"Oblivion" For the Clinton Legacy?

Maureen Dowd is already in "oblivion" as a political commenter. She is defined by her silliness and her columns are basically fodder for mockery. But she wrote a few lines today that merit consideration because they follow a theme that has been running through the Obama campaign, mostly through his supporters in the Media and the blogs - "Bill Clinton looks at Obama and sees his own oblivion", writes Dowd. Of course, the opposite is true. The Obama Post Partisan Unity Schtick has been a direct descendant of Bill Clinton's Third Way Schtick of the 1990s. Obama, in many ways, not the least of which is the marked improvement in race relations in the 1990s, IS Bill Clinton's legacy.

But, as I wrote about before, Barack Obama seems determined to disown this Democratic legacy. In a political campaign that is becoming increasingly dominated by economic concerns, this is political stupidity. Obama should be embracing the Clinton economic legacy. He should be trying to place the Bush economic legacy on John McCain.

More . . .

Barack Obama, his campaign and his supporters have not been shy to signal their disdain for Bill Clinton and his accomplishments. No doubt that rankles him. But let's be clear why Bill Clinton is angry - he has been labelled a race baiter. Dowd demonstrates the latest iteration:

As always, the Big Dog was more concerned with himself — asserting that he’s not a racist — than his party. Bill Clinton is not a racist. We can posit that. But he did play subtle racial politics in the primary. It’s way past time for him to accept the fact that there’s a new wunderkind in town.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is a remarkable passage. Dowd argues that it is in the Democratic Party's best interest that its last successful 2 term President be accepted as having engaged in race baiting. Somehow that helps the Democratic Party. And Bill Clinton should stand idly by while that happens. I argue the opposite. It is in fact imperative to the Democratic Party that Bill Clinton be cleared of this vile charge and that that happen now. Right now, Barack Obama is, perhaps unfairly, associated with the smears against Bill Clinton. This hurts Barack Obama, as we have seen.

Projection is a popular word in pop psychology. And pop psychology is what Dowd most enjoys. I am not one for this type of pop psychology, but one wonders to what degree Dowd is projecting her own concerns about her own oblivion, the reprimand column written about her by Times Ombudsman Clark Hoyt comes to mind, onto Bill Clinton.

You see, Bill Clinton was basically called a racist, and by people like Jim Clyburn and Jesse Jackson, Jr. That would make any normal person's blood boil. Maureen Dowd has been exposed as a vapid, ignorant and irrelevant waste, by the NYTimes Public Editor. It seems to me she is lashing out, but at her familiar targets. She can't do it to Clark Hoyt. In the end, Bill Clinton is honest. And Dowd is not. Tell us MoDo, what is REALLY bothering you?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Credit Card Company Abuse | Obama Unlikely To Pick VP Before Hawaii Vacation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    " Barack Obama is, perhaps unfairly, (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by nycvoter on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    associated with the smears against Bill Clinton"

    I disagree that Obama is unfairly associated.  He is responsible for Jesse Jackson Jrs. actions and I firmly believe Clyburne as well.  Obama could have stopped it at any time (when Russert asked Biden during a debate about calling BO articulate and being accused of racism, BO stepped in right away to say "I have to represent for my friend JB, who is no racist" or something close)but we've hear NOTHING from Obama about Bill Clinton in this regard even since he has won the nomination.

    Unless I hear the smear of the Clintons clearly dismissed directly by Obama, he will not get my vote.  PERIOD!

    and, to continue (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    when Russert confronted Obama with his campaign's official four page memo in SC, that was also sent to the press, containing instructions for which statements from the Clintons to use to  claim race-baiting, Barack took no responsibility at all.  He blamed it on over zealous supporters.  He did manage to say it was wrong and that it would stop.  But, within the next two weeks Obama himself was at it again on the campaign trail in either Mississippi or Alabama (don't recall which) accusing Hillary Clinton of sending that photo of him in African garb to Drudge to scare voters.

    "to scare voters" (4.88 / 9) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:22:53 AM EST
    he keeps using this phrase.  over and over and over.
    I suppose it is easier to think people fear you than to think they simply dislike you.

    Obama sent his campaign spokesperson to smear (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by OxyCon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    Obama sent his campaign spokesperson to smear President Clinton on January 11, 2008. So Obama was directly involved in the smearing of President Clinton. As you are aware, these spokepersons do not offer their own opinion. They do not speak until after they have sat down with the candidate and the campaign leaders who tell the spokesperson what to say.


    Racial tensions roil Democratic race

    "A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements," said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.

    "There's a groundswell of reaction to these comments -- and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we've heard for several months," she said. "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?"


    Here's more (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by OxyCon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:12:53 PM EST
    Obama slams smear photo
    By: Mike Allen
    February 25, 2008 11:42 AM EST

    Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.

    Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
    Plouffe said in a statement: "On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it's exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world," said Plouffe.


    More (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by OxyCon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    At a rally in Jackson with an audience of 9,000, Obama painted Clinton as part of the past Washington establishment. The nation does not need "the same old folks doing the same old things, talking the same old stuff," he said.

    He also accused Clinton's campaign of leaking a photograph of him wearing African garb, including a turban, during a visit to Kenya in 2006. That was "straight out of the Republican playbook," Obama said. "That's not real change."


    Your Point Is Hard To Understand (none / 0) (#126)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM EST
    You link to and quote from a piece in Politico that reports that the Obama campaign is taking the Clinton campaign to task for circulating a photo of Obama in native African garb. The idea that it was Clinton staffers comes from an article at the Drudge Report.

    In the Politico article:

    "The Clinton campaign issued an official response to the growing tempest - but the statement from campaign manager Maggie Williams did not respond to the central question of whether staffers circulated the photo."

    And then you post Obama's response to the situation.

    Are you disputing that the Clinton campaign (or someone associated with it) put the photo out there? Are you saying that by focusing on this incident Obama promoted an unfair meme about Clinton and racism?


    I am (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:27:50 PM EST
    I saw that photo on several GOP sites the weekend before Drudge posted the picture.
     During a debate Obama said he took Hillary at her word they had nothing to do with the picture, then a few days later he complaing about them releasing the picture.

    He also sent his wife (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:23:16 PM EST
    if she only had a brain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:09:39 AM EST
    Tell us MoDo, what is REALLY bothering you?

    that she's totally irrelevant? and still, with all that, she gets paid the big bucks by the times, to write highschool girl tripe. and obama seems to have bought into it.

    of course, conceivably, the reason he's not made the economy, which connects to every other important issue, the centerpiece of his campaign (as bill clinton so skillfully did), is because he hasn't a clue.

    unfortunately (for us and the country), sen. obama isn't nearly as smart, nor has he the executive experience, that bill clinton did, when he first ran in 1992. as a consequence, he just doesn't seem to get it. "it's the economy, stupid!" was brilliant in its simplicity; everything, eventually, boils down to economics.

    until such time as sen. obama gains a better grasp of basic economic theory, or finds someone who can explain it to him in simple terms, he will remain clueless, and fail to avail himself of the most damning aspect of republican rule.

    oh (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:13:34 AM EST
    and anyone want to take any bets who ends up in the dustbin of history first Bill or MoDo?

    the media will always use the Clintons (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:15:29 AM EST
    to spice up the news and increase ratings.

    Tense times for the Clintons and Obama -

    I was about to read this until I saw this (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:18:40 AM EST
    By Howard Fineman

    aka MoDo with chest hair.


    somtimes fineman does screw up (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:55:26 AM EST
    and say something relevant. it isn't by choice i assure you.

    Media Blame BO loss on Clintons? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by fctchekr on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:07:49 AM EST
    That's what this is leading up to..Bill and Hillary didn't kowtow enough, didn't campaign enough..when BO says he wants them to, does he really mean it? No. He wants the public to think they didn't give him support, while all the while BO himself is grating away to make them look unwilling? This will not go over well with their millions of supporters.

