Clinton and Obama and race … oh my

January 14, 2008

After playing very little role in the election for the better part of 2007, race, racism, and racially-charged rhetoric has suddenly become one of the central focuses of the Democratic presidential race. To see this unfold is painful and disappointing, to put it mildly.

Given what we’ve seen, particularly over the last couple of weeks, the questions for the political world are obvious. Are comments with racial subtexts harmless incidents that are being blown out of proportion, or are they part of a deliberate, divisive campaign strategy? Are the incidents that have drawn attention random, unrelated data points, or part of a calculated strategy? Clearly, Barack Obama’s campaign has an opinion on the matter.

“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?”

Maybe, maybe not. But I think it’s probably a mistake to lump all the “controversies” together to create one big mess. Some of the incidents/remarks seem outrageous, while others appear to have been misconstrued.

It’s helpful to consider them in isolation before stepping back to see the big picture.

Here’s a closer look at the most notable recent incidents, with my patented Willie Horton Rating System — 5 Hortons for the most offensive use of ugly, divisive rhetoric, 1 Horton for the most innocuous.

* Bill Clinton referred to Obama’s movement as a “fairly tale” — 1 Horton

This one has been misconstrued, repeatedly. Looking at the full context, the former president described Obama’s reputation as an opponent of the war in Iraq as a “fairly tale.” That, in and of itself, is a debatable point, but there was no racial subtext.

* Hillary Clinton downplayed the significance of Martin Luther King, Jr. — 4 Hortons

I realize the original quote has been taken from context in a variety of instances, but even in its full context, I think Clinton tried to make a point with some poorly-chosen words.

* Andrew Cuomo’s “shuck and jive” comments — 3 Hortons

It’s questionable, and the context helps make Cuomo look a little better, but he probably should have realized how comments like that could be construed.

* Bob Kerrey’s “Muslim” and “madrassa” comments — 5 Hortons

It’s hard to defend Kerrey on this.

* Billy Shaheen’s drug dealer comments — 5 Hortons

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

* Bob Johnson’s drug dealer comments — 5 Hortons

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

* Sergio Bendixen, a top Clinton pollster, on Latino and Black communities — 2 Hortons

Bendixen conceded the other day, “The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” He’s playing with fire, given the environment.

* Hillary referred to “spadework” on the Today show — 1 Horton

It’s a real stretch.

* Clinton aide on Obama as an “imaginary hip black friend” — Incomplete

An anonymous Clinton adviser explained what he/she sees as the difference between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters: “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary,” the aide said. “If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.” I’d give it the full 5 Hortons, but I have no idea whether the person is a close aide or a tangential “adviser.”

* Bill Clinton referred to Obama as a “kid” — 1 Horton

Donna Brazille was emphasizing this one last week, but I think the subtext dealt with youth and inexperience, not race. (Still, given that Obama is older now than Bill Clinton was in 1992, it’s an odd comment, but that’s another story for another day.)

In the big picture, there certainly are a lot of these incidents, but whether it’s part of a pattern or not is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder.

I’d just add this: the sooner we get past this, the better it will be for the candidates, the campaigns, and the party.

Even as an Obama supporter, I’m not sure that the drug dealer comments, while stupid, are necessarily racist or race-related. The candidate has admitted to using drugs as a teenager; while there appear to be no grounds to support the suggestion that he has been less than open about the full extent of his involvement, I don’t see how it’s racist, as opposed to simply baseless, to float the theory that he was.

  • “Donna Brazille was emphasizing this one last week….” That Donna Brazille was emphasizing this should automatically relegate it to nonstatus, or zero Hortons. What an incompetent, unsuccessful (based upon a review of actual results of what she was hired to do) and overrated twit. Another person who has somehow turned abject error and defeat into a lucrative career in television and punditocracy.

  • I’m glad you hung out all this dirty laundry for us to examine. It’s better we get this over with now. ANY Democrat is better than EVERY Republican. We need to see and believe that.

  • The Martin Luther King Jr. comments were by far the worst to my ears and not because it was racial insensitive. What bothered me was that Hillary was so desperate to defend her argument of results trumping rhetoric that she would even diminish the work of John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. in order to do it. I found it incredibly tacky and told me a great deal about her character.

  • On racism, if you look at what Johnson said, there was a leap made that just because he mentioned the “neighborhood”, he was talking about drugs. I think that is the racist aspect. That everything that implies the “neighborhood” a black community is about drugs. Bring it back to the issues or a nearly dead white man from the republican side will ace the woman and the black man. So stick to the issues and check all the identity ego stuff in the door.

  • #5… mike have you read the whole quote?

    “I would point to the fact that that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when
    President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get
    through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the
    President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.
    That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people’s
    lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually
    got it accomplished.” -Hillary Clinton

    how does this quote diminish JFK or MLK in any way?

  • sarah,

    You left off the question she was asked:

    Major Garrett: You mentioned Senator Obama, let me read you a quote from a speech he gave today: “False Hope? Dr. King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, looking out over the magnificent crowd, the Reflecting Pool of the Washington Monument. Sorry guys, false hope. The dream will die. It can’t be done. False hope? We don’t need leaders to tell us what can’t be done, we need leaders to tell us what can be done, and inspire us to do.” Would you react to that?

    In that context, it should be very clear why its offensive.

  • By the way, I do think this is an important point, because I’ve noticed many people defending on Clinton on this unaware of the context in which the statement was made. It was not just a random comment made in isolation. It was a comment made in order to further the argument she had been having with Obama since the debate.

  • #7: The quote implies that a white man, in the form of the President, had to swoop in to do the “real” work, and that what MLK was doing just wasn’t cutting it.

  • I fail to see the horror of Clinton’s MLK/JFK comment. It left me with the impression that she was merely stating Obama was sort of like JFK, providing great speeches and lots of words but without a lot of results, and that she was like Johnson, not a man of great words but who walked the walk and got results, and that this went directly to the experience argument she has been making. Now, I make no judgment on whether JFK was all talk and no action, as his term ended rather abruptly and he was unable, through no fault of his own, to fulfill his potential. And I fail to see how she was impugning MLK (but then again I am a white male, so maybe I am not able to comprehend this, as some in the media have insinuated). That said, I really hope this sort of bickering ends soon, as it does not reflect well on either candidate or their supporters and very well might turn-off others who might otherwise consider voting for either of them in the general.

  • This whole issue is reminiscent of those fundamental divisions which have split the western world for nearly a millennium, Northern Ireland throughout the 20th cenutry, and a host of other blood-bath inducing and wholly unnecessary conflicts.

