Today’s Clinton-Obama flare up

I mentioned this briefly earlier, but it seems to be the big political story of the day, so let’s flesh this out a bit.

In her column today, the NYT’s Maureen Dowd quoted entertainment mogul David Geffen, who was a loyal Clinton supporter in the 1990s, saying all kinds of critical things about Hillary, while explaining why he’s supporting Barack Obama.

“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.” […]

“I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”

She is overproduced and overscripted. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,” Mr. Geffen says.

Geffen went on to say that the Clintons “lie” with “such ease, it’s troubling.”

Clearly, Geffen’s comments were extremely harsh, especially from one Democrat to another. It didn’t take much time before Clinton’s rapid-response team fired back, criticizing Obama and accusing Geffen is a finance chairman of his campaign*. “If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money,” Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson said.

This led Obama’s rapid-response team to return fire.

“We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters,” Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said. “It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because he’s black.”

Which, in turn, led Clinton’s team to lob another one in Obama’s direction.

“By refusing to disavow the personal attacks from his biggest fundraiser against Senator Clinton and President Clinton, Senator Obama has called into serious question whether he really believes his own rhetoric,” Wolfson said. “How can Senator Obama denounce the politics of slash & burn yesterday while his own campaign is espousing the politics of trash today?

“When one of Senator Clinton’s supporters made an inappropriate statement, her campaign disavowed it immediately and the supporter apologized for his words. Why won’t Senator Obama do the same?”

I have no interest in taking sides here, but I have to say how discouraged I am by all of this. As Kevin Drum put it, “It’s one thing for campaigns to descend into mudslinging for a couple of hectic final months during the actual primaries, but it’s another for the mudslinging to last for over a year. At the least, it makes it a lot harder to kiss and make up at the convention. By September these people are going to hate each other’s guts.” I’m not looking forward to it.

For what’s it’s worth, neither side of this comes out looking good from all of this. For Obama, if Geffen is his campaign finance chair, what he tells the New York Times matters and can’t be shrugged off. If Geffen is going to take some seriously harsh shots at Obama’s principal rival, it necessarily undermines his effort to take the high road and keep a positive campaign.

For Clinton, today’s responses may have defeated the purpose. Hillary has some of the best, smartest people in the business working for her, and I appreciate the fact that this team doesn’t let anything get by them. But there are sometimes unintended consequences to being aggressive like this — all of a sudden, David Geffen’s comments, which may have been largely ignored in a column behind the NYT pay-to-read wall, are the talk of the political world. Would they have gotten this much attention if the campaign hadn’t raised such a fuss?

Less of this, please.

* Update: It turns out, Geffen isn’t a finance chair for Obama, as the Clinton team had asserted. Given the importance of tying Geffen’s comments to the Obama campaign, it’s a relevant detail.

And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.

I’ll second that.

  • Geffen went on to say that the Clintons “lie” with “such ease, it’s troubling.”

    Umm, this comes from a Hollywood Mogul? What other place on Earth do they lie more easily than Hollywood?

    As for the overall picture, as I said in a previous post, they are just pre-digesting them for the Republicans.

  • well if these guys keep discrediting themselves, maybe it will eventually allow some airtime and attention to flow to the other candidates. Why do we have to keep pretending that the entire Democratic nomination process is between Obama and Hillary?

  • Well, there goes some of my respect for Obama. I don’t particularly like Hillary Clinton, but she doesn’t deserve the sort of B.S. Geffen dishes out.

  • Not having Times Select, I must rely on your excerpts, but the only Geffen quote that seemed to me as apology worthy was the lying-with-ease bit. The rest of it looks like legitimate criticism. If Senator Clinton doesn’t like being criticized for not owning up to her mistake in voting for the war, she should either admit to the mistake or explain in clear terms why she feels that her vote wasn’t a mistake, even as she’s a critic of the war today. And the I-was-hoodwinked or Who-knew-he-was-that-incompetent excuses won’t suffice as explanations.

    And I too am tired of seeing Carville on TV (and Begala and McAuliffe and Brazille).

  • I’m with EtT (#4)
    One of the problems with the MSM is the tendancy to frame everything in a “horse race” fashion, and limiting that race to 2 major players. I’d like more Richardson & Vilsack, please.
    Meanwhile, how long are we going to have to wait for a non-republican major TV network?

  • Gee, I wonder why Al Gore isn’t getting into it yet?