    But there's a mixed message out there, because Hillary will be campaigning for him while he's on vacation.

    Nothing will be settled as long as the race flack is not dealt with. And it can't be. So, BO has that hanging over him all the way till Nov..
    What does everyone think?


    of course it is (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:11:21 AM EST
    but you know what? no on will care but the media and a few Obaman dead enders.

    the media focuses on the Clintons - (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:24:20 AM EST
    asking Bill Clinton if Obama is qualified to be president. Another gotcha! for Bill.

    The question should be to Obama (and Clyburn, Jackson, etc) -
    is Bill Clinton a racist?


    it is Obama and his campaign that (none / 0) (#64)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:17:08 AM EST
    schedule who campaigns where and when.  The Clinton, nor anyone else, can go out on their own and campaign for Obama.

    Would Obama come out after a loss and say, well I asked Hillary to csmpaign for me on this date in this place and she said, sorry, can't do it.

    They have both told him they will campaign for him where and when he wants.  What MORE can they do or say?


    once again (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:18:32 AM EST
    the Media tries to bury the Clintons (all through the 1990s) and, once again in 2008, they fail miserably.

    I think it scares the shyte out of them that Hillary is more a force to be reckoned with than she was when she started running.  And I think it terrifies them that, should Obama lose (or when he loses, depending on what one believes), Hillary will be the odds-on favorite to run in 2012 and take the White House back for the Dems.

    And I sincerely believe it infuriates them that no matter what they say, the American People -- as well as the majority of Primary Voters -- ignore them and continue loving the Clintons as well as voting for Hillary instead of The One!

    Regardless of what MoDo and her b*tchy high school clique of clueless, unpopular underachieving "journalists" do, the Clintons grow more and more powerful while they grow more and more irrelevant.

    Yes, high school & oh so (none / 0) (#156)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:23:55 AM EST

    especially when the buildings you cite, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:23:51 AM EST
    don't exist as part of the content of the ad being discussed.  But, why worry about facts.

    Hillary was accused of racial fear mongering with her 3AM ad in Texas.  Some professor from NY claimed it was all about fear of black men because there were no black children shown asleep in their beds in the ad.  He said the ad would have been perfectly fine if there had been a black child depicted in it.  

    The next day, the Clinton campaign pointed out the black child in the ad.  But, I don't recall the cable news shows inviting the fine professor back to apologize to Clinton.

    No profanity (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:25:58 AM EST
    No sexist remarks.

    I deleted two comments.

    More punditry (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    from Howard Fineman about the "tension" between the Clintons and Obama:

    Does Barack Obama think he needs the Clintons' help this fall? And do the Clintons really want to give it to him?

    The answer to both questions seems to be a resounding "no."

    He does say that the despite the fact that the Clintons "can act like spoiled children" (OY!),

    Obama says he wants to use his natural diplomatic skills to bring peace to the planet. But if he expects to be given a crack at it, he must first use those skills inside his own party.

    At least that's the way I thought politics worked -- you go the extra mile to unify and delight your own folks.

    Then again, the Obama campaign is rewriting the rules of politics for a new generation. Maybe that's why he's not especially eager to earn extra credit with the Clintons.

    Rewriting politics for a new generation by playing by the old rules and doing all the old things?  Hardly.  Obama talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.

    "rewriting the rules of politics" (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:41:32 AM EST
    all I can say is god help us.

    I'm confused (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    Will Obama be rewriting these new rules of politics or will he just recycle and repeat what Deval Patrick said a year or two ago?

    telepromter, repeat, repeat! there you go! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:57:30 AM EST

    He also said that (4.00 / 1) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:56:17 AM EST
    Hillary has agreed not to have her name put in nomination and we know that isn't true. why is MSNBC still pushing this?

    msnbc has shamed themselves so much (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:58:13 AM EST
    this campaign season with ko and gang, i assume the opposite of anything they say.

    and why does Newsweek have (none / 0) (#157)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:26:25 AM EST
    so little respect for the truth?

    MoDo is irrelevant. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:48:36 AM EST
    Years and years ago MoDo would at times write a clever and quirky article but those days have been gone a long, long time.  Why she was ever considered a legitimate journalist is beyond me.  Now she's just a has-been wanted-to-be with a grudge. I would love to see Bill and Hillary come out publicly and squash her like the roach she is.

    Oh, and whoever compared Bill Clinton and Jim Clyburn above - you've got some homework to do.  

    hey blue (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    good to see you

    Buyers Remorse (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    frankly0 - I think there are many primary voters for Obama having a great deal of buyer's remorse right now.  They know that Hillary would be talking issues with intellectual honesty and a true understanding of those issues and that she would be at least 20 points ahead in the polls right now.  I think there is Obama Kool-aid being poured down sinks all over America right now.

    What happens at the Convention, then? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by blogtopus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    Do we all glumly watch as our Delegates nominate a dead horse?

    It would be a dead pony. (none / 0) (#78)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:43:17 AM EST
    what else can we do? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    Reagan vs Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Little Fish on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:54:39 AM EST
    I'm always amazes me how willing some on the left are to criticize/demonize Clinton, while on the right Ronald Regan is a virtual saint.  I've not heard one bad thing about Reagan from the  republicans, in fact he seems to be the gold standard for them.  Meanwhile it seems I can't go a day without hearing someone on the left knock the Clinton administration. Shouldn't the dems be elevating Clinton in the same way the republicans canonize Reagan?  

    I was in HS/College during the 90s.  It was good times.  Can I go back?

    If it was up the blogger class (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    they too would not only demonize Clinton as they do, they would openly show their love and adoration of Reagan.  Two of the most famous left wing blogs were created by former Reagan republicans.  NOW they say they have changed but somehow they still cannot rid themselves of their Clinton Hate, still suffer from CDS which came out of spin from the neocons who were spawned during the 80s.  The new progressive left that created the echo chambers of the primary hate for everything Clinton scare me. I believe they want a left version of Reagan.  They want a hero to worship and most of them do not get the concept of democracy.  When they call themselves "populists" I have to honestly laugh out loud.

    Reagan vs. Clinton (3.00 / 1) (#132)
    by call me Ishmael on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    As you will no doubt expect I can't agree with this point.  I don't think that we need to elevate leaders in any case but one difference is that the republicans elevate Reagan because he shifted the game in their favor. Clinton was elected but he didn't shift the game in any significant way back to the left so why elevate him in that way?  We can debate how much space there was for him to move the political system (I tend to think there was more possibility than most think but that he lost his opportunity the first two years) but that he moved the democratic party to the right of where it was seems pretty clear.  He was most successful as a counter-puncher to Gingrich not as putting forward a positive program.  So the legacies are different as well as the ideologies.

    It seems to me that the dems will do best if they can put forward a new and compelling set of policies that address the present.  One of Obama's problems so far is that he hasn't effectively articulated such a program even if he has worked it out.  But reclaiming a weak legacy isn't the way to move forward and govern.

    As for Gore getting killed because he ran away from Clinton let's not forget that Gore in reality won the election.  Scalia may want us to "get over it" but I am not so inclined.


    I disagree with your characterization (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:36:32 AM EST
    of Clinton presidency as moving the party to the right. On judgeships and other Federal appointments?  On foreign policy?  On any economic policy other than Nafta? On respect for the rule of law?  The strong emphasis on s strong emphasis on hiring minoirty and women-owned firms? I believe strongly that the shame of Guantanamo would have never been allowed under the Clinton administration.

