Bill Clinton On GMA: "I Am Not A Racist"

I want to see the video, but, and I know Obama supporters do not like to hear this, when Bill Clinton has to assert on Good Morning America that he is "not a racist," that is NOT good for Obama. But that is where we are:

[ABC's Kate]Snow asked Clinton, "Do you personally have any regrets about what you did campaigning for your wife?" With his arms folded and looking a bit tense, Clinton replied, "Yes, but not the ones you think. And it would be counterproductive for me to talk about it."

Barely pausing for a breath, he added, "There are things I wish I'd urged her to do, things I wish I had said, things I wish I hadn't said. But I am not a racist, I never made a racist comment, and I didn't attack him personally," a clear allusion to Sen. Barack Obama.

President Clinton is a big boy, and can take care of himself, but that he has to say that is simply disgraceful.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Obama With Wide Lead Among Low Income Voters | Local News on Bloggers at the DNC >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes, it is disgraceful because he and Hillary are (5.00 / 23) (#1)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    not racists.  They have done so much for the minority communities that it is despicable for anyone to suggest otherwise.  

    The worst part is the way some blacks (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    turned on the Clintons based on what was said by obama and/or his surrogates.  It is shameful.  

    I agree (5.00 / 10) (#155)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    and not once did Obama step up to refute the racist hysteria.
    Nor the Obama wing of the Kennedy clan - over Hillary's innocent historical remark about Robert Kennedy being assassinated during the 1968 primary in JUNE.
    And during the Johnson/King flap - another innocent historical remark by Hillary - John Edwards stepped up and said her comment wasn't racist.
    Kos responded by calling Edwards an ass.

    to be fair.... (5.00 / 9) (#197)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    Once his campaign had milked the bogus "fairy tale" and "MLK/LBJ" controversies for all they were worth in South Carolina, Obama did finally say that there was nothing racist about either comment.

    What bothers me about the linked story is the level of media "amnesia" involved here.   Its obvious that Bill Clinton is angry at Clyburn, but no mention of why Clinton is angry at Clyburn is made (he was the guy who said that Clinton's LBJ/MLK reference disparaged Dr. King).  Nor is any mention made of the whole "fairy tale" nonsense -- both of these stories got massive play in the media, and preceded/set-up the the whole controversy over Bill Clinton's remarks comparing Jackson's victories to Obama -- perfectly innocent and accurate remarks regarding the nature of Obama's victory -- that may not have been controversial had it not been for the bogus claims of racism that had preceded it.

    The media prefers to pretend that it, and the Obama campaign, are guiltless in the whole 'Clintons are racist' meme, but the Obama campaign took full advantage of the accusations, even pushing them in the media, and the media followed along....until Obama himself decided it was doing him more harm (among white voters in SC) than good (among SC's blacks, which were supporting him overwhelmingly before the whole 'racial' thing became an issue).


    You speak for me on this one (5.00 / 23) (#2)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    I just have to look around my relative to see the mayhem caused by the gratuitous accusations of racism thrown at the Clintons.

    Bill Clinton should not have to go on teevee and deny accusations of racism as if he were Don Imus.

    Me too!! Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by mogal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:04:38 AM EST
    You can say that again. (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    Bill Clinton should not have to go on teevee and deny accusations of racism as if he were Don Imus.

    People need to stop, take a deep breath, and think about history here.  Bill wasn't called the first black president because he was a racist.

    It's stunning that people fell for it, although for those with CDS, it was an easy leap.


    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by TruthSayer on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    and his supporters invented, fabricated, made up, flat out lied about the Clinton's and racism and did so for political gain.

    In the beginning one of the reasons I thought that Obama would be a bad candidate was because people would use his race against him. Little that I know at that point that it would be him reverting to racism.

    There are so many reasons I will not vote for Obama that I don't even need his shameful use of racism for political gain as a reason to not vote for him.

    But the one thing that his race baiting, race card playing, race based politics of destruction behavior has done is make me lose all respect for him as a person, as a man, and as a Black man. His behavior is no better than the race merchants like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or His old good friend Rev. Wright that use race as a wedge on issues they should not need to play the race card in a negative way.

    Shame on Obama. Shame on those who don't call him out on his obvious and disgraceful behavior.


    Of course he is not a racist (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    and it is indeed very sad that he has to say so.

    RE : (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by az on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:50:18 AM EST
    Jim Clyburn would dispute that , hence I think he is.

    Haven't watched this myself (none / 0) (#89)
    by NJDem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:30:16 AM EST
    (can't at work) but I read that BC said he and Clyburn are no longer friends in this video--is that true?  


    Well (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by nell on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:54:30 AM EST
    it wasn't in the brief ABC clip that I watched, that clip just featured Bill Clinton saying "I am not a racist..." but Mark Halperin at The Time has another quote up from Bill where he calls Jim Clyburn a former friend...

    This makes me so incredibly sad, that Bill even needs to defend himself from this makes me feel sick and angry. I have zero respect for Senator Obama or Team Obama after this BS they pulled during the primary, zero respect. It is sad when someone as liberal as I am is cheering on Team McCain for calling Obama out on this crap.

    Does anyone know what kind of media attention this is getting? I would imagine that it will get quite a bit since Bill said this on the back of the great race card debate...


    Went Back and Watched (5.00 / 8) (#199)
    by nell on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:19:09 PM EST
    the whole interview with Kate Snow. First, I thought she did a horrendous job. She asked leading question after leading question, and I am glad Bill called her on it repeatedly. In terms of was said about Clyburn, Kate Snow said to Bill that even supporters of Bill and Hillary Clinton feel that Bill hurt Hillary's campaign. Bill said no, you in the media feel that I hurt her campaign and you took issue with me because I pointed out that Hillary was treated differently. He encourages Kate to go look at a map of where he campaigned for Hillary and what the vote totals were in those places. And Kate Snow persisted in pushing that question so Bill said that he hates how they use these anonymous sources, like "some people say" as evidence of anything, and then Kate Snow cites James Clyburn as evidence that Bill hurt Hillary's campaign and his standing with African Americans. Bill makes it clear that Clyburn used to be a friend and that he was no supporter of Hillary's not even for a day and then says that after Clyburn got through with him, his standing was hurt in the African American community. I am TOTALLY giving my own recount after watching it, so it isn't exact and I might have gotten some stuff out of order, but that was the gist. Before that specific question, Bill also made it clear that he does have strong feelings about the primary and that he will consider talking about it in January after the election is over.

    Kate Snow made me really angry with the way she kept pushing Bill, and in the context of that whole leading interview I absolutely understand why he made it clear that he is no racist, because her implication was all about how awful Bill is...I am glad Bill made it clear that he did not appreciate the biased and leading line of questioning.


    i think there is supposed to be (none / 0) (#177)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:09:03 PM EST
    an extended interview tonight on ABC evening news

    Used to be (5.00 / 5) (#213)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    Interesting piece.  You don't push Bill around.  The talking head kept pushing 'your supporters said'  Bill wouldn't bite for anonymous people.  TH brought up Clyburn.  Bill said Clyburn wasnt' a Hillary supporter, not ever for one day.  When reminded Clyburn was a friend, Bill said 'used to be' and by the time Clyburn go done workin on it (Bill's rep with AAs was harmed).  

    Bill said he will discuss this after Jan as it is counterproductive to discuss now.


    Just makes me sad (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST
    And now Obama is going to have to answer questions about it. That should go well.

    Wow (5.00 / 14) (#6)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    It hurts to watch this.

    Speaking objectively, this provides McCain with 110% reinforcement of his narrative on the race card flap.  Not that I think Bill should have to bite his tongue for that reason, not on an issue this personal.

    I remember the debate when Obama spoke up for Joe Biden's record on civil rights, notwithstanding his propensity to put his foot in his mouth, and left no doubt that Biden is on the side of the angels on issues of race.

    Yet Bill Clinton continues to just twist in the wind.

    This is the one thing from the primary that I really cannot get over.

    Bill's pissed I believe (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:50 AM EST
    and rightfully so.  He's no less human than any of us, and none of us like to be accused of being something we're not.

    True. (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    And nothing worse than being called a liar.

    He was never accused of being a racist. (1.08 / 12) (#52)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    JimClyburn did (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    You can not rewrite history.

    Heck, just yesterday I was called a racist by some prominent bloggers.

    Stop with the nonsense, at least here. We know better.


    When did Clyburn call Clinton a racist? (1.25 / 4) (#139)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    I am serious, BTD.  I don't find that quote.  He scolded Bill, he told him to chill out.  In April, he criticized him further, that he was upsetting many in the black community (which is absolutely true).  But I never saw where he called Bill a racist.  Frankly, you need to show me a link and a quote.

    I have just read 5 articles, and Clyburn calling Bill a racist were in none of them.


    Obama called Bill a racist. Repeatedly. (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by echinopsia on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:02:42 PM EST
    Don't ask me for quotes or cites. Obama was very careful never to utter the actual words, but he, his surrogates, his campaign and his supporters (including Clyburn) called both of the Clintons and all Hillary's supporters racists, repeatedly.

    To deny it is disingenuous.


    Both Clintons have been called racists (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Antigone on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    Just last night Obama's main screamer on Kos  (IBS) called the Clintons racist and then demanded Hillary work her ass off to elect Barack.  And, by the way, if Barack loses it will be Hillary's fault.  Grrrrrrrrr.  I've had it with these people.

    He implied it....Obama implied it (5.00 / 15) (#172)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    Michelle implied it when they all took words out of context and spun them as putting down a black man running.  

