I'm usually the last one around here to put on a tinfoil hat. But, things are piling up regarding overt racism in the Clinton campaign and I'm not sure I can ignore them anymore. It's a hard and disgusting thing to believe that in 2008 a campaign, especially one with a (D) behind it, would stoop so low - honestly I'm not 100% convinced myself in part because I just can't get my mind around the rationale. Then again, it seems too many "coincidences" are occurring not to be questioned.
Bill Clinton's comments in South CarolinaFirst came the comments on race and gender. Then came the Jesse Jackson comment. One might, by a long stretch of the imagination, have just come out wrong. But twice?
The photo of Obama in traditional Kenyan attire.This is the only item in this list that
might not have been a product of the Clinton campaign. I don't really know who else would have brought this up and the timing of it makes it even more questionable.
The darkened photos of Obama from the debate.I'm not going to say much about this here since it's all pretty much been said 10 times on DU and I'm sure everyone reading this knows what I'm referring to. If you don't, check it out here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408The 3 AM Ad. This is a very interesting point:
I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.
The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino.
Finally, Hillary Clinton appears, wearing a business suit at 3 a.m., answering the phone. The message: our loved ones are in grave danger and only Mrs. Clinton can save them. An Obama presidency would be dangerous — and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr. Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11patterson.html?ex=1205899200&en=095cfdd6f358026f&ei=5070&emc=eta1 A lawyer in a predominantly Democratic suburb of Cleveland relates this tale to The Swamp on the day before the all-important Ohio primary:
So last night around dinner time, the phone rings. It’s the Hillary campaign–official number, per the caller ID. The woman on the other end asks me if Hillary can count on my support Tuesday. I say I have not decided.
She asks what would help me decide. I say, “Well . . . maybe she can make Bill her vice president.” She does not know how to take me, of course, but has to assume I am serious. “I don’t think she can do that.” “Bill will have a significant role in major decisions, though, won’t he?” I ask. “Oh, certainly he will be very involved. Do you like Bill?” “Very much.” I reply.
She then launches into a two-minute spiel on all the very specific initiatives and proposals Hillary has put forth on health care, the war in Iraq, etc., etc. At the end of her spiel, she says, “And we haven’t heard anything that specific from Osama bin Laden.”
I say, “You did not just say that.” She replies, “I’m sorry . . . just a slip of the tongue.” She then thanks me for my time and encourages me to vote for Hillary on Tuesday.
The lawyer says he was "stunned" and tells The Swamp the call originated from the Clinton campaign in Columbus.
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/did_i_say_osama_i_meant_obama.html That pretty much says it all.
SNL Skit on 3/8/08As several DU'ers have pointed out, there are definite racist undertones in the 3 AM Call skit. Portraying a black man as stupid but jovial and they have been portrayed in films historically. Obama's supposed continuous use of "motherfucker" like a gangster might use it. The fact that Clinton was wearing white face and Obama was played by a white man in black face.
Now, this was not an ad placed by the Clinton administration, it was a SNL skit, written by SNL writers. However, Clinton was on the show the week before, so she obviously approves of their latest stunts. SNL has obviously endorsed Clinton, despite whatever word they want to use to describe it. And, she certainly hasn't made any negative comments about the skit in order to distance herself from it. Which brings me to the latest item...
Geraldine FerraroFerraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
The newspaper published the interview last Friday.
Clinton said, "I do not agree with that,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ferraro WTF? No calls for Ferraro to be removed from the campaign, no denunciation of the comment, nothing. "I do not agree with that" is an acceptable response if you prefer red M&Ms but someone next to you says the yellow ones are better. "I do not agree with that" is ok to use if you're debating who's hotter on "Lost," Jack, Sayid or Sawyer. It's not what you say or do when one of your own spokespeople makes a derogatory remark. If you don't believe me, ask Samantha Power.
The many unsubstantiated calls of playing the race card and dirty ploys by Obama from the Clinton campaignThis one has only one link/quote because it comes mainly from personal observation. Having a fairly strong understanding of psychology and sociology, I know that when a person accuses someone else repeatedly of something, they are covering up that very trait in themselves. It's the old "a good defense is a strong offense" idea. Accuse your neighbor of stealing your newspaper and they'll be too much on the defense to think about their own missing paper. Kids use this all the time - accusing their siblings of the very thing they've done as a way to misdirect blame. It doesn't work for them and it doesn't work for Clinton either.
Which brings me back (again) to Ferraro:
Are these all true cases of racism? I really hope not. I'd like to think none of them are, I really would. I may not support Clinton but I am dead-set against any form of racism or bigotry. I actually hesitated in posting this. But it was just too many instances not to at least be discussed or examined. And I'm sure some Clinton supporters will try to turn this around and blame everything on me and/or Obama. That's ok. I knew this post might take some heat. I still felt it needed to be said.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