    Two factors, A and B, are essential ingredients of X. In this case, A is the civil rights movement and B is the civil rights legislation, and X is progress in civil right. Advocates of X emphasize A over B or B over A and form tribal camps around their preference, complete with invectives and anathemas.

    Meanwhile, Y sits apart. Chuckling and licking its lips.

  • Actually this issue has gotten a life of it’s own. There is a narrative that has been written that Hillary is SSatan and Obama is either the Christ Child or St. Francis. Look, they are both politicians. They both manipulate. The idea from many Obama supporters that if we do not proceed to the coronation they will not vote for the Democratic candidate, if it’s Hillary is rather noxious. First of all on domestic isissues Obama is to the right of Hillary. On the war, Obama was not tested and frankly, not voting on the Iran thing was rather cowardly. When Obama talks change, it’s changing people, not necessarily the direction of the country. But remember, the issues is what we should be vetting. We should be using the primaries to force a more progressive platform not to argue this stuff. If it was ignored it would not be an issue.

  • The bizarre thing about Clinton’s MLK/LBJ comment, to me and apparently only to me, is that Obama is not running for the presidency of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (MLK), but of the United States (LBJ).

  • response to comment #8: I still don’t think she was diminishing the work of MLK, JFK, or any of the others who dared to dream about civil rights and who gave so much… some even their lives… to keep the dream alive… to see it thru. And LBJ was one of the folks who worked to make it happen. Her point was that not only do you need to talk of hopes… talk of dreams… you need to be able to make it happen. LBJ was in a position to begin to realize MLK’s (and so many others’) dream. He could have chosen to not see it thru but he did the right thing. Awkward wording… perhaps, yes. Offensive… no.

  • Ed, exactly. Neither would/could have happened without the other. And the only group that stands to gain from such bickering are those who would love to undo all that was done.

  • I’ve wondered if IN CONTEXT, Hillary was saying the false hope was the programs that Obama supports (which after all are the same as her, pretty much)

    or if the false hope was that Obama could somehow magically change Repubs/Rethugs/Rovians to actually let him implement any programs.

    Since I happen to believe Hillary meant the latter, I consider Mike’s and Obama’s Campaign’s spin on this as rather Rovian.

    I consider their spin on MLK and LBJ and their relative responsibility for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights act as rather Rovian too. They misquote or take out of context what their opponent said, then claim offense not to what was really said, but to their own spun version.

    Now, the Clinton Campaign has been rather nasty. In fact, they’ve been down right Clintonian in their political tactics. Digging through records and finding inconsistencies (against the war before Obama was in the Senate, but voted to fund it after he joined).

    But since Obama and Edwards seem to be the students of Rove, and Hillary seems to be the student of Bill (and Carville), I’ve got to say my support is trending towards Hillary.

    I consider Clintonian tactics as a cut above Rovian tactics, thank you.

  • I realize there are many liberals out there who will have trouble forming their own opinions, and will feel there is something to this (against their better judgment) just because Barack’s pushing this. But, notice that all the most “outrageous” ones come from Clinton’s advisors (just a stroke of bad luck in picking people?). My opinion is that this “whole thing” is on the order of any usual nothing that the media blows out of proportion to make a story, and Barack (or his spokewoman) is taking advantage of it.

    Barack, you just can’t call white people racist just because they said that Lyndon Johnson was the first president to sign civil rights legislation during the civil rights era.

    Barack Obama is really using bad judgment here. This is just the kind of stuff that hardcore conservatives like Rove wish liberals would “call out” as racist so they could make liberals look ridiculous to conservatives and would-be liberals. He’s stepped in a big turd the Republicans will make him pay for down the line if he wins the nomination- white voters will be scared away with reports from Republican spokespersons about Barack’s spokewoman effectively calling white people racist just because they said that Lyndon Johnson was the first president to sign civil rights legislation during the civil rights era.

    And the shuck and jive thing- it would have been better if it had not been said, but this is the kind of thing that perhaps more people say without realizing there could be a racial overtone that there are people who intentionally use it that way. It’s like saying someone gypped you. The etymology (referring to gypsies) is so faded from the public memory, it’s almost kind of corny to criticize people for using this word. Probably a lot of people think it’s “jipped.” Same with shyster. A better test of whether someone’s a racist is if they’re a Republican, and choose to hurt black people through law and to reflexively advocate for wars against brown people, or not. But the Republicans have pumped so much hot air through the media on that one, it’s getting harder and harder for people to understand it.

  • Well, Hillary is right that oration is not enough and that it takes a president. That’s why Obama wants to be that president.

  • An irony that so far seems to have passed notice: in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was enacted, Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, and Goldwater, of course, voted against the Civl Rights Act.

  • Very hard to say whether there’s a pattern to all of this, I’m guessing probably not.

    But let’s leave the “racial sensitivity” set at a normal level, lest we become boys crying wolf. Besides, we don’t want the “racial sensitivity” meter to explode after the first Republican ad comes out.

    I think some people would love to see an overreaction by blacks to these slights (real or imagined). The only thing that can make a Republican race-based smear work is for Democrats to go overboard when it happens. We need to rise above it, look down on it, calmly make mention of how ugly it is, and watch it sink back into the swamp it came from. If we go all ballistic, we run the risk of actually alienating the people who we hope to convince that race is not going to be what the Obama presidency is about. It’s an issue, but if we make it a huge issue we will lose the middle, because the middle ground voter knows that he’s made a few racial slights himself, accidentally or otherwise, and he’s not terribly interested in seeing his own foibles criminalized. Racism (the real, inner kind) isn’t something you can shame people into giving up, you have to gently show them that it’s not helpful and let them come around to it.

  • If I was a Republican, I would have a bunch of people peripherally related to my rival make some racially embarrassing statements or just find some statements that can be made to sound racist if the right person (e.g., a black person) is doing the accusing. Then I would have a trusted black person like Rep. Clyburn deliver the accusation.

    It’s like math, 2 + 2 = 4.

  • It seems more that the Clintonites have a pattern of being snide and insulting, and they’re trying very hard to diminish their opponent with a barrage of nasty comments, some of which can be construed as racist. If I were Obama, I’d just focus on their general nastiness, and their need to sling mud in order to look better by comparison.. after all, I’m sure he’s had people trying to goad him into unwise responses before.

  • N CA Dem wrote:

    An irony that so far seems to have passed notice: in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was enacted, Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, and Goldwater, of course, voted against the Civl Rights Act.

