Bill Clinton On Jim Clyburn

My personal feelings on the disgraceful behavior of Rep. Jim Clyburn are no secret. In the GMA interview aired this morning, it turns out President Clinton made his feelings about Jim Clyburn quite clear as well:

SNOW: Yeah. Well, people are already studying [the 2008 Democratic primary.] And a lot of people, including your supporters, your donors, say that they blame you at least in part, for her loss. I know you've heard this. . . . Do you blame yourself at all?

BILL CLINTON: I've heard it from the press. And I will not comment on this because it interferes with the issue, which is who should be elected in November. I made hundreds and hundreds of speeches, Kate. I bragged on Senator Obama hundreds of times. Now, I will be glad, as soon as this election is over in January, to have this conversation with you and everybody else. I have very strong feelings about it.

[. . .] I live out here in the fact based world -- Well, first of all, you say I don't like this type of modern reporting that says, so-and-so anonymous says this. You know they all say this.

SNOW: Jim Clyburn. Not anonymous. New York Times came out--

BILL CLINTON: Not my supporter. Jim Clyburn

SNOW: A long friend of yours. A longtime friend.

BILL CLINTON: Used to be. He is not my-- He was not Hillary's supporter. Never. Not ever. Not for a day.

SNOW: He said you said you lost a lot of African-American support? [. . . ] He said you severely damaged your standing with African-American support?

BILL CLINTON: First of all-- Yeah. That may be by the time he [Clyburn] got through working on it, that was probably true. But that's not the same thing. You said I hurt her.

SNOW: I said, your supporters are saying --

BILL CLINTON: No, you said my supporters and then you cited Jim Clyburn. . . .

If and when President Clinton wants to write about the disgraceful Jim Clyburn, I'll gather all the evidence for him for free. Hell, I already have. What Jim Clyburn did in this election should not be forgotten by anyone. In my view, he was the most disgraceful person of this entire process. Personally, I plan to do my best to make sure no one ever forgets what he did.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed

< Ted Kennedy Tapes Video for Democratic Convention | Send Good Thoughts to Morgan Freeman >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    McCain may be quite grateful for (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:57:58 PM EST
    what Clyburn did, by the time the election is over.

    easy for mccain to play (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by sancho on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    obama like a fiddle on race b/c his campaign does not  care about it and cant be frightened or guilted over the subject. as i recall, mccain did not vote for the mlk holiday and sometiems has spent that day pointedly not celebrating it. not an issue you can get mccain on as long as he sounds reasonable. the dem primary, however, is contested among and decided largely by guilty white liberals (hence our long line of failed nominees, except for bill and jimmy, southern boys) and thus the "race" card worked there. in the ge obama needs to go post-racial again, imo, and keep clyburn from the stage. clyburn's done his work and it may be that clyburn influenced more white guilty liberals than he did african americans to vote for obama during the primaries.  

    "it may . . (none / 0) (#210)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:41:39 PM EST
    . . . be that clyburn influenced more white guilty liberals than he did african americans to vote for obama during the primaries."

    not only do I think thats true, I think it was always the intent.
    he had the AA vote.  


    Don't you think Obama is in serious (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    trouble now, and over exactly this issue?
    He has gone down several points since McCain charged him with using the race card.

    Rasmussen shows McCain ahead (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    today, btw.

    The race-card issue is definitely hurting him (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by rjarnold on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:26:34 PM EST
    Rasmussen also polled Obama's comment about dollar bills and found that 53% of all voters thought it was racist.

    And with McCain's Hilton ad 69% have seen it and only 22% of those think the ad was racist. The ad is juvenile and has a lie in it, but many of Obama's supporters (like Olbermann) are so dumb that their talking point against it is that it is racist.  


    I've Been Thinking For A Couple Days (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    the the Obama campaign and thousands of supporters are going back to the 'race-baiting' strategy because it worked so well in the primaries.  But they are pitching it to a very different audience, and one who isn't going to be nearly as sympathetic.  The far, radical left won't have the same influence on the election as they had in the primary.  It's rather dumb, really, but once they start down that path, they won't be able to walk it back.

    "Radical Left"? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    I think most here think that Obama is not sufficiently strong in his willingness to stand for progressive values....

    I do believe most here are on the Left side of things...

    Calling Obama Radical Left just struck me as funny....


    It Would Be Funny (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    had I called him that.  But I didn't.

    His supporters aren't doing it 'because it worked' (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by rjarnold on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    they are doing it because they honestly believe that certain things (like the Hilton ad) are racist. What they don't realize is that it doesn't matter even if it is racist, since race accusations will hurt Obama and distract from more obvious criticisms.

    At least I think the Obama campaign learned it's lesson, and he probably won't be saying things like the "dollar bill" comment anymore.


    Yeah, but Obama (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    has opened the door.  Now it will seem reasonable to accuse him of playing the race card.  

    I have no sympathy for him on this since his campaign was the one that brought this stuff into the race.  When they started confusing historial facts with racism, that was more than enough for me.  


    olbermann is likely (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by sancho on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    an unwiting mccain asset at this point. he'll keep the race card prominent thorughout the fall. dotn see how that can help obama. btd is right: this strategy may do obama in (though i know btd also thinks obama is shoe-in).

    Bill Clinton & Hillary Clinton are Masters (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:02:56 PM EST
    at taking questions under fire. His interview was fantastic, and if it hurt Obama it certainly is obvious that result would be on the back of the Media, and NOT Bill Clinton. Snow's line of questioning was typical baiting..."your supporters say"! WTH? She sure couldn't name one.

    Has Obama lost his media darling status? Snow looked like her mission was to get him to say something very negative about Obama, but Bill kept his praise high and his criticism against others (media, Clyburn, etc.).

    Heh! (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    I love watching Bill and Hillary snap those b*t*d reporters like the insignificant twigs they are.  Journalists continue to think they can outsmart two of the smartest and most gifted debaters in politics.  Don't you think reporters and interviewers would ever get tired of having their a$$e$ handed to them?

    That's why people like Olberman and Maddow never take on the Clintons directly.  They could never handle getting dressed down like that.  


    And it is why the MSM (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:34:34 PM EST
    did a hatchet job on the Clintons.  The media hates that Bill and Hillary are smarter than them, and ten times more likeable.  Russert, Matthews and all of Welch's millionaire pundit club did every thing possible to destroy Billa and Hillary in the 90s and failed and it still p*sses them off.  

    Maddow is disappointingly a female version of the NBC pundit crew and Olberman is an egomaniac jock wannabee.  They cannot get past the fact that Bill and Hillary don't fear them (hell what more can the jerks do to either of them), and have made fools of them for exposing their biases and their lies.


    He is so sharp (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    I love the 'you said my supporters and then mentioned Jim Clyburn' part. (not exact quote I know)

    I'd love to see him and Hillary do a media take-down documentary.


    they are both to smart (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    they think long term and I suspect they think its entirely possible she will be back in 4 years.

    I would also agree with everything everyone has said about the media doing a hit job on Hillary and Bill.
    that is not why Hillary lost.  Hillary lost because of bad planning and bad organization.
    wont happen again.


    True ... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    but Axelrod's strategy shouldn't have worked.  It required too many things to fall into place.  And even though most of them did it still almost unraveled at the end.

    The real end is the GE (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    and it does appear this is unraveling.

    Could be ... (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    and if Obama loses the GE, how he won the primaries isn't going to be of much less interest to future candidates.