    Come on, people. Can we remember the real enemy?

  • The last campaign had lots of nasty stuff, too. I remember that Kerry supporters went into the parking lots at Clark speeches and put flyers with false information on the cars. That team also put together a video to trash Clark.

    I guess it worked for Kerry. We’ve all already heard of how Hillary’s been telling her donors they’re not allowed to donate to other campaigns, etc. So I think it’s already clear what kind of tactics her campaign will be using against her fellow Democrats.

  • And note what Atrios and Somerby (Daily Howler) sayon this. The problem is mostly Maureen Dowd, sort of saying ” You’re ugly, let’s you and him fight.” H. Clinton was very unsophisticated in her response. Sure, Geffen was dumb for what he said to Dowd – if he actually said it, since Dowd is not a reliable witness. But attacking Geffen and Obama is helping Dowd attack Democrats now and in the future. Other Dems, including Obama should step up and also push back on this.

  • Dale, I have to say that I also have been considering political Monkdom (Monkhood?). The squabbling and focus on the trivial does not become less disheartening with time.

    I also think there was a lot of truth in what Geffen said (based on CB’s excerpts only). His comments about fatigue about (1) Bush / Clinton dynastic monopoly on national politics and (2) the political stylings of James Carville (with or without his shrieking spousal appendage) particularly resonated with me. The “lying with ease” remark was a blow. It is tough to hear a former supporter affirm a right-wing talking point. I think CB may be right about the wisdom (lack thereof) of bringing the remark out from behind the NYT Select firewall.

  • …but the only Geffen quote that seemed to me as apology worthy was the lying-with-ease bit.

    I agree with this. And the fact that Geffen has no official role in the Obama campaign team means I come down on Obama’s side in this one. Why doesn’t Hillary’s rapid reaction team take the high road and attack the substance of Geffen’s remarks?

    I score this Obama: 0; Clinton: -1; GOP: 0; Edwards 0 or +1.

    GOP doesn’t gain as Obama is the tougher candidate in a general election, so anything that hurts Clinton doesn’t really help them.

  • Why bother falling for the “elite pundit class'” attempt to start a cat fight. MoDo wants to play the puppetmaster so she can watch the bickering between two parties that she started with her column. Don’t play her game guys. Republican control of government is the real enemy.

  • Telling someone to fire someone because you don’t like hearing their opinion is downright Donohue of Clinton. When that person doesn’t even actually work for the other campaign, it just makes her look stupid.

    Are we going to have to listen to her shout “disavow, disavow, disavow,” every time another candidate’s supporter (SHOCK) doesn’t have nice things to say about her?

    This certainly wasn’t Obama’s finest response, but I believe Clinton, so far, looks much worse.

  • Hillary’s people are throwing mud at Barack already AND making things up too.

    Get ready for the Geriatric Mormon Lesbian Atheist of Hispanic descent . . .

    This is the coolest spectator sport ever . . .

  • I’ve already said I’m officially done with Hillary C. but if she’s saying Obama can’t be friends with someone who’s mean…what’s the next level above Done?

    I’m soooo ova her.

    Here’s a hint Senator Clinton: Focus on the bloody ISSUES and STFU about everything else.

    tAiO

    nitpick: By refusing to disavow the personal attacks from his biggest fundraiser against Senator Clinton and President Clinton…

    As much as we might wish otherwise, W.J. Clinton is no longer President. I believe his proper title is Former President Clinton.

    Speaking of fundraiser and funds. Hey, how about the NRCC keeping money from a man accused of funding terrorists? FOCUS ON THE ISSUES OR STFU!

  • two cents

    anytime they want to start talking about the issues isn’t too soon for me. I was hoping Hillary’s campaign wouldn’t look like it was being run by Karl Rove, but Oh Well.

  • This should be a NON ISSUE. Neither side should dignify it with a response as it was simply said by a mere supporter of a specific campaign and not the canidate. End of story. How foolish of the Clinton Campaign to take the bait.

  • As I keep saying, if you’ve enjoyed the scat-throwing politics of the last 20 years, and relish the prospect of four (maybe eight, but almost certainly four) more years of consultant-scripted public pronouncements and vicious smears “on background,” and think our politics can’t get enough of Karl Rove and James Carville, Hillary Clinton is your candidate.

