Bob Kerrey’s provocative choice of words

Criticisms of Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been pretty tough the past several weeks — up to and including discussion of his teenaged drug use — but neither Clinton nor any of her associates have been willing to take on the bogus Muslim email myth. When two Iowa officials were caught disseminating the nonsense, the Clinton campaign quickly fired both.

So, it was hard not to notice that former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D), who offered Clinton a high-profile endorsement over the weekend, praised Obama in an interesting way.

After the event, he mused about her chief competitor, Sen. Barack Obama.

“The fact that he’s African American is a big deal. I do expect and hope that Hillary is the nominee of the party. But I hope he’s used in some way. If he happens to be the nominee of the party and ends up being president, I think his capacity to influence in a positive way without spending a penny the behavior of a lot of underperforming black youth today is very important, and he’s the only one who can reach them.”

Kerrey continued, “It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims and I think that experience is a big deal.” He added, “He’s got a whale of a lot more intellectual talent than I’ve got as well.”

Now, at face value, Kerrey’s comments were entirely complimentary. On the surface, these remarks don’t constitute an attack; they’re practically praise.

But then there’s that context that makes one wonder if there might be a little more to Kerrey’s comments than meets the eye.

Indeed, the people generally most likely to refer to “Barack Hussein Obama” are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and most of the right-wing blogs. And yet, there was Kerrey using it, ostensibly as an accolade.

Likewise, the right-wing smear about Obama being a secret Muslim is obviously beyond-the-pale for polite society, but Kerrey emphasized Obama’s Muslim lineage quite a bit, again, ostensibly in a positive light.

ABC’s Jake Tapper suggested this might be “a clear attempt to raise an issue while pretending not to raise it,” but Kerrey told him that wasn’t the case.

“[H]is name is Barack Hussein Obama. I know that middle name is seen as a weakness by Republicans, but I don’t think it is. I think it enables him to speak to a billion Muslims around the world.”

Kerrey said he’s spoken to Obama and his staffers and told them to “lead with it as a strength. There’s this nonsense out there about him being a Muslim Manchurian candidate. He should do a commercial, look the camera straight in the eye, and say, ‘My wife Michelle and I are Christians, but my father was a Muslim and my paternal grandfather was a Muslim, and that fact and my name means I can speak to a billion people around the world” who need to hear from the United States.

I don’t have reason to doubt Kerrey, necessarily, and I don’t want to get to a point in which every innocent comment is scrutinized for some kind of hidden agenda-driven meaning.

But there’s a context here, and I still think the Clinton campaign needs to be careful about pushing the envelope. Billy Shaheen talked up the drug issue, Mark Penn not-so-subtly threw around the word “cocaine” on MSNBC last week, Clinton herself warned of unidentified “surprises” from her rivals, and now a prominent Clinton supporter talked up Obama’s middle name and his Muslim relatives.

It could be completely innocuous. Or it could not. I report, you decide.

i think its quite a stretch to think that there is “more than meets the eye” here…..

  • Ask around and you will be surprise how many people believe that Obama is a muslim. The Kerry remark Is like Oprah saying tomorrow, there is this nonsense that Hillary is a lesbian. The sad part is that it works.

  • Last week I thought too much was being made of one of Hillary’s remarks: that there would be “no surprises” about her if she were the nominee. The Republicans have been throwing mud at her since at least 1992. I took her remark at face value.

    I’m not so sure about this one. Considering the source, I didn’t think Kerrey was that sleazy. Perhaps he’s right: perhaps Obama should put his Muslim ties on the table and talk about them. The Republicans are going to hammer him anyway on his alleged crypto-Muslim status if he is the nominee. It’s happening already.

    Right now Obama doesn’t need to “speak to a billion people around the world” who are Muslims. He’s trying to get elected to the office of President of the United States.

  • This is just SOP for the Clinton campaign. Supporters get the ball rolling, she retains ever shrinking plausible deniability, but with the subject on the table already, she’s free to discuss it.

    Clinton is right about one thing, there will be no surprises from her campaign. I haven’t been the least bit surprised by any of the Rovian tactics her campaign has used.

  • oh come on. hell Clinton should be annoyed that Kerrey is actually validating exactly what Obama argued: that his diverse background — living some of his formative years in other countries, other cultures, other religious traditions — qualifies him for the foreign relations part of the Presidency.

    i know the Rethugs have long had CDS; it is sad to see it spread to epidemic proportions on this Board as well. particularly with Kerrey, who has a Biden-like history of being incautious with language, sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

    this is nothing Obama hasn’t said himself; it was almost surely just Kerrey trying to be politic and back Clinton yet leaving bridges to Obama (we also call this “hedging one’s bets”). nothing to see here.