    What, when she was 18? Do we know for sure that she even had an opinion on civil rights then? A lot of people do dumb things when they are young but do better when they grow up.

    Look at Sen. Byrd. He joined the Klan, apparently because it was just expected among white men in his community. But he learned that racism was wrong, and he then not only acted like he wasn’t racist, he went on to prove it by working for the right side for a long time. He didn’t just vote the right way when his vote didn’t matter. He didn’t just say or write a lot of things that make him look like a liberal but that don’t really help.

    How many young men are petty criminals but then turn around and become conscientious contributors to their communities? How many persons are racist or homophobic when they are little kids just because their friends’ dads teach their friends to be, but they figure it out by the time they grow up?

    Hillary is a real liberal, no doubt about it- she is helping black people.

  • Sarah,
    You say
    “Her point was that not only do you need to talk of hopes… talk of dreams… you need to be able to make it happen.”

    I agree. She was saying King and Kennedy just talked about hopes and dreams, but Johnson actually made it happen. Whch is the same argument she has been making in selling herself as someone who can actually make things happen as opposed to Obama and Edwards who only talk of hopes and dreams. You continue to talk about her comments in isolation as if it was just about the past. But it’s clear she’s making a comparison to the current election.

  • Mike wrote: “I agree. She was saying King and Kennedy just talked about hopes and dreams, but Johnson actually made it happen. Whch is the same argument she has been making in selling herself as someone who can actually make things happen as opposed to Obama and Edwards who only talk of hopes and dreams. You continue to talk about her comments in isolation as if it was just about the past. But it’s clear she’s making a comparison to the current election.”

    Well, great, we are clear on this. Hillary is saying she can get things done, and by implication that Obama and Edwards can’t or won’t.

    Now explain to me, without false claims of racism, how this point is unfair to make in a nomination campaign.

    Hillary may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean she’s vicious.

  • I am really surprised at how much the Obama campaign people whine.

    In what universe is the word “kid” a perjorative? Now, “boy” when applied to an adult balck man – that’s racist, but “kid”? How is it racist to point out that a politician who was white pushed through legislation that changed one races rights? “Spadework” – doesn’t anybody on the campaign plant a garden?

    Is this is an example of the new politics and leadership?

    Karl,Rush and all their buddies sure must be having a field day. Here are the Democrats, indulging in the circular firing squad again.

    And, by the way, where are the comments that could be construed as nasty coming from the other side, like Jesse Jackson Jr?

  • #25 Mike… of course she is talking about it in comparison to the current election. And JFK and MLK just didn’t talk about hopes and dreams… they spoke about them and inspired people to fight the good fight. LBJ did the work with congress and signed on the dotted line.

    HRC is just saying that BHO is a great speaker… a great orator… but she is also saying that it takes more than speeches to get things done. And she is positioning herself as someone who can get things done (‘coz God knows she can’t deliver a speech like obama can.. few people can).

  • “(’coz God knows she can’t deliver a speech like obama can.. few people can).”

    Although they all sound absolutely fantastic, intelligent and compelling compared to what we have become accustomed these past 7 years….

  • Lance,

    No problem. Hillary is telling us to elect Johnson over King or Kennedy. She’s saying that that King and Kennedy didn’t get anything done and that Johnson was a better President than either of them were or could have been. If you honestly don’t see how this diminishes King and Kennedy, then I can’t help you any further.

  • Would we look at these in isolation if it was coming from a Rove led campaign or would we see it as a pattern?

  • It seems to me that the media has foucsed their attention on the horse race once again and are promoting this narrative to bring the leader back to the field a bit.

    And what has been it’s effect on the candidates? It’s as though Johhny tells Bobby that Billy said something nasty about him and Bobby says something nasty back to Johnny who immediately passes this along to Billy. It’s infantile.

    Look, the bottom line is that Martin Luther King Jr. never voted on or signed into law any legislation. He was a minister not a legislator after all.

    There never was anything racist about the comment. Get over it before you play into the hands of the real racists and both your campaigns implode.

  • To me, it’s abundant clear that there is a pattern to this from the Clinton campaign. Maybe they could get a pass if the Shaheen comment ended it, but then to have Bob Johnson come out and allude to it while Hillary acts as if she doesn’t notice it. Then on top of that, they wheel out a “senior adviser” no one has heard of who happens to be an African-American woman to claim that Johnson was only referring to Obama’s “community work.”

  • Mike nails it at 30.

    I don’t know how you can affirm Hillary’s comments and at the same time say it doesn’t diminish MLK.

    Nobody is claiming those comments were racist; that’s a strawman being thrown up by Swan, sarah, et al. I haven’t seen a single accusation of racism from anyone official, either associated with Obama or not.

    There’s a difference between racially insensitive comments and out-and-out racism. Blurring that difference or ignoring it only serves to obfuscate.

    Those questioning whether or not these comments are racially insensitive are in serious denial here. To suggest that MLK was a “talker, not a doer” (which is the extension of Hillary’s analogy to the current race) is not racist, but its both historically inaccurate and incredibly racially insensitive.

    And I fail to see how angering a huge portion of the African-American electorate serves the Democratic party’s needs. However, polarizing the primary does serve the Clinton’s needs. And it should take us aback and question any supposed leader who’s willing to injure their institution in order to move up within it.

    The only relevant question here is, if we toss aside all of CB’s “1 Horton” remarks (I think “kid” shouldn’t be tossed aside, but w/e), do we see a pattern that suggests an actual political strategy, or at least of stupidity and bad luck.

    I think it’s pretty clear we’re talking about a political strategy. The reaction of the entire black community, an organic reaction from the ground up, mind you, seems to bear this out as well.

  • My take on the comment, Sarah, is that Clinton was saying that MLK was a dreamer, but it took a white president to put it into action, that Obama is a dreamer, but it will take her, another white president, to put it into action. You call it awkward. I call it patronizing to the nth degree.

  • I tend not to see the MLK/JFK/LBJ comments as racist or really even offensive so much as really really dumb. If you are trying to make the claim that we need you more than the other guy, arguing that you are LBJ to their MLK really doesn’t get a lot of traction. Wondering why everyone calls you out as an idiot who is trying to diminish the fact that the civil rights MOVEMENT was incredibly important just makes you look ridiculous. Blaming your oponent for the fact that people cottoned on to your stupid mistake only makes you look worse. None of this has struck me as racist, but it really does serve to delineate the candidates clearly and in a way that isn’t favorable to Clinton at all.