    Specifically when Michelle insisted that Bill Clinton said a black man running for president is a "fairy tale."  Bill never said that and yet you ask those who live by sound bytes and they will insist it was said.  What Bill said was that Barack's version of what he said in 2004 about Iraq was a fairy tale...in other words, he said Barack was being a politician and spinning what he really said,
    How that was turned into being racist is clear...it was a planned deal because the Obama campaign knew that with the Clintons were so popular in the AA community the had to turn them into racists and turn the black community against them.  It was a rovian plan put into play by Axlerod.

    Bill was badgered by reporters in SC.  In the end, responding to their "well if she can't win here...she can't win at all" Bill replied that Jesse Jackson won there and didn't win the nomination.  And that was spun as racist and the people who did it insulted Jesse...and all the people who supported him in the 80s and all the people who still respect all Jesse has done for the AA community.

    I could go on and on.  But many of us think doing this to the Clintons was every bit as evil and wrong as what Rove and company did to Kerry's military service.  But here's the thing.  Neither Clinton supporters nor the Clintons are going to roll over and let that kind of hateful crap go.

    Clyburn doesn't deserve Bill's friendship and sure does not deserve respect.


    This Is The Result Of Real Race-Baiting (5.00 / 22) (#8)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    It's not only damaging to Obama, but to our country and society as well.  I think the reason so many people aren't letting this go is simply because they know that once we slide down this slope, there isn't any way to get back up.  It's sad, but as much as we wanted to win, we didn't want to win this way.  What we lose in the process may not be worth the victory.

    Amen. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:55:45 AM EST
    His campaign (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    did not rise above nasty tactics, as ome of hos supporters claimed.  In fact, they pulled some of the worst ones I've seen.  As far as damage done, they even bested Rover.

    It could come back to bite him if it leads to defeat in November.  You don't go after your own like that.


    Bill Clinton will be vindicated (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by stillife on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    in the end.  Much as Al Gore was, after he was trashed by the Repubs and the MSM in 2000.  

    IMO, the Obama campaign's attack on the Clintons will be a sad footnote in our political history.  It seems that to criticize Obama is to leave one open to accusations of racism.  This can only backfire.  For one thing, it destroys what progress we've made in terms of honest political discourse.  I have AA friends with whom I used to discuss politics, but I now hesitate to raise the subject.  I have non-AA friends who believe that if Obama is elected, we'll have 4 (or 8) years of playing the race card whenever anyone disagrees with him.  

    It brings to mind Bill Moyers' interview with Shelby Steele.  As most of you probably know, Steele posits that in order to appeal to non-AA voters, an AA candidate must present himself as a bargainer rather than a challenger. Shortly after that, we had the NC primary and the accusations of racism.  I thought at the time that it would backfire on Obama - smart short-term strategy which garnered him 90% of the AA vote - but very bad for the GE.  You can call it the Bradley effect or whatever, but I do believe that most of the undecideds are going to break for McCain.


    Golden oldie (none / 0) (#203)
    by CMike on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    Remember this show of, er, solidarity?

    I'm sure that the (5.00 / 14) (#9)
    by dk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    MSM are in ecstacy.  They have finally found an attack on Clinton that really digs in and hurts his feelings like probably nothing else would.

    And to think that it was the campaign of another Democrat (aided by the creative class blogs) that led the charge and gave the MSM the opportunity to do it.

    I really never thought I could be this ashamed to be a Democrat.

    There's a remedy for that: (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:09:22 AM EST
    You can do what I did:  register as an independent.
    I'm still amazed that I had the nerve to do it after all these years of slavish devotion.  I can tell you that it feels just fine.

    I can't believe (3.50 / 2) (#26)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:07:53 AM EST
    that in a year when we should be reigning triumphant, instead we are here, in this horrible place.

    As I travel various blogs I see disbelief, sometimes anger, and sometimes even derision directed at Dems who aren't supporting Obama. The sexism directed at Senator Clinton and denigration of President Clinton have become the last straws that broke the camel's back for some Dems. Is it so surprising that some want a housecleaning that sweeps out the current party leadership? And that some believe a vote for Obama will just cause all of this to be swept under the proverbial rug?

    I'm sorry that Bill did this now because I do think it hurts Obama (and Bill in general is a good party man) but on the other hand, they poor man was left twisting in the wind. Eventually he was going to act.


    are you saying that you think (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    Bill Clinton suggested to the reporter the questions to ask of him?

    He's in Africa on a trip he takes fighting AIDS every year.  Of course there are going to be interviews.

    How should he have answered that question once it was put out there?

    there wasn't anything he could say that wouldn't have been twisted by the media anyway as they (the media) proved during the primaries.


    I think (2.75 / 4) (#94)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    I think that Bill Clinton is a smart guy and that he could have come up with an answer that didn't involve him making such a personal, emotional declaration on such a sensitive subject. But when you sow the wind you sometimes reap the whirlwind and even Bill Clinton has his limits.

    Tell it to Jim clyburn (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    Interesting twist (5.00 / 15) (#64)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    "I'm sorry that Bill did this now because I do think it hurts Obama"

    I'm sorry Obama did this during the primary and put Bill in a position where he had to defend himself against such a vile, untrue characterization when the opportunity presented itself. The question came from the reporter, the accusation came from Obama, and if Obama got hurt by it, that sure wasn't Bill's fault.


    Some of Obama's supporters (5.00 / 8) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:39:19 AM EST
    are the cause of this.

    Jim Clyburn is the most prominent one.

    Clyburn is the disgrace of this campaign season.

    He is a terrible person.


    Not only Clyburn (5.00 / 9) (#147)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:54:47 AM EST
    Jesse Jackson Jr. (about Hillary, not Bill)
    Donna Brazile (about Bill)

    and others.


    are you suggesting - (4.69 / 13) (#57)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:21:06 AM EST
    Bill Clinton should have cared more about protecting Obama than defending his own reputation??
    Have you ever seen a Democrat brush another Democrat off the bottom of his shoe and laugh along with the crowds? Gestures, codes - all familiar to the AA community.
    And remember - after the Rules Committee crowned Obama - AAs said it was the first time a black man got away with beating a white woman.

    I'm suggesting (1.33 / 3) (#87)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:29:48 AM EST
    that Bill might have done himself and the party more good by taking a similar line to Hillary and not so blunting and candidly personalizing the issue right now at this moment in time. I'm surprised he did so because in general he's guided by the perceived good of the party. I'm also saying that I sympathize with him despite those observations because I detest what happened to him during the primary.

    What Obama did is irrelevant to my comments. I'm discussing Bill Clinton.


    Clyburn did it (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:39:49 AM EST
    Too late now.

    Leading question (5.00 / 6) (#141)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:54:19 AM EST
    I can see your point, but the problem was with the set up question. Bill didn't personalize it -- the reporter did. Snow's question was a set up for Bill to apologize for his actions in the primary... which gave him two options -- apologize or not. Any vague statement of regret would have been the equivalent of an apology for the elephant in the middle of the room (of course the question was about racism), and therefore a confirmation by Clinton of the accusations. He addressed it right up with the "but not for what you're thinking," nailing the reporter on the nature of the leading question.

    A commenter above said that the MSM must be celebrating because they finally found something that could hurt him, deeply and personally, and I think he/she is right. This accusation hits Bill Clinton where he lives, and apologizing for it would give it credence.



    What if? (5.00 / 6) (#173)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:06:12 PM EST
    Bill Clinton, as it is has been pointed out, is a well-seasoned politician and a master media player.  What if he turned a question meant to be a "gotcha" into a "stick it to Obama" with his answer?  Look, we're discussing it here, it's over on the conservative blogs, and while the netroots may have their own interpretation of this ("he's whining"), the rest of the real world will see this clip tonight on the news or read about it in a paper, and probably agree with BC.

    This was masterful - BC really gets the last word, because if the Obama camp comments back (which I have no doubt they will), all it's going to look like is the equivalent of the playground "did so!"

    This was BC's way of telling Obama to kiss his a$$.


    your "what if" (5.00 / 5) (#191)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    is exactly the tactic used by the media pundits  during the primaries to insist that every phrase that came out of Bill or Hillary's mouth MUST be parsed to find the "coded" meaning because they were consumate politicians and there just MUST be a coded meaning, maybe even two or three of them, behind everything they say.

    Of course this same set of pundidts NEVER looked for the hidden "coded" meaning behind what Obama said.

    You can see the same thing in the comments on blogs.  Most Obama supporters will as you to provide a link to an exact quote where Obama said (not implied) exactly the words you are saying.

    But, those same people are more than happy to accuse the Clintons of using "code" words.  Which, by definition, means the Clintons didn't  actually say what they are being accused of.


    How Stupid (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:55:55 AM EST
    Democrats seem to be doing much of the work for the GOP these days. It is amazing that we are more than likely going to win in November despite the taste for red meat the democrats have gotten accustomed to, aka cannibalism.

    is not something to be taken lightly in this day and age. I'm glad that O took the accusation back, but his camp and supporters were way over the top.

    Not sure what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    but I have been very clear that despite my support for Obama and despite the fact I will vote for him, that I will write what I think in the most honest way possible.

    That Is Clear (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    I see no harm done by you, quite the opposite, you seem to possess mysterious healing qualities. What I am referring to by cannibalism, are the democrats who have relentlessly attacked  Clinton exclusively, or who have attacked Obama exclusively, and continue to do so, as if McSame is not even running.

    I'm sure there are many sites that (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    discuss/criticize McCain at length, but the people who come to TalkLeft are democrats and concerned about the attributes/flaws in their own candidate. McCain isn't big in my thoughts. If he becomes the topic of a post, perhaps you'll get more of what you want.

    What BS (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:56:34 AM EST
    but the people who come to TalkLeft are democrats and concerned about the attributes/flaws in their own candidate.

    The people you are describing are not concerned about flaws in their own candidate, never were.