    But I don't see Obama unraveling yet.  Last week was a good week for McCain.  Maybe McCain can build on that.  Maybe Obama can push back.

    We'll see.


    The race for top disgrace... (5.00 / 13) (#5)
    by Marco21 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    was pretty close looking back. I still have to give it to Keith for his embarrassing special comment regarding Hillary's RFK remarks.  I still can't believe anyone with a shred of intelligence bought that crap.

    But wow, did he have still competition in the race to the bottom of the barrel's underside.

    Jesse Jackson Jr (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    was right there with the rest of the pack.

    And, I will never have any respect fo Donna Brazile ever again.

    I'd throw Ted Kennedy in the list, but he's sick.


    You beat me to it by seconds (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    on JJJr.

    I totally give Teddy a pass, though, because of the way his whole psyche is wrapped around his brothers and his yearning to see someone pick up the torch before he dies.  When Caroline drank the Kool-Aid, it was simply too much for him.


    well, two different issues with him (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM EST
    THere was the fact that it came out he was upset about theLBJ/MLK controversy because he thought it "dissed" JFK.

    More important to me was that he allowed the Obama camp to say Hillary lied about her work on SCHIP.  When at teh time it passed, Kennedy sid it would never have passed without her.  When asked directly about this by a reporter, Kennedy said "no comment".


    not JFK (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    THere was the fact that it came out he was upset about theLBJ/MLK controversy because he thought it "dissed" JFK.

    he made it 'racial' -- Clyburns' remarks were aimed at portraying Clinton as denigrating MLK, not JKF (and he also helped spread the 'fairy tale' lie).  

    Indeed, BTD is absolutely right -- when I went looking for the Clyburn quote, I found a plethora of racially inflammatory remarks by him -- I was actually surprised as the level of 'race-boating' since I hadn't followed Clyburn's involvement that closely.


    it was after those same remarks (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:50:57 PM EST
    that Ted came out to support Obama.  Ted too initially said it was because he felt the "tone" of the campaign was going too negative.  But, a week or so later, it was reported that Teddy was actually upset that by mentioning LBJ and MLK and making no mention of JFK's role in civil rights, that Hillary had dissed his brother.

    The fact is though that JFK wanted nothing to do with the civil rights issues.  He thought it was too damaging politically.


    yep (none / 0) (#159)
    by bigbay on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    and there are taped phone calls to the govenors of Miss and Alabama to prove it.

    LBJ got civil rights done. He destroyed his considerable legacy in Vietnam.


    Clyburn vs. Ted (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:45:32 PM EST
    Clyburn said it denigrated MLK, but Ted Kennedy thought it denigrated JFK.  Different perspectives.  I suspect Ted is a bit "sensitive" to his famimly's legacy.

    you're correct.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    I messed up because I didn't realize the discussion was about Teddy.

    Yeah, Ted. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ghost2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:57:20 PM EST
    Was he this upset about the innocents in the wars being displaced and losing their lives??

    some days, I hate the narcissist politicians who think everything is about them.

    My point, though, still stands.  That was a fake outrage created by the Obama campaign for the media (very similar to Hillary's RFK remarks when they were pushing the story behind the scences, but were trying to have crocodile tears for Hillary in public). It was a fake outrage, and Teddy Kennedy knew fully that it was a fake outrage.    I am sure he had been ready for at least a year and half to endorse Obama.

    Obama started with seed money, networks, stuff you just don't get out of the blue.  He needed inside backers like Daschle, Kerry, and Kennedy to start.  He is the most insider of insiders.


    Oh, please. (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by ghost2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy's behavior was vile and disgusting.  Of course, his support for Obama had been known months (probably the year in advance).  Same as Kerry's.  I bet you a million electrons on that.

    They just came out and brought the crap, to embarrass Hillary and call her names.

    The only way Obama could win was to constantly play up Media's hatred of Clintons, to say Hillary is polarizing, to basically re-open republcian playbooks against Clintons and add racism to it.  To basically say, look, Hillary has negatives and she can never win. Positive campaigning, my ass. I followed this campaign, and the one who was constantly positive was Hillary.

    This was Team Obama's strategy from freaking DAY ONE.  Period.  Just smear Hillary and beat up on her with the help of the media.  Whatever works. And because Obama is black, use any opportunity to accuse whatever Team Clinton (and others say) of being racist.  

    I don't know if they had counted on misogeny.  I am sure, Obama being a smart person, noticed it at least in as-es like Kerry and Ted Kennedy.  And used that too.  

    Hate to say this. I am sure there were some democratic black politicians who typically answered any critism by saying, "look, my opponent is racist", and now it's biting everyone back in the a--.  If the whole white working class gets pissed off royally and votes against Obama for it, I don't blame them.

    The worst insult in America is calling someone racist, period.  And Obama campaign did it to Hillary, to Hillary's supporters, and to everyone who opposed them on any grounds.

    At the end of the day, Ted K is still a politician and I remember being mad as hell when he came out with huge fanfare to pass the torch (and remember how many 'dynasty' comments we got from Obama supporters on blogs and media). Funny, isn't it??  

    BTW, backing Obama has helped Caroline get a good start on politics. That's how it works.  Of course, do you think Hillary could get away with putting a total novice in charge of vetting VP's? OF course, not. Look for Caroline to run for some office in maximum 2 years.  Her kids are grown up, and she is ready to get there.

    Perhaps, Teddy wants Caroline to be the first woman president in 2016 or 2020.  Don't say I didn't warn you.  


    Oh boy, you may have figured it out (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    in that last sentence.

    (But I suppose I ought to say "oh girl" or be called out again.  However, it just doesn't have the same meaning in the English language as once I knew it.)


    I love this last part. (5.00 / 17) (#6)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Says it all, I think:

    But I love what I'm doing now. And that's why I really admire how Hillary's handling this. You know, she went right back to work. You have to live in the moment. Time is passing. You can't make yesterday again. You have to live in the moment and go forward. And at least for people like us what you do and whether people are better off when you quit than started is a lot more important than whether you navigate the prevailing story line.

    Good for you.

    BTW, (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    I think this last comment:

    And at least for people like us what you do and whether people are better off when you quit than started is a lot more important than whether you navigate the prevailing story line.

    IOW, the Clintons have a history of doing, of helping people to better their lives.  They don't feel it's important to get caught up in media controversies which deflect attention from what is important.  Of course, some need to do that because the resume is a bit thin.



    When Clyburn started to lie (5.00 / 14) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    January BEFORE South Carolina:

    In a recent interview with The New York Times, Clyburn said he was disappointed with comments from Hillary Clinton that some took to suggest President Lyndon Johnson had more to do with passing the Civil Rights Act than Martin Luther King Jr. [Hillary NEVER SAID THAT and Clyburn lied about it.]

    "We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics," the South Carolina congressman said at the time. "It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone's motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal."

    He also expressed frustration over Bill Clinton's recent remark that the characterization of Obama's record on Iraq as consistently antiwar is a "fairy tale."

    Jim Clyburn is a lying sack of crap.


    The ahistorical contortions (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    that people had to go through in order to attack Hillary over that comment really upset me.

    question is, who was he lying for (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:16:14 PM EST
    He certainly was, and I assume still is, a lying sack of crap. And there are many political operatives that do this and will do worse to get their man elected. It's a contact sport after all. But the question is, was he doing that on his own, or was he working with the campaign. After all, it worked.