  • Also, Steve Bennan, you missed what was easily the most openly racist comment of all: Bob Johnson’s “guess who’s coming to dinner?/sidney poittier” comment.

    Please update the post.

    Anyone who would deny the out-and-out racism (and that is racism) of that line is living in fantasy land

  • 27.
    On January 14th, 2008 at 12:24 pm, mkolb said:”I am really surprised at how much the Obama campaign people whine.”

    Please quote the campaign.

    “In what universe is the word “kid” a perjorative? Now, “boy” when applied to an adult balck man – that’s racist, but “kid”?”

    Why is it different?

    I’m a JRE man, and I’m black, and there is a pattern of racial code words coming from the HRC campaign. Am I just a sensitive whiner?

  • Look, the bottom line is that Martin Luther King Jr. never voted on or signed into law any legislation. He was a minister not a legislator after all.

    There never was anything racist about the comment. Get over it before you play into the hands of the real racists and both your campaigns implode.

    Oh please.

    Clinton’s entire premise is that she’s a “doer”, and your post assumes in order to be a “doer”, one must pass legislation. That is, flatly, the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.

    Would you really claim nobody “did” anything about race until LBJ passed those laws? That would be absolutely ridiculous revisionism.

    Fact is, this isn’t about people who need to “get over” this or that. We are evaluating these people to decide whether or not they are who we want to lead our party and nominate for the position of most powerful man in the world. Their electoral strategies are entirely relevant and ought to be discussed in full.

    Just because you don’t see the way Hillary quite obviously diminished all that MLK DID, not just talked about doing but actually DID,/b>, doesn’t mean we should stop talking about it.

  • “In what universe is the word “kid” a perjorative? Now, “boy” when applied to an adult balck man – that’s racist, but “kid”?”

    Why is it different?

    Indeed, why?

    You’re talking about a 46-year-old man who’s been a law professor, an elected politician for over a decade, and is currently a U.S. Senator…does that sound like a “kid” to anyone here? The notion that he was just being condescending about Obama’s age strikes me as pretty implausible.

    The parallel to “boy”, however, is unmistakable.

    Just ask yourself this: no matter how old you are, would ever in your right mind actually have the balls to call a fully-grown, accomplished black man “kid” to his face. Something along the lines of, “where do you get off saying such-and-such, kid?”

    Would you?

  • “In what universe is the word “kid” a perjorative?”

    Do you seriously not see how smug and condescending it is? Calling someone “kid”, particularly an accomplished and credentialed man like Obama, is an outright dismissal of everything they are and everything they do. He’s “just a kid,” not an adult who’s qualified to be the president. Never mind the possible racial overtones; the very use of the word is a blatant insult.

  • Asked by the Sun about the racial tenor of the race, Obama replied: “I am puzzled by it. She made a statement about Dr. King that I think was ill-advised. But I said nothing about it. Suddenly, she is blaming us for distorting her words. I don’t know how I could distort her words since I hadn’t commented on her words since she made the statement. Now you see this ratcheting up of rhetoric coming out of her surrogates. I find it puzzling.”

    Indeed.

    What’s more puzzling is the number of people jumping to Clinton’s defense on this issue.

  • Oh my God (wait, is that demeaning to people of faith?) – this is ridiculous, not to mention counter-productive to the fight (oh, dear, I hope I haven’t offended the non-violence crowd) to reclaim the White House (I swear, that wasn’t meant to be racist –it’s just the name and the color of the place, honest).

    I’m not a Clinton supporter and I’m not an Obama supporter; I’m an Edwards supporter. And if I was sick to death of the constant media attention on Clinton/Obama before, I am totally over it now.

    And I am even more over these people who are choosing to accept other people’s versions of the history of the civil rights movement, instead of checking it out for themselves. Of course King was more than just a leader of a protest movement – Clinton acknowledges that. But he wasn’t a member of a legislative body and he didn’t have the power to write legislation or to sign it into law. He had to work with people on the legislative end, and he, along with others involved in the movement, did just that. He worked with LBJ to get it done.

    Obama could put a stop to this nonsense if he wanted to. He could prove that he is a uniter, prove that he can heal the partisan and divisive woes of the nation – if he wanted to. But, this has all made me believe that he’s choosing not to because it’s working for him – even if it ends up not working for Democrats or for the country.

    How? He could be honest and admit that he knew exactly what Clinton meant, and he could point to a half dozen grassroots movements currently underway in this country and tell us how he will be the president that gets things done.

    If he’s a uniter, if he’s not about race and divisiveness, he could lead the people to a better place by his own actions. But, you know what happens then? Clinton stops looking like the devil he needs her to be.

    So, when you all are raking Clinton over the coals for her calculating attacks and her racism – are you just assuming that Obama’s campaign isn’t involved in any calculating of its own?

    Honestly, I think that if what I am seeing here and in other places continues like this, the end result will be about as far from where you think you want it to be that you will be kicking yourselves on election day.

  • Mike and Michael re 30, 34, and 39.

    It is a sad world you must live in to believe that if I say LBJ did something it diminishes JFK and MLK.

    And Michael undermines his own point, that Hillary is diminishing MLK by calling herself a doer, if he claims that passing and signing legislation is not the only way to “do” stuff. If what MLK did was important (as it was) then the fact the LBJ forced through and signed the legislation that implemented parts of MLK’s agenda does make MLK’s work any less important. MLK created the national environment that made it possible. LBJ worked the Congressional game to overcome the institutional resistence to change.

    And more to the point, making the distinction doesn’t make a politican who points it out either a racist or racially insensitive.

    Your whining about racial insensitivity does incline me to believe that you don’t credit African Americans with sense or proportion.

  • 44.
    On January 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pm, Lance said:

    Mike and Michael re 30, 34, and 39.>


    Your whining about racial insensitivity does incline me to believe that you don’t credit African Americans with sense or proportion.

    I’m an African-American. Why don’t you actually ask what I think. Or take a look at the AA blogs and the comments.

    Don’t assume that because you don’t find something offensive that we don’t.

  • Justin said: “I’m an African-American. Why don’t you actually ask what I think.”

    Okay. What do you think? Is it wrong for a politican to point out that her profession is necessary to codify in law the changes in society that religious and social leaders bring about?

  • “I’m an African-American. Why don’t you actually ask what I think. Or take a look at the AA blogs and the comments.”