    Cannabalism? (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:09:50 AM EST
    You mean, like calling the a succesful, respected, two-term Democratic president with a great record on race issues a racist?

    You're right that the Dems are doing the GOP's (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:22:25 AM EST
    work for them, but the timing you assert is wrong.

    The DNC and Obama created the problem by kicking the base to the curb and unleashing the Clintons are racist riff starting back in Feb.

    It is really, really sad.


    The saddest part (I know ODSers may (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    disagree, but it's true) is that the Clintons got broadbrushed in the primary. The hurtful thing to me isn't Obama's camp playing the race card, it's the fact they overplayed the race card. I'm from the deep south and I know the difference. I also find it ironic that most AAs seem to chalk up Bill's "controversies" as being a little too overzealous for his wife, not raw racism, and maybe he could have taken it easier on O. Most WHITE Obama supporters can't stand the Clintons. WTF is up with that?

    The video is up on the ABC website (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by ajain on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:17 AM EST
    Kate Snow looks decidedly intimidated.
    His interview is not good for Obama, and I think even though he didn't say too much about the primaries, this interview is not good for Obama.

    She's intimidated because Bill is pissed. Look at (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:06:28 AM EST
    his body language.  Arms crossed, lips pursed, anger in his eyes, and he leans into her when he says that he's not a racist.  

    I love it when Bill (5.00 / 8) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:25:25 AM EST
    makes sure his message is not misunderstood.

    Great. 2004 all over again. (none / 0) (#149)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:55:53 AM EST
    Well... (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Mike H on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    Maybe 2004 is what we deserve, given what's been going on.

    We're not the party we thought we were.


    And the story is alive and well... (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    ...and lives another week, thanks the the ABC interview with Clinton.

    McCain couldn't ask for a better story to compete with today's coverage of Obama's energy speech.

    Too bad, Obama.  You reap what you sow.  

    Karma's a beeyotch, yo!

    Yo JoeCHI....you ain't lying!! (5.00 / 11) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    And for obama, who says he wants to change things race-wise, he has helped take race relations back about 30 years.  I refuse to have to watch everything I say for fear of offending someone...that is pure and blatant b.s. perpetrated by the snake oil salesman akd presumptuous nominee and his camp.

    and yet we still have prominent (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:02:20 AM EST
    pundits and supporters out there on a daily basis declaring everyday words like "arrogant" and "presumptuous" to be code racial messages.

    And, they never feel a need to explain themselves.  If I can't call Obama arrogant, then tell me what the acceptable word is to describe his arrogance?  Surely they don't mean to imply that a black man just cannot actually be arrogant, right?  And they don't mean to imply that if a black candidate is arrogant, you still can't say so, right?

    You can't call Obama "young" because it means "boy".  But Obama himself has described himself as young when he was trying to weasle out of the presidents on the paper money remarks.

    You can't compare him to Paris Hilton even though he did it himself when elected to the US Senate.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:04:00 AM EST
    I do not agree with you there.

    Let me ask you this, did you ever see Bill Clinton call Obama "arrogant" or "presumptuous?"

    I think those are loaded words.


    oncve again, no answer (5.00 / 11) (#30)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:08:50 AM EST
    I'm happy to stop using the word 'arrogant" if you just tell me waht word to use instead.

    Obama IS arrogant, and no I don't mean "uppity".  I mean arrogant in the same way that a white candidate would be rightfully called arrogant.

    His pre-presidential seal is the perfect example.

    So please, just tell what word you would have me use to replace arrogant?  Or, are you saying it just isn't allowed to be pointed out if the candidate happens to be black?


    We are somewhat on different sides here but (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    Speaking as a white Southerner who has been around the block a bit, arrogant is safer than presumptuous or uppity, if you must use it all.

    I just don't see Obama is particularly more arrogant than any one else who thinks they should be leading the country and less so than say GWB or Newt (who in my lifetime probably leads the pack in arrogance). I don't think he is any more arrogant than McCain.

    You may differ.  


    well the point isn't whether (5.00 / 9) (#156)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:59:11 AM EST
    he really is arrogant or not i guess.  there can always be a difference of opinon on that.  The real question is, when a black man is actually arrogant, what word is OK to use?  We are being told arrogant can't be used.  OK,what then?  I'm really waiting for them to just admit that what tey really mean is that arrogance just can't be discussed about a black candidate at all.

    To your other point.  What difference does it make at all whether Obama is more, less or equal in arrogance of other candidates?  If he is arrogant, then he is.  It shouldn't matter whether others may be arrogant as well.  So what?  Is that the "mommy, mommy, all the kids are doing it too" defense?


    How about these? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    Haughty, high-and-mighty, insolent, lofty, lordly, overbearing, overweening, prideful, proud, supercilious, superior.

    Would any of these pass the smell test for acceptability?


    I like supercilious myself. (5.00 / 0) (#211)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:23:46 PM EST
    No it is a legitimate question (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    Why is McCain "arrogantly" allowed to refer to his presidency (an event which has not occurred, and may not occur) without being called arrogant but Obama is not allowed similar latitude?

    Sort of like, when a man is strongly states his opinion he is being manly, but if a woman has strongly held views, she is a witch or fishwife or shrew.


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#176)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:08:51 PM EST
    I would argue that anyone running for POTUS is arrogant (Who really thinks they could do the job and all it entails? That takes arrogance).

    But Obama has taken it 10 steps further, with his own "presidential" seal,and apparently a chair on his plane that says "Obama '08 / President" among other things.

    Putting the cart before the horse, and all that.


    Obama O8 makes him arrogant? (4.33 / 3) (#193)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    How many campaigns have  I seen with the candidates name and year on a bumper sticker without the candidate being called arrogant.

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    Why didn't you just write "having a chair on his plane makes him arrogant???"  It would have been equally disingenuous.

    Different Standard For Obama? (3.66 / 3) (#206)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    McCain of cours is entitled to have a presidential seal because he is  not lazy or arrogant like Obama? Or is it because he is just more qualified, and Presidential looking? link

    And it is normal for McCain's own caucus to use three versions of the Presidential seal, and not a peep. Must be that messing with the presidential seal is uppity for a young black guy, but for a good ole boy it is natural as the morning dew.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    I don't really want to defend McCain, but I think making a reference to one's presidency is qualitatively a bit different from having a mock presidential seal, talking about your candidacy as marking a world-historical moment, etc.  I'm not saying I think Obama is the most arrogant candidate ever but I see where the perspective comes from.

    When I've heard people talk about Obama as "arrogant," it's been because of moments like that debate where he said "I look forward to you advising me, Hillary," and so forth.  I perceive it as more of a youth/inexperience thing (in comparison to Hillary) than a racial thing.


    The question is.... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:06:19 PM EST
    what descriptive word would be appropriate and NOT considered racially offensive?

    The word arrogant is constantly used to describe GWB, Newt, Cheney, and many, many more.

    I don't live in the south, never have, so I need a list of acceptable words and phrases that I can use when speaking about Obama under the many scenarios discussed about all candidates for public office.


    Unfortunately with the White Lion in 1619 (3.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    race relations in this country got off to a bad start and 389 years later we are only half a century or less from the era of Jim Crow. I wish it were not so, but it is the world we live in.

    I am not sure how much experience in these matters you have. If you did, you probably wouldn't have made the snarky remark.

    BTW while uppity and presumptuous are terms with a longer history  south of the  M-D line, the underlying attitudes are not restricted to the South.


    and yet again (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    you also won't tell us what word to use to describe a black candidate who actulaly is arrogant.  Are you admitting that there is NO WORD that won't be misconstrued as a racial put down?  Are you admitting that even an arrogant black man can never be described as arrogant?  Are you saying that an actual lazy black man can never be described as lazy? and on, and on....

    Uppity In Upstate New York (4.50 / 4) (#218)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    Indeed, the only times I've heard this term applied to anyone around here it was:

    1.   African American person.

    2.   Female person.

    In both situations, the meaning was pretty clear and ugly.

    By safer (4.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    I mean if someone were to use presumptuous or uppity, I would be 99% tin they are being racist. I would be willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt with the word arrogance, depending on their history. McCain's and the GOP's history is not exemplary on race issues.

    Using arrogant right now reinforces what McCain is trying to do and you might want to consider that.


    Why is presumptuous a racist word? (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:42:20 PM EST
    I agree with "uppity" but I will not agree on presumptuous because all ethnic groups can be presumptuous and it has been used to describe all types of people.  Presumptuous is like arrogant.  

    Bill Clinton Never Called Obama Anything (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:14:18 AM EST
    it wasn't his style of politics.

    They are loaded words and the use (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    of them captures the extreme complexity of racism in 2008. Every white person who says this meme is not racist. But some are. The real problem is what the Clintons said could be said by the Grand Wizard. But of course they mean two totally different things. This is exactly why AAs are so hypersensitive about everything (no offense) and until EVERYONE honestly acknowledges this paradox, racial progress will be stunted.

    OK (5.00 / 13) (#112)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    just please tell me what word to use instead of arrogant.  Because I don't think it is fair to give a black candidate a pass on arrogance just because some people take arrogant as a code word.

    For heaven's sake. Very early in the campaign Chris Matthews accused Bill Clinton of using "coded language" when Bill told Charlie Rose that a vote for Obama would be a roll of the dice".  Matthews said it was MEANT BY CLINTON to conjure up images of shiftless black men shooting craps in big city alleyways.

    It is the same as saying no one could talk about Oba,a's drug use because it was an attempt to :"ghettoize" him.  But, we had no problem talking about the drug use of Bill Clinton and GW in previous elections.

    Nothing could be more ridiculous

    If you want to turn Obama into the "affirmative action" candidate, just keep this stuff up,  Because you are saying it is OK to have one set of rules for white candidates, but that black candidates require a gentler standard of public discussion in order to be treated "fairly".


