect for Dr. King is Crystal Clear (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Denver80202 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:22:20 PM EST

Hillary Clinton is protesting much too much in an effort to obscure her underlying inability to respect any real movement for change and her insensitivity to those struggling for change, in her attempt to manipulate public opinion, whether it's the movement inspired by Senator Obama, or Dr. King. In reading her entire statement, (as I did initially, btw), it is quite evident the she dismissed the lingering power and force of Dr. King's words and a whole lot of other people in giving credit for significant progress in the civil rights movement to LBJ, simply because it "took a president" to do it. How demeaning she is. How blinded can she be by her quest to win for herself? The "president" as she says who did it, did nothing other than respond to the tremendous power of the Civil Rights Movement unleashed by Dr. King. LBJ had no choice, the country would have been in violent crisis if he had not acted. Again, Clinton and her defenders here just do not get it. The underlying realty of racism is often obscure to the racist, especially the racist in denial, and only becomes evident when weakened. The Clintons both are revealing their ugly underbellies here, and people of color know it. There are no pleadings that can forgive it or explain it away, or accusations against her opponents that can divert enough attention to it to cover it up.

I dont think (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Jgarza on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:34:40 PM EST

Ill will in Clinton's comments about MLK or Bills fairy tale remark. Both however were careless and inappropriate.

I do think that the way Bill has gone about being attack dog against Obama is not an acceptable role for the former president. To me it raises serious questions about her ability to win elections. The only way she can win a democratic primary is to have her popular former president husband attack her opponent. This guys is supposed to be an elder statesmen and he is acting like a partisan hack.

The Clintons seem to be engaged in a win at all costs strategy, my fear is that one of those costs will be the GE. Apparently others have the same fear.

I thought the reaction from the Obama campaign was a bit disappointing:

Also I would like to point out that Obamas campaign response was to the entire article, which was critical the Clintons, not to one sentence, that some might think was an appeal to both campaigns.

I think the Clinton campaign is (3.00 / 2) (#64)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:37:40 PM EST

trying out Bill Clinton in this role, will constantly monitor how it is received, and will adjust accordingly. Evidenced by Bill Clinton's call to Al Sharpton's show to explain what he meant by saying "fairy tale," and that Obama might well win the Dem. nomination.


well (none / 0) (#65)
by Jgarza on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:41:31 PM EST

he went back on it after his wife won, so one can presume the damage was done.


Ain't over yet. (none / 0) (#66)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:09:20 PM EST

: good point (none / 0) (#75)
by Jgarza on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:47:09 PM EST

That whole Southern planting of the (none / 0) (#82)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:28:25 PM EST

compliment at the end of having "stuff" with someone. I've never experienced telling someone negative things or explaining self in such a flattering way. I swore I would never do it myself either......it was false...it was fake and phoney....just try living in Rome and not doing what the Romans do. I can't do it. I'm too much of a people person so here I am doing it because here it is a show of polite manners. To carry on my daily business in the West like I do mine here now would be considered suspect, manipulative, and way too wordy.


let's review? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by lordhungus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:28:03 PM EST

i'd like to take it from the top, all the comments considered.

the post outlined the clinton remarks, the clintons' follow up ... and then finished with a snide & terse swipe at obama ("politics is politics.") oh, really?

let's start with that. i think the following ought to make the author want to recontextualize that statement:

Q: [Bill Clinton] also called your campaign a fairy tale. How do you respond to that?
O: I understand they're frustrated right now. I suspect that they'll both try to get back on track in terms of the strategy for them to do better than they feel they're doing right now.

i might call that "class" and not "politics," unless i were to point out the blindingly obvious -- it is up to us to decide what to make of bill's finger-wagging.

whether or not there was an implicit racial statement being made is wholly distractive from the central point -- after hillary won new hampshire, obama was gracious and still inspirational. after obama won iowa, the clintons went completely crackers. ironically, hillary herself asked the question of who the polity would rather have in stressful situations. well, probably not someone who has a mental breakdown and caves to, apparently, stooping to whatever tactic necessary.

aren't we beyond this?

I really hate where this is going (3.00 / 2) (#2)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:03:34 AM EST

Because some of the things the Clintons have said could be construed in a bad way, but I also think that the Obama camp seems intent on forcing us to see racism where there really isn't any.

Well (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST

I think at this point, Obama's people have to back off of this.

Clyburn has done us a great service.

And the Clinton people need to get the idiots off their team.


It Is My Sincere Hope That (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by MO Blue on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:26:24 AM EST

Mr. Clyburn's words:

<blockquote->"I encourage the candidates to be sensitive about the words they use," </blockquote->

are applied to both race and gender. Stick to the issues. Making the election about race or gender will hurt the candidates now and in the general.


I think they will not back off (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:11:44 AM EST

because the theme is gaining traction.


