This Obama Supporter Doesn't Think The Clinton Campaign Is Purposefully Race-Baiting.

[writes3000]

When I look at the situation objectively and then listen to my heart, I just don't believe the Clinton campaign is plotting and executing an intentionally race baiting campaign. I think Hillary Clinton is hugely ambitious but I do not see her stooping to that level. Those of you who are making this accusation, I'd ask you to think carefully and reassess. The last thing the Democratic party needs is a divisive, internal, racial/racist battle. Don't add fuel to this fire.

I do think both campaigns have been racially sensitive, insensitive and over-sensitive. I think Jesse Jackson Jr.'s comments have been over-the-top. If it were up to me, he'd be off Obama's campaign. He sees racism everywhere, at every turn. And one thing I like about Obama is I believe he wants to see the best in people. Jackson's cynical, accusatory style goes against that. Ed Rendell's comments on the other side were really ugly to me. To confidently (and almost proudly) imply that Clinton would do well in PA because there are many whites who'd never vote for a black person is unfortunate. What is Rendell doing to change that way of thinking in PA? Nothing?

As for Ferraro, I highly doubt Hillary Clinton had any idea what Ferraro was saying to a small paper in CA. Nor do I think that Hillary agrees with the offending statements. Like many other Clinton supporters, I think she appreciated Ferraro's overall attempt to call out sexism.

But Hillary has made a mistake in my opinion. It's what I call the stutter-step.

It's what happens when a candidate is faced with a choice to take a strong stand against an offending statement or person and that candidate hesitates for fear of alienating another part of their base.

Hillary Clinton knows what Ferraro said was wrong and inflammatory. If Ferraro had complimented Obama and said that many voters were excited by him, his positions and excited by the idea of a person of color as President - no problem. Instead, Ferraro dismissed everything about Obama and said he was only where he is because of his race. And that made him lucky. It's basically claiming that Obama is the worst kind of unworthy Affirmative Action and nothing else. It's an appalling claim.

And Hillary's reaction yesterday - a stutter-step. Sure, she said she disagreed with the statement but she didn't do it with nearly the conviction or authority she needed to. And that's why people are calling her out. Especially when her campaign screams bloody murder whenever someone on the other side makes a slight or smear against her.

I consider Hillary's "as far as I know" to be a stutter-step. And to me, it's an unfortunate one because her first answer was strong, concise and all that needed to be said.

To be fair, Obama has stutter-stepped as well.

Donnie McClurkin - an Obama stutter-step. Yep, Obama denounced McClurkin's position but he didn't do it nearly with the passion and conviction he should have. Having him on that stage was an embarrassment to the GLBT positions that Obama says he stands for. Obama really disappointed me here.

Rejecting Farrakhan - another Obama stutter-step. Yep, he denounced Farrakhan's statements but when asked if he would reject Farrakhan's endorsement, Obama tried to sidestep in his answer. Hillary immediately jumped on him. Obama rightly abandoned his hesitation, explained how long he's been opposed to Farrakhan and "rejected" him, too.

Hillary needs to look in the mirror today, especially since she'll be made aware of Ferraro's Jesse Jackson comments in 1988, and she needs to take a stronger stand against Ferraro's kind of comments.

Hillary isn't racist or anti-Muslim. Obama isn't homophobic or sexist or anti-semitic.

But as Democratic nominees for President we need them to always stand strong against sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia and religious bigotry whenever it comes up.

We need them to take this stand - even when it isn't politically advantageous.

Because when they don't, they create doubt.

And the world and the Democratic party can't afford weakness on these issues now or in the future.

[paperbag_ princess]

1. finally some sanity on the issue nt

[Deep13]

2. BLASPHEMER!!!!

:grr:




:-)

[cali]

3. I wish I could agree with you

and Rendell's comments, like Jackson's are more than unfortunate. Both should be off the respective campaigns. I think that Clinton has indeed tried to exploit race and tried to define Obama as a fringe minority candidate. I don't think Hillary is racist. I think she's willing to exploit racism.

[writes3000]

5. What leads you to believe that?

Where has Clinton tried to frame Obama as the fringe minority candidate?

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. The fact that someone inside the Clinton campaign ADMITTED as much is a damned good indicator.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has won in South Carolina.