    Apparently Jim lacks moral fiber. To quote Pappy from our favorite movie: "Moral fiber? I invented moral fiber, you pasty-faces sumbich. Why, I was practicing moral rectitude while your boss was messin' his drawers!"


    "I invented moral fiber" (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    comparable to "I invented change"

    Yes, he is. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ghost2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:38:06 PM EST
    And it goes for many Obama supporters and their helpers in media.

    The Hill had it on Jan. 16, '08 (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by wurman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:10:14 PM EST
    Mike Soraghan wrote (link):
    Clyburn said he spoke to Bill Clinton within an hour of the lawmaker's return from a 10-day trip abroad. The swiftness with which the Clintons reached out to Clyburn highlights the urgency and importance of the issue.

    He said Bill Clinton sought to explain what he meant by his heavily scrutinized "fairy tale" comment, and Clyburn said he took the former president at his word. It is unclear who initiated the conversations, though Clyburn suggested that Bill Clinton reached out to him, saying he "heard" from the ex-president.

    The Big Dog told Clyburn what had occurred & how the remark was distorted.

    Then the House Democratic whip went out on the media circuit & to SC & ripped Pres. Clinton & Sen. Clinton (who had also explained to Clyburn the factual take on her LBJ/MLK remarks).

    He also said Bill Clinton's description of Obama's campaign narrative as a "fairy tale" seemed insulting.

    From Pres. Clinton's point of view Clyburn did more than "lie."  He outright contradicted & debased the Big Dog's explanation.  The whip is a weasel (Hoyerism, anyone?  Seems to pervade the Dem leadership, don't you think?)

    Shame on Jim, heh.


    Sorta confused (2.20 / 5) (#70)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    I did HEAR HER say something of the sort.  The Clintons said stuff that was over the line of what was okay (not racist- but definitly the black community didn't appreciate the comments- the 2 that irked me the most were the SC comments and the hard working white AMerican comment).  They did try to remind white America that they candidate they were running against was black, and in a society were that is a negative, it is just not a very nice thing to do (but who said politics is supposed to be nice)

    Also, did Clyburn ever call her or him a racist (question?).


    what?!? (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:24:54 PM EST
    >>>>the 2 that irked me the most were the SC comments and the hard working white AMerican comment

    Hillary merely cited polling data that indicated the white working class wasn't voting for Obama.
    Apparently, you bought Obamabots faux outrage.
    See how easy it is to label people "racists"??
    A major reason this Dem family will not vote for Obama! and reward his race-baiting and potential to damage others' reputations.
    Obama used race-baiting throughout the primary and it continues. Why would he stop as president?


    I heard the comments myself (1.00 / 1) (#206)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    And then made the judgement myself, without something brainwashing me.  

    Don't vote for him then.


    Well, we in the black community need to get (5.00 / 10) (#212)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    a little thicker skinned.  When folks outside the community (and btw, the community should be America, not just those of the same skin color) says things that can be interpreted as somewhat inflammatory, we shouldn't always assume that they are.  Hillary Clinton was running against a black man - this is true.  Black folks would likely vote him en masse - this is true, I can admit it, and so should you.  Is there anything wrong w/voting for him out of pride - even if that's the only reason?  Of course not.  People have a right to vote for someone for whatever reason they want, that's the whole point, your vote is your own.  What we should be doing is saving the admonitions on racism for when they really happen.  These cries of racism when there's no consensus in the black community they're even true (even the supposed target didn't believe it) don't help the cause.  The Clinton's weren't reminding anyone that he was black in a negative way.  In addition, Bill was the only one who said anything - and what he said was the truth.  This is what irks me.  People got all upset about it, and it turned exactly as he said it would.  Blacks would've voted for Obama in the largely the same numbers even if Bill had said nothing.

    Oh please. (4.40 / 5) (#111)
    by echinopsia on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:23:06 PM EST
    Bill's remarks in SC were in no way "over the line" - how is it racist to say two black candidates ran good campaigns in SC?

    If "hard working white Americans" is racist, then so is every pollster who uses the term.

    It's a demographic. It is in no way a racial slur.

    As for reminding Americans Obama is black - he does that himself more than anyone else.


    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    Thanks for correcting how I (and most black people I know- I live in Detroit and lived for most of my life in Oakland Ca) thought about the comments.  

    I don't understand why there is such a need to defend these comments.  They were stupid.  They don't make them evil people.   If comments like this were the definition of evil, I would have no white friends, and as it is, my best friend is a white guy :).  


    Then perhaps as an African American (5.00 / 11) (#216)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    you can kindly explain how comparing Obama's results in SC to Jesse Jackson's results are an insult.  As someone who supported Jackson in the 80s, who continues to admire what Jesse has done in the civil rights arena at a time when it was not an easy task to bring injustice to light, I find it insulting to categorizing being compared to Jesse insulting.

    Yes, they are both black men.  Just like Bill Clinton was compared to Jimmy Carter because they were both SOUTHERN white males from baptist backgrounds. Just like when another woman runs a successful race for president she will be compared to Hillary Clinton because they are both women.  It's called demographics.  It's called statistics.

    How a candidate does with black voters is often stated as a part of demographics.  Is that racist?  How women vote is stated as a demographic?  How Latinos do...how Black women vote vs Black men....how Latino men vote vs Latino women....how white men vote vs white women..

    and each candidate is matched and compares based on his group and each demographic.  Are you saying we can do that for anyone but a black candidate?

    It's ridiculous.  Bill and Hillary Clinton were loved by much of the AA community and the only way to get those people to rethink their support of Hillary was for people like Clyburn to imply they are racists.  And that was a rotten, mean and unfair thing to do.


    Thank YOU For Voicing This (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:48:33 PM EST
    I've been sitting here betwixt and between.

    I don't for a minute think the Clintons are racist, but I remember how it made me feel when I heard some of the comments. Uneasy.

    I can allow for the perspective BTD and many others here are expressing about how they feel there was obviously nothing remotely racist in these comments that came from the Clintons, and from some of their surrogates (BTD made an exception with Sununu).

    But I can also allow for the possibility that others (African American or not) did hear them as racist, or at least that the statements ruffled some sensitized feathers or that there are many perspectives and some people found these (even if 100% well intentioned) comments offensive.

    What is bothering me in these conversations is that no room seems available for people with no nefarious, (i.e. anti Clinton) motive hearing something offensive in them, rightly or wrongly.

    I think you can be a non Clinton hater, a non race baiter and still not feel totally on board that the comments in question were innocuous.


    You're welcome. (none / 0) (#132)
    by echinopsia on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    Jim Clyburn knew exactly what he was (5.00 / 14) (#9)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    doing when he called out the Clintons as being racist.  In simple terms, he wanted an AA in the WH, or at least this is the way it looks.  He turned on the guy who helped him in his ascension through the ranks for no other reason than to elevate obama.  It is disgraceful and shameful.
    What he sows from what he has reaped is rightfully deserved.

    Of course. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by pie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
    In simple terms, he wanted an AA in the WH, or at least this is the way it looks.

    It's also not just about Obama.  It's good for Jim Clyburn.


    It does seem pretty elementary (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    that putting the majority of the country in a position where they are uncomfortable saying anything that could be misconstrued as racist, and some of the most routine words and phrases in politics are so easily twisted, is not the way to win the presidential election.