  • “Umm, this comes from a Hollywood Mogul? What other place on Earth do they lie more easily than Hollywood?”

    You’re right, people lie in Hollywood. They just happen not to lie about the kind of stuff Bill and Hillary lie about – the important things. And we don’t like the people who do.

    And of course, the really important point Geffen made is the one the ClintonScum can’t dare talk about: “…he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family…”

    This is the reason why I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in a primary or a general election. If we are serious abut restoring the Republic, we have to get rid of these political aristocracies, or the next time we really will end up with a Caesar.

  • If Geffen doesn’t actually have a position in the Obama campaign, that requires more than a footnote. It completely undermines HRC’s complaint. You can’t fire someone if you’re not employing them, and it’s ludicrous to ask an opponent to return a campaign contribution just because the contributor said something mean about you. If that were the standard, candidates would have to return half their checks.

  • We are seeing a double standard from Clinton here. She attacks Obama over what one of his supporters said, but last week, when in a similar position, Clinton aides protested being tied to comments made by Terry McAuliffe.

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1117

    I also think that the anti-Hillary comments quoted are far less serious than Hillary’s insinuation that her opponents are soft on terrorism. We already get far too much of that claim from the right wing:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1103

  • Hillary is going into major meltdown, because Geffen’s comments were not that nasty. If this is what Hillary is going to dish out against fellow Democrats, then I hope she is eliminated early in the primary season (if not before)!

  • I don’t want to hear about Marc Rich, I don’t want to hear about the Lincoln Bedroom, I don’t want to hear about Bill'[s recklessness. Dear Mr & Sen. Clinton, thank you for your service and I think you’ll contribute greatly in the Senate BUT ENOUGH! We don’t want to go through this again.

    No more Clintons or Bushs. It’s time for some new blood.

  • I agree with the the above comments. The mud-slinging really turns me off. I’m a life long Democrat but didn’t vote for Angelides because I was sick of the personal cat fights. I voted for the Green candidate. Yes, I may have wasted my vote but I won’t vote for people who prefer to discuss personality failures rather than the issues. It’s like everything in our culture today is judged by the National Enquirer as the gold standard.

    There is an online petition asking Al Gore to run for president and he’s made a few hints that if enough people really, really want him to run he might give it a go but I think ultimately it will come down to Edwards/Obama.

    (spam question- “what color is an orange?”) Ummmm, that’s a tough one. Wonder if anyone actually failed to give the right answer)

  • I’m late to this thread…was thinking about it overnight…

    Geffen is notorious for his feuding…he was also notorious in the gay community for his strenuous efforts to represent himself as something other than “not queer”…I remember seeing him on campus in the late 1970’s when he was chasing/courting a classmate of mine (a guy) and then reading in the tabloids about him strenously squiring Cher around town…we used to laugh at his hypocrisy and the lie he was living. According to his biography, Geffen only made public the fact that he was gay in 1992.

    Vis-a-vis this quote: “Geffen went on to say that the Clintons “lie” with “such ease, it’s troubling…” – it all seems deeply ironic to me.

    Having said that, I think the Clinton’s rapid response is significant…I dunno the circumstances of the falling out between the Clintons and Geffen (and according to Geffen’s biography, “The Operator” they were fairly intimate), but I think they were sending him (and Obama) the message that Hollywood rules are not going to apply in the larger national arena…Geffen is to not take their feud (whatever it is) public, and in Obama’s statement one sees an effort to distance himself from Geffen.

  • Where is a sense of porportion? I get it that everyone is sick of smears and bickering. So am I. But don’t go so far overboard that assertive self deffense becomes confused withh smears and bickering.

    I do not get how this exchange makes Obama look bad. He didn’t start it. The idea that candidates are responisble for the things their contributers say is absurd and it is a standard which the Clinton campaign hhas no intention of applying to themselves. Obama’s people didn’t lie about the situation and the Clinton campaign did. (The claim that Geffen is a leader on the Obama staff is on thhe Clinton websire, uncorrecteed).

    The Clinton campaign initiated a smear. So fault them, they deseerrve it The Obama campaign shot back assertively, correcting the smear without upping the ante. After years of bitchinng about spineless Demcrats who “rise above” smears instead of fighhting back, why are Democrats using Obama’s asertivenness to start a meme about how “He is just as bad?”