    Clinton and the democratic party to the right (none / 0) (#170)
    by call me Ishmael on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:16:52 PM EST
    I totally agree that we would not have Guantanamo but I don't know as I am sure I can go the rest of the way with you there.  On the domestic front I do think that the welfare changes were a move to the right on the party and I also think that the death penalty and terrorism act of 1996 was a very bad initiative (Jeralyn could explain more).  I also think that the way in which Clinton characterized the overcoming of the deficit led to a very difficult box for the democrats in terms of justifying domestic spending.

    On economic terms, besides NAFTA there was also the de-regulation of the financial markets, dramatically expanded trade and credit deficits during the 90s all of which helped support the economic growth which made the 90s look good but which were laying the seeds of the later bubbles.

    Foreign policy was mixed I think.  There was the plus side of Haiti, the scandal of Rwanda, and the  debatable support for China and the WHO.  I am not sure what I think of Clinton's pulling of the international criminal court treaty.

    On the plus side there was a drop in the poverty levels.  But real wages were stagnant and the ability of the government to do anything about that was I think constrained by Clinton's acceptance of wall street logic in his larger economic policies.

    I don't really want to get into the rule of law stuff too much since there I think a lot of stuff is motivated by Clinton hate but I am not sure that we can really argue that he was such a great defender of the rule of law given some of his legislation (like on criminal defendants) and also his pardons.  I still think that pandering on the execution of a mentally disabled man was not about upholding the rule of law.

    I just am not convinced that this is a record of progressive governance.  sorry.


    that is one of the reasons why we see the (none / 0) (#57)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:11:40 AM EST
    dems lose debates and elections.

    Distancing from Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Nike on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:13:24 AM EST
    I always wonder about this strange need that democrats seem to have to distance themselves from Clinton.

    Obama does it. But, Gore did it, too, and it killed him.

    I guess I sometimes wonder if they WANT to lose. A "victim narrative" really gives you a lot of opportunity to have a seat at the table without having the responsibility of doing anything while you are there.

    I think Gore made a mistake (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:20:46 PM EST
    but he had an excuse for his bad judgment-- both the Lewinsky mess which was still fresh, and being the VP and needing to be seen more as his own man.

    Obama has no such excuse, it's purely an intra-party power play to remove the Clintons as any kind of secondary power center.


    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Nike on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    brazile was also an advisor and we (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:37:06 PM EST
    know what type of advice she gives.

    Between Dowd and Fineman, (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM EST
    and what is coming out of the Obama camp, I'm starting to wonder if the enthusiasm of younger voters will be negated by the disgust of us older folks, as people like me are beginning to lose hope that we will be able to change the direction things are heading in this country. There's just so much at stake, and it's just so obvious what needs to happen, and yet the signs for change just are not there.  When we got a majority - albeit a paper-thin one - in Congress in 2006, we also got control over the rules and the committees, and yet time and time and time again, we saw legislation come out of committee that should never have been allowed to, we saw Republicans blocking legislation by using rules they would never have allowed the Dems to use, we saw the leadership give the administration cover to stonewall investigations by taking impeachment off the table, and failing to take matters in hand and act.

    And now, before us, is a nominee who shows little respect for and appreciation for the work of the last successful Democratic president, who seems willing to allow the systematic trashing not just of the politics of that era, but of the man himself, and then has the audacity to take advantage of Hillary Clinton's love of country and party by sending her out to fill in for him while he goes on vacation?  What's wrong with this picture?

    Making matters worse is this insulting and dismissive attitude that they don't need us, so why court us?  "Us" being people who supported Hillary, Democrats who still believe that we are not "just like" Republicans.  People who do not take kindly to being told that we have nowhere else to go, so they don't need to pay attention to us.

    I used to think that having a Democratic president mattered because we needed Democrats in charge at places like the DOJ and Environment and HHS and Defense and all throughout the agencies and departments, because that was how we made sure that what we believed in and what we supported were able to reach as many people as possible.  But now we have a nominee who I'm not all that sure does believe what I believe, who I'm not sure I can trust to staff the Cabinet and the agencies and the courts with people who can best serve what I believe in.

    So, they don't need us?  They want to break the Democratic brand on the back of Bill and Hillary Clinton?  Sure, go ahead.  Have at it.  Knock yourselves out.  Now I'm past just sitting it out - now I'm hoping the pedestal cracks, and the Golden One fails as spectacularly as his ego is large.  

    And I hope Dowd and Fineman and Herbert and Robinson go down with him.

    I know a lot of (none / 0) (#106)
    by nemo52 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    Hilloary supporters who are extremely tepid about voting in this election.  Many of my friends have declared they will leave the top of the ticket blank, or if voting Obama with noses held, they are refusing to send funds or campaign for him.  And these are die-hard, pavement-pounding, campaign working democrats

    Oblivion is ours, going forward (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    FDR will not end up in oblivion, nor will Clinton.

    Oblivion lies ahead, with a generation and a half immunized against hope and change, a party that has re-chalked the field with the left sidelines moved to the right, no party that stands up for the largest demographics, no party that stands for active government, and an end to the African-American/progressive alliance.

    Worst case, we also get a laughingstock as the first AA POTUS, and a Gingrich-type "revolution" turnover in 2010 (the base year for decennial redistricting).

    If it's oblivion you're looking for, don't go looking in the rear-view mirror.

    Oblivion (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    I fear you are right RonK Seattle.  One issue you did not include -- an end to the Feminist/progressive alliance.  I was not a Hillary Clinton supporter but the woman hating directed at her by progressives has undermined that alliance for many, many women. I do fear that the BO we are seeing in the GE will roll over to conservatives -- and that is mostly what Congress is made up of. I see the Democratic Party continue to splinter at the national level and the Republicans regrouping.  I don't view BO as a force that can stop it but might contribute to it through constant compromise.

    Hard to read the long-term effect of that one (none / 0) (#140)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    ... but the immediate damage is ugly enough.

    If I may be so hateful (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    and adolescent: what has she done here in N.Y other than seemingly do her damndest to make sure her friends from Bentonville Ark (in the interest of "jobs" no doubt), build a new Super Store every square mile, and transparently exploit her Senatorial status -- as soon as humanly possible -- as a springboard for a Presidential run?

    Then there's that little item involving her laziness, apathy and, or, moral cowardice in connection to the pre-war "bad intelligence".

    Oh the hate, the hate.

    Amen bro.... (none / 0) (#175)
    by kdog on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:45:58 AM EST
    I long for the day when both Clinton and her equally cowardly counterpart Schumer no longer represent me in Washington.

    What did Clinton do to Heal Race relations? (1.00 / 3) (#12)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:21:53 AM EST
    How is he responsible for this?  I can understand giving credit for the post partisian thing, but the racial healing?  Are you talking about his taking apart welfare so that people the welfare queen stereotype doesn't work as well, or actual racial healing?

    I always thought he the DESIRE to promote racial healing (which is why his only consistent support came from the black community), but the stupid Lewinsky thing got in the way.  

    Also, demonizing Clyburn is just as bad as demonizing Clinton, both of them have screwed up, and neither deserves the attacks they are getting.  They are both still doing great things

    The worse thing about the media making such a big deal about these stupid comments, is that they ignored the issue of HIV in Africa that he has worked so tirelessly for.  My conspiracy mind wonders if that is by design?

    You are how old? (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:24:24 AM EST
    If you do not know what Clinton did to improve race relations, clearly you were not paying attention in the 1990s.

    And as for demonizing Jim Clyburn, sorry, he is a demon. A total piece of crap. If you do not know why, after all I have written about it here, then I will not talk to you about it.


    If the poster is past adolescence, s/he should ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM EST
    ... know one of the defining characteristics of a living president.

    The level of cluelessness this poster has shown on a variety of topics makes me wonder if s/he's cleared the middle school hurdle.