    Hillary wasn't even allowed to define the demographic she was leading in!


    Exactly. Eve n (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    mentioning that she ran stronger in the white working class demo (which has ALWAYS been the largest group and usually the election deciders) was construed to mean that HRC had the white vote and she could give a rats about AA's. I mean to think of every single talk of demographics became an insult to AA's, a denigration of MLK, Clintons being racist, Clintons giving dog whistles to whites. Ugh. It makes me sick.  I am seriously happy that McCain said something. Because up until now, everyone else in politics was too afraid to.

    Of course he knew (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    That was disgraceful.

    Worst Person In The World? Where to start? (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:07:29 PM EST
    In my view, he was the most disgraceful person of this entire process.

    Considering the plethora of those who treated the Clintons so disgracefully, that's really saying something!

    My list includes Kennedy, Pelosi, Richardson, Russert, Matthews, Wolffe, Alter, Klein, Olbermann, Dowd, Sullivan...

    And, I could go on and on and on.

    You left out (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:13:43 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson, Jr.  He'd be right up there at the top with Clyburn, except that Clyburn had a greater responsibility not to play dirty because of his leadership role.

    JJJ wasn't as subtle about it (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:18:46 PM EST
    The "Hillary didn't cry for Katrina victims" comment was disgusting.

    i preferred his (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:24:02 PM EST
    threats to black super delegates if they didn't get in line.  And even better were the justifications for it by the Obama supporters.

    I'll never forget Jackson Jr. on MSNBC the day (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    after Clinton's NH win when he said "we need to question Senator Clinton's tears in NH, and why she didn't cry for the victims of Katrina".



    Did JJJ make the same type (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:37:57 PM EST
    of statement when Obama would not go to the Katrina victims anniversary? Or the MLK anniversary? He was absent in both. Hillary was there. We even know why he was absent. Maybe JJ Sr. has noticed this and why he is not such a fan.

    JJ Senior is definitely not (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    a fan, wasn't from the beginning.  He more than anyone knows what Obama is and isn't.  But he's supporting him as strongly as he can, just as Hillary is.

    JJJr (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    doesn't figure in it for me. He is the nat'l spokesperson, or whatever. His support (and attendant bias) was declared.

    It's the others who, with their false veneer of impartiality, are most deserving of contempt.

    Clyburn, Pelosi, Brazile, etc.


    While we're at it (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:02:19 PM EST
    let's add Mark Shields, Bob Herbert, Frank Rich, Randi Rhodes, and Ed Schultz.

    The primary was a very disillusioning experience (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Scan on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    ...and Clyburn was a big reason why.

    Sad is the only word to describe it.

    Brushing aside the primary and not (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:19:30 PM EST
    fixing what was so wrong with it is even more sad.

    Democrats who are taking on the DNC for not standing up against what was happening with these claims should be proud of every element they are able to knock out of the process for next time.


    Sad? Infuriating is more like it. (5.00 / 10) (#58)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    And now I'm getting mad all over again.

    Time for a Habitat break...

    I'm off to do good instead of just writing about it.

    "Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money.  I'll tell you what your values are."  After all, that's all we've got - time and money.

    Not to denigrate anyone doing the exhausting work of posting thoughtful blogs to get the rest of us thinking and talking...so,

    Thank you BTD and TalkLeft.


    Eugene Robinson (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:15:42 PM EST
    For calling those who were offended by the 'bitter' remarks "stupid"

    The "bitter" incident really bothered me (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    because Obama's remarks did not even make sense.
    How would clinging to guns, etc. "explain" their problems?
    Obama is actually quite awkward with words, but noone seems to even  notice.  

    This country is so much better when (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:23:53 PM EST
    we have a President in office who really can be empathetic enough to grasp the problems every demographic is dealing with. Obama showed a serious lack of ability to get to the root problems of all demographics when he was so wrong with his characterization of such a large segment of the population.

    Let's not forget Madame Brazile (5.00 / 13) (#31)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:23:54 PM EST
    and her new coalition. Nothing says offensive like telling latinos and white working class that they needn't bother because they don't matter. New coalition indeed.

    well it wasn't true , mainly (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by bigbay on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:59:22 PM EST
    small town America is a lot more tolerant now, than 30 years aho, when the supposed economic glory years existed. In some ways it's more tolerant than urban areas.

    And wasn't Jim Clyburn, even as he was (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    already digging at Bill and Hillary, insisting that he was still neutral in the race, hadn't endorsed anyone?  Just like Donna Brazile, who kept saying she had not committed to a candidate - yeah, right, we all believed that, didn't we?

    I think what just doesn't jibe for me is how easy it should have been for the self-described post-racial candidate to have gotten a grip on this right from the get-go and simply not stood for the kinds of things we saw and heard coming out of New Hampshire.  But he didn't.  He let it all float around, get good and cranked up, watched his numbers go up, and when all of it had finally done the damage he needed it to do, he came out with a typical Obama comment that "of course" there was nothing racist in what the Clintons said.

    Clyburn was more than a disgrace, but what does that make the candidate who allowed it to go on as long as it did?  Wasn't feeling or seeing much unity or hope or change in the air during that period - it was all ugly and divisive and wrong.

    Has anyone started to wonder if there's a spot in an Obama administration for Jim Clyburn?  That would just be really hard to take.

    But Obama had no chance without (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    using these lies to turn blacks against Hillary.

    That's right (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:48:56 PM EST
    The percentages were in favor of Hillary. She has 60% of the AA votes going for her. Obama had 20%. Why were his figures so low if they stood behind him on issues and policy? After the pulled race card, he had all the AA votes.How could they believe that Bill was a racist. Horrible, just horrible. I have never ever liked the race card used. It brings people down to another level that says 'you owe me because I am not white'. If all people want to be treated as equals, then we have to act like equals and not throw race in our faces when you think you are losing. You win as an equal, you lose as an equal. If someone says to Obama that he does not have a lot of experience in the Senate, his answer should not be something on the lines of it is because I am black and you are a racist.  

    I think it was to turn whites (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by DJ on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    against Hillary.  Obama had a good chance of winning most AA votes if he showed himself to be a viable candidate.  IMO it was to bring those in the media, the young, the liberal voters who took offense at perceived racism.  The tragedy is that too many did not do their homework.

    No way. It was used (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    specifically to break the decades-long relationship that both Bill and Hillary had with the black community. Obama and his surrogates took that relationship and stepped on it. Broke it with lies of racism and the Clintons having "used" them for their own ambitions.  Before these charges came out, Obama was perceived as "too white" by many AA's and only when he was in SC telling voters that Hillary was a racist and that Bill had "bamboozled" and "hoodwinked" them did he start getting 92% of the vote.  Really? You mean to tell me it was all about the issues? BS.  The AA community went almost 100% for Obama once he had convinced everyone but Clinton supporters that Hillary and Bill were racist. Disgusting. I will never ever vote for someone that did that to our last great Dem president. Not to mention one that did SO much for everyone...including blacks, Latinos, whites and everyone else.

    And the attacks on Hillary voters after they were just too racist to do what's good for them and vote for Obama. Ugh.  I couldn't believe I was being told that I was a racist because I simply didn't think Obama was a better candidate.


    Don't a large percentage (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by DJ on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    of AA voters still view the Clintons favorably?  I strongly believe the race stuff was to influence non-AA voters.  It's a larger group.

