sozobe wrote:Later that day, BET founder Robert Johnson said some dunderheaded things about what Obama was doing "in the neighborhood." Clinton's campaign quickly issued an explanation from him that said that he meant community organizing, that's all, really. Obama's campaign said, that doesn't make any sense! (Nelson then later -- several days later -- admitted he was referring to drug use, and apologized.)
Left out that Robert Johnson is a major Hillary supporter and was in the process of introducing Hillary at the time -- she was right there. Her campaign's first response was to say that Johnson meant community organizing. She then said -- in the debate I think -- that he'd apologized, before he actually had. He then finally officially apologized to Obama.
Obama called the statements of Hillary's "illadvised" and "unfortunate."
Quote:Obama responded immediately to the Clinton interview, saying she had offended people who believed she had diminished King's role. The Illinois senator criticized her for spending an hour on television "talking about me and about my record in a way that was flat-out wrong." He denied distorting her remarks.
"What we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play," Obama said after Clinton made her appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"But Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson," Obama said. "I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it, and she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."
source
I admit he's smooth rather in the way of Bill Clinton he decrys as "washington politics" but he did manage to get in there some comments and how some were offended by it and why they were offended. If he didn't think Hillary meant anything racial about it;he should have just said so straight out so as to not leave any misunderstanding. He is really cleverly leaving it to his staff and supporters to do the dirty work while he comes along and just says words like "unfortunate."
However; I think the media is more to blame and the Clinton's themselves. All of them are just thinking of the primaries rather than the democratic party and the country as a whole. And so are supporters both on TV and internet forums. I would and will support either candidate and I would not like to see anyone destoryed either Obama or Hillary even if they do it to themselves.
People took the two comments by the Clintons and suggested they had a racial connotation. As soon as these views got any traction, the Clinton campaign accused the Obama campaign of playing the race card. Whether or not the Obama campaign was behind the initial reactions, or their rapid spread remains an unanswered question, but at least at one time the Clinton campaign thought it was.
Obama handled the matter perfectly, whether or not he was being disingenuous, and can easily lay claim to having remained above the fray.
That many, including revel, believes Obama or his campaign staff have played the race card is testimony to the effectiveness of Clinton counter-punching. In any case, the dust-up seems to have had either its intended effect or or an unintended but nevertheless beneficial-to-Obama effect. It created instability in the heretofore rock steady support of black Democrats for Clinton.
The Clinton's politically savvy or reflexively pugnacious counter-punch has led to some among the Democratic base to (as revel has done) cry foul and fie on Obama.
I believe this is what Williams was referring to when he complained that the Clintons have reduced Obama to The Black Candidate.
Where this will all lead is up in the air, and dependent on a number of possible circumstances, but it does indicate that there are fault lines in the party and that intentionally or otherwise the intense ambitions of candidates and their followers may lead to widening them.
Quote:The only people stirring the racial thing that I've seen have been media whores like Chris Matthews and George Stephanopolis and all the usual suspects on the right.
I havent heard anyone on the right stirring it up.
Rush even said he didnt think Hillary meant anything racial by it.
I admit however that I dont listen to much talk radio,so I dont know what everyone on the right is saying.
Yes, that's what I referred to, the response to Hillary's meet the press appearance, where she laid the whole thing at the foot of Obama's campaign.
Quote:Clearly, we know from media reports that the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this.
[...]
But I have no intention of either, you know, doing something that would move this race in a wrong way, or, frankly, sit standing by when I think tactics are being employed that are not in the best interests of our country.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22634967/
I think the MLK/LBJ thing was an ill-advised and unfortunate remark. A person who is basically a good person and who is not racist can make an ill-advised and unfortunate remark.
What you quoted was was from Sunday, January 13th. He called the "truce" on Monday, January 14th. You're still comfortable saying that he "took those statements and ran with it"?
I am loving this because it is a rare opportunity for the Democrats to see themselves in the mirror, if they have an ounce of honesty, in regard to what Republicans have had thrown at them for the last few decades. Let the Democrats throw their mud at each other so they can see how it feels for a change.
If Obama does well in later primaries I think the way to save this situation is for Hillary to announce that for the sake of the country and the party she will step down and support Obama for presidency. I imagine it would just about kill her; but in the end; if it starts looking like the Clintons are villains picking on Obama and whining to boot; it may the only way to save their political careers. Maybe the world has enough of Clintons and Bushes for a generation. Just think some kids have only ever know either a Bush or Clinton. Somehow though they all got to get out this rut they seem to be stuck in.
sozobe wrote:Yes, that's what I referred to, the response to Hillary's meet the press appearance, where she laid the whole thing at the foot of Obama's campaign.