  • Zeitgeist,

    Even taken at face value, accepting a ‘cigar is a cigar’, you’ve got a politician giving unsolicited advice to the opponent of a candidate he has chosen to endorse. How can there not be an ulterior motive?

  • I agree the Kerrey comment was alright without the Muslim stuff. It was a caddish thing to do. At the most innocent it was just a dumb move (kind of unusual, but not unheard of from a high-profile elected public servant) but there is no reason to assume that everything is always the most innocent interpretation one can put on it, especially in the context of people competing for a lot of power.

    I think the first stuff about Kerrey being Muslim from Clinton’s campaign was bad-faith, raider-stuff. If someone who engineers something like that (a Republican) was able to get Kerrey on board to help them out, then this is probably an effort to get us all questioning our own judgment, and saying to ourselves that we really don’t notice stuff that’s obviously twisted, that we don’t notice that Lieberman, who held himself out as a Democrat for the longest time, and who is in a position where he should be well-aware of all the Republicans have done to massacre us over the past years of George W. Bush’s terms in office (not only legislatively, but through their mostly-completely-unqualified appointees, and through how they all finagle the law and the rules to keep each other out of trouble when they break the law and the rules), has just endorsed Sen. John McCain- that is, has effectively said “Yes, to more of the same!!”– but on the other hand from assuming that everything’s innocent, I don’t think we have to assume something like Kerrey’s helping raiders, either.

    Could be the stuff from the low-level supporter was mindless raiding- why Kerrey thinks saying something like that helps Democrats is beyond me- but Kerrey made a completely separate, dumb foul-up that Clinton did not authorize or ask for.

  • The thing we need not to do is, based solely on the actions of other people, decide Clinton is a jerk who goes after people based on their Muslim faith just to get votes. It would be typical Rovian stuff to try to get us to think that, and yes, just that type of maneuver has been done on liberals again and again (albeit not necessarily in the Muslim / war on terror context).

    We do not need to repeat history and jump to these conclusions. It is very, very unlikely that Sen. Clinton is a sleaze-bag.

    Probably this was an independent action on Kerrey’s part.

  • doubtful – Kerrey’s current profession is college professor/administrator. you know the type – they think they have valuable advice for anyone who they can get to listen (heck, before HRC formally announced, Bill Clinton was taking meetings with potential candidates, advising all of them — Kerrey sort of had that same vibe even before he was an academic). I really don’t think there is an ulterior motive beyond (a) trying to sound magnanamous, (b) thinking he can hedge, and (c) hoping to sound like the wise guru to the party as a whole. It really is a pretty “Kerrey-like” comment (c’mon Nebraskans in the house, help me out here. . .)

  • Typical slimy Clinton-Rove tactic. If you think it’s all above board I’ve got a bride in Manhattan I’d like to sell you.

  • John, technically the bridge is over the East River… but otherwise, you’re on the money.

    zeitgeist, I know it’s cute to write about “CDS,” but you’re too smart and too honest to really advance this meme. The Republicans detest the Clintons because they see them as pot-smoking, promiscuous hippies; a non-negligible (and I think growing) number of us on the progressive side detest the Clintons because they’re moderate Republicans who behave like Rove Republicans.

    As for Kerrey, this is the guy who literally agreed to serve as the chair of “Democrats for Bloomberg” one day, then speculated publicly about running for mayor against Bloomberg the next day. When it comes to a propensity for idiotic utterances, he makes Joe Biden look like Warren Christopher.

  • I think his capacity to influence in a positive way without spending a penny the behavior of a lot of underperforming black youth today is very important, and he’s the only one who can reach them.

    What the fuck kind of high school reasoning is this? Let’s make change black to white in the above sentence and see if it makes any sense … nope or there’d be no underperforming caucasian youths.

    StFu Mr. Kerrey.

  • Maybe Kerrey has been out of politics too long. Spend a couple of years hanging around academics, where any topic of intellectual interest is fair game for open and frank discussion, a person could start to forget what life was like outside, among the great unwashed, where people often kill each other over words.

  • Dont you all recall that Kerrey was a maverick and very independent Dem when Bill Clinton was President? He was not a real friend of Bill’s at all. To suggest that Kerrey cowtows to any campaign or says anything other than what he wants to say is pure nonsense, almost as nonsensical as the willingness of people here to assume this is all nefarious without a shred or proof.

  • I tend to agree with Zeitgest.