    Um, don’t know if you are new to this site, or blogs/blogging in general, but the idea here is not to “ask” you what you think–that is a fairly arrogant point of view. The idea is that the person who runs this site, CB, puts his thoughts down, posts them, and then we provide our thoughts, what we think (preferrably on topic), without having to be “asked.” True, though, maybe some here probably would benefit from visiting African-American blogs (but I bet many do).

    And what, exactly, does this mean (see, I am asking as you have requested): “PS. I love the concern trolling from the Edwards (who I support) and the HRC supporters.” There is a big difference between “concern trolling” and those who seek to put down their thoughts on the topic. Just because they do not agree with you does not mean they are “concern trolls.”

  • 48.
    On January 14th, 2008 at 1:52 pm, bubba said:>

    “Um, don’t know if you are new to this site, or blogs/blogging in general, but the idea here is not to “ask” you what you think–that is a fairly arrogant point of view.”

    Actually what’s arrogant is for that poster to assume he/she has any idea what African-Americans think.

    nd what, exactly, does this mean (see, I am asking as you have requested): “PS. I love the concern trolling from the Edwards (who I support) and the HRC supporters.” There is a big difference between “concern trolling” and those who seek to put down their thoughts on the topic. Just because they do not agree with you does not mean they are “concern trolls.”

    Saying I’m for A but I want you supporters of B to stop saying what you’re saying is concern trolling.

  • 47.
    On January 14th, 2008 at 1:46 pm, Lance said:

    Justin said: “I’m an African-American. Why don’t you actually ask what I think.”

    Okay. What do you think? Is it wrong for a politican to point out that her profession is necessary to codify in law the changes in society that religious and social leaders bring about?

    What do I think? I think that’s not what she said. What I think she said was that MLK talked but it took LBJ’s actions to begin the dream. However, that’s not true at all. The civil rights movement forced the change through action and the change would have taken place with or without legislation and it began well before 1964 anyway.

    Tell Marshall or A. Philip Randolph that change didn’t begin until 1964 and only after LBJ signed a piece of paper. They’d laugh in the face of someone who said that.

    Am I offended by all of the rhetoric coming out of the HRC campaign. Yep. Do I think she’s racist? No idea. Do I think it’s intentional racial coding? Yep.

  • “Actually what’s arrogant is for that poster to assume he/she has any idea what African-Americans think.”

    I would argue that it is equally arrogant of you to assume that that person does not have any idea what African-American’s think, and, moreso, that you think your views represent everything that all African-Americans think. But if you do not think that what they think accurately represents African-American views (if such things can ever actually be stated as to represent the views of all African-Americans, as if African-Americans do not themselves have differences of opinion) then you should state specifically what you think is wrong with their comment and then provide facts and analysis as to why their comment is wrong.

  • “The civil rights movement forced the change through action and the change would have taken place with or without legislation and it began well before 1964 anyway.”

    Agreed. But any idea when is would have taken place?

    “…and only after LBJ signed a piece of paper.” So, are you saying that all LBJ did in this process and time period was “sign a piece of paper?”

  • 51.
    On January 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, bubba said:

    “Actually what’s arrogant is for that poster to assume he/she has any idea what African-Americans think.”

    I would argue that it is equally arrogant of you to assume that that person does not have any idea what African-American’s think, and, moreso, that you think your views represent everything that all African-Americans think. But if you do not think that what they think accurately represents African-American views (if such things can ever actually be stated as to represent the views of all African-Americans, as if African-Americans do not themselves have differences of opinion) then you should state specifically what you think is wrong with their comment and then provide facts and analysis as to why their comment is wrong.

    As the individual said AA as if it were a monolith it’s clear that he doesn’t.
    As I a) am AA and and also in tune with a wide variety of AA opinions both personally and online I don’t have a problem with saying that my opinion is the opinion of many AA’s.

    52.
    On January 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm, bubba said:

    “The civil rights movement forced the change through action and the change would have taken place with or without legislation and it began well before 1964 anyway.”

    Agreed. But any idea when is would have taken place?

    “…and only after LBJ signed a piece of paper.” So, are you saying that all LBJ did in this process and time period was “sign a piece of paper?”

    In addition he used his political skills to get Congress to pass it. But if you think legislation is required for change you’ve got it backwards. Who knows when it would happen. People had been fighting for it for hundreds of years in one fashion or another. They weren’t going to give up.

  • Question for you Bubba.

    Are the AA’s who are offended by various things coming out of the HRC camp too sensitive?

  • “As I a) am AA and and also in tune with a wide variety of AA opinions both personally and online I don’t have a problem with saying that my opinion is the opinion of many AA’s. ”

    Many, but not all, and potentially not even most. But maybe most. But not necessarily. Clinton is still pulling strongly with African-Americans, and likely will continue to do so.

    “In addition he used his political skills to get Congress to pass it. But if you think legislation is required for change you’ve got it backwards. Who knows when it would happen. People had been fighting for it for hundreds of years in one fashion or another. They weren’t going to give up.”

    Yes, but by your initial comment you seemed to simply disregard the importance of LBJ’s actual efforts–which were significant. I have absolutely no doubt that LBJ was a very marked and threatened man for pursuing the course that he did–but your initial comment seemed to indicate all he did was sign a piece of paper (and you current comment seems to imply all he did was use political skills and I think we both know that it went beyond just that), although I did not jump to a conclusion that you were downplaying his actions. Or maybe I should have? And as for your comment on what is required for change, I said no such thing, so I would appreciate you not trying to put words in my mouth or trying to conclude on my behalf–I merely asked as you had requested. Yep, people were not going to give up, but if LBJ did not do what he did, when do you think this would have occurred? Nixon? Definitely not. Most likely Carter, I would think, but who knows what the dynamic might have been then.

  • What do I think? I think that’s not what she said. What I think she said was that MLK talked but it took LBJ’s actions to begin the dream.

    You can think that, but you’d be wrong. You can certainly have your own opinnions, but you are not more entitled to your own facts than the Republicans.

    Nowhere did she even come close to saying “it took LBJ’s actions to begin the dream.” The closest one may be able to argue is that she said it took LBJs actions to complete or finish the dream, but she very much credited MLK and JFK with having a role that preceded LBJs.

    Honestly, this is what I was talking above over the weekend. We have one candidate who is a better orator, one with a longer work history. The latter is doing the logical thing: downplaying the importance of oratory and playing up the importance of hands-on experience. None of this would be remotely newsworthy, except that the orator is black, and his supporters claim that any effort to downplay his oratorical advantages is racially insensitive.