Quote:Clearly, we know from media reports that the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this.
[...]
But I have no intention of either, you know, doing something that would move this race in a wrong way, or, frankly, sit standing by when I think tactics are being employed that are not in the best interests of our country.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22634967/
I think the MLK/LBJ thing was an ill-advised and unfortunate remark. A person who is basically a good person and who is not racist can make an ill-advised and unfortunate remark.
What you quoted was was from Sunday, January 13th. He called the "truce" on Monday, January 14th. You're still comfortable saying that he "took those statements and ran with it"?
Well I confess; I haven't been keeping up with it that much since then. If he called a truce; I hope Hillary accepted it and it is all forgotten and we can move on.
Okie, see, this is what I like about liberals. They're just so dang easily swayed by facts. :-)
Here's the "truce", from the 14th (Obama's speaking):
Quote:"You have seen a tone on the Democrat[ic] side of the campaign that has been unfortunate. I want to stipulate a couple of things. I may disagree with Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. They are good people. They are patriots....I don't want the campaign at this stage to degenerate to so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why we are doing this."
Obama said he wants to send "a strong signal to my own supporters that let's try to focus on the work that needs to get done. If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it....
"Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically been on the right side of civil rights issues. They care about the African American community.
That is something I am convinced of. I want Americans to know that is my assessment."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/14/obama-calls-truce-with-clinton/
Revel, re: Clinton stepping down, that'd be amazing. I can't see it happening, but it'd be amazing. I agree that there's something deeply creepy about Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
sozobe wrote:I think the MLK/LBJ thing was an ill-advised and unfortunate remark. A person who is basically a good person and who is not racist can make an ill-advised and unfortunate remark.
I think you are giving Clinton an amazing pass here. Exactly what was the purpose of this remark? I can see only one possibility: she wanted people to make the natural connection between King/Johnson and Obama/Clinton with the undercurrent being that a charismatic black man needs a white President to move forward. I just can't find another plausible explanation. Why discuss Johnson at all in this campaign? Is she saying that white folks can be leaders on civil rights also? OK, fine, but why bring up MLK and make it sound like MLK couldn't have succeeded without LBJ? If anything, MLK probably influenced LBJ. I like to look at all sides of various issues and try to put myself in the candidate's shoes on some of this, but no explanation other than an overt play of the "race card" works for me here. It is very disappointing since I was prepared to vote for her if she won the Democratic nomination. I can't see casting my vote that way now.
engineer wrote:sozobe wrote:I think the MLK/LBJ thing was an ill-advised and unfortunate remark. A person who is basically a good person and who is not racist can make an ill-advised and unfortunate remark.
I think you are giving Clinton an amazing pass here. Exactly what was the purpose of this remark? I can see only one possibility: she wanted people to make the natural connection between King/Johnson and Obama/Clinton with the undercurrent being that a charismatic black man needs a white President to move forward. I just can't find another plausible explanation. Why discuss Johnson at all in this campaign? Is she saying that white folks can be leaders on civil rights also? OK, fine, but why bring up MLK and make it sound like MLK couldn't have succeeded without LBJ? If anything, MLK probably influenced LBJ. I like to look at all sides of various issues and try to put myself in the candidate's shoes on some of this, but no explanation other than an overt play of the "race card" works for me here. It is very disappointing since I was prepared to vote for her if she won the Democratic nomination. I can't see casting my vote that way now.
Hillary is Clinton is not that dumb try such a stupid stunt given what has been happening these last few years with Lott and Imus ect. Also consider who she is trying to convince. Liberals a lot of which are black democrats. She would have to be politically stupid to have meant such a thing and still want to be elected by the very people she supposedly insulted. I think all she meant was that a movement needs a leader in position of authority to make it law and she thinks she is that leader in these times more so than Obama at the present time. She simply thinks Obama is not ready yet; she has said so more than once. Whether anyone agrees her with her not is a different story.
revel wrote:engineer wrote:sozobe wrote:I think the MLK/LBJ thing was an ill-advised and unfortunate remark. A person who is basically a good person and who is not racist can make an ill-advised and unfortunate remark.