No, not Saturday's primary _ though it's no longer outside the realm of possibility that Clinton will defeat Barack Obama here. What she has won in South Carolina is the larger campaign to polarize voters around race and marginalize Obama (in the insidious words of one of her top advisers) as "The Black Candidate."

That's from an Associated Press article; there's a lot more out there calling the Clinton campaign out on race-baiting. Give me ten minutes and I can give you enough links to keep you busy reading for an hour, of commentary from the Washington Post, New York Times, Nation, Atlantic, etc, saying the same damned thing.)

Edited to add more:

Hillary made the mistake of assuming that what was Bill's was hers -- she believed headlines that shouted such things as "Poll: Many Black Voters Don't Identify With Obama."

Now that votes are being counted, the Clintons have changed their tune, suggesting that Obama's color counts more with black voters than her years of service to America.

She tried to sell that idea after her loss in Louisiana's primary, dismissing votes for her opponent as coming from "a very strong and very proud African American electorate." Bill Clinton pushed that line when he suggested that if Obama won South Carolina's Democratic primary, it was because he's a black candidate in a state where blacks are a large share of the population.

"They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president said.

The Clintons sought to marginalize Obama as a candidate for African Americans. It backfired.

<snip>
Once upon a time, all a white politician had to do to win black votes was to be on good terms with the Congressional Black Caucus, suck up to black pastors and flatter their choirs on Sunday morning, and, oh, yeah, spread around a little money leading up to Election Day.

Those days are coming to an end.

Such condescension today is offensive to African Americans, who expect to be treated as thinking adults.

<snip>

As they used to say in my old neighborhood, the Clintons "low-rated" Obama. Beneath their smiles, the Clintons are constitutionally unable to accept the possibility that he could be viewed more favorably or thought to be more capable of uniting and leading the country than Hillary.

Many African Americans have come to hold that view.

They aren't alone.

(Colbert King in the Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202333_pf.html

Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife’s candidacy, has at times sounded like a man who’s gone off his medication. And some of the Clinton surrogates have been flat-out reprehensible.

Andrew Young, for instance.

This week, while making the remarkable accusation that the Obama camp was responsible for raising the race issue, Mr. Clinton mentioned Andrew Young as someone who would bear that out. It was an extremely unfortunate reference.

Here’s what Mr. Young, who is black and a former ambassador to the United Nations, had to say last month in an interview posted online: “Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.”

He then went on to make disgusting comments about the way that Bill and Hillary Clinton defended themselves years ago against the fallout from the former president’s womanizing. That’s coming from the Clinton camp!

And then there was Bob Kerrey, the former senator and another Clinton supporter, who slimed up the campaign with the following comments:

“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.”

Pressing the point, Mr. Kerrey told CNN’s John King: “I’ve watched the blogs try to say that you can’t trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite.”

Get it?

Let’s start with the fact that Mr. Obama never attended a madrassa, and that there is no such thing as a secular madrassa. A madrassa is a religious school. Beyond that, the idea is to not-so-slyly feed the current frenzy, on the Internet and elsewhere, that Senator Obama is a Muslim, and thus potentially (in the eyes of many voters) an enemy of the United States.

Mr. Obama is not a Muslim. He’s a Christian. And if he were a Muslim, it would not be a legitimate reason for attacking his candidacy.

The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics.

Consider, for example, the following Web posting (misspellings and all) from a mainstream news blog on Jan. 13:

“omg people get a grip. Can you imagine calling our president barak hussien obama ... I cant, I pray no one would be disrespectful enough to put this man in our whitehouse.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign was always going to be difficult, and the climb is even steeper now. There is no reason to feel sorry for him. He’s a politician out of Chicago who must have known that campaigns often degenerate into demolition derbies.

Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.

It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.

What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?

These are questions that need to be answered. Stay tuned.

Bob Herbert, New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

Jake Tapper, ABC News
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bubba-obama-is.html

...what we've all learned over the years is that race is a hot commodity, and has been used effectively by all kinds of candidates to stir people up along racial lines. Since Richard Nixon implemented the "Southern strategy" in 1968, which was intended to get Southern whites to side with the GOP due to their anger at the Democrats for passing civil rights legislation, it has been a staple of American politics, especially down South.