    He wouuld be just as bad if he initiated. He would be just as bad if he lied. He would be just as bad if his response was hypocritical or a false issue. But those are sins of the Clinton camp, not Obama’s.

    Are we really going to start criticizing one of our candidates because he won’t take crap from anyone? Hey, that’s the kind of candidate I want.

  • Ederlore,

    I’m a life long Democrat but didn’t vote for Angelides because I was sick of the personal cat fights. I voted for the Green candidate.

    Yo tambien.

  • I know nothing about David Geffen and only caught up with his comments (missed Dowd yesterday) in today’s Times. Whatever else the guy is, he’s right.

    Clinton was right for his time and then went and got slammed by the right in a completely illegitimate manner and, frankly, handled it with some grace. But I can’t stand (shouting!) the Clinton machine, the Clinton legacy, the DLC, the hangers-on. Even if I didn’t disagree with Hillary on some pretty big issues and even if I could stomach another leader to the right of center (not the Democratic center but the US political center which is already ‘way right), I couldn’t put up with the kind of big money Hillary represents.

    Geffen is quoted as saying that her “political operation is very unpleasand and very unattractive and effective.” But it may turn out to have been less than effective while in the meantime it siphons off available funding for far better candidates.

    Bottom line: it’s not just the dynasty aspect of all this which is off-putting but what it all says about the power we cede to the political machinery, to the money-grubbing dishonest media, and to a deeply opposition all of whom go on to insure the burial of some really good people out there who would make damn good leaders.

  • Women Are Never Front-Runners
    By GLORIA STEINEM

    THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

    Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

    If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

    That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

    If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

    So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

    I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

    I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

    But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

    What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

    What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

    What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

    What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

    This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

    Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.

  • is it not revolting to everyone that the clintons are what they are?
    ie. liars, cheats, hustlers, frauds, low lifes, and arrogant and conceited besides.

    the suckers in new york actually voted for this witch and she conned new york?????????

    she wouldln’t know upstate new york from a turd.

    they represent the lowest form of humanity and there are those that actually like them?

    suckers and fools all.

    why oh why would we have a president that 49% of the nation loathes, not disagrees with
    but viscerally loathes. not a bright way to start a new administration, one that i recall ended in recession, a decimation of the military and cia, head in the oval office and
    an impeachment.

    the iowa photo of the witch claiming change had a back drop of the old sorry war horses, eg. sec madeleine, looking beat up and pathetic, is absurd.

    the only change there would be would be back to hate in the streets and head in the oval office.

  • I think Barak Obama is a disguine person, he never denounce those people who attack Clinton at all cost, but claim having no relation with them. How discussing that is? Plus he paint Clinton as person who will do everything to got elect. Is he doing that also?

    Now Black vote Black, white vote White. But as a Asian, I don;t know who I shoiuld vote now.

  • It is so sad to see black people just delivered a reverse racism. Iowa white didn’t vote based on race, neither New hampershire. It all start with Neveda, Black only support black. Obama should not use race card, even if can not win election, other wise, even win the primary, he will easily lose general elction.
    He just paint himself as a black president, nobody else can do that.
    Even Bill clinton can not change that impression.

  • Obama and Clinton could very well take their duel to the convention. Imagine the viewer interest in the Democratic convention if that happened. John McCain is a republican who arch republicans hate and many democrats like. Wont that make for an interesting general election. Kent Ninomiya

  • America, wake up!
    Everyone is herding like blind sheep to Obama’s side – a guy who’s biggest claim to the presidency is he likes to talk about being an agent of “change”, though he has no substance to back it up with. The only concrete “change” he seems hellbent on making is letting every illegal immigrant in this country become legal. Does he not see how overburdered states like California are when it comes to education, health care, and social welfare, so that regular citizens can’t even get proper education and health care because all the illegal immigrants are swamping the system? Why don’t we just open up our borders? All the illegals are swarming over now, anyway, hoping to become one of the lucky illegals to be christened with legality by Priest Obama. He sucks and is going to ruin our country.
    Also, I hate war and I’m certainly against the war in Iraq, but any guy who says he will pull troops out immediately is a crazed idiot willing to plunge the world into a horrible civil war in the Middle East which will probably turn into a world war. We created a mess over there, and now he will create another. Which could end up being worse if that’s possible.
    Could it be people are swarming to him because of “black” guilt? They want to show how “open minded” they are and that they’re willing to embrace a “Black” president, even if he is the worst phenomenom to ever hit the Presidential campaign trail. Perhaps we should copy from the illegal immigrants and stage our own million man march on City Halls around the country. After all, it’s our country. Where are all the LEGAL residents and why aren’t they protesting their rights and standing up against potential National Disasters like Obama? If the illegal immigrants think they can march for their rights in this country, by God, certainly we should, since it’s our country! Don’t let Obama ruin our country. Wake up before it’s too late, America!