    Tim read my comments again. I'm (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST
    DEFENDING you, the Clintons and others from charges of racism. The evil thing about Code Words is that they use themes and expressions that I use all the time. There is no "substitute" for arrogant. Yes he is arrogant, but Obama is no more arrogant than at least 90% of modern presidential politics.  These points are more than obvious. Everyone knows darn well there is plenty that has been said negatively about Obama on this website without a hint of personal animosity or racial undertones.

    They are not loaded words. (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    They are words used everyday to describe people of every race.

    What you are describing is context. Context can make any word sound bad. So it is context that we should be talking about, not individual words.

    Chasing down the use of individual everyday words is a pointless exercise that will get us nowhere.

    Any word can sound bad in context. Let's not ban the whole dictionary.


    Exactly TheRealFrank. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    Respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    Please explain how presumtuous is "loaded" but presumptive is not. (The Obama camp is happy to describe Obama as the presumptive nominee but it is racist to say someone is presumptuous because they believe they will win???  I sure as hell hope our nominee is presuming the win...)

    Both are rooted in the word presume.  Both can be both positive or negative.  Synonyms include both audacious and arrogant.

    As for arrogant itself, it was my favorite descriptor of George W.......so if I use it to describe someone who I think is a snob I am a racist if they are a black snob, but if they are a white snob, it's OK?

    Now words like "uppity" I get.  That word has been used against minorities and women for years.  We all get that code.  Presumptous may indeed be an insult, but racist?????    No way.  


    Respectfully disagree (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    Please explain how presumtuous is "loaded" but presumptive is not. (The Obama camp is happy to describe Obama as the presumptive nominee but it is racist to say someone is presumptuous because they believe they will win???  I sure as hell hope our nominee is presuming the win...)

    Both are rooted in the word presume.  Both can be both positive or negative.  Synonyms include both audacious and arrogant.

    As for arrogant itself, it was my favorite descriptor of George W.......so if I use it to describe someone who I think is a snob I am a racist if they are a black snob, but if they are a white snob, it's OK?

    Now words like "uppity" I get.  That word has been used against minorities and women for years.  We all get that code.  Presumptous may indeed be an insult, but racist?????    No way.  


    I say go ahead and use it (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    if that's what you feel best describes him and you mean what you say here.  I'm black and can be arrogant as he!! sometimes - so I've heard from good friends, ex-wives and girlfriends.  I've been called me a know-it-all, and you know what, I don't have a problem with it because my first assumption isn't that it's racist.  Could be I maybe I have an issue?  :-) We really need to move past assumptions about each other if we are going to get past race.  To me the PC stuff doesn't work because it doesn't allow folks who are merely unexposed to "how the other half lives," to engage the other half in meaningful discourse.  

    About time it was said (5.00 / 13) (#28)
    by Pieter B on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    Given the party's history since the mid-60s, calling a Democrat a racist is as serious a charge as can be made short of felony. That the Obama campaign convinced a significant portion of the party that the Clintons were using racist tactics is despicable. Perhaps some day I'll forgive it, but that day is definitely not in the near future.

    they probably love this in Kosland (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:22:48 AM EST

    there is a simple solution for this (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM EST
    Hillary as VP

    I think that possibility (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:31:38 AM EST
    is out the door.  I think this comment is proof of that.  Bill would never have said it if he felt he was burning bridges for Hillary.

    I know more and more people say that (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    but heres what I think.  nothing NOTHING means more to the O than winning.  if he comes to believe that is his only path to victory, how long do you think it would take him to change his mind.
    I expect less time than it took to be for off shore drilling.
    it is still possible.  and every day his numbers drop is get a little more possible.

    Not a solution (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    If you listen to the interviews of the leaders of the Not Obama groups, or read the plethora of comments from Hillary supporters who won't change to Obama, putting her on the ticket will be a greater insult than leaving her off. The "holdouts" have a riff with the DNC that isn't being repaired, so Hillary for VP is of no value to Obama.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:34:32 AM EST
    As for racist comments (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:29:52 AM EST
    I have seen them and deleted them here at Talk Left.

    What?! (5.00 / 11) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    "I've never seen an outright racist post here at TL (that I recall, anyway).  But I have seen people skate awfully close to some racial tropes -- suggesting Barack Obama is lazy, or hasn't had to work for anything he's gotten, or doesn't have the "intellectual curiosity" necessary to be President."

    Obama describes himSELF as lazy in his books, and every comment you listed is just as descriptive of the person holding the office now, and has been frequently said about him. How in the world are those comments racial tropes?

    I find it very disturbing how many everyday words and phrases have been placed out of bounds during this election.

    Skating close to the edge here (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM EST
    But it's worth risking being deleted:

    The question that shouldn't have been a part of this election: If a black man were to call Obama lazy and arrogant, and be forgiven (or even lauded for his honesty), and a white man were to say the same thing and be accused of racism, then how is that not racist in itself? The only difference is the color of the skin, no? This question is on the minds of many, many swing voters, and Obama has put it there, and McCain will make sure it stays there.

    This is all academic. The reality is that racism does exist in all forms in the U.S., that the GOP has a history of using it to win elections, and that the DEM uppers have selected an AA to represent the party. This combination can do nothing to alleviate any racial tensions that exist now, but it had to happen sooner or later.

    The crazy thing is that Obama is doing the best job he can in shielding the GOP from any blowback from any racist moves they make; he has effectively given McCain his sword. Now it's up to him to find other ways to attack McCain, which, in the end, is what he should have been doing since day 1.


    Another question (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by CST on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    As an answer to your first question.  Why is it okay for Tina Fey to call Hillary the b-word but not someone who isn't a woman?  Is that sexist?

    I think the answer is obvious.  You can critique your own kind with a lot more freedom than a group you aren't a part of.


    The answer is obvious (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:10:45 PM EST
    Tina was using the term as affectionate and respectful, much as the 'n' word is used amongst friends in the AA community. I have no problem with the disparity there, it makes sense.

    Watching Randi Rhodes call Hillary much worse things, however, is along the lines of what I was talking about. Just because she's a woman doesn't allow her to call Hillary what she did, even though the term historically is feminine.

    I'm not spending any more time on this though. I don't want it to devolve into anything worse!


    Good point (none / 0) (#210)
    by CST on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    Although, I do think that "the-line" is in a different place if you are part of the group compared to an outsider, it is definitely still possible to cross it as part of that group though.

    I don't think this line of conversation is bad, but I will stop if you are worried.


    Have You Heard Bill Call Obama Lazy? (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:37:41 AM EST
    Maybe instead of lamenting the fact that some words are out of bounds, follow Bill's example, rather than the GOP's.

    And for Obama to call himself lazy, is ironic, or hyperbole, for those that dislike him to call him lazy is an entirely different kettle of fish.


    Those who rewrite history to slam Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by kempis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM EST
    as somehow deserving of the "racist" tag because of his remarks on the day of the SC primary are flat wrong. They need to read this:


    That's an important observation BTD (5.00 / 9) (#107)
    by Larry Bailey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM EST
    If the only 2-term Democratic President in most of our lifetimes has to attest to his lack of racism, then it speaks volumes to the mass of voters about what the Obama campaign and its intemperate supporters did to get to this point -- and about what they'll do to try to win the GE. If their "racist" screams eventually do them in, then it'll only be just delicious desserts.

    And How Happy Must the GOP Be? (5.00 / 7) (#194)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    The Democratic President who largely united working class whites and blacks is demonized as racist.  While the Party that perfected the Southern Strategy is repeatedly discussed as people we need to work with and unify with, whose base should be wooed, and whose members are worthy of being floated as potential VP picks.

    Yes, the GOP should be very happy with the turn of events.  Reagan and Bush aren't racists, Clinton is.  Perfect.


    It was bad karma (5.00 / 9) (#117)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:40:10 AM EST
    I have to say that I agree with most of the posts on here.

    I can understand why Bill's feelings were hurt.  I was labeled a racist for supporting Hillary and all supporters of Hillary were labeled racists by the media and the Obama campaign.  And I don't consider myself racist and found it highly offensive.  I think the Obama campaign deliberately race baited because they understood our party's racist delegate allocation.  It didn't matter what Latinos or Asians thought because black voters had so much more voting power.  It was all pretty disgusting but he got away with it, just like he got away with McClurkin and his other gay baiting.  

    Bill Clinton did more for the black community (and Hillary too) than any other politicians in the past 40 years.  The Obama campaign behavior was reprehensible.

    B.S. (1.00 / 3) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    I can understand why Bill's feelings were hurt.  I was labeled a racist for supporting Hillary and all supporters of Hillary were labeled racists by the media and the Obama campaign.

    Show me a single quote from anyone of any prominence stating that all Hillary supporters are racist.  

    Please stop blaming the Obama campaign for the actions of people not associated with the campaign.

    Believe it or not but there are some people that are very sensitive about race just as there were many people who saw sexism around every corner.  Those overly sensitive people do a disservice to their cause by trivializing ALL forms of bigotry.

    Bill Clinton is not in any way a racist.  But he made some dumb comments and some that were, at the very least, insensitive to the situation.  


    Bill Clinton is not a racist. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    Examine not only his behavour but his record.  That will tell you what you need to know.  Obama knows that Bill is not a racist.  The problem is that his campaign, acting on his behalf, put this stuff out there.  Jim Clyburn, Jesse Jackson, Jr., and several other surrogates in concert with the media pounded and pounded on this issue all in an attempt to win the nomination.  It was dishonest and the lowest form of political swiftboating I can imagine.  That Bill is coming out now to defend himself tells me that there is absolutely zero chance that Hillary will be on the ticket.  And I believe that Obama needs her to win in November. Live by the sword, die by the sword.    

