Do you Obama folks really believe in your hearts the Clintons

[BenDavid]

are playing the race card? Or are you just agreeing with surrogates like jessie jackson jr who has one hell of a record of jumping on something when in reality there is no there, there....Just like now, hell there is no there, there to say the clintons are using race to attack obama.....

any person that listened and saw the bill clinton speech when he said "fairy tale' knows it was about the mediawhores not asking obama questions and giving him a free ride thus far...Now that should be the biggest story out there is why the mediawhores have not gone after obama.....but I digress....and to say that hrc diminished Dr King and the civil rights movement is down right silly. Now you got john edwards jumping into this "oh let me say something on this, cause I am not getting any good press" what a shmuck.

Just say Christopher and Dana Reeve were still alive and HRC is the president and they come to her and ask her about bringing forth legislation about stem cell research. Now HRC sees this as righteous just as LBJ saw what Dr King was desiring in civil rights and pushed it with his backing into legislation and signed it into law.

Now several years later someone else is running for president and said “Christopher and Dana Reeve's dream began to be realized when President Hillary Clinton passed the Stem Cell Research Act of 2009, and it took a president to get it done.” Well? President Bush did not push it through nor was for stem cell research. President Bill Clinton was for stem cell research but his bills were always blocked by the republican senate.......Is christopher and Dana Reeve disrespected in any way? No, same as Dr King was not disrepected.

[Occam Bandage]

1. No. Neither does Obama, and neither does Obama's campaign.

[Barack_America]

6. The question was asking if you believe they are playing the race card.

Is this the response you intended? It seems in conflict with many of your earlier posts.

Just sayin'

[Occam Bandage]

10. They aren't playing the race card. However, I do believe

they were deliberately attempting to provoke a national discussion of racial issues and Obama; it is certainly interesting that all these "issues" and "ambiguous statements" only appeared around New Hampshire, and did not appear before that. However, that is not "playing the race card;" it is merely attempting to suggest that her opponents play it. It has not worked, but others outside Obama's campaign have indeed played the race card, and that is all she needed to claim success.

[Barack_America]

14. Cool. Understood. n/t

[robbedvoter]

35. Why didn't they appear before NH? White people from Iowa were immune?

The level of paranoia here is astounding.
It still didn't reach my top paranoid post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4042986&mesg_id=4046075
but, getting there.

[Occam Bandage]

49. "Why didn't they appear before NH?"

Um, my thesis is that the Clinton campaign, around N.H., began attempting to shift the national discussion towards racial issues (and occasionally prodding it along with the odd "inarticulate" statement) in hopes of getting someone remotely affiliated with the Obama campaign to stick their foot in their mouth.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Well, I didn't get a memo......

And I still wrote this, right at the beginning of it all, when I started picking up on the bits and pieces of the language used on the TeeVee, etc.... by the Clinton camp in describing Obama -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4014875

When Gen. Clark said that Obama couldn't just "preach" a foreign policy answer, in his MSNBC interview a few days ago, that's what confirmed to me as to what was going on. The talking points were to "lower" OBama by various code words and to define him as nothing but a Charismatic preacher sermonizing false hopes; a fancy pied piper sorta speak.

Unfortunately, in the Black community, respecting accomplishment is important. Reducing a gifted politician and Harvard Law school graduate to the ranks of a simple preacher, was taking away from Obama his due respect as a self made man, and it was highly stereotypical. There's an old saying that back in the day, a Black boy only had three choices in life; to grow up to be a pimp, a pusher, or a preacher...because at one point in history, those were the stereotypes assigned to young Black males. Read how these folks put it.
http://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/11222/14632.html

Add to that reducing MLK to something not quite at par with LBJ, and that the straw that broke the camel's back.

It doesn't make the Clintons racists, because if there was something else to use, they would have. It's makes them insensitive. in the quest back to power, by minimizing the accomplishment of one who could turn out to become one of the greatest symbol of success for the Black community, and to be held up as a role model for many Black youth to aspire to achieve. To have attempted to reduce such a man to "nothing" much was a grave error. Considering that Bill Clinton owes a large part of his success to the Black community, makes it doubly hurtful (see his The Man from Hope Videotape with MLK all over the place).