    You can argue that the analogy is faulty, you can argue that it was politically unwise (given a choice would you compare yourself to King or LBJ?), but there is nothing newsworthy – much less insensitive – about it. The furor appears manufactured to disarm Clinton and make it impossible for her to run what would otherwise be a logical, typical campaign.

  • Over to John Kerry [emphasis added]

    “History knows that it was those folks crossing that bridge at Selma and facing those dogs and those batons and bloodied heads. History knows that it was kids getting on the buses in the freedom rides and going down to the south, people being blown up in Birmingham and dozens of other places in the south.

    History knows that it was the courageous, non-violent movement inspired by Martin Luther King that forced politicians to confront these issues, just as it has been for women, for the environment, for children, for a host of other issues.

    Yes, it takes a president, obviously, in the end to do that. I believe Barack Obama has the ability to bring both of those qualities, inspire and be a president.”

    Exactly. Now let’s move on.

  • “Are the AA’s who are offended by various things coming out of the HRC camp too sensitive?”

    Dunno. But there apparently are many who really aren’t offended and still support her. I understand sensitivity, but this is also politics. And not even a debate between polar extremes–it is between two people who IMHO would both advance race/gender concerns. Which is why I find this bickering between the two camps disturbing and hope that it does not end up costing the eventual nominee in the general election. Because as Anne said: “Honestly, I think that if what I am seeing here and in other places continues like this, the end result will be about as far from where you think you want it to be that you will be kicking yourselves on election day.”

  • I think all of this is really sad. Everybody thinks they have the answer. Only God knows what is in either one of their hearts and I do believe that the scripture says, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” You can’t go back after your heart has been revealed and try to doctor it up. Each person that has heard the words that have been spoken have interpreted it they way they would like.

    However, as an African American woman who is not biracial, I must say that this race can be very deceiving if you are not watching closely and advocating for the truth. Some media outlets are suggesting that Obama is playing the race card, when in fact, up until yesterday, he is never implemented race into his overall campaign strategy, we all know that if he had done that, he would not be as far as he has come with the support he has.

    Throughout this campaign Mrs. Clinton has opened herself up time and time again by constantly trying to prove why she is the best candidate for the job by drawing upon her over 35 years of experience, which does not take away from the grassroots efforts Senator Obama has been making throughout the years. This argument goes to show the type of degenerative thinking that has festered in America for too long. Who says one type of experience is any better than any other? We know that with the experience she has gained, also came some disappointments and embarrassments and America as a whole had endure more than one scandal while her husband was in office.

    So, it bothers me that people are taking a molehill and making into a mountain. This election is not about race. It is about character, integrity, and the United States of America’s place in the world. I do not believe Senator Clinton will have success internationally with building foreign affairs and international relations. Considering several corporations has sent jobs over seas and our economy has been weakened, I believe that the next Commander of Chief should be highly skilled and poised to better position America for greater economic stability.

    So far all the Clinton campaign has shown me is that they will further their agenda and cause without considering the expense to everyone as a whole and the greater good. If she can’t do that on a smaller level, why would anyone think she will do anything different internationally? It boggles the mind.

    Furthermore, as far as Bob Johnson (“Bobcat”) being an authority to speak on behalf of the African American community… I take that as an insult to our intelligence. He sold out the African American community when he sold BET and the values that we as African Americans hold sacred to MTV. Now we’ve got young black boys and girls shaking their tails all over the tv and a negative self image that we as a community have to try and counter in our homes while we try to work and do what we need to do for our families. If anything, Mr. Johnson’s statement yesterday, just showed why we need a man like Barack Obama in office. Mr. Johnson’s statement was a slap in the face to young black america.

    I strongly support Barack Obama.

  • Justin said: “Are the AA’s who are offended by various things coming out of the HRC camp too sensitive?”

    Frankly, -I- don’t care how ‘sensitive’ you are. After all, you have every right to be ‘sensitive’ considering the crimes of the past and the slights of the present day. I’m just concerned with whether you are right or not.

    And I don’t think you are right on your take on Hillary’s MLK/JFK/LBJ comment. I think what she said was prefectly fair and I find the Obama spin of it exploitive.

    As for the overall Clinton campaign’s tongue in cheek play on racist sensibilities in this country, there you have to get in the minds of white racists and see if they are going to be tweaked by her advisor’s comments. Which is almost pointless, because if they are racists, their not going to vote for Obama anyway (nor likely Clinton). And frankly I have no desire to try to delve into the minds of people like that anyway.

  • “Any dissent is silenced by growls from the dogs, and the meeting finishes to a fifteen-minute chorus of “Four legs good, two legs bad” from the sheep. Squealer follows up in the aftermath, explaining to the shocked animals of the farm that Napoleon has taken on the leadership with great reluctance and with great sacrifice to himself. The animals are soon won over when they are reminded of what life was like under Jones.”From Animal Farm: George Orwell.

    The primary debate has been reduced to : “Four legs good, two legs bad”. Demonization, contention, political naivete, looking for a savor, will lead to another “almost dead white man” winning. Adios Supreme Court.

  • Bubba: “there apparently are many who really aren’t offended and still support her.”

    Where are you getting your info?

    “Lance: And I don’t think you are right on your take on Hillary’s MLK/JFK/LBJ comment. I think what she said was prefectly fair and I find the Obama spin of it exploitive.

    As for the overall Clinton campaign’s tongue in cheek play on racist sensibilities in this country, there you have to get in the minds of white racists and see if they are going to be tweaked by her advisor’s comments. Which is almost pointless, because if they are racists, their not going to vote for Obama anyway (nor likely Clinton). And frankly I have no desire to try to delve into the minds of people like that anyway”

    Tongue in cheek? I don’t see how that could be the case. Anyway, the assumption that white racists wouldn’t vote for HRC or Obama anyway ignores the fact that white males are more comfortable with white women than black men. The whole issue of affirmative action bennefitting white women more than anyone else is cause by that psychology. It also ignores that this isn’t aimed at overt racists. It’s aimed at those who are comfortable with Sidney Poitier but not someone who is too black. But of course it’s even more complicated than that since Johnson also dissed the Who’s Coming to Dinner caricature of Sidney Poitier in front of a black crowd. So they are simultaneously saying that he’s too black and too white but addressing different crowds.