    No. What Obama did has caused (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    severe damage to the relationship between the Clintons and AA's to the point where some of my AA acquaintances are preemptively blaming HRC if Obama loses.  That's why I'm so angry about it. For the sake of this one man--they have destroyed a decades-long relationship that brought nothing but good to our country. Even Toni Morrison walking back her "first black President" comment about Bill. Suddenly, she couldn't stand them either.

    The damage goes way beyond the (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    Clinton's and the AA community. It has extended to everyone who won't vote for Obama for very solid, justifiable reasons. It has created a divide that makes many people afraid of using terms they used to casually use daily and not once were told it would insult any ethnic group for reasons they couldn't/wouldn't explain.

    a Poll taken during SC (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:52:00 PM EST
    showed that, although they were voting for Obama, nearly 80% of AAs would be willing to support Hillary if she were the Nominee.

    I doubt very strongly that the relationship between the AA Community and the Clintons is damaged beyond repair.  Once Obama loses -- and has no one but himself to blame --, I trust many AAs will begin seeing him more clearly and remember just how good the Clintons have been to them year after year after year after year.  

    In fact, they may even openly and actively resent being played -- or bamboozled perhaps? -- by Obama's manipulative playing of the race card and turn to the Clintons in full force as a way of apologizing.

    My AA friends see him clearly and want nothing whatsoever to do with him.  And, no, they're not voting for him.


    Being called a racist (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    when you aren't a racist is an insult that lasts a lot longer than a primary.  

    It's never a good idea to insult people and then expect them to vote for you.    


    As a Latino woman I feel I was (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    being insulted left and right. First, for supporting a woman. Not because of the fact that she was one, but because gosh darn I just thought she'd do a great job. Second, for being called a racist left and right-- a lot of times by privileged white kids telling me I didn't know what was good for me. Third, it caused problems for me and some black friends of mine, who believed (after ten years of the complete opposite view) that the Clintons were now racist.  I cannot begin to express how angry I STILL am about all this. The misogyny, the lies, the race-baiting. I never thought Democrats would turn to this. But they did.

    That has much to do with... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by AX10 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    why I cannot support Obama.  We MUST NOT be
    intimidated by these false accusations of racism.

    disagree (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by bigbay on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:08:25 PM EST
    I think it was used to rally the guilt-riddden liberal faction of the Democratic Party. I think blacks would have come out for Obama in the end, and in fact, Clinton's support in the black community is not that damaged. It is much more damaged in the Kos blog 'creative class' faction.

    Personally, I think it was a twofer (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by sj on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:21:41 PM EST
    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    One word to describe Obama's spike in support from black voters: IOWA

    Iowa did not account (none / 0) (#93)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:04:59 PM EST
    for all of that rise frokm 20% to 80% and above.  Iowa might have gotten him up to 50/50 with Clinton.  And, if it had stayed around 50. Clinton would have won the nomination.  But, the race-baiting drove it up to 90% and above.

    Agree to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CST on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:11:53 PM EST
    Unfortunately, because of everything that happened in SC we will never know the real answer to that question.

    Also, where did that 80%/20% come from?  New Hampshire exit polling didn't even include the split because it was less than 1% of the voting population.  Is this from opinion polls?  I am not being snarky, I really want to know.  Especially since in later primaries they were much more receptive to Clinton as VP than other Obama demegraphics, but they were still voting 90%+ for Obama.


    the 80/20 (none / 0) (#112)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:23:16 PM EST
    was what I thought Obama got in SC.  Didn't he get around 80% there are then it increased to 90 and above in later primaries?

    And really, SC was NOT the beginning of the Obama camp tainting the Clintons and her surrogates as race-baiters.  There were many instances BEFORE SC.

    Bill Clinton's comment on Charlie Rose that voting for Obama would ba a "roll of the dice".

    Fmr Sen Bob Kerrey's comments about the false runors that Obama was a Muslim.

    Cuomo's comments about "shuck & jive"

    Shaheen's comments about Obama's drug use and how the repugs would use it against him.

    All of these happened before SC.


    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CST on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    I got confused.  My real question is, where did the 60/20 split come from, where Clinton was winning 60%?

    Also do you think that these tactics are responsible for the rise from 80 to 90+, or they are responsible to the rise from 20 to 80?

    I can see the former being true, not so much the latter.  Mainly because Clinton polled well (as V.P. or likeability) with that demographic in later primaries even though she lost the vote by a serious margin.


    i believe the (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:39:40 PM EST
    initial polls BEFORE Iowa had the 60 / 20 spolit reported.  That's about the time that Michelle Obama was on the campaign trail wondering to her audiences just why black voters weren't supporting Obama.  But, she said with confidence at the time that she was sure they would soo "get it".

    I beleive the Iowa win probably pushed him up to 50/50 by giving many the feeling he could actualy do well nationally.  But, I believe it was the race-baiting from the Obama camp that finished it off.  The Obama campaign was actively participating in the race-baiting in SC as evidenced by the campaign memo that Tim Russert confronted Obama with at a debate that happened after SC.

    The reason I believe his support rose to 90 and above AFTER SC was that was when they started calling Bill out for the Jesse Jackson comparison.  So, that wouldn't have been reflected in SC, but AFTER SC.


    Answer. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by ghost2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    Obama is an a--hole, like Bush is.

    There I said and I feel better. Probably, this comment gets deleted.

    After what Pelosi did on FISA, you are kidding yourself if you think democrats are better at standing up to the corporate interests and others who control the purse strings and the media.

    Pelosi wants her power.  Her other house members want to get re-elected and have the couchy jobs for themselves and family members.  

    Yeah, go ahead and put endless volunteer hours in to get this crowd elected.  

    I promise you not one thing will change from the time of Bush.


    This comment should be deleted. (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    Why? (none / 0) (#209)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    Because someone made an asinine comment that Obama is like Bush? IS an a-hole?

    Nah. That's not how it works. It is an opinion, a stupid opinion in my view but just an opinion.


    Here's a scenario: (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:24:22 PM EST
    Do you remember how several superdelegates said they were switching to Obama because of the kind of campaign Hillary was running?
    I wonder what the possibility that some of them will say they are switching back to Hillary because of the kind of campaign Obama is running (using the race card).
    I have read that a couple actually did switch back, but I don't know the reason.

    That was ridiculous (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by nell on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    It became obvious from then on that the super delegates were too dumb (or too blind) to see through the disgusting media bias.

    You know when I knew Hillary would lose this election? When the media narrative of "you can't take this away from a black man" began to take hold. I think the race baiting and calling Bill and Hillary racist contributed in part to that narrative, Clyburn and JJ Jr. certainly contributing by threatening black super delegates and telling them they would be on the wrong side of history. As soon as I saw it being repeated over and over again in the media I knew Hillary was doomed. I kept calling and kept knocking on doors, but there was just no way the DNC power structure was going to pick Hillary...once the Clintons got called racists, it could have happened to anyone, and no one wanted to open themselves up to that.


    They would (SD's) have to return the...MONEY (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by mogal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:38:27 PM EST
    And, now the republicans have (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    made the tactic so transparent, the SDs who find themselves voted out of their positions can have a pretty good understanding of why. It probably won't be this election, but it sure will be the case in 2010 when the voters have a chance to find a stronger party candidate to run against them in their own primaries.