    You know (1.00 / 2) (#151)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    many of you here are excusing Bill's comments because he is personally offended and hurt by the accusations.

    Has it occurred to you that perhaps Jim Clyburn and Jesse Jackson were personally offended by Bill's comments?


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:59:34 AM EST
    Sine Jesse Jackson publicly said the comments weren't racist, I don't know

    So? (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:03:28 PM EST
    I'm not saying the comments were racist.  I'm saying that Clyburn and Jesse Jackson JUNIOR may have been personally offended by them.

    No, I'd say (5.00 / 5) (#169)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    again that they cried foul because they thought it helped their candidate.

    And it did, temporarily.


    Well fine (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    you have no evidence to support this but you can believe whatever you want.

    It's quite common to assume that those who oppose your favored politician are acting in complete harmony whereas your preferred candidate is not responsible for anything his or her surrogates say.


    There's a winning argument (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by tree on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:30:52 PM EST
     Do you really believe thatJesse Jackson Jr was personally offended that Clinton compared Obama to his father, who had run the most successful Presidential campaign run by a black man up until Obama's run this year, and was at one point the front-runner in 1988? Geez, if JJ Jr really was offended, then he's got some major father issues.

    Four years later, in 1988, Jackson once again offered himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This time, his successes in the past made him a more credible candidate, and he was both better financed and better organized. Although most people did not seem to believe he had a serious chance at winning, Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, prompting R.W. Apple of the New York Times to call 1988 "the Year of Jackson". [27]

    He captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont).[28]. Jackson also scored March victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary.[10] [11] Some news accounts credit him with 13 wins. [12] Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.

    Jackson wasn't offended. (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:03:59 PM EST
    wasn't offended:

    But Mr. Jackson said he did not see it that way.
    "I don't read anything negative into Clinton's observation," Mr. Jackson said in a phone conversation late Sunday night from India, where he is taking part in a commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.
    But, Mr. Jackson said, "Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments." He said his chief concern was that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton not "bloody themselves" so much that they can't unite against the Republicans in November.
    Mr. Jackson said that on Saturday, Mr. Clinton had simply been recognizing Mr. Jackson's success and said Mr. Obama recognized it too.
    "He said that he felt his success was built on my 84 and 88 campaigns," Mr. Jackson said of Mr. Obama. He said there had been a "growth and maturing of the electorate" since he ran, and he saw Mr. Obama's win as "part of the historic evolution of the New South."

    Clyburn obviously had his own motives.


    I dunno (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    Are you calling Jesse Jackson a liar?

    I personally think that portraying someone as a racist and defending oneself against charges of racism require different levels of justification, but that could be just me.

    I believe the negative portrayal of the Clintons along racial lines was a very deliberate strategy.  I do not believe that it happened just because, you know, a couple people got personally offended and started mouthing off.

    The day after the New Hampshire primary, at a point when race had been way below the radar so far in the campaign, here comes Obama's campaign co-chair on national TV to say "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina."  Any of the people who are so adept at spotting dogwhistles want to argue THAT wasn't a dogwhistle?  Did it just happen by accident?


    I don't understand (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    why do you think I'm calling Jackson a liar?  

    Maybe it was a deliberate strategy.  

    That very well may have been a dog whistle.  It may also have been Jesse Jackson Jr being stupid.  

    It seems that the crux of the race baiting accusations are based on the comments of 2 people Jesse Jackson Jr and Jim Clyburn.  You don't think it was possible that these 2 people were simply acting on their own behalf, or at least not acting in some scripted way?


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:25:46 PM EST
    I thought you were referring to Jesse Jackson Sr.  Just a tip, he's not dead yet!

    Could JJ Jr. have been personally offended?  Sure.  Is it likely that he was offended, the day after the New Hampshire primary, by a comment that wouldn't be made until after the South Carolina primary?  Probably not.

    I will not get into the "off the reservation argument" except to note that JJ Jr. was a pretty big surrogate, and that particular comment was never apologized for or walked back in the slightest.  A candidate who genuinely wanted to keep race out of it would not have just left that one lying there.

    I am completely baffled by your attempt to suggest that maybe the Katrina remark wasn't a dogwhistle, but just "Jesse Jackson Jr being stupid."  Do you mean that maybe he was so stupid he didn't realize the salience that a Katrina reference has in the black community?  That would, indeed, make him pretty darn stupid!

    I think you just didn't want to admit that it was an obvious dogwhistle, so you had to throw something else out there.  I'm not surprised, as I have never gotten a single Obama supporter to admit the obvious.  He said "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina" THREE TIMES in the same brief interview!!


    Wrong. I am defending Bill Clinton's comments (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    because what he said was not racist.  Read his comments in the context they were said and you should agree.  I don't give a hoot if Jesse Jackson or Jim Clyburn were offended.  If they were then their skin is too thin.  This was all hyped up just for the sake of scoring some points.  This is what we have come to.  Every time someone says something their words are twisted into something they didn't mean.  It's about time people stand up to this.  Bill Clinton is not a racist and he needs to keep saying it as long as he needs to in an attempt to clear his name.  I can guarantee you that after November he will have a lot more to say, not just on this issue but others.  Show the man the respect he has earned for god's sake.

    Clyburn--I could care less... (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by NJDem on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    JJ said himself that he was not offended by BC's comment.  In fact, I think he may have been offended by the fact that it's considered an insult to compare Obama to HIM!  

    Jim Clyburn was offended? (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    Jim Clyburn is an offense.

    His behavior was disgraceful.

    Have you considered THAT?


    Sure (none / 0) (#201)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    I'm not looking to defend Jim Clyburn.

    He made his own choices.  


    Jim clyburn, markos moulitsas, rev. Wright (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:11:08 PM EST
    and anyone else who pretended to know what bill was attempting to do on any given day.

    All of you played your part.

    The questions is beneath him. (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Marco21 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:54:08 PM EST
    Bill was screwed over royally. It's a disgrace that "Democrats" have taken over the job Republicans used to hold in smearing and besmirching his amazing record of accomplishments and the man himself.

    The creative class and lackeys like KO outperformed Newt and Foxtards in this area.

    I will forever be ashamed for them, since they clearly have no shame.

    what is disgraceful is the obama campaign's (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:13:57 PM EST
    dog whistle baiting and the disgraceful way the most successful democratic president since lbj was treated. shame on them and that includes our pathetic media!

    Bill chose to say that he is not a racist today. (4.00 / 1) (#188)
    by bslev22 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:14:11 PM EST
    I don't blame Bill Clinton for being pissed off.  James Clyburn makes me ill, and he should be ashamed of himself for playing the race card like nobody else played it in the primaries.

    But the fact of the matter is that Bill didn't "have to say" that he is not a racist today, and the fact is that this will now become a story and will only help John McCain.

    I still have trouble watching Senator Obama speak.  I have not recovered from the primaries, even though I will support the Obama as the Democratic nominee.  But my words don't mean anything to the general public.  In contrast, when Bill talks, people listen, and I have to conclude that he said what he said this morning for the purpose of hurting Senator Obama.  And, rightly or wrongly, it will hurt Obama.  To pretend that Bill "had to say" what he did is twisting the facts.  I'm not going to condemn Bill, because I'm pissed too, and I am and will remain a Clinton loyalist.  But let's be honest--Clinton did not have to say what he said today.  

    People are people. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM EST
    People don't always say what they "have" to say. He's human, you know.

    I agree that he is human. (4.00 / 1) (#208)
    by bslev22 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    He is also the former President of the United States and he knows exactly what that kind of comment can do to a couple of news cycles.  I am not condemning him; I am responding to this notion that President Clinton "had to" say that he was not racist at this time.  He did not have to say what he did.

    Obama's surrogates (5.00 / 5) (#212)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:24:46 PM EST
    had to say what they said so that he could win the primaries.

    Now that Obama has won the primaries, I think Bill is saying that he refuses to let Obama win on CLINTON's back.  Therefore, Bill has to say what he said, and say it when it will hurt Obama.

    Sometimes tough love is the answer.  I think that time is now.

    What the Obama campaign did was WRONG, even immoral.  It doesn't deserve to win on that.


    No, actually (5.00 / 9) (#215)
    by nell on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    if you watch the whole interview with Kate Snow, not just that one small part, I think you will understand why he felt compelled to say what he did. Her entire tone was biased and leading and throughout the interview she was making insinuations that were inappropriate. She also cited James Clyburn as a supposed Clinton supporter as evidence that Bill hurt Hillary's campaign and his own standing with the African American community. Bill made it clear that Clyburn was no longer a friend of his and that Clyburn was never a Hillary supporter, not even for one day. When Kate Snow pushed and pushed, it was obvious what she was going for and what was in her mind with the questions - after watching the whole interview, it is clear to me that Bill definitely needed to say what he said.

    It is sad and pathetic that a former President with Bill's distinguished record on civil rights even needs to clarify this at all to our disgusting press, but he did need to do so.

    If you have a problem with what Bill said, I suggest you put the blame squarely where it belongs - at the feet of Obamanation and its' supporters, like Clyburn, and at the feet of our corrupt and disgusting press who had no problem boosting their ratings at the expense of a former President and at the expense of race relations.

    I don't especially care what Bill's comment does or does not do to Obama. If they didn't want anyone in the position of having to defend himself against charges of racism, they never should have played the race card.

    You reap what you sow.


    I keep reading (3.00 / 2) (#133)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:50:29 AM EST
    that Bill Clinton has to defend himself from allegations of racism.  

    Who is currently making such charges?  Certainly there were some people, none from the Obama campaign, who accused Clinton of race-baiting. Politics is emotional for some and they may say things they regret later.