It has largely been used by the Republicans over the years, and Democrats have always blasted it as race-baiting.

So the idea that a former president -- a beloved Democrat, especially among African-Americans -- would do such a thing to help his wife was considered nonsense. During CNN's coverage Saturday night of the South Carolina Democratic primary, commentator Carl Bernstein called it "unthinkable."

But it really isn't. Clinton has used race when it suited him over the years. (Check out Rep. Jesse Jackson's book, "A More Perfect Union," where it's covered over six pages.) And a top adviser to the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton admitted to Ron Fournier of The Associated Press in a report published Friday that it was the campaign's intent to turn Obama, who has deftly avoided the race issue, into "the black candidate."

Based on the results in South Carolina, it backfired badly.

Roland Martin, CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/27/roland.martin/index.html

And lots more, if you want it.

[Window]

19. Dayum.

[redqueen]

21. They're professionals, though...

there's always wiggle room in the words, so they can say, 'well that's not what we meant, we were only saying...'

No mater how cynical you get...

[NYDem Observer]

47. Good work

Yeah, I've felt all along that the Clinton's strategy was to paint Obama as "the black candidate". Doesn't bother me because Barack has shown that he is able to withstand these kind of attacks and it will better prepare him for the general election, where his race and religion will undoubtedly be called into question by the GOP.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Oh my God.

[Yes We Did]

58. .... Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too.... How's that?

How's that for a fringe candidate comment?

[writes3000]

66. I've called out Bill Clinton for that comment.

It really made me angry. Do I think that he's planned for months to use coded language against the Obama campaign? No. I think he was caught up in fighting for his wife and used this incredibly cheap, race-coded implication to knock Obama down.

Do I think it's racist? It's on the edge but Bill Clinton KNOWS better. I'm still angry about that one.

PS - I am an Obama supporter through and through. I just try to keep and open mind to see the other side. I find I live a happier life that way.

[AlinPA]

44. Yes, she is using existing racism in the US as a tool, but is not a racist herself.

She keeps "clean" by letting others implement the tool: Bill Clinton in SC, Shaheen with the drug reference, Rendell, now Ferraro. I expect more use of the tool in PA.

[TwilightGardener]

4. You've got to be kidding. Jesus, how naive some people are, to think

that the Clintons do anything by accident. Ferraro is her white female suicide bomber, sent in to stir the pot against the Affirmative Action Black Guy ahead of PA--and Maggie Williams being trotted out (of course, to deflect the appearance of racism) to attack Obama's defense of himself is just more maneuvering. I guess the "as far as I know" Muslim shit, and the release of the emails and photo, and talk of madrassas and drug dealing and Jesse Jackson were all accidents too.

[Medusa]

7. They are both extremely calculating

and there is nothing that they say or do that hasn't been focused group and triangulated to death. These remarks are NO accidents.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Maybe Maggie Williams is Hillary's official Token Black, used to

insult Obama so that it looks less racist--she was the one who said, after the release of the photo, "Why is it an insult if people think you're Muslim?". I'm pretty sure that's what she's been promoted for, it would fit with the cynical pattern. Rush Limbaugh has a black guy named Snerdley on his show, and he's the "Official Obama Criticizer".

[MethuenProgressive]

14. 'Token black' is a racist term, isn't it?

[TwilightGardener]

17. No. But using a black person to specifically attack another black person is.

[polmaven]

39. Excuse me????

OF COURSE it is!

As is your statement in this post!

Apparently, because Maggie Williams is African American, she has no business working for a campaign other than for the African American, and has no business criticizing the African American candidate.

If you think that isn't racist, you need to think again!

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. "Token black" is NOT a racist term.

It is a term that DESCRIBES racism.

[polmaven]

45. I really think it is a "context " situation

When it is being used as race baiting.....as it clearly was in that post....it is, im my estimation, a RACIST term. The poster is clearly saying Ms. Williams is not smart enough to choose a candidateon her own, or to know know if she is being used for racist means.

The Clinton's are NOT racists. Plain and simple. THEY ARE NOT RACISTS. I'm quite sure Maggie Williams would consider that a racist term being used against her in that context!

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. No, a "token black" is a person put up front by a white organization

to fend off charges that they are not sufficiently diverse. It does not reflect on the person that is being used, but on the organization using that person.