Then it will (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:18:55 AM EST

blow up in their face. The Clintons have a lot of goodwill.

Just months ago people were wondering if Obama was black enough.

This is not Jesse Jackson here.


I really don't understand the motivation (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:22:40 AM EST

There's pretty much no way Obama can lose SC now. And he spent months trying not to be the "black candidate." You can't turn on a dime with that.


: This happened (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:02:38 AM EST

right after NH. They needed to secure the A-A vote ad make sure it did not slip back to Hillary.

You are correct. (none / 0) (#13)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:57:10 AM EST

Absolutely correct.

The Clintons know the political game. And they are risk takers. It will continue.


Oh (3.00 / 2) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST

you are quite wrong imo.

There is nowhere for this to go favorably for either.

I think it is pretty much over.


If this episode is over (none / 0) (#21)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:12:05 AM EST

it's only because the Clintons think they have achieved the effect they need. They've got people talking about race and whether it will effect Obama's ability to win.

I doubt this episode is over. She'd like, for instance, to win Arkansas big, as a statement. I suspect you're going to see a lot of surrogate statements there.


The Clintons are obviously worse off (none / 0) (#22)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:21:17 AM EST

for this dustup.


Their purpose (none / 0) (#27)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:32:08 AM EST

coming out of NH is to stop Obama's momentum and to make SC a close contest even if they don't win.

I don't think they are worse off.


And they do that by race baiting? (none / 0) (#28)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST

Do you understand the racial composition of the SC Democratic party?

Methinks you're gulping down some of that famous Clinton derangement kool aid.


That's not Mary at all (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:37:26 AM EST

She's just wrong.


: Anyone who thinks (none / 0) (#31)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:40:39 AM EST

this whole episode is good for the Clintons probably just doesn't like them anyway.

I'm not deranged about the Clintons (none / 0) (#32)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:43:37 AM EST

I think they are probably the best political strategists in the United States.

A week of raging discussions about possible racism in campaigns that ends with pleas from a black elected official not to use racist language, a "no comment" from the Obama campaign and a weak mea culpa from the Clinton campaign -- this is not good for the Obama campaign. Why? Because it reminds everyone of racism in American elections but doesn't give anyone any real hope that it's a problem that's going to be solved soon. It lays the seed in people's minds that Obama may not be electable because of race.

At this point, anything not good for Obama is good for Hillary.


Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:48:43 AM EST

This is being driven by Obama and surrogates. The goal is to secure South Carolina--for OBAMA.


Really? (none / 0) (#36)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:50:53 AM EST

The Obama campaign put shuck & jive out there?


: That was Andrew Cuomo (none / 0) (#84)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:42:01 PM EST

not Clinton. Don't spread misinformation here please.

I don't think your really (none / 0) (#37)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM EST

have an idea of race in southern elections.


: This is a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in South Carolina (none / 0) (#38)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM EST

50% of the electorate will be black.

she WON NH!!! (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM EST

She STOPPED his momentum by WINNING NH!!!

Come on Mary, what in blzes are you talking about?

It is her OWN momentum that is being stopped.


I don't see her momentum being stopped? (none / 0) (#34)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:44:22 AM EST

Is there a poll out today that shows her momentum being stopped?


um no (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:06:28 PM EST

But apparently you believe this will help it.

I do not understand how but whatever.


Because my experience of life (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:16:54 PM EST

so far, is that racism in a campaign helps the white candidate.

I hope Obama changes that pattern.

I'm finished with this.


: Sadly too too too true (none / 0) (#69)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:38:10 PM EST

It's just hard to pull up the hardcopy on all that MaryB because we desire so much for a different world. I tend to agree with your take on what can be expected here while I hope you are wrong. Does that make any sense ;)?

What Obama momentum? Get a grip. (none / 0) (#53)
by MarkL on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST

I think (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:28:54 AM EST

you are wrong.

This was BAD for the Clintons.


: Yep (none / 0) (#61)
by BDB on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:21:03 PM EST

Bad not just because of the upcoming Southern primaries, in which HRC has been doing a fairly good job fighting for the black vote. But it's also bad for her in any general, where she'll need strong black turnout. And it's bad for their legacies and reputations, which they care very much about.
I've said before that many of the comments by people supported by Bill and Hillary Clinton have been idiotic and, at the very least tone deaf. I do not believe and no one is going to convince me that the Clintons are racists or are interested in doing anything that hurts their relationship with the black community.
I understand Obama feels like he needs South Carolina, but he needs to follow Clyburn's lead and back off unless something else happens. Otherwise I fear it's going to blow up in his face. And, honestly, even though I'm a Clinton supporter, I don't want to see Obama lose because of this crap. That's not concern trolling - African Americans are a crucial part of the democratic base and they deserve to be treated with respect and to have their votes wooed based on issues like any other voter. This kind of crap rears its ugly head all too often in South Carolina. It sounds like the Clintons are trying to diffuse the situation and I hope Obama follows suit. Because, honestly, he's going to win South Carolina anyway. He might as well also get some credit for taking the high road.