    GMA has a broad audience, (5.00 / 13) (#38)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    and this clip is going to be played over and over again everywhere. Here we have our "Bubba in Chief" appearing angry (and sad) that he has been called a racist during this campaign. Many of Senator Clinton's supporters have also been called racists, and the empathy is going to be strong. Obama needs to think carefully before he responds. More than reacting to anything McCain may ever throw his way, this may be a make or break it moment.

    Terry McAullife (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:31:05 PM EST
    made a rather surprising statement recently too about the current race-card issue.  He reasoned that McCain had apparently watched very closely to the dem primary and understood all too well  how much damage can be done if you allow yourself to be painted as a racist by the Obama campaign.

    Howard Woflson (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by nell on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    It was Howard Wolfson who said that during his role as a commentator on Fox opposite Karl Rove. He tried to be so lighthearted and diplomatic about it, but you could see the tension in his face.

    He chose his words very, very carefully.

    Have any of you been watching the MSM? What kind of attention is it getting?


    i believe they are supposed to play (none / 0) (#78)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    the whole interview on ABC evening News tonight.  I saw a little snippet of it last night on ABC news as a teaser...

    And by "whole interview"... (none / 0) (#149)
    by sj on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    you really mean a larger fragment.  :)

    I'd love to see a whole interview...


    Oh please don't say that. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by dk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:34:08 PM EST
    That would mean that Obama would give another of his speeches on the subject, and the MSM/A-List Blogs (yup, who ever thought those two bodies would ever be compared so closely in a sentence) would rhapsodise about how it was the best speech EVAH, and that (wait for it) anyone who disagreed with Obama was clearly a racist.....and everything would come full circle.



    And our BIC is saying this (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    while in Rwanda doing good deeds.

    I do hope they remember (none / 0) (#108)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    to put that in.

    (Photo ops versus getting the job done)


    Big Dawg's Africa trip blog (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    is here if you want to read some  :)

    He was the most disgraceful (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Roz on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    precisely because of his leadership role and veneer of respectability. Absolutely despicable. Thanks in advance for doing your part to make sure understand and remember what he did.

    Question (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by DJ on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:44:58 PM EST
    Where were the pro-Hillary  pundits to counter Brazille and Oberman's take on the Clyburn/Jackson, etc. charges?  

    Counter Donna Brazile on CNN.....LOL (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    why would CNN do that?  She was their "unbiased" expert.  She's black, a woman and a dem leader.  If she said the Clinton's were race-baiting, who should not believe her?  If there was sexism going on to any REAL amount, certainly Donna, a female dem would have been outraged and pointed it out for us on CNN, right?

    did you happen to see sundays bobblehead (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    parade when the subject of the One ad came up and she said if Obama was Moses that made her Sara.

    I thought, um, yeah.


    no, I haven't seen (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    any coverage of that ad yet.  I did watch the ad myself and laughed out loud.  I thought it was pretty funny myself.

    Is it going to play on TV?


    no (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    it was meant to be a web ad but it has gotten plenty of air time.  I think it was on all three sunday shows.

    What better day of the week could there be? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    I'm still laughing just thinking about it. I never expected John McCain to have such a sense of humor. It's such a contrast.

    They found Obama's Achilles heel (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by angie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    No matter how "juvenile" these ads are, the McCain camp has certainly found a way to needle Obama, because in the quips back and forth about them, Obama comes off as not being able to "laugh" at himself (I'm not saying Obama should laugh at the ads, just how he comes off to the public).  From past history, voters tend to pick the guy they want to "have a beer with" and if Obama starts to look like he doesn't have a sense of humor while McCain does . . .well, there you go. The Obama camp would be wise to "laugh off" the next one of these ads that comes out & then drop it.

    humor always works (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    always has always will.  and Obama has given them SO much material.

    At my house, (none / 0) (#191)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:29:42 PM EST
    the ad got laughs too!  We thought it was hysterical!  

    I read an editorial in a foreign paper yesterday.  They thought Obama must strike back against that ad.  I thought "How?"  To be a good counter ad, it would need to be hysterically funny and poke fun at something acceptable (which would not be McCain's military service or his age).  


    Now they are showing up at (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by MarkL on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    Obama campaign stops and handing out tire pressure gaugues, to "test Obama's energy plan".



    my thinking too (none / 0) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    it is not going to be easy for them to hit back with humor.

    I was unaware that Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:21:21 PM EST
    was directly connected to the Obama campaign strategy. Is he paying her?

    I thought she was simply a talking head for CNN and ABC, and a DNC committee member who just happened to be using all her power to get Obama at the top of the ticket.

    If she connects herself to his Moses with her Sarah, she's clearly more than she has disclosed.


    Gergen's take on it was suprising to me (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    I commented on it yesterday, and here is a TPM link with video:
    Gergen on The One ad

    I don't know what pole-axed means, but if it means shocked, I am with Tapper. It never occurred to me for one minute to think that 'The One' ad was code for 'uppity'.  But hey, if TPM thinks it is, I guess I'm wrong.


    havent you heard (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    presumptuous = uppity

    Is there even one criticism (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:53:51 PM EST
    of Obama one could make that could not be spun that way? I guess that is the beauty of his strategy.

    or the fatal flaw (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    yeah , fatal flaw (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by bigbay on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:13:12 PM EST
    People of all races are getting tired of the Mc Carthy-esque atmosphere of race-baiting. They just might not say it out loud.

    yeah me too, thanks for sharing, I missed it- (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by kimsaw on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    I used to think Gergen had common sense, but now he's got me wondering. Uppity=racist as defined only in the south. Anywhere else it means a person who  thinks highly of themselves and values themselves more then others around them. Sounds like "The One" to me. So it becomes racist on McCain's part to point out Obama's celebrity, messianic portrayal by the media and Obama's own campaign, while Obama's racially tinged response is only a strategy, because that's all he's got.  

    When does Obama and his campaign start taking some responsibility for how they portrayed the candidate. Even his surrogates like Shriver, Kennedy and Oprah, they've all labeled him as someone other than who he is. He's been liken to RFK, JFK, MLK, Malcom X, even his wife says he'll repair our souls. Please no one has open the door more to scrutiny than the candidate himself. He's the one that wears the halo and creates a seal. He's is not any of the those named above.

    He is only a politician and with each flip flopping WORM he exposes himself more.  He's not the one I've been waiting for. The day I wait for any politician to act as savior is the day I seek an exorcism.


    CNN ash-canned pro-HIllary pundits (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    Begala, Carville on account of potential bias ... even though neither was as closely involved with HRC as Brazile was with Obama.

    Question: Was the South Carolina Race Memo prepared at Brazile's request? (Signs point to yes.)


    Carville (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by DJ on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    Cable is way more fun with Carville.  I couldn't understand why he went missing.  Will he be back anytime soon?

    Why is Brazille still there when she was so obviously biased?  I could understand if it was msnbc.  


    "I will be glad, . . . (5.00 / 11) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:45:56 PM EST
    . . . as soon as this election is over in January, to have this conversation with you and everybody else. I have very strong feelings about it."

    now theres something I look forward to.

    Ha! Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:52:22 PM EST
    I will buy an advance copy of that book right now, if that's what he means.

    Speaking of the race card... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nell on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:53:19 PM EST
    Speaking of the race card, have you all seen the race baiting ad that Steve Cohen's opponent is running against him (Nikki Tinker, I think...) in the primary. I believe Cohen was the one who made that despicable sexist comment about Hillary and Glenn Close and a tub, but in any case, I was pretty shocked by this advertisement...