    If the racism accusations are trollage, then the only mystery is why s/he's still around.


    oh, please (1.50 / 2) (#30)
    by call me Ishmael on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:42:27 AM EST
    While it may be the case--although it is debatable given the whole welfare mess--that Clinton helped on race relations I am old enough to wonder why you are so keen on embracing his economic legacy.  Is this because you approve of the dramatic lessening of regulation of the financial sector which lay the groundwork for the sub-prime crisis?  His championing of a NAFTA without adequate labor or environmental standards?  The dramatic growth in economic inequality?  The lack of growth in real wages?  His balancing of the budget through an ideology of austerity and leaving the democrats with no wiggle room on government investment?  I realize that there was a growth in jobs--but of what sort?  
    I do think that you are right that Obama shares a lot of this approach--but that is a problem not a good thing. (In fact, Edwards and Hillary Clinton were better in actually repudiating it) Run against the Bush years because they are terrible.  But let's not pretend that the Clinton policies were so wonderful.  
    Oh, and about Clinton's leadership of the party.  Let's not forget that at the end of his term the Democrats had less members of the House of Representatives than when he began his term, less Senators than when he began his term, less Governors than when he began his term, and control of fewer state legislatures.  The Party was limping along as a minority party until Bush and the Republicans overreached.  I am old enough not to care much for the turn towards the DLC which, we can remember if we are old enough, Bill Clinton and not Barack Obama was involved in.

    Given the opportunity (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    I'd choose the conditions of the Clinton years in a New York minute.  In fact, I can't think of a better time in this country during my lifetime, than the 1990s.  

    Revisionist / CDS thinking is really getting old.


    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:13:42 PM EST
    I am sick and tired of people repeating the old myth that Bill Clinton - and Bill Clinton alone - was responsible for Democratic losses in 1994.  First of all, the President's party almost always looses seats in off-year elections.  Second, while congressional leaders won't want to admit it, they are also to blame for their failures to retain seats - ie the House banking scandal, the scandal over congressinal franking, Dan Rostenkoski.  Sure the first two also implicated Republicans, but if Congress is embroiled in scandal the party in power is going to be hit.  Furthermore, at least in the Senate, there were a larger number of Democratic retirements.  This is always going to cost when you have a Howard Metzenbaum leaving. Third, some Democrats lost their seats because of a historic and brave vote on Bill Clinton's economic stimulus package - would more members take that risk today!  Fourth, the redistricting after the 1990 census created several problems for Democrats - in an attempt to shore up incumbant strength, some swing districts became more vulnerable to Republican takeover.  (this was a particular problem with the creation of "majority-minority" districts - taking minorities out of swing districts might create one super strong D area but would lessen our ability to compete in surrounding areas.)  Finally, let's not forget the Republicans smear machines.

    And besides all that through the rest of Clinton's presidency, Democrats by and large PICKED UP seats - in 1996, 1998 and 2000 (we did lose two senate seats in '96 and '98 senate was a wash).  In fact we got enough seats in 2000 to take back the Senate (with the help of Jim Jeffords) and would have almost certainly taken the House and widened our majority in 2002 if it hadn't been for 9/11.

    In sum, wikipedia is your friend.  I know it's convienent for those with CDS to blame Clinton for all Democratic ills in the '90s but a more accurate view would be that he held back the Republican hoards during a time of increasingly bitter tactics and an antagonistic media.


    Bingo (none / 0) (#149)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:06:57 PM EST
    The Economic Stimulus Package that was passed with Clinton's urging is what lost those seats.  That may well be the last time that Democrats actually showed they had a spine and it paid off well for the American people.  The growth, the jobs and the surplus we left the republicans to squander was a result of that economic reorganization.  I'm sick every time I think what could have been going forward with Al Gore.  

    Ducking the issue (none / 0) (#166)
    by call me Ishmael on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    I am still not sure what CDS is by the way.  But sure you make some good points about some of the congressional contributions.  Of course, I know that that was the first time there had ever been congressional scandals and it is interesting that it was in 1994 that the Dems lost a majority in the house that they had held for 40 years.  And are you really suggesting that the Clintons mishandling of the health care issue had nothing to do with it?  

    I am not saying that Clinton was the cause of everything. What I am wondering about is the blind worship and the refusal to consider that as good as he looks compared to W that doesn't make him a great president either for the party or for the future.  Why does that constitute Hate?  And why does it produce such a splenetic reaction.

    By the way, I don't really on wikipedia.  


    typo (none / 0) (#167)
    by call me Ishmael on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:36:45 PM EST
    oops, I meant to say I don't rely on wikipedia.  sorry.

    CDS. (4.00 / 4) (#37)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:51:35 AM EST
    Get help.

    Paul Tsongas was easily more conservative (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:45:28 AM EST
    He wanted to privatize social security.

    You clearly DO have CDS.

    BTW, I voted for Jerry Brown in the 1992 NY primary, in protest over some of Clinton's actions.


    You act like this is (3.66 / 3) (#48)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    all Clinton's fault.

    Nonsense.  I don't know why some of you have such a horrible attitude, but you sure saw things differently than many of the rest of us.  And then you transferred your loathing to her.

    It's unreasonable and unfair.

    But there's no changing that attitude.  I've given up trying.


    cds (2.00 / 1) (#91)
    by call me Ishmael on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    Actually, if you read my post you would see that I indicated that Hillary Clinton had moved further away from those policies than it seems Obama has--so I don't know how I transferred my "loathing" to her.  Nor do I loathe.  I am asking for a real discussion on how Clinton actually governed.  He ran as a populist and governed from Wall street.  BTD may be a big fan of Bob Rubin but I'm not.  Rubin led the push to lessen regulation of the financial industries which helped lead to a series of bubbles and decreasingly transparent markets which allowed for all of the incredibly damaging market collapses of the last few years.  When Clinton took office there were those in the Democratic majority who wanted to move to limit the FED's power but clinton sided with the guru Greenspan.  I don't see why this stuff can't be discussed and evaluated.  BTD rightly insists that we are supposed to press issues--but somehow that doesn't seem to apply to Bill Clinton.

    And yes he did get elected.  But was the Democratic Party stronger when he left office than when he entered?  Does he bear any responsibility for that?  Around here it seems not.


    State of financial markets (none / 0) (#159)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:49:05 AM EST
    is as much the result of the absence of any true oversight or enforcement by the regulators.  Why was it only Sptizer who was prosecuting financial crimes when he was NY Attorney General?, i.e., where was the SEC? The DOJ?

    financial markets (none / 0) (#169)
    by call me Ishmael on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    well isn't part of the answer to that the financial modernization act of 1999 and the commodities futures modernization act of 2000 both of which were designed to make it harder for the SEC to have oversight of the increasingly complicated bundling of money on wall street (and both of them supported by Bob Rubin by the way)?  The DOJ is another issue.  I am not sure of their jurisdiction in regulation although with the Bush administration they wouldn't have exercised it anyway.

    tell you what, bill clinton was a damx good (3.00 / 2) (#50)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:03:04 AM EST
    president and i am sick of seeing the clintons kicked around so obama can appear to look better.

    Not Kicking Clintons Around (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    to raise substantive (and as Palomino points out) debatable points about Bill Clinton's administration and its legacies.

    And as for raising these points as a way of elevating Obama's image?

    Yeah, right:

    "I do think that you are right that Obama shares a lot of this approach--but that is a problem not a good thing."

    Wow, (s)he really polished that one up.


    well i would hope you agree that the (none / 0) (#139)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:10:31 PM EST
    clintons have been unfairly kicked around this campaign season. bill like any past president has those things of which he is justifibly proud and those things like rawanda of which he deeply wishes he had approached it in a different manner.

    Of Course The Clintons Have Been Kicked Around (none / 0) (#161)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    In fact, the way they were continually and rapaciously assaulted by the VRWC and the media during his presidency pulled me over into being a full hearted supporter and advocate from being a lukewarm okay-whatever-better-him-than-a-Repub bystander.