    I just don't understand why Bill Clinton continues to make the issue himself.  Yes I understand that he feels offended by some of the accusations that were made at him.  But is now really the time to defend himself by attacking Obama and his supporters?

    If there is one thing that has done more to ensure that Hillary will not be the VP it is the actions of Bill Clinton.  `

    Has Jim Clyburn retracted his remarks? (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    As for who is currently saying the Clintons used racist tactics, I suggest you read my post "The Fairy Tale Revisited."

    I have no idea (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    whether Jim Clyburn has or has not retracted his comments.  I'm not sure how that is relevant though.

    I read your fairytale revisted diary.  You may be right that McCain will use the Clintons for his own advantage.  But that is precisely why Bill Clinton should be keeping his mouth shut.


    Jesse Jackson Jr. wasn't a member (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by Radix on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    of the Obama campaign, really? How about that 4 page paper, outlining the Clinton's racist remarks, from the head of Obama's NC campaign, she/he wasn't part of the Obama campaign either? So now I have to ask what you mean by "not part of the campaign"?

    I am sorta tired of white people just saying (2.66 / 3) (#14)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:01:08 AM EST
    "I am not a racist." Yes Clinton is not a racist, but the notion of racism he is talking about is so old and outdated, it isn't to be congradulated to not be a racist. Comments like this allow the privilege of whiteness to go unchecked.  

    Before you attack these comments, think about it in relationship to gender and sexism.  A lot of people said, and rightfully so, they aren't sexist.  And they aren't in the traditional sense. What they (and me) are "guilty" of is the priviledge and taking the advantages that come with our gender.

    It is easy to stop being a racist or sexist.  Just stop doing the blatant screwed up things one was doing before, but to get rid of priviledge that is hard, as it demands more self insepction then most of us want to do.

    PsstCnere08 Can you just keep your rating (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:07:27 AM EST
    to yourself.  What is the point?  Are you adding anything to the discussion?  

    SamTaylor....I call them as I see them.... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    And if you look around you will see my comments "that don't add anything to the discussion".  If I struck a nerve sorry...actually I am not sorry.

    Please tell me what the new and appropriate (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    description of racism is since I agree with Bill Clinton's version.  Guess we're just old and outdated.  

    Well (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:12:29 AM EST
    I think Bill Clinton, given his background and experiences, understands these issues very well.  I don't think he's at all ignorant of the fact that he was lucky to grow up white and not black in 1950s Arkansas.

    The flip side of what you just described is that we apply the word "racist" to a huge number of people, the vast majority of whom are not racists in the traditional sense (i.e. blacks are naturally inferior).

    What bothers me is that there are debates to be had on issues involving race, debates that are very important for our side to win, and yet many liberals think they can win them simply by screaming racism at anyone who deviates from the liberal orthodoxy.  That ship has sailed.


    Completely Agree (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:26:25 AM EST
    We (and I mean all minorities, women, gays, etc) have only a certain amount of moral capital that can be spent.  It is wasted by yelling out these words, without a plan and more description.  The term racism must be reserved and should only be used in the proper situation.  

    Yes, the screaming is actually (4.85 / 7) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:42:16 AM EST
    more likely to hinder substantive discussion than promote it.

    The issue of privilege by race (or gender, hello!) is especially badly served by it.  It's quite a bit more complex than can be reduced to a string of words on a bumper sticker, or a sound bite for the MSM's bottomless hunger for controvery.  It should be a part of the discussion, but really, Obama's campaign and supporters obviated any chance of that.  

    So now we have to wait to bring it up again in order to talk about it without everyone going ballistic.  Not good, and a very sadly missed opportunity.

    And samtaylor, you may be tired of hearing people say they are not racists, but I'm tired of being called one.


    So, the racism he is (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by dk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    talking about is old and outdated, eh?  Is that why AIDS is a plague in Africa, and the rest of the world is doing next to nothing about it?  Except a few very dedicated non-profits, and a certain ex-President who has made this one of the defining purposes of his post-Presidential existence?

    It's not that I disagree with you on the "privilege of whiteness" point.  But when you raise this issue in the context of this man, you do your own argument a major disservice.  Plus, unless you have dedicated your entire adult life to making people's lives (including the lives of people of all races, geners, and sexual orientation) better, the way Bill Clinton has, I think there is another element of privilege going on with regard to your own point of view that you perhaps may not be aware of.


    AIDS in africa (none / 0) (#105)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    I don't think the world ignoring AIDS in Africa (we are ignoring it here as well), has much to do with "traditional" racism.  It has to do with just not caring.  To the powers that be, the vast majority of people infected with AIDS throughout the world don't matter to them.  God bless Clinton for his work there.  He is one of the few powerful people that understands that world health= local health

    But lets not give him saint status just yet.  It was only 8 years ago when the sanctions in Iraq (that we all look fondly on now) were increasing childhood mortality and morbidity throughout Iraq.  


    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by dk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:42:51 AM EST
    You think that world ignoring AIDS in Africa doesn't have much to do with "traditinoal" racism?

    Wow.  This goes beyond any discussion I can have with someone on a blog.  Good luck to you.


    The roots of it might be (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Meaning the 3rd class status that African nations "enjoy" is rooted in racism and colonialism, but like race in this country today, the problem is not color, the invisibility of a people due to lack of empowerment (due to racism of the past).  Sorta wordy.  

    (We are allies in this fight)


    Accusations of subtle racism (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Coral on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    are, IMHO, bound to fail in a general election campaign -- even if the charge is true (such as McCain's recent ad).

    Barious types of racism, sub-conscious bias, and the invisibility to whites of white privilege are topics that indeed need to be discussed widely and deeply. I agree.

    However, calling people racists is not the best way to win their vote.

    Obama needs to find a way to change the subject, and to make peace with the Clintons and their more ardent supporters.


    Uh, Various, not Barious... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Coral on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    That is true. (1.00 / 3) (#36)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:12:26 AM EST
    Bill should've left this topic alone I think.  We went through the whole apology tour in the spring.  If he's honest, he would acknowledge his remarks about Jesse Jackson/Obama post-SC primary were poor.  On the other hand, the way his "fairy tale" remark was jumped upon was unfair to him.  

    But that level of honesty doesn't seem to be happening, and the sh*tstorm is made of both comments...

    I'm sympathetic, but Bill should keep his mouth shut for the moment.


    you should check into the actual (5.00 / 9) (#56)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:20:30 AM EST
    details of the statement Bill made is SC about Jesse Jackson having won there.  Those remarks were NOT MADE post primary.  The remark was made at 10 am the day of the primary.  So, Clinton was talking about what would likely be the result in SC because of the SC voter demographics.  He wasn't dismissing Obama's win, since the primary wasn't over yet, Obama didn't yet have a win to dismiss.

    We all know, or should know, that the way the media plays a re-plays a remark does affect the publics perception and reaction to the remark.  WEe are rarely treated to the full extent of both the question asked, the context in which it was asked and then the full answer.

    This is exactly how the fairytale remark got blown up the way it did.  Michelle Obama and Donna Brazile went out and made claims that Clinton had called Obama's entire candidacy a fairytale.  Nothing was further from the truth and it could have been shut down immediately if the media had played the entire video clip of what Clinton said.  But, FOX was the only media outlet that did that.  The others preferred the ratings grabbing of accusing Clinton of race-baiting when he hadn't done it.


    The context was also edited out (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    from Clinton's SC primary comment.  Why?  Because had the Clinton-hating media put in the entire sequence of events, it would have been shown that Bill was giving a direct answer to a direct question.  Clinton, in addition, graceously said that both Jackson and Obama won SC because they both, "RAN GOOD CAMPAIGNS"

    Ok, so if I say a black candidate runs a good campaign, that's a racist statement.

    Got it.


    That's fair. (none / 0) (#90)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:30:33 AM EST
    I apologize for my factual error.

    However, demographics voting for their own demographic is not an absolute electoral truth.  Blacks don't just vote for blacks.

    And Obama winning was pretty much in the cards by that point.

    Regarding what you said about "fairytale", I completely agree.  

    [in case the parenting gets confusing...this is directed at TimNCGuy]


    of course blacks don't just... (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    vote for blacks.  But give them a "viable" black candidate (i.e. not Al Sharpton) and the likelihood will be a lot of African American support for that candidate.

    The question that never gets answered is "Would a white candidate with Obama's resume and schtick gotten 78% of the black vote against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards?"  

    The answer is undoubtably "no".  Forget Clinton for a moment, and focus on Edwards. In 2004, John Edwards won 37% of the African American vote... he was an inexperience candidate with a good speech (Two Americas)...but he was also a "favorite son" (born and raised in South Carolina).  In 2008, Edwards got only 4% of the black vote in SC, despite spending four years emphasizing issue of traditional concern in the black community.

    Moreover, based on SUSA polls, Obama already had 69% of the SC African American vote before the New Hampshire primary which was wholly responsible for his 20 point overall lead.

    IMHO, the Obama campaign played the race card NOT to attract more African American voters, but to make the subject of his race as the main reason for his sucess radioactive.   And it worked -- not only was Bill Clinton vilified for stating the obvious, but the fact that Obama owed his victories to "positive racial bias" among African Americans, and sexism and misogyny among white males, was practically forbidden.  


    the problem with your comment (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:24:18 AM EST
    is Bill Clinton was basically called a racist by Jim Clyburn.

    Bill and Hillary were called racists (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    by the Obama campaign memo distributed in SC to his campign workers and sent out to the press.

    "THE ONE" began with Obama - not McCain (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:11:48 AM EST
    when Obama cheered Oprah telling AAs to vote for THE ONE -
    the AA one. Obamabots seem to forget that fact.

    Many South Carolina AAs would probably have voted for Hillary. Hence, Obama had to cast the Clintons as racists.