I don't know know Ms Williams, or why she is working with Hillary's campaign. Maybe she is a DLC true believer, neo-liberal to the core; maybe she's an old-style feminist; maybe she just plain likes Hillary. The 'why' of it is immaterial. The fact is, she is being put out front to criticize Obama's campaign BECAUSE as a black woman she cannot be accused of racism for criticising a black candidate. I have little doubt she is fully aware of it - it is not unlikely she put herself up for the job because of that very reason. The fact that she is being used willingly does not mean she is not being used.

It is not racism, but pragmatism, that brought the Clintons to the decision to marginalize Obama as being the "black candidate". Not racism, but a decided lack of ethics to deliberately exploit the racism that exists.

Re-read the post. It is not an attack on Ms Williams, but on the Clinton campaign. As it should be.

[polmaven]

52. And you know this is fact how?

The fact is, she is being put out front to criticize Obama's campaign BECAUSE as a black woman she cannot be accused of racism for criticising a black candidate

Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, Maggie Williams was promated to that position because she is THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB? The 'why' is FAR from immaterial! You have little doubt swhe is fully aware of it, and yet still allows herself to be used that way? You are not giving her a lot of credit, are you?

And where is it written that, as a black woman she cannot be accused of racism? If she was allowing herself to be used in that manner, she certainly could be accused of it.

Just as a woman can be called a sexist, a black can be called a racist. Maggie Williams is criticizing Senator Obama because she thinks he is wrong. To assume she is a "Token Black" because she is an African American working for a white candidate who is opposing an African American candidate is ludicous!

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Well, of couse she could be accused of racism, but it would be

weakened by the fact that she is black. That is self-elvident. Just as I could be accused of anti-semitism for telling a Jewish joke - and I say "WTF? I'm talking about ME".

As I said, her being a 'token black' has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with Clinton's campaign strategy.

I'm not taking anything away from Ms Williams. It doesn't mean she is not qualified. It doesn't mean she's not very good at what she does. It only means that someone made a decision for her to be the spokesperson, and a big part of the criteria was that she is black. I know I'm repeating myself, but you don't seem to hear what I'm saying. She very likely said "let me step up and put that point out - if I do it they won't be able to yell 'racism'." It is not that she is African American that makes her the 'token black'. It is her taking point, as a black woman, specifically to deflect charges of racism. She gets a pass on putting out loaded memes, that a white spokesman would not - look at Ferrarro.

Just out of curiosity, what do YOU think "token black" means?

[polmaven]

68. Sorry it took me a while to get back on this...

I haven't had more than a whit of time since...well, I'm sure you know how it can get!

My definition of "token black" is a black man or woman hired onto a payroll to fulfill some kind of racial quota. To "show the world" that a racist isn't really a racist. That toke black will be ignored as much as possible, except to show off that she is there.

It is quite obvious that you think of the Clintons as racist. I won't claim to know it "as a fact", though.

Ms. Williams is, I'm willing to bet, smarter than to allow herself to be a "token black". In calling her that, you are, indeed, taking something away from her. You are saying she is allowing herself to be used in a demeaning and derogatory way for the sake of a campaign. I'm willing to bet she has a lot more self esteem than that.

The Clinton's are not racists, not matter how hard the Obama supporters try to portray them as such. I really think it would be beneath the Obama campaign to try to go in that direction.

[writes3000]

18. Here, I will agree with you.

When faced with accusations of racism, the Clinton campaign often fires back instead of taking responsibility. But, and this is a big one to me, what is their motivation?

Is it really to take advantage of race and religion-baiting? Or is it because they're always on attack mode because they are defensive about these issues.

Take into account, Hillary needs every superdelegate she can get. Do you really think she's trying to alienate her black SDs for a few thousand votes?

[writes3000]

10. If you want to take cynicism to the Nth degree...

Then I can't argue you on what the motives were behind each instance you gave.

I do know that Presidential campaigns are massive endeavors with hundreds of people speaking for each campaign every day. I don't believe Obama knew ahead of time that Samantha Power was telling an overseas paper that Clinton was a monster. In your way of thinking, Obama had to know. He planned it. Just as he planned Austin Gooslbe/Canada conversation, etc.