    Which is why the one thing I MOST hated that Hillary did during the campaign was her sitting down with Richard Scaife as if he were not the vile, contemptible sleaze merchant who financed some of the most despicable sewage attacks against her and the former president.

    And that's also why, when serious, thoughtful disagreement with either of the Clintons is raised I think it should be treated as just that: something that can be vigorously disputed but not as if the Clintons Are Not To Be Questioned.

    They both have records they (and their supporters) can stand on and promote without having to treat every criticism, even the reasoned ones, as an incoming barrage from enemies.


    please! i know cds when i see it. (none / 0) (#163)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:27:35 AM EST
    It Says A Lot About Your World View (none / 0) (#164)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    that you see CDS in my response--indeed in any of the entire history of my comments here.

    i was speaking in general terms. (none / 0) (#165)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:21:27 PM EST
    some of your comments have a tinge of the view that irks me i have to say. it is always the clintons' fault. i am sick of it. the clintons have their faults to be sure but i am sick of their being the scapegoat.

    frequently i find you make very thoughtful and on the mark comments. you are an obama supporter, fine. thanks


    My Comment About Scaife? (none / 0) (#168)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:43:51 PM EST
    Otherwise, I see nothing in what I wrote here that places any blame on either Clinton. The exact opposite, in fact.

    As for Scaife, I was (and am) completely mystified that Hillary made that particular gesture. She didn't need him to win PA. I'm absolutely sure of that. And, yeah, I took her apparent rapprochement with this evil man personally.

    What he and his cohorts did was not only detrimental to the Clintons, although without him their problems would probably have been lessened. His efforts inflicted solid damage on the country and the government by spearheading the means for the VRWC to hijack the public's business for years.

    I've gotten over my outrage toward her for sitting down with him. The puzzlement remains, though. As someone who usually does not hold grudges, I will NEVER forgive Scaife (unless he repudiated his crimes. Something he will never do.)


    frankly, i don't want to hear about (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:31:13 PM EST
    all your outrage and manufactured reasons to be mad at hillary. your world view is limited. thanks very so much

    'My Puzzlement (With HRC) Remains' (none / 0) (#174)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:10:48 PM EST
    My previous anger (now, as you neglect to acknowledge) long gone.

    Why are other peoples' reactions, when they disagree with yours, 'manufactured'?

    Can you ever hear an opposing viewpoint that you can respect even while disagreeing with it 100% ?

    I'm sorry, but seeing even reasonable opposing ideas as 'manufactured' etc. seems to me a narrowed world view.

    You're welcome, even so.


    He was also the only one (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Roz on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:27:23 AM EST
    who did, or could, get elected.

    cds (none / 0) (#92)
    by call me Ishmael on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    ps, what exactly does CDS mean?  I haven't run across it before.

    On trade and regulation (3.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:44:18 AM EST
    Clinton was superb. Brilliant in fact. I am a big fan of Bob Rubin.

    Rubin (none / 0) (#93)
    by call me Ishmael on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    If he was so superb then why did he push to eliminate mechanisms to keep the financial sector from creating new forms that led to all of the incredibly bundling that destroyed transparency in the markets.  Rubin governed for Wall Street not Main street.

    Sir (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM EST
    Actually I was alive in the 90s and was very active.  PLease tell me what he did to ease race relations other then telling me he did.  

    Does it not even occur to you (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by frankly0 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:36:14 AM EST
    that if Bill Clinton was, during his term, hailed by many AAs as "The First Black President", then he must have been perceived as having done a great deal for race relations by AAs themselves?

    First Black President (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:23:45 AM EST
    One caveat to the "many AAs ..." saying Clinton was the first black president.  In actual fact, novelist and nobel prize winner, Toni Morrison, said "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."  That didn't actually translate to "he is our first Black President."  Rather, IMO, she was saying he had similar background and a sensitivity to growing up Black.  

    Be that as it may (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by frankly0 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM EST
    the appellation, once granted to Clinton, was never seriously disputed, and, so far as I know, was only reinforced by the AA community.

    Until, that is, Obama's campaign and supporters decided they would go in another direction.


    I choose not to engage you (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:40:22 AM EST
    on this subject.

    Then don't claim that he did a (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:45:29 AM EST
    Bunch of stuff for my race.  

    why don't you stop being a rude poster (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
    here. you are no better or worse than the rest of us. calling people liars either outright or itimating it is the same. shame on you! go do your homework and please don't post anymore such comments till you have.

    No (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:14:31 AM EST
    I'll claim precisely what I want (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    Do not EVER again tell me what I can write.

    do it again and you will be banned from my threads.


    "My conspiracy mind wonders" (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:26:13 AM EST
    as does my own.  
    the media doesnt care about either of these people or about people of color or anything else.
    they are vultures.
    BTD doesnt think they will turn on Obama.  I think he is wrong.  I think they will and they will love doing it.
    BIG ratings.

    "sure things" are boring (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:42:23 AM EST
    Big, nasty "train wrecks" of monumental metal crunching, glass shattering proportions always make news and get the huge crowds of looky-loos.

    And there's nothing more metal crunching and glass shattering than The One falling hard and fast off his already shaky pedestal.  

    You can almost count on it.

    P.S.  As the NY Times runs a story on Obama's big donors, MSN has a story on how many ordinary people are donating to the McCain campaign.  Hmmmmm ...


    sadly (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:47:38 AM EST
    I think this is exactly right.

    Bill supported Jesse Jackson for years (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    Yes, he compromised on the welfare to work issues but, thanks to the success of the Reagan years, there was this mentality in this country that "welfare recipients" did not want to work.  People did not understand the reason some did not work was because they would LOSE health benefits for their kids and STILL NOT make enough money to afford health care.  It is a complicated issue and to condemn Bill for trying to do something is unfair.  The system had all kinds of problems ranging from excluding some who did need it, and rewarding some for bad behavior and who did not need the system to survive.

    Bill and Hillary were popular in the black community because they did care and had a record in Arkansas of trying to improve things for the poor, by opening clinics, getting better funding for schools in poor communities.  Did they do enough on the national scene?  Probably not.  But in a democracy there is no authoritarian express for fixing things.

    And the CLINTON HATE started long before Monica came into the picture.  The private lives of presidents before Clinton were hidden with the help of the press.  Reagan was divorced for heaven's sakes and abandoned his children from wife #1.  His last two children had no loyalty to him or his policies.  Yet if you ask the American people Ronnie was super husband, super dad and super president and if Ron Jr or Patty were goofy it was HIS, not his parent's fault.  Yet Chelsea, as good as she turned out, is never credited to the Clintons.

    Sorry, Clinton did a lot for minorities and poor peoples around the world.  Most of the people in poor countries admire the Clintons.  It's just the American population led by the nose of the Clinton hating media that have this warped view.

    Clyburn implied Bill Clinton was being a racist.  In my view, he is a jerk.  No other word works.


    Lani Guinere (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:32:48 AM EST
    I hated it when Bill Clinton caved to the right on Lani Guinere (sp?) for AG. She would have been real special.  Instead he/we ended up with Janet Reno, a mediocre choice IMHO. All in all, though, I think Clinton had a well integrated Cabinet, elevated the Congressional Black Caucus to a real force, worked to get minorities elected to office across the country.  And I think it was genuine, not for show.

    History check (none / 0) (#120)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    Lani Guinier was not considered for AG. She was considered for Asst AG for Civil Rights, a distinctly inferior office.

    I'm an admirer of Guinier and her work, but she signed her own rejection slip by manifesting an ego bigger than the President's.

    Reno was the residual of the failed AG nomination of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood.


    Oh, man (none / 0) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    I'm running around correcting the facts here way too much.

    Lani Guinier was NEVER nominated to be attorney general, she was nominated to be asst. AG for civil rights.