I think you are giving Clinton an amazing pass here. Exactly what was the purpose of this remark? I can see only one possibility: she wanted people to make the natural connection between King/Johnson and Obama/Clinton with the undercurrent being that a charismatic black man needs a white President to move forward. I just can't find another plausible explanation. Why discuss Johnson at all in this campaign? Is she saying that white folks can be leaders on civil rights also? OK, fine, but why bring up MLK and make it sound like MLK couldn't have succeeded without LBJ? If anything, MLK probably influenced LBJ. I like to look at all sides of various issues and try to put myself in the candidate's shoes on some of this, but no explanation other than an overt play of the "race card" works for me here. It is very disappointing since I was prepared to vote for her if she won the Democratic nomination. I can't see casting my vote that way now.
Hillary is Clinton is not that dumb try such a stupid stunt given what has been happening these last few years with Lott and Imus ect. Also consider who she is trying to convince. Liberals a lot of which are black democrats. She would have to be politically stupid to have meant such a thing and still want to be elected by the very people she supposedly insulted. I think all she meant was that a movement needs a leader in position of authority to make it law and she thinks she is that leader in these times more so than Obama at the present time. She simply thinks Obama is not ready yet; she has said so more than once. Whether anyone agrees her with her not is a different story.
But how many ways could she have said such a thing (in fact she has said it numerous times) without posing it in the way she did? I think she thought she was being subtle. Most news articles are not about how she should be LBJ to Obama's MLK, they are about her trashing MLK. I just can't see someone who is otherwise so sharp being so tone deaf.
engineer wrote:sozobe wrote:I think the MLK/LBJ thing was an ill-advised and unfortunate remark. A person who is basically a good person and who is not racist can make an ill-advised and unfortunate remark.
I think you are giving Clinton an amazing pass here. Exactly what was the purpose of this remark?
Wow, that must be the first time anyone accused
Sozobe of giving Hillary a pass.. :wink:
engineer wrote:revel wrote:engineer wrote:sozobe wrote:I think the MLK/LBJ thing was an ill-advised and unfortunate remark. A person who is basically a good person and who is not racist can make an ill-advised and unfortunate remark.
I think you are giving Clinton an amazing pass here. Exactly what was the purpose of this remark? I can see only one possibility: she wanted people to make the natural connection between King/Johnson and Obama/Clinton with the undercurrent being that a charismatic black man needs a white President to move forward. I just can't find another plausible explanation. Why discuss Johnson at all in this campaign? Is she saying that white folks can be leaders on civil rights also? OK, fine, but why bring up MLK and make it sound like MLK couldn't have succeeded without LBJ? If anything, MLK probably influenced LBJ. I like to look at all sides of various issues and try to put myself in the candidate's shoes on some of this, but no explanation other than an overt play of the "race card" works for me here. It is very disappointing since I was prepared to vote for her if she won the Democratic nomination. I can't see casting my vote that way now.
Hillary is Clinton is not that dumb try such a stupid stunt given what has been happening these last few years with Lott and Imus ect. Also consider who she is trying to convince. Liberals a lot of which are black democrats. She would have to be politically stupid to have meant such a thing and still want to be elected by the very people she supposedly insulted. I think all she meant was that a movement needs a leader in position of authority to make it law and she thinks she is that leader in these times more so than Obama at the present time. She simply thinks Obama is not ready yet; she has said so more than once. Whether anyone agrees her with her not is a different story.
But how many ways could she have said such a thing (in fact she has said it numerous times) without posing it in the way she did? I think she thought she was being subtle. Most news articles are not about how she should be LBJ to Obama's MLK, they are about her trashing MLK. I just can't see someone who is otherwise so sharp being so tone deaf.
Even more stupid to trash MLK in a democratic primary subtle or not it would be a stupid thing to do and would not serve her political purpose in trying to gain the black vote over Obama.
However if the end result of the whole thing is that Obama is reduced to "the Black candidate," that helps her.
Which brings us back to where we started, I think!
sozobe wrote:However if the end result of the whole thing is that Obama is reduced to "the Black candidate," that helps her.
Which brings us back to where we started, I think!
And I think the whole thing has done just that. You've got to admire the long term strategy. She takes a hit short term, but paints Obama black before super Tuesday.
Like we didn't know he was black in the first place?
If Obama is not exactly running with the race issue; his supporters are. A large portion of the democratic vote comes from blacks; they are not going to forget racial comments 'in the long run'. Hillary is smart enough to know that.
Enough said on my end.
Talking about ugly.. are you all LOOKING at this??? G*dDAMN..!
It's rough, that's for sure.
I'm shaking here. Dude. These people are KILLING each other. It's warfare.. any Republican viewers out there sure must be enjoying themselves..