I place the Jesse Jackson comment directly in Bill Clinton's hands. Yep. But it's one statement. Based on his history of work, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt even after that one statement.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Do you really believe Obama operates the same way as the Clintons?

Really? I don't see that at all. He was embarrassed by Power, and he let her resign immediately, even though she was important to him. Hillary was glad to see Power go, because Power was valuable to Obama. Of course, if Hillary sees value in Ferraro, she won't do the same, because she has no principles or standards. I don't know how you can even compare them. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, you go right ahead. I know exactly what they're up to.

[writes3000]

22. Clinton needs every vote she can get. She needs every SD she can get.

It goes against common sense to think that she is actively abandoning those people so that she can send Ferraro out on a suicide mission.

It's a dicey proposition AND Clinton is going to get called on it. It's a dumb, dumb move and the Clintons aren't dumb. I don't think Ferraro was planned.

[TwilightGardener]

29. You're not seeing Hillary's strategy for what it is:

She's not trying to appeal to the SD's with the POSITIVE points of her candidacy. She is trying to turn all those blue-collar, downtrodden whites, the ones who think blacks get preference over whites for jobs, against him--and she's just trying to paint him as the Black Candidate, overall, so that he loses his appeal to whites. She has to prevent Obama from transcending race. Once that happens, Obama can't win against McCain either. The endorsement of McCain over Obama, the Muslim smear, the suggestion that he's not qualified, the VP suggestion, the racial shit--all are meant to diminish Obama, not just in the primary, but in the GE. She's making him unelectable, so that the SD's regrettably have no choice but to pick her if they want to win in November, even if they are dusgusted with her tactics. And if Obama is the nominee and loses, she gets another shot later--it's a win-win for her, because the party leaders so far have been nutless wonders in calling her out on her tactics.

[writes3000]

32. Yes, she is trying to diminish Obama. Absolutely.

I think we just disagree about her choice of weapons.

Not everything you list above is racially based.

But Hillary is taking an axe to Obama and I'm alarmed that the party isn't doing more to intervene.

I guess they want to see how hard he fights back on his own.

[TwilightGardener]

33. No, it's not all "racially based"--race-baiting is just one component

of her strategy to ruin him politically.

[writes3000]

36. Okay, we disagree on the race-baiting part.

But I'm just as alarmed as you about her trashing of Obama.

I'm still reeling that she basically said McCain was qualified to be President but Obama wasn't.

I know the Dem leadership is furious over that.

[Yes We Did]

62. So, when are you going to resond to post #8? If you are really an Obama supporter...

You would at least read the post and respond. Gives you count after count of Camp Clinton using racism. All with links.

You need to respond to that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. The clintons hired Mark Penn.

THAT'S not dumb?

Three months before Iowa, Hillary was the presumptive nominee - nobody was polling within 10 points of her nationwide. Anywhere. Yet in every head-to-head matchup, we've seen that 10-20 point lead diminish and often disappear and reverse.

She is running a lousy campaign. It surprises you to see such a track record continue?

[islandmkl]

6. nice 'whitewash' you are brushing around the place....

to believe in 'accidents' versus 'on purpose' in this contest is hopeful, at best...

it isn't a 'stutter-step' when a 'explanatory response' is issued on the heels of the 'inflamatory' comment...

Obama has fired his offenders, as promised....

Hillary can't, won't, does not intend to, do the same...

[writes3000]

13. So then there are no "accidents" in Obama's campaign either?

I don't believe that.

[islandmkl]

23. i'm not saying Obama has no 'accidents'...but, when it comes to 'bait' situations...

his response to such a situation was proven last week...

hillary has yet to do anything except "...disagree with those statements."

well, that sure took care of Ferraro....till her next interview....

[writes3000]

26. I agree. Hillary should have and needs to do more.

For her own reputation and standing. That's my opinion.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Your entire post has my thanks, and my recommendation.

:thumbsup:

[busymom]

15. I think a problem that HC has is...

that the current climate in America is to find any criticisms of members if a different race to be...race-related even when they aren't. I think the media has played into this quite a bit over the last several years. There does seem to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction that happens very often. I have worked with some brilliant people of all races and I don't look at someone and see where they come from. But in my teaching experience, I was very carefully instructed to let certain things go because the university didn't need lawsuits. I had a student who was failing because at the college level she could not multiply without using a calculator. This is someone who clearly needed some academic inteverventions and could ultimately have ended up being successful...but I was forced to grade her differently the others. It really bothered me that any criticism of her ability at that time could be construed as racism. It certainly wouldn't have been my intention.