    It goes to show, however, just how many strategical blunders the Clinton camp has made over the past month. Rolling out the negative campaigning with Hillary announcing that she finds it “fun,” going bluntly after Obama’s character (flat out questioning whether he has ‘character issues’), going flat-out with the PAC slush-fund claims that were later debunked and the cocaine stuff…now even rather-innocent comments from a non-surrogate is suspect.

    Much like Clinton artfully managed to turn all of Obama’s subtle attacks from the fall into a weakness by driving the narrative “he won’t even mention her by name!”, Obama has managed to turn basically all of Clinton’s maneuvering into “dirty politics”. He’s played her badly, at the most important part of the campaign.

    Which should make one wonder who really is best suited to “fight” the GOP in the next election.

  • Sum-up of comment #7-

    If Kerrey’s comment was sincere but off-key, that doesn’t mean that the earlier comment from an Iowa supporter wasn’t something like what we know does happen- something like Lieberman’s dishonesty.

    And if you think everyone who runs for office and puts a “D” by their name– like Kerrey- is some kind of unsullied, untouchable idealist, and that every Democrat goes into politics to help people- you’re living in a child’s fantasy-land. People go into politics for all kinds of reasons, and sometimes, in some districts, the “Democrat” appellation is just what gets you the votes. These people are first and foremost people, they never stop being people, and all sorts of people do all sorts of really bad things every day and every year.

  • No news if Kerrey was neutral in the race.
    He just so happens to be a Clinton supporter.

    Do a COMMERCIAL???
    Sure, thing, Bob. You gonna pay for it?
    Don’t you worry, Club for Growth will go to the hilt with the Muslim lineage trivia.

    How long has he been in politics not to recognize the potential “methinks he doth protest too much” involved in proclaiming his Christianity when no one else does?

    I truly hope Obama’s camp is not so naive as to buy into this load. Hostile or not.
    What the hell is Kerrey doing and why is it a Nebraska guy? A neighbor of Iowa spouting this pablum.

    Cripes, Hil. How many shills do you plan to trot out?
    You think this is some catty popularity prom queen contest? Minus a ring on your finger, you’d be an asterisk.

  • I think the Club for Growth would back the Ayatollah Kamani if he promised to cut taxes. They’re kind of a one-issue faction.

  • There is so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to start.

    Yes, I suppose it is a big deal that we could have a black man as the nominee of the Democratic Party, and I think those who feel he is the best person for the job should vote for him, regardless of his race. No one should vote for anyone just to make history.

    Okay – Kerrey hopes Obama is “used in some way?” Ugh – that’s just wrong. Yes, I see he goes on to explain what that means, but I don’t think he makes it any more palatable or less offensive. Trot out the black man to instantly turn wayward black youth around? Come on – Obama’s “the only one who can reach them?” Really? That pretty much denigrates all the men of color who are doing amazing work with young people, doesn’t it? Sure, Obama would have a higher profile than someone down at the street level, but some kid who is desperately trying to keep his life together is not going to be swayed by a president of any color.

    At this stage, a president who doesn’t break the law 16 times before he brushes his teeth would be an excellent role model, as would a Congress that gets back to understanding what it means to be ethical and have integrity.

    Turning to “Barack Hussein Obama” – what is it that Kerrey thinks doesn’t appeal to Obama? His own name? I would challenge Kerrey to tell us what the middle names are of all of the rest of the candidates and tell us what importance attaches to those names. I don’t think Obama should deny his heritage, nor should he keep making statements about his Christianity as though being Muslim, in and of itself, is a bad thing. It’s starting to sound like Larry Craig and his “I am not gay. I never have been gay,” and that’s why people keep thinking, “well, maybe he really is a Muslim.” He will never, ever be able to prove that negative, so there is nothing he can do to convince those people that he is a Christian.

    And I also don’t get that because Obama’s middle name is Hussein and he has some Muslims in his family lineage means that he has to become the ambassador to the Muslim world. I have news for Kerrey: whoever the president turns out to be will have to be doing some damage control with the Muslim world, and Obama’s name and lineage don’t give him much of an edge – in fact, given that the more he would reach out, the more people would be convinced he was on the side of the terrorists, he might even be less effective.

    I think if Kerrey is endorsing Clinton, his advice would be better given to her, the bonus there being that if it’s anything like the advice he’s given to Obama, it might hasten her slide in the race.

  • Kerrey would be better off if he hadn’t made it out of the firefight his stupidity got his SEAL team into and he could have been a Hero’s Name On A Wall, then we wouldn’t have had 30 years of his moron stupidity.