  • Granted, there may be some faint slurs or borderline slurs that when racists hear them, they tend to assume the people using them know the racist connotation and support it. In my experience, racists aren’t too smart, nor do they care too much about what other people really think or feel about things. Nor do racists and non-racists really discuss these things with each other (that is, I’ve never heard a conversation like, “Ok, you’re a racist. If you heard me say the word ‘shyster,’ would you think I was anti-semitic?”– and you probably couldn’t count on a racist to answer you honestly, anyway).

    However, if I had to draw the line and say what I think most people think, I would say it’s a better characterization of what people think of things like “gyp,” “shyster,” and “shuck and jive,” that it’s not that likely you know of a racist connotation to these words unless you’re a fixated racist.

    Regarding the Lyndon Johnson thing, I think if MLKJ were alive today he would think the concocted controversy was ridiculous. He would probably look at Hillary Clinton’s statement and say, “So? That’s what we formed the civil rights movement to do, to get the president to sign the legislation.” It would look like a report of success, not like some derision of the civil rights movement. Anybody who doesn’t remember that the legislation was in response to the pressure of the civil rights movement is out of their minds. It’s not even possible to disown it from the civil rights movement and chalk it up 100% to Lyndon Johnson. No one would believe you and that is nothing like what Hillary Clinton was doing.

  • 63.
    On January 14th, 2008 at 3:02 pm, bubba said:

    “Where are you getting your info?”

    From the racist polling outfits, apparently.

    The same ones that show a major shift away from HRC to BHO in the AA communities polled?

  • My point with the first two paragraphs of 64 is that maybe Clinton’s advisor didn’t even know anyboyd could take the phrase “shuck and jive” as racist.

    Just wanted to make that clear in light of a couple comments that appeared above mine.

  • “The same ones that show a major shift away from HRC to BHO in the AA communities polled?”

    Maybe–but we shall see how it all plays out. That is the beauty of this system. There will be measurable results in due time. After the voters get to actually vote. Don’t jump the gun, now. You sure you aren’t really Chris Matthews?

  • Then again, I grew up in NJ, so maybe lots of people in the sticks have lots of slurs in their slur arsenal that are unclear, etymologically, to many New Jerseyans.

  • Mike (#35) wrote:

    Clinton was saying that MLK was a dreamer, but it took a white president to put it into action, that Obama is a dreamer, but it will take her, another white president, to put it into action.

    And my take is that she was saying you gotta have both dreamers to change people’s minds and hearts, on the one hand, and presidents who push through legislation to implement the changes, on the other.

    The only reason race entered into it at all was Obama’s incredibly smarmy comment envisioning MLK saying “The dream will die. It can’t be done,” deliberately misconstruing what Clinton had been saying about false hopes. *Obama* brought race into it, not Hillary, in the process comparing himself to MLK.

    Clinton responded *to correct Obama’s misconstruction*: MLK’s dream would have been a false hope only if there hadn’t been a president in office who could make it reality.

    That the president at the time happened to be white and the dreamer black is completely irrelevant to her point, as is the fact that the one candidate for president now is white and the other black.

  • What I think is counter-intuitive about this for liberals is they may find themselves in the position of sticking up for someone who has been accused of racism- but that does not change the fact that when liberals are unjustifiably accused of racism, the liberal thing to do is to defend them.

    Let’s not think that this is just some person here: this is Hillary Clinton, who already has been living and working as a Democrat and a liberal for decades. When someone comes along and, on the basis of something very flimsy, calls that person a racist, you know what that probably is, don’t you? It’s somebody trying to get whites and blacks who fight racism to not work together and to not get along with each other anymore.

    It’s like the Andy Rooney thing the other week– the person who wrote a blog post smearing him conveniently forgot to mention that Andy Rooney made fun of Mitt Romney’s name too. He didn’t think Mitt Romney’s name was too presidential sounding or aesthetically pleasing. And that makes it clear that the aesthetics, not the ethnicity, is what Andy Rooney was getting at. The blogger instead chose to just point out the criticism of Giuliani’s and Obama’s names– because that served her purpose better, to make a liberal look like a racist and thereby divide us.

    But if you listen to what Andy Rooney said, it’s pretty clear he is just either an Edwards supporter or a Clinton supporter, who was rightly or wrongly trying to nudge either of them ahead by pointing to this “soft” factor- how the name sounds. Either that, or he was trying to make us think about the very real and serious possibility that, in light of Barack’s name, he will prove unelectable in the general election when the Republican propaganda trying to paint him as a terrorist comes out. The person who smeared Andy Rooney was some kind of an unreliable liar. If you don’t be an adult, and think about things critically for a sec, it can be all too easy to get manipulated by these people. But when people have seen us start arguing about which liberal is a racist or isn’t a racist on TV or in public at all, damage has already been done that hurts us all. It defeats the liberal brand as the anti-racist brand in the eyes of the public. So it is much better to think first before jumping to conclusions.

  • Much ado about nothing. Don’t let the right-wing controlled media do this to us, folks.

  • Justin said: “Tongue in cheek? I don’t see how that could be the case. Anyway, the assumption that white racists wouldn’t vote for HRC or Obama anyway ignores the fact that white males are more comfortable with white women than black men. The whole issue of affirmative action bennefitting white women more than anyone else is cause[d] by that psychology. It also ignores that this isn’t aimed at overt racists. It’s aimed at those who are comfortable with Sidney Poitier but not someone who is too black. But of course it’s even more complicated than that since Johnson also dissed the Who’s Coming to Dinner caricature of Sidney Poitier in front of a black crowd. So they are simultaneously saying that he’s too black and too white but addressing different crowds.”

    Affirmative Action benefits white women more than black men? That I’d like to see some statistics on.

    Not that it matters. In case it missed your attention, women are the majority in this country. If they just trusted each other men would essentially become second class citizens. If for no other reason than women control a majority of the wealth. If older women would give their neices control over their money, rather than their nephews, there would be no glass ceilings (for them anyway).

    Obama is too black and not black enough.

    That one almost floors me. In a country where it used to be legal doctrine that any African heritage made one legally ‘black’, it’s amusing to hear that a black man could be not black enough.

    It’s also amusing to hear that Sidney Poitier’s character in “Guess who’s Coming to Dinner” was not black enough. How about his character in “Raisin in the Sun”?

    But let me give you a moderate white man’s opinion about Obama and the African American people. Obama is the son of a Kenyan and a white American woman. He’s lived a large part of his life in Hawaii and outside the United States. As a man of his complextion, I expect he’s suffered as an adult about the same number of slights that you have. But I’m not for a minute going to suggest that means he’s got the same cultural feelings as the descendent of American slaves.