    Janet Reno's nomination was preceded by two superb female AG nominees who crashed and burned and had to withdraw because of employing illegals as nannies or maids and not paying their SS, etc.


    Lani Guinere (none / 0) (#124)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    Thanks for the fact checking.  You are right.  Still, Clinton caved when the right went postal on her because of her "radical" positions.  And for sure I knew about the two potential AGs chosen before Reno and why they were taken out of contention. Either would have been a far better choice than Reno.  But there we have it.

    I like Clinton a lot (none / 0) (#36)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    I am just no ready to give him credit for healing racial divisions.  I give him credit with taking away some of the racialized attacks that hurt dems so much (which I think initially hurt the party, but now we benefiting from it at least electorally).

    No ONE person can ever heal (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:19:23 AM EST
    race relations between all peoples.  Common sense speaks to the reality.  But Bill and Hillary were always supportive of improving life via health care, via education for poor people of all races.  People understood that about the Clintons instinctively.  The fact that they could not do all things for all people when and how they had hoped to do while campaigning is not about not caring and the minority community knew it.  What any candidate hopes to do while campaigning and gets done when elected are very different because we do not live in a dictatorship.

    Bill had grown up in an era where race relations were at best filled with anger and resentment.  He grew up in the south where segregation was the norm, and where black people were treated as being inferior.  But because his grandfather had a grocery store in the black community, Bill spent hours working there and getting to know people of color as a youngster.  His comfort level with all people comes through and the black leadership felt it all along.  Bill treated them as equals...which means getting angry at them in the same way he would get angry with white friends, laughing and joking with them in the same way. One senses those things.

    Bill and Hillary both are and were comfortable with peoples from all communities.  They worked hard on legislation that would benefit all people including minorities.  

    Did they change the race relations of all peoples?  Even asking that is silly.  No one person can do it but after years of republicans whose rhetoric was either empty and ignored the problem or pandered to the right and did not discourage discrimination, Bill went in the other direction.  
    There is a reason why many in the black community loved the Clintons before Clyburn and Axlerod spun hate.  If you do not get it, I can't explain.  But people in those communities could tell the difference.


    I certainly see that he did those things (none / 0) (#81)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    Certainly I see that he had admiraton and respect for us and our leaders.  However, sorta like Chris Rock said when some black men seek congradulations for never going to jail, "you are not supposed to go to jail."  And in the same light, Clinton was supposed to give that type of respect.

    Now in terms of his work with AIDS and Africa, there is deserves some serious, nobel prize level love.   There is no clinton hate here.


    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:58:11 AM EST
    for making this a respectful discussion.  
    We can agree to see things differently.

    Bill nor Hillary in any way, shape or form were perfect on the race issues or for that matter on any issue.  And neither will Barack be perfect.  It is not possible.  A) they are human B) this is politics.

    Despite his flaws, Bill Clinton's heart, I believe was always on the side of justice for ALL.  I believe he did the best he thought he could do given the system within he works.
    If Hillary got elected do I think she would fix things for all women?  No.  No one person can ever be all things to all people.

    But like many here, knowing what I know from coming of age in the 60s like Bill and Hillary, I believe labeling them racists was one of the nastiest, ugliest things the Obama campaign did.  And yes I believe it was planned by Axlerod.  
    I believe he feared that if Hillary took even 30% of the AA vote, Obama could not win.  So he pulled a ROVE.  He knew the only way to achieve what he did was to spin a person who was respected in the AA community into someone who had to be despised for racism (despite proof that neither she or Bill are or ever could be racists).  

    A lot of women like me, my age, women who grew up going against our parents by engaging in interracial activities, reaching out to AA friends, really resent that.  It feels like betrayal. I hope you understand.

    A few weeks back I was having lunch with two former colleagues and friends.  Four of us....three over 55: myself (caucasian), one Hispanic, one AA, and the fourth under 35, Native American.  The three older ones all for Hillary, the younger one for Barack.  Race did not divide us but age and experiences did.


    Thanks for the good discussion (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    As I have said here of late on this board, though many of us might disagree in these online debates (and like discussion), when it comes to the macro fights in the real world we are allies.  The worst thing to happen during the primary (and I think it was created by followers of both candidates and not the canidates) is that we lost track of this important fact.

    No other President (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by tree on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:05:46 PM EST
    has given so much respect, admiration and voice to the black community. He's even given more respect than Obama has. This is not something that is just "expected" of our Presidents, sad to say.

      I don't think that its a fair comparison to "not going to jail". Not engaging in hate speech or racial slurs would be comparable to not going to jail. But I'm sure you'll admit that Clinton did much more than simply refrain from bigotry. He encouraged respect and justice and equality. That is  not a small thing, nor is it simply avoiding a negative.



    More Respect Than Obama? (none / 0) (#112)
    by liberalone on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    I was with you until that statement.  Not so.  The vast majority of Black Americans would say that Obama is a source of respect, admiration, and voice that the Black community has always desired.  Even those who don't agree with him are proud of both Michelle and Barack.

    Finally, one Black intellectual has argued that Black people "liked" Clinton because he "liked" them.  Nothing more than that.  I believe this was Randall Robinson.  (Will check to make sure.)


    You misunderstand what I said (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by tree on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:32:58 PM EST
    I'm not talking about Obama as a source of respect, nor as a symbol of respect. I'm talking about Obama HIMSELF respecting the black community. Bill Clinton  showed more respect to the black community than Obama has so far as a candidate. Obama refused to attend the Black State of the Union gathering, while Hillary attended, even though she faced a tough crowd. Obama didn't attend the MLK memorial either. And he has promised little to nothing to his black base in return for their support.

     Ask Jesse Jackson Sr. who has given more respect to the black community. If you don't mind the expletives, what he said under his breath in the Fox studio speaks volumes to what respect he thinks Obama has for the black community.



    Obama has harmed race relations! Period (none / 0) (#71)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:32:01 AM EST
    This is an (1.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Jgarza on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:55:51 PM EST
    idiotic remark.

    C'mon, I think that (none / 0) (#74)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    is an exaggeration.  What definitive proof do you have?  I think the AA community is certainly proud of him for the most part, and that is a good thing.  He has not yet had a chance to pass any laws or set an agenda, so we'll have to wait and see.
    As far as the racial undertones of the primary/GE campaign, they are not great but I don't see how they greatly affect race relations as a whole.

    There are always at least two (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    races involved in "race relations". Obama's support in the AA community is not where you need to look to see if he has damaged race relations.

    And what has he done (none / 0) (#102)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:32:15 AM EST
    that has seriously hurt non-blacks?

    When we talk about how Bill Clinton improved race relations, we point to his minority appointments, his work on welfare and poverty, etc.  Real things in real people's lives.

    I don't agree with the political tactics Obama has been willing to at times employ - and there are a range of tactics I dislike (McClurkin, the SC memo) - BUT I don't think they have brought suffering to people or increased animosity between races.

    His candidacy has gotten people to talk about race, and there are no answers yet.  The conversation has not always been the most polite or sensitive, but it is a national conversation.  It hasn't always been the smartest, but I'm glad it was started.  I think the conversation is a good thing for race relations.  We will have to wait and see what policies he enacts to increase equality in this country.


    Advances in Race Relations (none / 0) (#154)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:15:24 AM EST
    in my opinion, to some extent pre-dated Obama's candidacy, particularly among the "youth voters, of all races, who have grown up admiring musicians, actors, champion ball players and others of all races as well as sexual orientationsl to me Obama's candidacy and the large numbers of white votes he garnered is symbolic of major changes that have taken place since the Civil Rights movement.  So I also think the national conversation about racial issues that was precipitated by his candidacy would not have been possible without all that came before.  In the 1960s, not only would Whoppi not have been able to give her point of view on the use of the "n" word by whites, but she would not have been a co-host on a prominent network TV show. Although we are not there yet, we've come a long way.  