  • Leon A. Walker
    Freelance Writer
    2303 West Michigan Ave.
    Pensacola, Florida 32526
    (850) 377-4218
    leonwalker@cox.net

    March 5, 2008

    Obama – Clinton: “Going Dutch”

    After her wins in Texas and Ohio, (as considered in my previous columns) I have to give it to Senator Clinton. Not surprisingly, she has demonstrated some strong positive qualities and political savvy and appeal among her constituency that should be appreciated and more importantly, that should not be overlooked.

    I have been reading and watching the Democratic Candidates and the political pundits since the results began unfolding last evening’s (Super Tuesday II). The theories and calculations range from basic arithmetic to calculus and from Dr. Seuss to Dante. The fact of the matter is, unless someone changes or bends the rules, Senator Clinton is and will remain behind on pledged delegates. There is no visible scenario to change that. There are countless possibilities with regard to manipulating Super Delegates that could swing the nomination, but none imaginable that would not be damaging to the credibility of the party or the process or Senator Clinton’s image. There are two other very important factors that I have not heard discussed enough so far. One, Senator Clinton most probably would have no chance of defeating John McCain in a run for the oval office. She is simply too polarizing and middle of the road voters, (including many of Senator Obama’s followers) would abandon the party (or vote Republican). Secondly, in her efforts to continue this fight she can do considerable damage to the party only to gain an opportunity to lose in the actual election, or weaken the chances of Senator Obama due to further delays and an impending smear campaign.

    Now admittedly Senator Obama will be in a “dogfight” in November should he receive the party nomination he has seemingly earned. This is all the more reason that the Democratic Party must consolidate their efforts now in the hopes of putting together a strong movement that will secure November’s prize. With each passing day and with each new internal attack, the party will begin to feel greater negative effects. Oh yes, the networks and newspapers are clamoring for this to continue. Even wrapping this in a cloak of “politics at its best” as they scramble for ratings and sales. I freely admit that it has been both wonderfully historic and entertaining but the party leadership has got to be squirming. This is about to get really “ugly” and the scars may not heal by convention time or perhaps a very long time beyond. This is to say nothing of the fact that the Presidency hangs in the balance. The Republican side is salivating as they observe a potential implosion and they would much prefer to face Hillary, knowing she is a less formidable McCain opponent.

    Senator Obama can win the Presidency. But he can only win it if he has the full backing of the party in time enough to build momentum and a broader base of support starting now! Senator Clinton can’t win the Presidency it no matter what. And at this moment even winning the party nomination is still remains nearly an impossible dream. Democrats absolutely cannot allow this to turn into a political nightmare, no matter how entertaining it may seem to political junkies. In terms of time and credibility the Democratic Party is approaching the tipping point. And if the leadership does not step up soon, the Presidency will be tipped right back into the Republican toilet.

    I am an Obama supporter and I sincerely respect and admire Clinton. Both have repeatedly indicated that they have a mutual respect and admiration for each other and I am convinced that on some level those were true statements. But more importantly, the thing that they have both also clearly stated is that they want “What is best for Americans”. Well it’s time to put up or shut up! It is time for the ego’s to be set aside and for the issues to be challenged and for the party to become united. It is time to rescue America and to take back the White House from the Republicans. Few would argue that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a tremendously formidable, if not a clearly unbeatable ticket. So what’s the problem???

    Senator Obama has the first move I imagine. If he is sincere about wanting what is best for America (and I believe he is), he has got to ask her to be his running mate. If I were him, I would do it now, and very publicly. And if Senator Clinton is sincere about wanting what is best for America (and I believe she is), she has got to accept her place on the ticket as Vice Presidential Candidate. She may not be his type and no doubt vice versa (if I can be excused for such and analogy), but their combined forces would be indescribably potent and a beautiful conclusion to this historic chapter. Short of this, I sense we Democrats are headed up the walkway to disaster’s door.