    Guess backing Obama didn't pay off after all...


    I think what it shows you (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    is that some people here who were all gung  ho about supporting Nikki Tinker didn't really have perspective.

    Maybe she's taking a cue (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:18:24 PM EST
    about how to run a successful campaign from Obama.

    The ad is outrageous to be sure (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by angie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:26:11 PM EST
    but no more so then Rep. Cohen equating a sitting US Senator to Glenn Close's character in "Fatal Attraction" and that she should "have stayed in the tub." What goes around comes around, I see.

    What's so outrageous about it? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:31:56 PM EST
    Did the guy vote against renaming Confederate parks or not?  If he did, it seems like a fair ad to me.  

    Nothing should be named for Nathan Bedford Forrest and any Dem with a conscience votes for renaming anything named after him.

    What am I missing about this?


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:38:32 PM EST
    They're basically trying to make the guy out to be a KKK sympathizer.

    I mean, even though you don't know what the rest of the story might be, isn't it a reasonable starting assumption that a liberal Democrat who represents a 60% African-American district probably had some reason that didn't involve love for the KKK?

    In fact, I believe the whole story is that whatever governmental body he was on didn't have any jurisdiction to rename the statue in question, and he refused to participate in a vote that was just a political stunt.  Now, why he didn't just go along with it I can't really say, but there's no question that this is a horribly cheap and unfair ad.


    Well (4.50 / 2) (#202)
    by nell on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:38:42 PM EST
    I think the ad takes it a step further than just talking about his vote with the imagery. The implication is that he has a connection to the KKK...

    Heh (none / 0) (#117)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    I confess, I was happy to see Steve Cohen get a primary opponent after that thing he said about Hillary, but wow, that's a pretty rough ad!

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by nell on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    I remember being so angry about it that I was also glad he had a primary opponent. This ad is disturbing and rough and I hope that Cohen and every other rep out there learns a lesson from this - if you refuse to speak out against unfair race baiting when it happens to someone else, it could happen to you too...

    I have to say, though, that if this ad starts to get national attention, it would be bad for the Obama campaign given the race baiting narrative that is already starting...


    I just mailed back 7 pre paid envelopes (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    I have no guilt on this as I notified them on the phone and I notified them in writing several time that I was not interested or giving. They keep sending. I keep sending back. But, I keep sending some money to pay down Hillary's debt. I feel that she was a real test for woman and all of us. She was out of money, but she ran until the final vote was counted. Classy for sure. She gave everyone their chance.

    i always like sending the envelopes (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    back, because that way they have to pay for the postage.  Thatis if they ar metered or bar-coded and don't have a real stamp on them.

    Have you tried gluing (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:12:11 PM EST
    the envelope to a brick before you drop it in the mail?

    rofl (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    i'm impressed by the turnings of your mind!

    I'm a member of the "creative class". (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    I don't like it either, Bill (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:58:00 PM EST
    Well, first of all, you say I don't like this type of modern reporting that says, so-and-so anonymous says this. You know they all say this.

    He nails it. And in this case Snow proves the point by revealing who she was really referring to by 'your supporters'.

    Of course, the media will now distract attention from his points by saying 'Bill gets angry again - has he got a problem?'

    But (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    how much of Clyburn's behavior was his own and how much was at Obama or Axelrod's behest?

    Add Donna Brazile to the list, please. Her behavior was almost as bad as Clyburn's.

    Right ... (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    shouldn't this all be laid at Obama's feet?  He approved of this strategy.  His campaign was peddling these issues to the press.  Clyburn and others were just carrying water for him.

    Well (none / 0) (#184)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    I don't know the answer to my question and I won't presume to guess but would like to hear any details others might have. However, I do think that Obama or Axelrod could likely have put a stop to it or at least denounced it in the strongest terms (I realize that eventually Obama make some IMO tepid acquittal of Bill's SC comments).

    You go big DOG! (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by environmentally blue on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    THEY WILL NEVER, NEVER get my support, even if just based on their RACE playing and false accusations on YOU.

    Fair TALE?  Fairy Tale indeed.  Fair tale is that Obama is grounded in reality.  I'm beginning to think he is the perfect example of "This is your mind on drugs" Fried eggs ad.

    WHAT?  He has past playing [White} House, with this latest disclosure.  His campaign plane remodeled to show a seat with the title "President"?  OMG  I really think we are past being a presumptuous Prom Queen.

    Hillary as the nominee
    or McCain it WILL be!

    Donna Brazile et al, you not needing "the base of the Democratic Party", because "you're the NEW Democratic Party of Urban voters", stop hating, my dear, and deal with your own decisions!  

    Yes. When Obama is criticized (5.00 / 9) (#85)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    make sure you mention that whites think he's uppity. Do what Clyburn did. Make is so that ANY attack on Obama is racist.

    How's this: I don't care what COLOR he is. I don't care what his name is.  I don't care what his religion is.  I care that he's an arrogant man that thinks he's already President. I care that the behavior of his supporters rivals only that of the Bushies.  I care that he had the AUDACITY to try and paint the Clintons as racist. But good job! You've managed to try and stifle dissent by calling Obama critics racist. Hell, it worked in the primary. Maybe it will work for him in the general, too.

    What? Why does someone have to tear down (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    another person who helped them in the past in the name of "wanting a black man in the White House"?  That's not "uppity" -- that's STUPID!!    

    I guess I still don't understand (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    how someone can voice such outrage at clyburn but also believe  -- erroneously -- bill attempted to make Obama a "black president."

    Perhaps that can be explained in a rational way one day.  

    But no matter.  I doubt it could be.

    Now I do foresee a "who me?" sort of shrugging of the shoulders about this.  It's why I called Obama the Bruce Bowen of politics.  It's not only that he plays dirty it's the pathetic raising of the arms and crying foul to the refs when he gets fouled.

    It trickles down to every one of his supporters.

    Which is why I wrote recently that Obama brings out the worst in me.  I understand that.  But he seems to bring out the worst in everyone, especially his supporters.

    And I agree (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Salt on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:05:38 PM EST

    IMO the choice to use the Clinton's, both successful respected known Democrats as the aggrieved oppressing effigies of white power anti AA was an amoral choice a mistake whose consequences are yet to be known but I hope a failed political strategy that boomerangs.

    I Feel So Horrible (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:26:28 PM EST
    I cannot even believe that the greatest American Presidents on MY lifetime thus far*, and the man I hold much gratitude and admiration for has been reduced to denying something he would NEVER be, say or do. I watched the video and my heart sank as he uttered those words.

    It's utterly shameful to have even suggested that President Clinton and Hillary Clinton are racists.

    I hope that they will be vindicated soon, and those who said it will face harsh retribution. Obama may not have said it, but his most vocal surrogates and cheerleaders did, and they spoke in the capacity as mouthpieces for his campaign.

    It may make me unpopular here, esp. among the three leaders of this blog, but I hope he loses the presidency solely on the basis of this issue. You just cannot say something so reprehensible about one of the best leaders and successful Democratic presidents ever, and expect to cruise on in to the White House after smearing his name and reputation.

    (*Unfortunately, I believe that we will never again see a President who was as revered and successful as Bill Clinton.)


    In related news, I really like this quote by Tucker Carlson. He was responding to questions related to the new Kevin Costner film, "Swing Vote," in which he and a handful of MSMers make cameos.