    The Proof Will Come After Election and Achievement (none / 0) (#130)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    of policy while in office.

    But a poll released this week suggests that Obama leads in key groups across the race lines:

    Washington Post

    "Obama's advantage is attributable largely to overwhelming support from two traditional Democratic constituencies: African Americans and Hispanics.

    But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate."


    For what? He's done nothing but trivialize ... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    ... the legacies of people who deserve their place in history and DON'T deserve to be distortingly paraphrased by a phony and hack.

    I'd guess he won't (can't!) give better minds and better hearts their respect due because it would risk his more credulous fans realizing at some point he really is a phony and hack.


    The "race card". (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:57:03 AM EST
    That is the damage that has been done. By implying that Bill and Hillary Clinton are racists, or, at the very least, were race baiting, you deflate the entire charge. It's crying wolf once too often.

    People know that the Clintons aren't racist. So, the problem is that when you use the same charge against someone who actually is a racist or a race baiter, a large number of people will now think "Sure, but that's what they said about the Clintons. So you must just playing the race card once more."

    This is exactly the point that BTD has been making with regard to this campaign: it leaves the Republicans more free to inject actual race dogwhistles into the campaign, because calling them on it will be seen as "playing the race card" after what happened to the Clintons.

    That is the damage that has been done.

    And there are other things, like threats made against black Clinton supporters for being "traitors".


    I think many (none / 0) (#155)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:19:00 AM EST
    bought the accusations that the Clintons are racist, but in playing the race card against McCain, the Obama campaign overplayed its hand, and many -- I think -- realized that the claims about the Clintons were similarly no more than political strategy, not truth.

    proof? go read his speeches and those (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    of his surrogates. it is obama's responsibilty to handle his surrogates such as jackson jr. he needs to show his can handle that if he expects to run the wh. it's all there!

    Come on. (4.00 / 2) (#104)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    Jesse Jackson Jr's boneheaded and offensive appearance on MSNBC did not HURT race relations.  

    When discussing Obama media, it is important to remember most of it is positive.  For instance, his typical white person remark may not have been the fairest, but not many people will remember that.  Overall, his candidacy has had a positive effect on the national conversation about race.  We talk about it more and that in itself is good.


    actually jackson jr's appearance and (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:29:29 PM EST
    comments set up a dog whistle racist comment saga that has resulted in my personal view in a campaign that has been one of the nastiest i have seen in many a year. plus it has set race relations back by decades all the while attacking on the most open and helpful presidents to aa's for generations.

    By decades?? (none / 0) (#151)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:39:42 PM EST
    Decades ago was a terrible, terrible time in American race relations.  I simply disagree that we have been thrown backwards or great off track by the nastiness of the primary campign.  In part because while I don't think the Obama people will be held accountable for their insinuations, I do think that the Clintons will be rehabiliated.

    And for the most part, the American people are just not engaged in the primary race-baiting drama.  Polls say many AAs still like the Clintons, for instance.  Apparently they are not on board with some of the internet crazies.

    This is part of a national conversation that hasn't ended.  Plus the Clintons have been trashed endlessly.  Soon people will find something new and equally tiresome to trash them about.


    You can seriously say (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    you don't think JJJrs outrageous remarks and all the subsequent painting of the Clintons and numerous other high-profile Dems who supported her as racists and race-baiters for daring to criticize Obama has hurt race relations?  You don't think a fair number of white folks in this country resent the hell out of that kind of thing?  You don't think a lot of black folks are suddenly eyeing their white acquaintances with suspicion because they supported Clinton?

    damx straight i do. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    i think obama's racial dog whistles have set back race relations by decades. deal with it.

    this was meant for lilburro! thanks (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    How many white non-bloggers (none / 0) (#150)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:35:10 PM EST
    remember what JJjr even said?  The issue in this campaign has been in part that Obama gets away with murder, and every little thing the Clintons did was read with the worst intentions.  Jesse Jackson Junior's remarks simply do not cast a long shadow, certainly not as long as even the remarks about cocaine by Shaheen on the Clinton camp's part.

    Just because we may be mad doesn't mean society as a whole feels the dissonance.


    we read and comprehend very well. (none / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:42:01 PM EST
    and we can remember what the surrogates for candidates say. geez

    clyburn should hang his head in shame. (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:03:51 AM EST
    vote for the man and not the color is the way to go in my view.

    He should have been honest about it (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:13:26 AM EST
    If he wanted to support Obama, for whatever reason, he should have just been honest about it.  I believe that Clyburn convinced himself that the Clintons had offended him so that he could justify switching his support from Hillary to Obama.  In the process, he did untold damage to the people who were his loyal friends.  If he had simply been honest with himself and everyone else, IMHO, things could have turned out a lot differently.  

    "oh what a tangled web we weave when (none / 0) (#63)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    first we practice to deceive." even ourselves!

    For the record (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:35:20 PM EST
    Clyburn never "switched his support."  He was in Obama's camp from the get-go, but remained "officially" neutral until the end of the primaries while repeatedly pounding the Clintons and insinuating they were race-baiters.

    thanks, it was confusing as i did hear (none / 0) (#138)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    him referred to as a clinton supporter by the media sometimes. i did notice that bill clinton was very specfific about that fact as well and wondered about it.

    Bill and race relations (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:41:46 AM EST
    I like the Clintons, but I think everyone at this website will back me up in saying that I'm also skeptical of them.

    So here is my take on his contributions to race relations.

    1.  Wellfare, as much as I didn't like what he did, wellfare had taken on an racial tone, he nullified it.

    2.  Crime, crime plumetted under Clinton.  He gave huge law enforcement grants, invested in prevention, and the successs of the economy, all contributed to a huge decline in crime.  Crime was an issue that also had lots of racial undertones to it.

    3.  His administration featured lots of highprofile minorities.  Because minorities were in highprfile positions in competently run gov agencies, it helped create a positive image for diversity.

    4. Repubs kept bringing up affirmative action, and he made it through that mine field pretty well.

    Poverty decreased significantly (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Roz on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:29:12 AM EST
    under his administration, no?

    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Jgarza on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    that arguably helped race relations as well, as people didn't feel as much competition for jobs.

    the amount of minorites who found (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    work increased dramatically.

    Welfare (none / 0) (#105)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    Clinton for office on "ending welfare as we know it."  Given how infantalizing welfare can be I had no problems with a change.  His plan was carved out of Harvard studies on welfare that showed most families are on for two years not generations (although some are it is not the majority).  He packaged the plan and the troglodyte Republican Congress said they were having none of it without substantial draconian changes.  Clinton compromised with the Republicans and it was put into law.  

    Sam, read this speech made by (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by tree on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:31:37 AM EST
    Clinton in 1995, marking the Million Man March. Compare that to Obama's race speech from back in March of this year. Realize that Clinton was not forced to make his speech to save his political hide because of his long association with a pastor who gave hateful sermons, as Obama  was forced to do. Clinton could have easily remained silent if he chose to do so. Note that Clinton's speech was made 13 years prior to Obama's and that, IMHO, it runs rings around Obama's speech in terms of depth of meaning.

    Wow Tree (none / 0) (#133)
    by DJ on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:03:45 PM EST
    That is a wonderful speech.  Both Clintons radiate such intelligence and compassion.

    Thank you for linking.  


    Yes, she is "in oblivian,".... (none / 0) (#2)
    by mogal on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:04:05 AM EST
    therefore, not even worthy of comment.

    MoDo, what is REALLY bothering you? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:11:54 AM EST
    actually I think we covered that pretty well in the open thread yesterday.
    the economy subject is getting more interesting I think.  CW says that a bad economy helps Obama.  perhaps, to a point.  but I think if things start to look really dire it will hurt Obama because of his lack of resume and experience.  