I don't believe "shuck and jive" (none / 0) (#52)
by MarkL on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:12:06 PM EST

had any racial implication at all.
New Yorkers often have very slangy speech, so what might appear unusual to Southerners could be very common there.


: Shuck and Jive (none / 0) (#71)
by RalphB on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:32:44 PM EST

doesn't have a racial implication in my part of the south either. Or maybe I'm just not race sensitive.
I always thought it was generic for a con job.

I have to disagree. (none / 0) (#7)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST

As a black man who is going to vote for JRE (like I did in 2004) there are clearly racist/racially-charged statements coming out of the HRC camp and from her allies.


Yes there were (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:32:21 AM EST

But the idea that it was a deliberate pattern from the top of the campaign makes no sense.

Let's assume ther worst of the Clintons, they are racists, willing to use race baiting.

But they are not idiots.

To do so NOW with the South Carolina primary looming would be the stupidest thing in the history of politics.

Now, Obama's team sees an opportunity and is trying to exploit it. The Clintons are trying to close that opportunity.

I happen to believe it is closed now. Clyburn's statement and Brazile's statement I think shut the door on this line of attack.

It would be stupid NOW, imo, for Obama to push it any further.

I happent to believe that with the South Carolina primary two weeks away, this storyline is now kaput.


Don't be absurd (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:00:31 AM EST

The Clintons need as many white people to vote for them in SC as possible. They are willing to reduce their black vote as long as those black voters don't go to Obama.

All the speculation after Iowa that black voters would now feel comfortable coming out for Obama because it had been proved that whites would also vote for him? The Clinton campaign is working to destroy that feeling.

They are risking that black voters are NOT like women voters in NH. That they will not get angry and come out for Obama in droves. That they will stay home.


As long as black voters do ot go to Obama? (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM EST

Now who is being absurd Kay?

(Godfather reference.)

You think they will go to Edwards?

Phleeeaze.


My last sentence (none / 0) (#20)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:09:44 AM EST

the Clintons would be pleased if enough of them stayed home.


Some strategy (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:27:07 AM EST

This makes no sense - race bait to keep them home?

Puhleeeaze!


Sure (none / 0) (#42)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:09:24 PM EST

If the CW is that negativity depresses turnout and the negativity being spread is that your choice will fail at his lofty goals (but you don't have us as a choice since we're dissing you and your choice) you'd just stay home.

Though it's clearly not that simple as studies show that negativity might actually increase turnout.


Um (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:23:56 PM EST

I won't ask you for data since you do not seem to believe in it.


Data about what? (none / 0) (#45)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:27:03 PM EST

Going negative?

Your hostility seems unwarranted and I won't return it. I'll just stop talking to you.


: Now you believe in polls (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:42:56 PM EST

I hope you're right about all of the above (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:35:52 AM EST

Well... (none / 0) (#10)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM EST

How many comments does it take to make a pattern?

I agree that they'd probably lose S.C. but is there any reason to think that they'd lose any other state because of it?

Personally, if I was in the Obama camp and this is what I was hearing I'd be pissed. There'd be no way that I'd legitimize this behavior by ignoring it. I would say it was disturbing behavior and unbecoming of both HRC and the former Prez and leave it at that.

I don't think the HRC camp would ignore people saying things about her because she's a woman. In fact, unless Gloria Steinem spontaneously decided to write an op-ed before NH, they didn't.

The problem is that Obama has 2 choices, ignore the comments and look weak (like Kerry) or respond to them and risk it becoming a bigger issue.

I think perceived weakness from the candidate that's already been painted as a weak negotiator would be more deadly.

But we'll see.


Obama did not ignore them (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:44:18 AM EST

because he saw a political advantage to be had. That is politics.

But that line has been exploited and I beleive there is nothing further for him to do with it.


You assume he wasn't actually offended? n/t (none / 0) (#12)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:53:20 AM EST

Not at all (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM EST

I assume that what he did was done totally through the prism of poltics.

These are politicians in a hotly contested political race.

They do what politicians do.

Please do not mistake what pols do publically with what they feel privately.

It is rare indeed when we get pols in a unguarded moment.


I guess I don't get it. (none / 0) (#19)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:06:37 AM EST

Candidates are just human. I don't see how he couldn't be mad. Not everything can be based on political calculations can it?


Campaing reactions (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:28:02 AM EST

are utterly and WHOLLY political.

Obama did not have some angry outburst.