I listened very carefully to Ferraro's comments and I don't think that she intended them to be racist more than a reflection of the fact that ....well...because of the historic nature of Obama's bid, I do think he has gotten away with a little more by the MSM. If we're honest, Clinton, as a woman, has been criticized for being a ball breaker, not soft enough, the nag that every man dreads, chubby around the middle, potentially going through menopause....you name it. So what she Ferraro said is also true...that a woman also could not be in the center of a movement right now that sweeps people up.

For me, the fact that B. Obama is african american IS historic to me...it is part of the appeal to me in a positive sense...I hope THAT can't be construed as racism....but I think it's about time that a woman or an african american have a leading role in our goverment. It is overdue. Is that racism? No...I just think that there are minority groups in this country that have been overlooked and discriminated against for too long.

So I do believe that whether the candidates want to admit it or not, that their race and gender do play a role in motivating and polarizing voters. I also think that Obama is getting a bit of a free ride with the media because of the historic nature of this bid...the first african american president. And I'm not racist...and I will definitely support Obama in the fall.

But...why can't we be intellectually honest with each other about it? Why is any discussion automatically assumed to be racist?

[TwilightGardener]

24. Ferraro said Obama wouldn't be successful if he wasn't black.

She said he was lucky to have his skin color. This means, of course, that he couldn't succeed on his OWN merits, and is purely an affirmative-action hire. Sorry, that's ludicrous, and an insult to all accomplished blacks. If Obama was a white man, beating Hillary the way he was, this race would be over. But his goalposts keep getting moved further away, his bar keeps getting higher, the media keeps trying to look ahead to states he will LOSE, to prove that he can't win all fifty, and thus, he's a loser.

[Metric System]

49. In fairness, she has also said that if she was Gerry Ferraro she never would have been picked for VP

[writes3000]

25. What you're saying is completely different than what Ferraro said.

And if she had the wisdom to say what you've said here, it wouldn't have created a blip.

Of course, people are intrigued and excited by the idea of the first African American President. Some are frightened and threatened by it.

But you aren't suggesting that Obama has nothing else to offer or to explain his success other than his blackness.

Has the media gone easy on him? I think earlier on, yes. Now? Not so much. But people are welcome to question that.

My issue with Ferraro is that she made a flat out racist comment (Obama is only where he is because he's black - nothing else) and now, she's trying to frame it as intellectual honesty.

[islandmkl]

28. one question:

Why on Earth would Ferraro, or anyone else, even bring race into a statement?

Race does not bring itself to the dance...and it is foolish and naive to think that anyone 'accidentally', or 'didn't mean to have' introduced race into their comments...

not these people, they are pros...

the Clintons know where they are going with race, and it is a calculated move...

it is shown to work in the short haul....long term, who knows?

it is sad to see that it has become a focal point of THIS contest, since we all know to expect it from the right-wingers come Fall...maybe that is the most telling aspect to the whole matter....

Clinton adopts RW tactics to achieve her goals...damage to be assessed later

[ellacott]

43. What a great reply

No name calling and no insults. :) I wish we could have more dialogues like this.

I do agree with a lot of what you say. I'm sorry about the situation with the student. I feel that the people who instructed you not to intervene did a disservice to that student and they were wrong. I don't think they knew how to handle the situation and that's sad. This is what probably has happened to student throughout his life in school. He was passed through school because no one wanted to take the time with the students. This happens very frequently. It's a pattern of lowered expectations that many blacks have to deal with in their daily lives. This could be considered institutional racism.

What Farraro initially said was clumsy and she had the opportunity to clarify. She chose to go on the defensive and makes it worse with every interview she gives. The fact that she feels that she doesn't need to give an explanation or that it doesn't matter if people were offended is very telling. She was the one who said people were calling her a racist when that's not true.

Many people mistakenly use the word racist. She was racially insensitive. By claiming that she was called a racist shuts down any dialogue and people are left with their same feelings of offense by the situation is never addressed. When the next racially insensitive event occurs it's added to the previous incident that was never addressed and it snow balls.