    And anyone who trusts those two smooth-talking liars, the Clintons, when they tell you it’s Monday probably believes the sun rises in the west. There are no “coincidences” with anything that involves them.

  • Two Clinton staffers send out the “Obama is a Muslim” – and are let go.

    NH Campaign Chair Shaheen asks if Obama was a drug dealer. – and his comments are disavowed.

    Mark Penn drops the “C” word. – and it was not intentional

    Bob Kerrey emphasizes “Hussein.” – and claims he meant nothing by it.

    Now, Steve Benen asks “Gee, is this innocuous?”

    I can only ask, in return, is there any “smear + rapid disavowal” that the Clinton machine might launch that the Clinton apologists would not say “let’s give ’em the benefit of the doubt?”

    If I had posed that question a month ago, someone might have said “Well, if the Clintonistas called Obama a drug-dealing Muslim since kindergarten, I’d agree that was over the top.”

  • Doubtful has it pegged for Hillary. Obama will be attacked on several fronts, most are off the mark. I suspect he’s been attacked on many of the same fronts before.

  • Obma’s paternal grandmother is a Muslim and Obama’s middle name is Hussein. Therefore, Obama should appeal to millions of Mulims accross the world. OK.

    Now. On that same principle: Obama’s cousin — somewhat more distant — is Deadeye Dick. If I were Obama, I’d stress that fact and make myself the candidate most appealing to the right, thus becoming most electable in the US.

    Mr Kerrey… Either you’ve lost your cotton-pickin’ mind or you need to wash your mouth out with soap.

  • If I have to have Hillary instead of another Republican…

    …I hope she chooses to run with Obama. A vocal, swarthy – wait, are you allowed to use swarth? anyhow – VP would be good for once. The VP position isn’t meant for much else – certainly not the shadow government of Cheney, and it did Gore no favors.

    Best to choose the VP who can stand and speak for US, and gosh darn, he can speak ^-^

    If Edwards doesn’t win the Primary, I don’t want to lose him as a Senator. In fact, the rest of them are far too valuable to elect.

  • Kerrey continues to be “provocative”:
    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/17/madrassa-bob-kerrey/
    I really am having a hard time believing that, in this case, a cigar is just a cigar; I think the intention is to plant as many poison darts as possible. “Secular madrassa” kills two birds with one stone invoking the evil images of both the Muslim terrorists and the Antichrists who’d fight the War on Christmas rolled into a single, neat package. The better to scare you off, m’dear.

    It’s “funny” to think that, only a couple of days ago Sheehan was warning us against the questions that Republicans might raise if Obama were the nominee. But who needs Republicans if we have Sheehan and Kerrey?

    Edwards is still my primary pick (not that VA primaries will matter much) but I was willing to vote for whoever got the nomination. But, the more I hear about and from Clinton’s fellow-travellers, the less likely it is I’ll vote for her; there’s a limit to how much acid reflux I can hold down.

  • I worked for Bob Kerrey and he has been my favorite politician since 1988. I have prayed that he would be elected President ever since then. I am shocked to find that today, with his underhanded smear of Obama, that I will never trust anything he says again. I imagine the Clinton’s purchased his subtle smear for a high price. Karl Rove could have written the same comments. I feel like a naive child who just found out his hero is the opposite of a hero. Maybe I should seek counseling at a cult awareness group. I hope there is a limit to the number of Robert Hansen’s in the Democratic Party.

  • What on earth has possessed otherwise enlightened people today? Sen. Bob Kerrey goes out of his way to praise Sen. Obama, and point out how his election would serve to help bridge the obvious chasm between the US and the Muslim world, and everyone assumes it was really meant as an underhanded attack? That’s the second time this week in which someone has said something completely innocuous and Carpetbagger has wondered if in fact it wasn’t some secret way of saying that Obama secretly has sex with goats.

    We’re Democrats, folks. We don’t believe that there’s anything wrong with being Muslim. We know that a “secular madrassa” means a school in a Muslim country. We know that Hussein is a common name in the Arab world. (Some of us know that Imam Hussein is a revered figure for many Muslims.) Heck, Andrew Sullivan, who couldn’t hate the Clintons more, brought all of this up in his Atlantic cover story praising Obama.

    STOP IT. STOP IT. STOP IT. Don’t be like all those Republicans who screamed bloody murder when Kerry and Edwards casually mentioned that Mary Cheney is gay. How dare they bring up something that everyone already knows. How offensive! What a dirty underhanded tactic! ARGHHH! We’re Democrats! We’re better than this!

  • Comments are closed.