    But if he is elected, he will not only be the first Black American I will see be President, he will probably be the last (in my lifetime). Because after this women, Hispanics and other minorities will be insisting on ‘their turn’ while white men will try to limit everybody else to only every other time.

    And come January 2009, when he says “It’s time to make a change.” won’t the establishment just reply “But you are the Change“. (the same damn thing applies to Hillary).

    So Justin, I see you stuck in a Catch 22 (or a Morton’s Fork if you like older analogies). Is Obama white enough to capture the votes of the “Comfortable with Dr. John Wade Prentice” whites while being black enough to fulfill the asperations of the descendents of American slaves?

    Frankly, I don’t know the answer to that.

  • All this is great feedback! I am just glad we live in a country where we can all freely express our thought and not get some horrible backlash. These discussions actually make me proud to be an American and in these situations I find myself learning more than anything. This is why we call it diversity. Thanks everyone!

  • Obama could put a stop to this nonsense if he wanted to.[…]
    How? He could be honest and admit that he knew exactly what Clinton meant […]
    If he’s a uniter, if he’s not about race and divisiveness, he could lead the people to a better place by his own actions. But, you know what happens then? Clinton stops looking like the devil he needs her to be. — Anne, @43

    While I’m still not certain that the onus is on *Obama* to defend Clinton’s indefensible (IMO) words regarding the MLK/LBJ fracas, it seems that your wish is his command; as he did in the case of Biden’s foot-in-the-mouth, he’s defending Clinton’s, also. Sorry, don’t know how to link; here’s the URL:

    http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_hillarys_martin_luther_king_remark_not_racial_comment.php

  • Sorry; bubba’s URL, @73, has even more on that. I just hadn’t read the article, before posting (@75). My bad.

  • Swan, re your post at no. 24, you have completely misinterpreted my point. Does “irony” mean anything to you??? Or are you just a hack out there to respond to whatever might be embarrassing to your side?

    Of course, I do not accuse Sen. Clinton of being a racist today. Nevertheless, if you were there in 1963-1964 (I suspect you were too young, but I am not), you would know that MLK was not a universally revered figure at that time, and for Republicans, he frequently was slurred as a Communist (which accusations continued to his death in 1968, especially after he came out against the war in Vietnam). Sen. Clinton on tv has said how meaningful it was for her to hear MLK speak in 1963 — I’d like to know how that could be so meaningful and yet in the following year one could support Goldwater? Maybe for his position on use of nuclear weapons? Truth is, I think we have a little Romneyesque failure to admit to the truth back then, regardless of views today.

  • Come on CB, the first Hillary Clinton campaign is at best a “1 Horton”. And where is any reference to comments by Obama supporters? How about Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr saying that Sen. Clinton’s tears needed to be “analyzed” — and being the first to lauch a racist remark in trying to tie the analysis to Katrina? That deserves at least “4 Hortons”.

    And where are the Hortons for the media that has taken a minor issue and blown it all out of proportion?

    And with the clear sexist comments and actions surrounding this campaign, where is your outrage about that?

    Sen. Clinton was on point when she said it took both MLK and LBJ to make civil rights legislation a reality in this country. Didn’t MLK acknowledge as much?

    I’m not sure your post is doing anything to dial down the rhetoric.

    BAC

  • Points that need to be made about some of the examples given.

    1. The Cuomo example: While Cuomo is a Clinton supporter, he is not affiliated in any way with her campaign; therefore, this doesn’t even belong in a “Is the Clinton campaign race-baiting” discussion.
    2. The Shaheen example: Shaheen didn’t state or even imply that Obama, in the past, was a drug dealer. He said that he feared that, due to Obama’s past drug use, the Republicans would accuse him of having been such a thing. He’s basically been accused of saying the opposite of what he actually said.
    3. Bob Kerrey: Kerrey’s comments were stupid, but how did they have a racial subtext? Not all people who are Muslims and/or attended madrassas are African-American?
    4. The Bob Johnson example: Johnson is African-American himself, and he didn’t accuse Obama of being a drug dealer, either explicitly or (on a more subjective note) implicitly. His comments were obviously meant to allude to Obama’s past drug use; having said that, his remarks were still inappropriate, and his “I was talking about Obama’s past as a community organizer” explanation is laughable.
    5. Clinton’s use of the word “kid” to describe Obama: I never knew this word had a racial subtext. I’ve heard a few people say that this is basically the same thing as Clinton calling Obama “boy,” which indeed would be undeniably racist. How? “Kid is a gender-neutral term, while “boy,” of course, is not.

  • ok, so it was easy to shoot the messenger when it was Bad Boy Bob Johnson. but its a little harder when it is Charlie Rangel.

    Rangel noted that Obama was actually the first one to bring race into it, said HRC’s MLK/LBJ comments were simply historical fact and he doesn’t see how one could find them offensive, and that Obama’s responsive comments were “stupid.”

    Maybe Rangel just isn’t black enough.

  • As if because the Media reported and it was Rangel that it makes it true. This is part of the problem and why so many people holler racist at the drop of a dime. Because most people only hear what they want to hear. They ignore the obvious and what’s right in front of them, to defend their own point of view. That is why there are so many cultures and religions that embrace the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do on unto you.’

    Obama hasn’t done anything to anybody, but you have all these people who want to step to the Clintons defense just because of what she represents to them. The more I read, the more infuriated I get. Come on, this is so elementary, it is not even about race. It is about the haves and how the haves, don’t want the have nots to accomplish what they already have accomplished. The political hierachy. It is so sad when you have international leaders stepping to the defense of Obama and saying they don’t like what they are hearing and seeing, but some fellow citizens in his own country, won’t defend what is right and just.

    It is not right for any political candidate to use the media to influence their followers by lying and perverting the truth. Please find one quote where Obama actually said that this campaign was becoming racial in nature and had racial undertones. He said, HER COMMENT WAS ILL-ADVISED. He didn’t even put the responsibility of the comment on her, he tried to do the classy, intelligent, diplomatic thing by saying that she had been ill-advised and offended some people, not him. He went on further to add that for her campaign to say that he started and brought race into the issues, was ludicrous. Do your research.

    He has been having to defend himself against this crew for the entire campaign and it really shows alot about the people that continually want to defend her in her wrong.

    Another little footnote…Bob Johnson does not represent the African American community or it’s successes, so his opinion on Obama doesn’t even matter to any real intelligent human being. At least that is the feedback I am getting across the country.

    • Comments are closed.