She could have said that she feels that he gets better treatment because of his race she may have had a point but she worded it wrong. The fact that she didn't care about clarifying it and immediately claimed that people were calling her a racist, which was untrue, is very sad.

[Not the Only One]

20. She's purposefully doing everything she can to win this nomination.

Hillary is purposefully race-baiting because she knows it works, and she will keep trying things that work, without any conscience about what is right.

She is doing great damage to the civil rights movement. She's ripping scabs off this nation's skin. We had done so much healing, though so much was left to be done. Hillary's campaign is vile and loathsome and should be repudiated and renounced and rejected by all the leaders in the party.

[DogPoundPup]

27. Hillary is a Republican, so race-baiting...

comes 'clandestinely' natural to her and her campaign staff. Her supporters are unknowingly included along for the ride in Hill's devious campaign scheme. Like all things Republi-"con"
these days, DIVIDE AND CONQUER! Yea...that's Hill's ticket for winning...divide the Democratic Party so she can win for the Republi-CONS

[writes3000]

30. Really?

So Hillary really wants the Republicans to win even after everything they've put her and her family through? Impeachment, humiliation, years and years of personal insults.

Damn, she sure knows how to stay committed to her cause then, LOL.

[TwilightGardener]

31. She doesn't hate Republicans. She winks at them, they wink back at her. Please.

She snuggled up to McCain as soon as she got to the Senate. She loves to use the GOPers as a foil, but she doesn't hate them.

[DogPoundPup]

34. Yea...You are sort of seeing it...

Just look at the Clinton 'victims' rolling in the cash from their 'right wing conspiracy' hardships.

It must be why Bill and Bush the elder are like worstest enemies. :sarcasm:

[islandmkl]

35. she wants to win....

and the neocons have shown her the way...

she wants to win...it isn't 1994 any more...

adopt the tactics of the adversary that thwarted YOU...

and use them against your future adversaries...that was what Hillary learned from the way the repukes treated her and bill in the '90s....

[A-Schwarzenegger]

37. Yes, she has high standards on how low she'll stoop.

"As far as (you) know."

[Adelante]

38. I think it's purposeful race-baiting... mostly

Any campaign can have loose cannons. It happens. But it doesn't happen continually, not unless the candidate can make use of it.

I think the Clinton strategy has been to sacrifice the black vote in order to peel off Obama's white vote. I've said this here for a long time. Obama never had a value in making his campaign a racial campaign. His success was always going to be based on inclusion, not exclusion, a campaign for all Americans. But from the beginning, and I go back to earlier last year, not just in the fall or winter, but spring and summer, when black Clinton supporters were telling black audiences to vote for Clinton, because Obama wasn't sufficiently black or sufficiently American or sufficiently studly since he hadn't slept with enough black women, and so forth. That was the time for Hillary Clinton to get the message throughout her campaign that race-baiting wasn't acceptable from her representatives, that it would damage her standing in the black community, that it was not behavior she approved. If she had taken control of it back then, I doubt we would have seen this well-sown ground become occupied by white supporters, like Shaheen in NH, the volunteer coordinators in Iowa, Bill Clinton, for that matter, and the rest right up to Geraldine Ferraro.

Hillary Clinton could have run a different kind of campaign, but she chose the one she did. She knew she wasn't going to ultimately get the kind of black vote her husband had gotten, not against a Barack Obama, which left her needing more and more of the white vote. The way to getting it was to isolate the black vote and have it appear that Obama is a racial candidate, playing on race fear and dragging the primaries squarely into identity politics. So now all these Reagan Democrats are loving Hillary Clinton. I've always wanted to see them back in the party, but not at such high cost in our principles.

That all said, I don't see her as a racist. I see her as a politician willing to play race politics as the most expeditious thing in order to win.

[backscatter712]

42. I do.

Just seeing Ferraro's statements, Bill Clinton's statements in S. Carolina, the 3am ad with Obama's face darkened and widened and with the unspoken message "It's 3am, do you want a negro watching your children?", the seeming collaboration with Rush Limbaugh, with Bill Clinton even appearing on Limbaugh's show, etc.

Yeah. It's deliberate race baiting. It's disgusting and vile.

I no longer know Hillary Clinton.

She's KKKlinton to me now.