    Although he's a Republican shill, he explains concisely the same horror I felt about the insinuation that Bill and Hillary are racists.

    What has been the most dramatic moment of the campaign for you?
    The week after Hillary Clinton lost the South Carolina primary, when all the columnists who've been defending the Clintons for 16 years turned as a group to attack them. That actually shocked me.

    The race card (5.00 / 6) (#218)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:51:07 PM EST
    Everytime the race issue becomes the focal point of the campaign, McCain gains. I really don't think the majority of American's want this subject to be front and center. If they perceieve that this is going to be what they'll have to deal with for 4 yrs, they turn away from Obama. Right now there are issues that are by far more important to most Americans. The economy and energy.

    The Irony Is- (5.00 / 4) (#220)
    by ohmercy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    that Hillary is more left/Progressive than Obama.
    But even if you provide links providing analysis from independent/non partisan group they still attack you and claim you are clueless-- if they are in a "nice" mood. LOL
    govtrack rates Obama a rank and file Dem and Hillary very liberal.  BTW Bayh is considered moderate- closer to centrist.
    This site is great, it analyzes all the bills, votes, sponsorship, co-sponsorship etc to come up with their conclusions.

    The irony is kind of tasty, and depressing! ;-)The attack dogs on Huff-Po, Kos and the others consistently called her a neocon, a Republican etc... using neocon attacks! aiyeee.

    anyway, logic never appeals to those obsessed with an ideology or a personality.

    OH HELL.
    Hardball is starting and is  going to talk about this very thing...
    Clinton has something to say about the racist charges blah blah blah...
    You know the pundits are going to say he spoke in code or some such inanity.

    The One (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 04:15:39 PM EST
    Obama "won" the nomination by shamelessly playing the race card with his media groupies cheering him on. Portraying the Clintons as racists helped him with the African American and white-guilt liberal votes.

    This disgusting stunt is not going to work in the general election. McCain is going to fight back and it is going to blow up on Obama's face.

    McCain will have the added bonus of mentioning the Clintons as victims of Obama's race card strategy. All McCain has to do is run ads saying he pulled the same stunt against Bill Clinton.

    Agree completely (5.00 / 3) (#222)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 04:44:04 PM EST
    "It has created a divide that makes many people afraid of using terms they used to casually use daily and not once were told it would insult any ethnic group for reasons they couldn't/wouldn't explain."

    I had no idea "arrogant"  was a racist term.

    Hillary had no idea praising LBJ's leadership in passing civil right legislation was denigrating MLK.

    If Obama and his supporters continue calling all criticism of him racist it is going to blow up in his face.

    The race card helped Obama in the primaries. If he continues to use it in the general election it will backfire.

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 4) (#223)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 04:51:22 PM EST
    "However, I do think that Obama or Axelrod could likely have put a stop to it"

    Obama had his campaign prepare a 4 page document accusing the Clintons of racism and distributed it to all the reporters.

    The race card was a well planned strategy. It didn't happen as an accident. It was all coordinated by the Obama campaign.

    Plain and Simple Truths (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by fctchekr on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:53:22 PM EST
    How would you score our Democratic leadership, who knew and did nothing? I don't think you can soley lay the blame at Clyburn's feet; it's a shared disgrace...

    I've (5.00 / 3) (#226)
    by tek on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    never read or heard that any of Hillary's supporters said Bill hurt her campaign.  Obama's supporters say this constantly, not Hillary's supporters.  Hillary's people know all that BS about Bill is just that.  You can't say in one breath that the Clintons are slick politicians and then turn around and say they are doing stupid things that only a novice would do.  And as far as Bill exposing Obama now as inept, why should he?  He did say so during the primaries, but people chose Obama anyway, and the DNC totally beat up on Bill because he pointed out that Obama hadn't been vetted and wasn't ready.  This is what's wrong with Obama supporters.  They blame the Clintons no matter what.  We had a chance to have a really unbeatable candidate, but Dems chose Obama instead.  Live with it.

    Some things are just unforgiveable (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    .....and what they did to Bill and Hillary in S.C. constitute a blood libel. Mr. "bring us together" stunned the Clintons into paralysis by his breathtaking treachery, and by the time they gained their footing, it was too late.

    Way to spend the day! (2.66 / 6) (#115)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:27:13 PM EST
    I guess people still think it takes real political courage to stand up for Bill Clinton.

    How about a challenge: try sketching out a scenario in which Barack Obama  wins the nomination and the presidency without race-related issues ever coming up in a way that doesn't hurt some "important" people's feelings.

    Then by all means go back to defending Bill Clinton.

    It's not hard to remember (5.00 / 10) (#130)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:36:58 PM EST
    back when Obama won Iowa, back when race was nothing but background noise in the campaign.

    After he lost in New Hampshire, it's very clear that the gloves came off in a serious way.  And I guess those sort of tactics work in a Democratic primary, as it turns out.

    But Obama won lily-white Iowa without any of this "the Clintons are racist" BS.  It was an impressive win and everyone I know thought so.  So you'll forgive me for thinking that gee, it was just so impossible that race wouldn't become front and center in this campaign.  They chose to make it happen.


    Iowa was a caucus. I wonder if he would have (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    won had it been a true primary.

    Rilly? (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    We are just pointing out that what happens in the primaries comes back and bites presumptive nominees in their political posterior in the general election.  

    which btw (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    many of us said would happen DURING the primary.

    clearly "they" have been told to fan out and get to work.


    WTF? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    IS your defense of Clyburn that he had to race bait to help Obama win?



    see screen name (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    Thank you BTD (none / 0) (#224)
    by Andy08 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 05:42:43 PM EST
    for this post and more importantly for your courage to talk about this subject like it is.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you here and deeply appreciate your writing on the issue.

    Again, thank you

    BTW (none / 0) (#227)
    by tek on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:20:27 PM EST
    I don't think Obama really had the AA vote totally until he came out with the Neighborhood Project and announced that he will expand the Faith Based Initiative (money to AA churches) and create a Secretary of Faith and have the Department of Faith in the WH.

    Yah, like i"m going to vote for a Democrat who's creating a Cabinet level Department of Faith!  Can you say, "Buying votes?"

    Clinton Recent Remarks about Obama (none / 0) (#229)
    by bison on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 07:57:31 AM EST
    Am I the only one, watching Morning Joe, who does not see where Clinton's statements were so outrages?  In fact, I think Clinton's comments undermine McCain's experience message.  Essentially, Clinton was saying that no one is really ready on day one for the presidency-not even a vice-president.  Only being president teaches you how to be president.  Then, he refutes the commander in chief test/threshold.  He says there is no such test.  The U.S. Constitution sets out the qualifications.  So, experience doesn't matter.

    Clyburn was a useful idiot for Obama. (none / 0) (#230)
    by Bluesage on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    As were so many in our media.  What was done to Hillary and Bill in the primary is unforgivable and I believe that Obama and his dirty fixers, Axelrod and Clyburn, will understand that in Nov.  Obama has proven to me in this campaign that he has no core values and values only his ambition.  This is not what America needs in a leader and I cannot, in good conscience, vote for this insipid poser.  I hope that the Democrats will have enough gains in Congress to give them a majority which might translate into a spine and then we can live with a neutered McCrazy president for four years.

    Or better yet, Hillary Clinton's name is put into nomination at the convention and we send the Obama's packing.  Maybe then this country will have a chance to heal and to turn around.