    Except Bill made his unfortunte remark (1.00 / 9) (#42)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:14:42 AM EST
    on the day of the primary.  So all of that had NOTHING to do with the SC primary results.

    Oh, and hate to tell you this, but the primaries are over.  Siding with McCain means you are for the 3rd term of the Bush presidency.


    Are you an emissary from the Obama (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:17:46 AM EST
    campaign or DK or both?

    No. But the site owners have said that (2.66 / 3) (#63)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    they are in support of Barack Obama for President, and wish him to win the race over McSame.  Your anti-Democratic rants are simply being called on.

    I am a member of this community post-primaries, and you can see I mostly come here to defend John Kerry who is constantly being attacked unfairly.  (he has the double whammy problem of winning the 2004 primary AND being an endorser of the winner of the 2008 primary.  How dare he??!!??)


    Triple whammy because he LOST the general (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:27:19 AM EST
    election.  He's a loser who would not defend himself against the swiftboat attacks.  

    Whose anti-Democratic rants? (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:30:58 AM EST
    the onyl ones I see are yours against Bill Clinton.

    He is a Democrat you know. Last Dem President.


    So your screeds against everyone who is not Bill (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    are just fine and dandy, eh?  

    Hate to tell you this, but not being for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:19:11 AM EST
    does not mean being for McCain.  Get a grip.

    The poster thinks McCain's (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    ridiculous ad has a point.  He/she is siding with McCain on something even Newsweek thinks is ridiculous:

    Read it yourself.


    "...EVEN Newsweek..."??? (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by kempis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:45:23 AM EST
    Newsweek has been in the tank for Obama since the primaries began. Jonathan Alter was among the first calling for Hillary to drop out back in March--after she won three out of four primaries on 3/4. Alter and Wolff have serious crushes on Obama and frequently appear on their corporate cousin network, MSNBC, to spin for him.

    So it's not at all noteworthy that Newsweek is carrying water for Obama. Now, if Newsweek says something critical of Obama, that's news.


    Newsweek? I believe (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:51:32 AM EST
    J Alter was one of the many in the MSM beating the drum that the Clintons were now officially racist.

    Get a grip. Calling Obama out on having smeared the Clintons left and right is NOT supporting McCain. McCain, who has a very real point in the race card being played by Obama. Obama is only outraged now because McCain had the stones to actually call him on it...while Hillary is the epitome of class and could never say the same.


    how convenient (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:24:26 AM EST
    You sound like (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    that poster who was banned under four or five different posting names.

    I use the same username at Kos. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    I am no sockpuppet.  That would be unfortunate if I were banned for standing up for the Democratic nominee.  

    this is not a cheerleader site (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:32:21 AM EST
    there are plenty of those if that is what you are looking for.

    you won;t be banned (5.00 / 11) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:33:34 AM EST
    But you are not standing up for the Dem nominee, who is not attacked in this post, you are attacking the last Dem President we had.

    As I wrote yesterday, it is people like you who do Obama the most harm.


    "do Obama the most harm" (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    why can they not see this?

    Once again, did this interview Bill give (2.00 / 5) (#178)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    help or hinder Obama?  And don't tell me Bill had no choice but talk about what the reporter questioned him on.  He is the former President of the United States, and could have told her in no uncertain terms that a rehash of the primary in any form was not going to be discussed.  What is important is electing Barack Obama POTUS.  A statesman would have been able to pull that off, and I am wondering where Bill Clinton, the statesman, went.

    Once again.. (5.00 / 4) (#192)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    You're making the mistake that many Clinton haters make: you think that Bill and Hillary Clinton are calculating, ruthless politicians, and that every word out of their mouth is meant to further their cause.

    That's why Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly have actually teared up. That's why any remote reference to race was obviously meant to inject race into the primaries. And that's why, even now, you can't admit that Bill Clinton is a human being who is genuinely hurt by what happened.


    Are you helping or hindering now? (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    A good party man, (4.92 / 13) (#190)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    a good statement, would NEVER HAVE ACCUSED CLINTONS OF racism.

    If nothing else, it's not good FOR THE PARTY to trash the last successful Democratic president.

    So it's good for the party to trash the Clintons to win, but it's not good for the party if the Clintons rightfully defend themselves.

    Bullsh*t. Is all I have to say to that.


    Heh. (4.50 / 2) (#129)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    As in the primaries, you, like many Obama supporters, can't seem to talk about Obama's qualifications (go to his website).

    No.  Your tactic seems to be to trash anyone you perceive to be a threat to his election chances, including successful dem politicians.

    If Obama can't win on the merits, he doesn't deserve to win.

    I suggest you go back to your drawing board and come up with valid reasons to vote for him other than he's not McCain.

    Otherwise, we'll continue to tune you out.


    I have always talked about Obama (none / 0) (#186)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    in terms of substance.

    Here, here, and here.

    Don't stereotype.  Why are "Obama supporters" the enemy here?  Or rather, supporters of the Democratic nominee.


    Some Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    have made other dems the enemy. From the minute John Edwards dropped out, Hillary hate and cries of racist became the norm.

    Kos is no longer a website I have any interest in visiting, since it contained some of the worst offenders.


    Beachmom, I have to agree (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:27:45 AM EST
    in your characterization of Bill's SC remarks as "unfortunate", and that's from a solid HRC backer in the primaries who's a loyal BC backer.  I strongly suspect that was one statement Bill alluded to in the ABC interview that he'd like to do over.  It was probably one of those well-intentioned things -- historically accurate at least -- which can all too easily get misinterpreted or misused in the heat of political battle.

    And, as you note, the AA vote was switching heavily to O well before Bill opened up about Jesse Jackson-Obama.  I believe that began certainly post-October debate, the MSNBC bad one for Hillary, and post-IA, when blacks began to see he was not only viable (i.e., not JJ) but could even win the nom.

    I hope TeamO can get together and mend fences with Bill.  But his testy brief ABC interview doesn't tend at all to make it more likely O will pick Hillary.


    Unfortunate? (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:37:14 AM EST
    Baloney.  Pointing out historical facts is not unfortunate:  

    On Saturday, as Sen. Barack Obama was sweeping up the South Carolina primary, former Pres. Bill Clinton was busy downplaying the significance of Obama's impending win, casting it as a function of the state's demographics and the Illinois senator's heavy African American support. "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88," Clinton said at a rally in Columbia. "Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

    There was nothing in those remarks that hurt Obama.


    Yeah, as I noted above (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    Bill uttered an historical truth, which in most ordinary circumstances should be no problemo.  But a very heated primary contest, against a very hot AA opponent, was anything but ordinary.

    So, the political truth of it is that it was one of those comments which a smart pol should know can easily be twisted or misinterpreted by the oppo or Clinton-hating MCM.  Sort of like the historical truth uttered by Hillary about MLK/JFK/LBJ and Obama.  

    Both became distracting, negative and unhelpful stories for the Clinton campaign for days, and in the CDS media context were probably best avoided by both those normally smart pols.


    brodie, (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    there wasn't anything the Clintons could say or not say that would have helped avoid distracting, negative, or unhelpful stories.

    Nothing.  CDS and sexism were rampant.  That Hillary almost pulled it off by actually appealing to voters because of fighting spirit and her knowledge of the issues says so much more about her as a candidate and as a person.


    Clinton's remark didn't start the racism charges (5.00 / 10) (#83)
    by kempis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:29:03 AM EST
    They began immediately after the New Hampshire primary when Jesse Jackson Jr. said in a television interview that Hillary cried for herself but "not for Katrina victims." They continued when Bill Clinton said Obama's Iraq War stance was "a fairy tale," which Donna Brazile and others implied was a racist remark. And it continued when Hillary said that while MLK inspired the Civil Rights Act, it took LBJ's armtwisting to get the bill passed.

    The Obama campaign played the race card heavily throughout all of January precisely to pull AA voters in SC and the South from the Clintons. It worked. It also set in motion a working class white backlash. They're about to make the same mistake in the general election.


    I think it all started (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    in the media after NH by exhuming the infamous "Bradley Effect".  

    Everyone knows the race baiting (1.41 / 12) (#99)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:33:48 AM EST
    started prior to Iowa when Shaheen implied Obama was a drug dealer (with Fox News style question marks that he said the GOP would ask).  And, yes, I view it as race baiting because admitted drug users Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and John Kerry were never ever ever accused of drug dealing.

    Sigh.  This is getting us nowhere.  I will disengage.

    I just wish Bill would be a grown up, and tell the reporter that there was no way he was going to rehash the primaries, and that what is most important is getting Barack Obama elected POTUS.  He should have refused to get into it.


    "Everyone knows" (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:35:35 AM EST
    And you wonder why Bill Clinton is defending himself.

    With supporters like you, Obama needs no opponents.


    Am I correct that Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    state, in Iowa, pre caucuses, the ain't no black people in Iowa?  Was that a racist comment on her part?  I don't think so.  Shaheen's comment wasn't either, IMO, as Obama admits in one of his memoirs using cocaine while living in Chicago.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    I am pretty sure Michelle's comment was post-Iowa, as the point was that Barack had won in a state without any significant black population.

    As to Shaheen's comment, it is one of those unfortunate statements that fits within a racial trope, but the idea that he sat around thinking "I know, I'll suggest the black guy is a drug dealer!" as if he wouldn't have said the exact same thing about a white candidate is rather silly IMO.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    I thought Shaheen's comment was racist. But it was certainly not helpful politically and he was immediately ousted from the Clinton campaign.

    everyone doesn't know MUCH (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    because all you were made aware of is what was reported.

    Do you know what question Shaheen was asked?
    Do you know the entire answer he gave?
    Do you know that what Sheheen said is that he feared the issue of drugs would be used against him by Repugs.  He didn't say it was an issue he held against Obama.