    Close to joining (none / 0) (#7)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:15:20 AM EST

    I am getting depleted of compassion and rational thinking with all this.

    Can they cancel an election (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by frankly0 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:31:44 AM EST
    due to uncontrollable outbreaks of highly contagious boredom?

    The thing that strikes me is that, if Obama is so exciting a candidate, why is no one actually, well, excited?


    I dont know (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:40:11 AM EST
    the right wingers seem to be getting excited.

    Just a quick add on (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by frankly0 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:41:45 AM EST
    to my comment.

    One thing I've noticed of late in my latte-sipping neighborhood in Mass is that a good number of the Obama signs that were up during the entirety of the primaries have come down.

    These signs stayed up well past the time of the Mass primary itself. Why would they pull them down now, of all times, when the general election is still ahead of us?

    My guess is that there's a little less pride out there in their candidate of choice.


    I am seeing a similar thing (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:46:29 AM EST
    in central Illinois.  they dont seem quite as excited or ready to talk up Obama as they once did.
    not sure what that means or if it means anything.

    hey capt (none / 0) (#43)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:56:09 AM EST
    Good to see you too.  I just started visiting this site and I like it.  Nice to be able to say what's on your mind without being attacked.  I saw you here the other day and said HI but it was way down on a thread and I think you missed me. You back in AR now?

    great to be able to have an honest discussion (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    they dont like it when we go OT
    central Illinois.  see you in an open.

    Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#118)
    by caseyOR on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    Where in Central Illinois?

    Champiagn (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    um, Champaign (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    She needs a new target (none / 0) (#51)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    for her unique (not) brand of disdain.  One thing I really don't like is when someone constantly uses another person as the butt of his/her jokes -- a person who relies on putting someone down to lift themselves up or to conjure up humor.

    Maureen Dowd is this type of person.  Without a victim, she's nothing.  She needs a new target.  Bush and Cheney are leaving soon.  What will Maureen do?  If you read about her, and read some of her writings where she reveals things about herself, you might come to the conclusion, as I did, that she's really a very odd person and one who you could almost feel sorry for if she wasn't so vicious.

    Sadly, this kind of humor is perennially popular with some people.

    i always thought modo tried very hard (4.50 / 2) (#58)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:12:43 AM EST
    to be the new dorothy parker and failed miserably.

    Isn't NASCAR's favorite Pit-Sis overdue for a ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:15:49 AM EST
    ... pneumatic gauge check?*

    Bill Clinton looks at Obama and sees his own oblivion

    * I'm still laughing about Colbert's "outrage" of NASCAR so degraded, the ACLU now has a car in the field.

    i rather think modo is afraid of her own (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:19:07 AM EST
    lack of relevance. at any party there is always the snide neighbor who tells too much in too loud a voice. that is modo.

    The times is too becoming irrelivant. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by AX10 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:48:01 PM EST
    Their stock price has plummeted by some 67% over the past year.  The Post's stock price has fallen by just 15% (more in line with the market).

    yup, we need a real leader with (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:01:04 AM EST
    experience and willing to go work work right away.

    Dowd irrelevant? I don't think so. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    Afterall, she is a frequent target of criticism here.  Whatever happened to Frank Rich, BTW?

    I see the criticism here (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    as pointing and laughing.

    i am not laughing at dowd if that comment (none / 0) (#100)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    meant me. i rather think that is what she does. i find her irritating and it seems most of the posters feel the same. we often revert to humor to lighten the comment.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    I was talking about my impression of how BTD sees Maureen Dowd -- as the idiot that she is.

    I see his portrayal as pointing and laughing.


    thanks for the update, teresa (none / 0) (#116)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    smile even the irrelevant can be criticized. (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:18:35 AM EST
    i would agree that dowd gets more attention than she should. and yes rich and the rest of the gang of irrelevants could and should be included and dressed down when needed. (note-some of this is snark) have a nice day!

    Certain media outlets are all for Obama: (none / 0) (#141)
    by AX10 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    (The Big Five)

    NY Times
    LA Times

    Have gone all out to shill and cover for Mr. Obama.

    Do not be suprised to see Dowd bash Clinton and to see Herbert make up things that don't exist in order to play the race card.

    Fox News has been quite fair.  ABC has been fair too.
    The Washington Post has been very skeptical/critical of his empty rhetoric.

    "Fox News has been fair". (none / 0) (#147)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    Uh, no.  Fox News receives their talking points from the RNC every morning and then runs with it.

    Cornered the market on Stupidity (none / 0) (#142)
    by pluege on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    In a political campaign that is becoming increasingly dominated by economic concerns, this is political stupidity.

    the Obama campaign geniuses seem to have cornered the market lately on stupidity. Not embracing the Clintons is one more chunk of idiocy.

    We can't go back to the '90s. (none / 0) (#146)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:20:43 PM EST
    That time is gone for good.  I overall was pleased with the Clinton presidency, and proud of my votes for Bill in '92 and '96.  I do think missteps were made on health care and energy policy, but perhaps the people weren't ready for change the way they hopefully are now.  Ex-President Clinton, however, I am less enamored with.

    But let's talk about one Clinton legacy that was devastating for our party:  the decline in the infrastructure of state parties across the country which continued into the new century under Terry McAuliffe at the DNC.  People talk about Clinton as the winner, as the only Democrat to win the presidency during a conservative era.  But the fact is, he didn't bring the party with him.  

    This is one area you have to admit that Obama is a big contrast to Clinton on:  he has embraced Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy (and we know the Clintons were opposed to Dean heading up the DNC from the beginning, with Carville suggesting his ouster after we WON big in '06), and is working hard to rebuild.  Here in Georgia, there are now nine field offices, one being in Cumming, GA, Forsyth County, the place where the Ku Klux Klan suit that went to the Supreme Court, took place, which is remarkable.  Georgia, of course has turned steadily red (Bill won GA in '92, but narrowly lost it in '96), and it will take years to bring it back.  But under Clintonista DNC control, it drifted, as did so many other states.

    As to the rest, I am glad that you at least have added the word "basically", since you never could come up with a Clyburn quote to back up your claim.  

    Here (none / 0) (#152)
    by daria g on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:09:54 PM EST

    Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he was rethinking his neutral stance in his state's presidential primary out of disappointment at comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that he saw as diminishing the historic role of civil rights activists.


    "We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics," said Mr. Clyburn, who was shaped by his searing experiences as a youth in the segregated South and his own activism in those days. "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."


    "To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us," said Mr. Clyburn, who said he and others took significant risks more than 40 years ago to produce such opportunities for future black Americans.

    BTD's Point (none / 0) (#153)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:49:05 PM EST
    that Obama's candidacy is a result of the Clinton legacy is an important one.  

    I don't know if I am more disheartened by Obama's weaknesses as a candidate for the presidency or his refusal to acknowledge these weakenesses and how both Clintons could make his campaign stronger; this refusal seems to go hand in hand with an enthusiatic embrace of dissing and dismissing Bill Clinton as a campaign strategy -- and what started as a strategy has evolved into an adolescent rebellion -- replete with inappropriate and jejune disrespect for authority and wisdom that is typical of some adolescents. What justifies Obama in thinking he is so superior and will be superior as president? He is, after all, surrounded by many former Clinton advisors. So the advisors are okay, but the person who was smart enough to pick them for service to the nation is not?  

    The face of the Clinton legacy.... (none / 0) (#176)
    by kdog on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    for me is the sneer of Gen. Barry McCaffery, Clinton's drug czar.

    Sorry if I can't look back fondly at a dramatic increase in the enforcement of marijuana prohibition...iow I can't look back fondly on tyranny, even if it is a slightly more "benevolent" brand of tyranny.