[Metric System]

50. "the 3am ad with Obama's face darkened and widened and with the unspoken message "It's 3am, do you

want a negro watching your children?"

Oh please!

[backscatter712]

53. Touched a nerve did I?

You want messages like that kept subliminal, but it ain't gonna happen!

[DogPoundPup]

56. "Oh please"...

[Hippo_Tron]

46. I agree on McClurkin, Obama was not hesitant on Farrakhan

He was right that he can't force Farrakhan to stop liking him and that was an extremely important point to make, IMO.

[Blu Dahlia]

51. You're naive then

[Bucky]

55. The race angles they've used aren't racist; they're merely clumsy

The idiotic "if he weren't black" arguments are the result of unfocused, uncritical thinking brought to the task of rationalizing why an inevitable candidate is getting outcompeted by a newby. Smug people can have a tendency to think out loud. Thus, when confronted with the reality that they are getting beat by a NKotB, Clinton supporters reflexively grasp at whatever rationale they can muster in the moment. The most superficial (and thus the first noticed) distinction about Obama is his race. So they dismiss his wins as being a function of his race.

That's not actually racism, per se, just simple, old fashed shallowness.

[haymakeragain]

57. I think it is carefully worded code speak for racists and they know

EXACTLY what they are doing. Now are they racist for using these tactics to win an election? That's for everyone to decide on their own.

Think about this, I know that there are rabidly racist folks in this country, and a shit load of bigots to go with them, so if I rile that racism up and remind those bigots about their excuse for being a bigot, in order to win an election, what does that make me? A racist? A bigot? An opportunist?

I, personally wouldn't do it. It is beneath me. Way beneath me. It doesn't look like it is beneath the Clinton campaign. The question is, where is the line between high paid political gamesmanship and being completely beyond the pale.

They are playing with fire here. Ferraro is right on message if you ask me. She hasn't misspoken once.

[ProSense]

59. Drug dealer, fairy tale, imaginary hip black friend, gang bang, cult, shuck-and-jive, Hispanics

don't vote for black people, Obama is Somalian, Obama meets with former terrorists, all from Hillary's campaign and surrogates.

Go to the links here and tell me what's going on there.

[Recursion]

60. Lack of sensitivity to code-words and code-phrases isn't racism

Nor is it particularly blameworthy as long as the person is willing to learn from others' reactions.

I, for one, had never thought of "shrill" as a misogynistic word but I have stopped using it once I saw (from this board) how hurtful it can be to women. We all need a little more grace in every direction than we're giving or getting.

[bunnies]

61. Sucker. nt

[AtomicKitten]

63. Wow. You are, um, accommodating.

[cbayer]

64. Wow, fair AND balanced.

Very nicely said.

Are you sure you are in the right place?

No reference to FOX intended here.

[bling bling]

65. I'm done getting burned after giving the Clintons the benefit of the doubt.

The Clinton's stand for NOTHING.

All she cares about is getting nominated, it doesn't matter how or whether it's fair or even whether it's democratic. She is dispicable and shameless.

No more benefit of the doubt. Fool me once, shame on, er, you. Fool me twice, and, er, you'll never get fooled again. Or something.

There's enough evidence that strikes me as purposely race baiting that I dont' have any doubt about it anymore. But everyone knows we can't make a big deal out of it and the Clinton's know that better than anybody. They can dish it out and we have to rise above it. We can't call them on their shit because it just gets people tense and escalates into a bad situation for Obama. It's a win-win situation for the Clintons. AND they'll manage to become the victims in this somehow. It's a calculated thing with them. Public reaction is predictable and they know exactly what they are doing.

They may be able to technically get away with it but the very least I plan to do is be honest about it and call it what it is. I'm not going to defend them. Somehow Obama has managed to run a clean campaign without triggering the sexism in voters. How is that? Somehow Obama has managed to run a clean campaign without triggering anything about the Clinton's past, eiether. I have no doubt the Clinton's wouldn't be so classy. They are scratchy-clawy monsters who sold their souls in exchange for power.

[Josh]

67. Purposely or purposefully?

Sorry, it's late and I'm nitpicking. I have seen so many people say 'purposefully' (with purpose) to mean 'purposely' (on purpose) that it's driving me nuts.

Josh (Pedantic Asshole)