    And actually, wasn't the first set of comments that were attacked the ones made by fmr Sen Bob Kerrey when he was discussing (again without us being told the question and full answer) the false rumors about Obama being muslim?


    You know why? Because to SOME (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    people getting St Obama elected IS not the most important thing.  To me it certainly isn't.  I'm still enraged at the way Obama himself and all his surrogates painted the Clintons as evil and racist. Donna Brazile should be ashamed of herself and whenever I see her face on TV I want to throw something at it.

    Then clearly it did not start with Clinton's (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by kempis on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:54:46 AM EST
    remarks on the day of the SC primary--which is what you originally implied.

    I thought we were talking about South Carolina. But sure, Shaheen's remarks were outrageous. If you can show where Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton said or even countenanced anything comparable, you may have a case.

    But they didn't. Still, there are "Democrats" all too willing to brand the Clintons as racists or race-baiters to this day. And that's a shame. Furthermore, it's stupid politics. If Obama supporters would like to win in November, they'd do well not to alienate other Democrats.


    You ever heard of Jim Clyburn? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM EST
    Oh, you mean the guy Bill shouted expletives (1.66 / 9) (#75)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM EST
    at?  THAT Clyburn, who simply was standing up for his constituents who were outraged by Bill's behavior?

    I mean do you guys actually talk to your African American friends?  If you did, you would know how hurt they were by Bill's remarks on the day of the South Carolina primary.  Obama didn't make him say those words.  He did it himself.

    I can tell you that if Bill were to show one moment of grace, then all would be forgiven.  But no, he keeps digging that hole a bit deeper.


    Bill Clinton has worked harder (5.00 / 9) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:29:17 AM EST
    to make the lives of AAs better in this country than you or anyone you know.
    he was naive enough to point out that Jackson won the SC primary.  twice.  imagining that people would see it for what it was.  a fact.  
    speaking of holes.  keep digging.  just keep digging.

    Bill should have kicked his a** (5.00 / 8) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    for what he said.

    Yeah, that one. The one who intimated Bill Clinton was a racist.

    THAT disgraceful jerk Jim Clyburn.

    Do you know who I am talking about now?


    I don't share your viewpoint of Clyburn. (1.00 / 0) (#103)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    Of course you do not (5.00 / 15) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:36:42 AM EST
    You think the Clintons DID engage in racist tactics and are proud to keep saying it.

    And you wonder why Clinton is defending himself.

    Again, with supporters like you, Obama needs no opponents.


    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:42:10 AM EST
    Your black friends are apparently a lot more thin-skinned than my black friends.  "you would know how hurt they were"?  Seriously?

    My black friends were a heck of a lot more impressed by Obama's win in Iowa than by anything he did in South Carolina.  Why?  Because they're not stupid!


    Excuse me, I'm black (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:53:57 AM EST
    and couldn't care less.  Neither did anyone in my family (who have relative down south.)  BC only stated facts.  Folks who's perspective has been impacted by things in the past that have have happened to them, family, or friends may share your viewpoint, but be assured, we don't all think alike.  By your logic, I could call YOU racist because you think all black folks think the same.  Doesn't feel good does it?  Did you go out and speak to every black person in SC or a few who shared your perspective?

    So Bill running off his mouth is ... (1.58 / 12) (#38)
    by beachmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    Obama's fault?  How's that for twisted logic.  Also, please show me where Obama called Bill a "racist".  You'll never find it because it never happened.  What Bill did do was to put down Obama's win in South Carolina as something just black candidates do, like Jesse Jackson.  But whatever -- remain tone deaf, as you like.

    Here is what we should really be asking:  when will the former president start acting ... presidential?

    Funny. (5.00 / 11) (#44)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:15:33 AM EST
    So after months of seeing you and your wife painted as racist, while you've been on the good side of the race argument all your life, you're supposed to just shut up?

    Oh yeah, that makes sense. Let's slander someone and expect them not to say anything.

    That's not how it works.


    You did hear the Obama (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    campaign's reaction to Bill Clinton's describing Obama's explanation of his record on Iraq war as "fairy tale,"  right?  This is old ground, often plowed here.

    Do you ever actually respond to posts? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:16:36 AM EST
    Try to read before you write.

    Acting presidential? Like working in Africa on (5.00 / 13) (#47)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:16:44 AM EST
    AIDS issues as I type this?  Such as starting a non-profit foundation and funneling ungodly sums of money to poor people in poor countries; such as sending ungodly amounts of money to Katrina victims because our own government failed these people?  What part of that is not presidential?????

    Well (5.00 / 9) (#54)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    Could you please show me where Bill said Obama's win in South Carolina was "something just black candidates do"?

    Oh, wait, we're apparently allowed to attach our own interpretations to what Bill Clinton says.  But with Obama, if he did not literally say "Bill Clinton is a racist," then nothing else matters!

    You will always win the argument - at least in your own mind - if you invent such silly ground rules for yourself.  The rest of us will just laugh at the person who simultaneously denied Bill Clinton was portrayed as a racist in the primary, and then said "remain tone deaf, as you like," in the exact same post!


    you do recall the debate (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:26:32 AM EST
    that occured after SC where Tim Russert confronted Obama with the memo his campaign had distributed in SC trainging his supporters there in just which statements from the Clintons should ber used against them and labelled as race baiting?

    If you are going to continue to use the "it did come directly out of Obama's mouth using those exact words", then you will need to stop accusing other people by "inference" such as Clinton and McCain as well.  Because I'm sure you cannot show me one time where John McCain has actually said "be afraid of Obama because he is black"  or "be afraid of Obama because he doesn't look like past presidents", can you?


    The Big Dog Can't Dog Whistle Anymore? (1.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Lynn Dee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    I agree that Bill and Clinton aren't racists. But I also think they came of political age in an era when you could dog whistle in one venue and not worry about it reaching national attention, at least not right away -- and further, that they're cynical enough to do just that.

    Unfortunately, in the 24/7 cable news cycle, you can't count on those tactics -- or indeed, every little hiccup and burp -- not reaching national attention immediately.

    So that's what happened. Bill dog-whistled, and everybody heard it. And it's a shame -- I used to love to listen to him speak on just about any subject. He always had something thought-provoking and just plain ol' enlightening to say. And I guess I still would love to hear him speak. But my opinion of him has definitely changed.

    Do I think he's a racist? No. Do I think he's cynical enough to dog-whistle and attempt to divide by race if he thinks it'll help him or Hillary win an election and that he can get away with it? Yes. Definitely.

    what do you think of this? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    Bayh is Obama's VP?

    http://www.ObamaBayh08.com goes to official Dem Party site.
    Using "Clinton" and "Kaine" - nada.

    Anyone can set that up. (none / 0) (#48)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:17:02 AM EST
    I could have. This domain seems to have been reserved by someone called "joe chan" in MA (as can be seen from the public WHOIS info).

    Doesn't seem official to me at all.


    Completely meaningless (none / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    Whoever bought the domain chose to point it to the DNC site.

    I think it is off topic (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    this is NOT an Open Thread.

    all of you, stay on topic please.


    Question (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:22:36 AM EST
    I can't view the front-page of talk-left because of the new video up on Jeralyn's post frezzes the rest of the screen.  I also can't post on that thread (which is why I am posting this question here).  Is this a problem with my computer or the site?  Sorry this is off-topic but I thought I would let you know if it is a problem with the site.

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:57:07 AM EST
    I have to find the posts and comments through back-door measures.

    Ratings are meaningless here (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM EST
    The one thing I will not police in my threads is ratings. They are a waste of time. No comments are hidden by ratings.

    I delete them in my threads. If someone has a beef with that, they can e-mail me.

    Remember my rule, no discussing my moderation in a thread. Your only recourse is to e-mail me.

    I told my friends, (none / 0) (#127)
    by Lil on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    who supported Obama way back that they shouldn't do this. I remember saying "If they think the Clintons are racist, wait till the Republicans start throttling Obama."  They tripped over themselves trying to prove to me that Hillary was wretched. I might be enjoying the comeupppance if I didn't want a Dem victory so badly. He should pick Hillary; unite the damn party and go kick some Republican a$$.

    Bill not racist we know this (none / 0) (#224)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    When Bill made a comparison between Obama's win in SC with that of Jesse Jackson winning there in 84 and 88 he was marginalizing Obama's win. Some read that as racist. It wasn't. And so, he shouldn't have had to say he wasn't a racist because he's not and just about everyone knows it. However, the question wasn't out-of-bounds. Are any questions out-of-bounds?

    Errata (none / 0) (#227)
    by Lynn Dee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 04:34:47 PM EST
    Rats. I meant "Bill and Hillary Clinton" at the outset of my last post.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#228)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:27:00 PM EST
    and once again, do not rate comments a "1" because you disagree with the point of view expressed. A 1" means it's a comment in violation of site rules.

    I have erased all comment ratings for some posters who have routinely assigned "1"'s to comments based on point of view.

    Bill's status doesn't change (none / 0) (#229)
    by SWPAnnA on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:06:05 PM EST
    Bill is a hero in his own right.  Who else could have won Hillary?  No matter what is said about him weighing down her chances, he's the love of her life and a far greater gift to USA than bHO can ever hope to be.  BILL'S achievements are already on the books.  Obambots can chant "Yes We Can," but they still have to DO IT!

    Speak what's on your mind, Mr. President.  You are the picture in the dictionary when we look up the meaning of Leadership, and your comments come from the divine light of your heart and world class spirit.

    I question the timing (none / 0) (#230)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:22:49 AM EST
    Why does Bill have to bring up the race issue now?  He knows it's hurting Obama.  This looks like more (subconscious?) sabotage from a man who can't give up the spotlight.  There will be time for Bill to lick his wounds later.