Well you don't know if he had an angry (none / 0) (#33)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:44:07 AM EST

outburst or not. He just didn't have one on TV.

That doesn't mean he's not allowing his campaign to share his (and their) very real anger with the public. Again, I have to conclude that he's angry. The comments weren't directed at me just someone of my "race" and I'm angry.


whatever (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:05:16 PM EST

you seem enamored with believing whatever you want, absebce of evidence notwithstanding.


It appears (none / 0) (#41)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:07:39 PM EST

no one has evidence to support their position so this is simply an opinion based discussion.


: Um (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:25:12 PM EST

that's false. You have no evidence. You do not accept evidence that contradicts you.

A new conspiracy theory: "unless Steinem (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:59:15 PM EST

spontaneously" etc. . . . Good one.


Obama Fever (3.00 / 2) (#60)
by squeaky on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST

Your spin is disgusting and according to many it is backfiring and hurting your man.

My Man? (none / 0) (#62)
by DA in LA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:27:59 PM EST

I don't support either.

Nice attempt, however.


Then you're hurting the race (none / 0) (#68)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:29:47 PM EST

by spreading such fallacies.


I don't consider it to be a falacy. (none / 0) (#70)
by DA in LA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:53:29 PM EST

I read the quote, both the pulled one and the larger quote and I find it disgusting.


: Well Watch The Video (none / 0) (#94)
by squeaky on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:37:56 PM EST

YOu are hardly an idiot, so to think that an out of context quote spun by opponents represents what she said is quite unbelievable.
If you had any interest in the dustup, the first thing you would have done is watch the original video. That you have not, and are repeating nonsense, speaks volumes.

much ado about nothing (3.00 / 2) (#81)
by sickntiredgal on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:28:03 PM EST

Two corporate candidates--we'll have to vote for them instead of the republicans. Thank the goddess that Edwards will win! He'll really clean things up. It will be like the return of FDR and we do need that. So quit throwing poop around--Hilary and Bill ain't racist just cuz they disagree with Obamamania. Grow up. We agree on 99.94% of the same issues. Focus on what counts.

The Race Card Is A Loser (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by JoeCHI on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:36:45 AM EST

The idea that the Clintons are racist is beyond absurd.

Further, if the Obama campaign continues to cry "racism" every time a compliment (read Biden) or criticism is made of him or his record, he will lose a big chunk of his potential white and hispanic vote.

While I don't doubt Obama's desire to bring people together, I question that the best way to do it is by decrying the battles of the '90's while simultaneously embracing the battles of the '60's.

Great thread (1.00 / 1) (#57)
by Judith on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:53:05 PM EST

Big Tent - awesome job trying to get people to back up their opinions with more than the "gut feel" rationale.

Interesting read. Thanks.

Is Clinton Trying To Limit Obama's Appeal (none / 0) (#46)
by AdrianLesher on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST

I don't know if this is what the Clinton campaign is trying to do, but a Rovian strategy might be to get the Obama campaign to react defensively to racial codewords in order to limit Obama's broad appeal by defining him to white voters as a candidate focused on black identity issues.

What is Obama's strategy here? (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST

To create hostility towards the Clinton among A-A voters.


: This could turn (none / 0) (#73)
by RalphB on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:45:53 PM EST

out to be a net loss for Obmam's campaign. With the race baiting, he may gain support from AA voters but turn off a lot more white and latino voters in the rest of the country.
Hard to play the uniter when you're seen as dividing the party along racial lines for your own benefit.

: That has to be obvious (none / 0) (#74)
by Jgarza on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:46:28 PM EST

but Clintons made it possible.

comments calling anyone a racist (none / 0) (#86)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM EST

will be deleted. Name calling and personal attacks and defamatory comments are not allowed here. I've deleted two such comments today, one in this thread and one in another, both by the same poster.

Open Season on Obama (none / 0) (#91)
by SouthernGirl on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:02:33 AM EST

The Clintons aren't the only ones who feel free to scatter the seeds of racism when it comes to Obama. This morning, on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Michael Medved said if Barak Obama failed in his efforts to win the Democratic nomination, Obama would have to "go back to the kitchen." Is anyone unclear about his inference? Do you think that expression would have been used with any other candidate? Medved's thinly veiled racial slur didn't even escape the other guests. Yet, host Howard Kurtz said nothing. So much for the liberal media.

: The Clintons? (none / 0) (#92)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST

Oh boy.
As for MEdved, he is a piece of crap.

Obama response to MTP (none / 0) (#93)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:05:04 PM EST

OMG! Can I post this quote from another news site?

Look, the, Sen. Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson," Obama said. "I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the civil rights act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

Who is going to stop this maddness? Who has the "right stuff" to set up and say "Enough is enough"

I watched MTP... I sure did not see the "Getting Nasty" and "Sparring" that the media is reporting.