    When I’m in the mood for something light I really like “Queen Latifah” as an actress. I don’t know what it is about her specifically; in fact, I suppose it is a blend of things. At first glance I would have said “she’s not my type” but in observing and examining her performances, she is funny and displays sensitivity as well as attitude. This, combined with her own brand of classic beauty. So, if in my most bizarre imagining, she should ask me out on a date, I would not only accept, but I think we would have a blast! I’m tall and above average in terms of looks, and funny also. But then I’m also well… broke. So if she wanted to do the whole Hollywood glamour date thing we would have to go Dutch.

    So realistically, am I expecting a call from “Queen Latifah”? Ah… no. But If Barack will call Hillary, I will ring up the Queen. Who knows one or both of us might get lucky!

    Plus he’s got cash so they won’t have to go Dutch…

    L. A. Walker

  • Leon A. Walker
    Freelance Writer
    Pensacola, Florida
    (850) 377 4218

    March 11, 2008

    “Clintons Shows True Colors”

    Senator Hillary Clinton has recently begun to employ shocking tactics in her quest for the Democratic Party nomination for President. The dynamics of American politics may be viewed from various perspectives and understandably so. Still, I am perplexed by the apparent decision by Senator Clinton and her campaign affiliates to both overtly and subtly conjure up negative images of fear aimed at her opponent. This is particularly troubling as these negative images are tied to race and religion.

    I have been a staunch supporter of both the former President and Senator Clinton for nearly two decades. I was among those who laughed and in general terms understood when Chris Rock proclaimed Bill Clinton, “The First Black President”. I sought to believe that they, “the Clintons” were not only sympathetic to the struggles of working class Americans but particularly African Americans. For me, they created a real vision of figures in America’s seat of power who finally, were sincerely concerned for the welfare of all Americans. And through it all, the scandals and innuendo and yes, political missteps, I provided the “Clintons” with unwavering support and sincere appreciation. Appreciation for what I now believe was the gift of a myth, that has now become my worst nightmare.

    As I reflect on the comments and antics of the Clintons in the past several weeks I am not only appalled but also tremendously saddened. I am gripped in a sadness that is rooted in betrayal. There is no need to highlight the specific comments and actions that are the source of my angst as they have been well covered by nearly every media vehicle. The point is that it has now become apparent that the whole of the Clinton mystique was a fraud.

    I don’t fault Senator Clinton of the former President for wanting to win this contest or for their “never say die” mentality. I can even understand that while now poised for loss, their campaign is groping for any tactic which may provide another day’s life in this fight. I am troubled however, by the potential damage that they are seemingly willing to inflict on the Democratic Party; but that is not the basis of this writing. This is a statement of incitement regarding questionable ethics, disrespect and trust violated. The trust of a long time constituent, who as it turns out, was deftly manipulated and apparently used.

    As best I can recall it was Shaquille O’Neal who coined the phrase “Don’t Fake The Funk”. Senator Clinton and the former President along with their powerful and vicious campaign are attempting to ignore me. To throw me under the bus along with many other long time supporters. Why? Because they don’t need me, or significant numbers of African Americans, to get there hands on the nomination they seek. Because all along, they were faking the funk! They need poor, uneducated Americans who can be manipulated and fed images of fear and racism to erase their reality of poverty, if only for a brief time. For me to imagine, that any politician, but particularly the Clintons would orchestrate such a despicable, theatrical and twisted tragedy is absolutely stunning.

    So our “First Black President” and “First Black First Lady” ain’t so Black after all. It appears that when they need to be, when they feel they have to be, they are so White they make J.C. Watts look like “Fifty Cent”. They are opportunists. They are the quintessential cogs in the traditional Washington political wheel who will manipulate, haunt, bully and fear monger should that be required to secure a selfish prize. They are “more of the same”.

    I will not cast a vote for Hillary Clinton should she gain the nomination she so ruthlessly seeks! Further, I will avoid as best I can, ever speaking her name again. And finally, I recognize that I am not perfect. Heaven forbid I should ever be emotionally reduced to leveling an insult at another Black person for ethnic confusion. But if I do, I will not refer to them as a “Tom” but rather a “Clinton”.

    L. A. Walker

    © Leon A. Walker, March 2008

  • Geffen has always been so prissy.

    People who can’t decide which side they’re on unless it’s the winning side are incredible human beings: human willow trees like Romney.

  • Comments are closed.