But when we add the Clinton camp assigning blame to the Obama Camp because the tactic was detected as it was none too subtle (Black folks figured something like that could happen anyway....since it usually does), that was an extra insult....because it feeds into the notion that Black folks are always complaining about racism unwarranted, which is a kind of "kill the messenger" technique. I'm certain that the Obama Campaign did not want race to be an issue in this campaign. In fact, it was the last thing that they wanted.....because it counters their overall message. The Obama camp was not interested in playing a race card....because as many know, the results wouldn't fall in their favor.....so, I'm still not sure why they are being accused of this. At the same time, it is very hard for a person of color to take signs of racism lying down, and just to shuffle and fetch. So, the whole situation was almost taylormade to explode, taking no winners in a long run.

So whomever in the Clinton camp that came up with that "defining" tactic grossly miscalculated how disrespectful that line of attack would be to the Black Community. The problem in turning your opponent into a caricature, is that one has to be careful. It would be like someone trying to turn Bill Richardson into what passes as a caricature for his origins.

Wes Clark would know about that considering that when he ran, what happened to him, in terms of being defined as a "perfumed Prince" warmonger lacking integrity and character was extra low.

I'm also pissed in reference to Obama's Iraq Stance being twisted. I remember when that was done to Clark....and Clark wasn't even 1/2 as clear as Obama has been. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. Part of what I really liked about Wes Clark is that I never saw him sink to the gutter in attempts to win....and when he was falsely reported to have "spread a rumor about Kerry" I was his staunchest defender.

My point?

I abhor those who can't win politics by just using the rules in their favor and then just running a good race.

[question everything]

43. They appeard around NH after the media coronation of Obama (nt)

[cloudythescribbler]

48. good explanation of a difficult to explain issue nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. Speaking from neither camp, what you describe IS playing the race card.

It is deliberately inserting race not as an aspect, or a topic, but as THE focus.

If she was the one that dealt it, she played it.

[Bullet1987]

I agree...

That's what the Clinton supporters fail to realize.

[Bullet1987]

73. I agree...

That's what the Clinton supporters fail to realize.

[Barack_America]

2. Yes. I really believe in my heart that they're playing the race card.

I don't believe that they are racist. But I believe that they'll do whatever it takes to win, including playing the race card.

[Kittycat]

3. I think they're doing things, whether real or percieved that is dragging race in to it.

Obama's campaign is not one on racial divide. But comments have been made without thinking of how they might be perceived - whether intentionally or otherwise, that is bringing this issue to the forefront.

We will rise above though.

[MadBadger]

4. No, I dont. However, I think the Clinton's will stoop to just about any level in order to win.

[IndianaJones]

5. I thought minorities played the race card. nt.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Not racists. But willing to do whatever it takes--doesn't matter

what sort of damage is left in their wake.

[robbedvoter]

8. "There's no one who tried to take this man down, who didn't try to take us down"

From Charlie Rangel's speech in Harlem 2002 about Bill Clinton.
First sentence was :
"Sometimes you know a man by his friends, sometimes by his enemies"
There's an actual record - throughout his life & during his presidency that earned him the moniker "First Black president". Actions, not rhetoric.
I guess this is the reason I am so very disturbed by all those accusations.

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. Afraid he might lose that appelation to a REAL black president? nt

[AX10]

9. kick

[Big Blue Marble]

11. Yes they are playing the race card for political reasons.

As I have said in several posts today, it is to their benefit to devolve the race into a rancorous bitter fight.
They are not doing it to stir up racism per se. Racism is the weapon that they are using to tarnish Obama's
brand. That brand is hope and inspiration. Down and dirty politics is what they like because that is how
they usually win.

I noticed tonight that Josh Marshall has come to the same conclusion:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

"I think that the Clintons' anti-Obama strategy is more subtle than commentators are realizing. It is in the nature of a "provokatsiia", as the Russians say. Cuomo didn't utter the phrase "shuck and jive"without forethought; nor did Clinton bring up LBJ and MLK on the spur of the moment. Both are experienced street-fighting politicians who don't say that kind of thing to the press without thinking it through. Such comments are a provocation, waving a red cloak in front of the Obama people. When they respond angrily with charges of racism, suddenly they look like Jessie Jackson redux...just the kind of angry, militant black folks who scare white people (btw I think black anger and militancy are completely understandable...this is just a point about how much of the white public reads such charges of racism). Then the Clintons deny responsibility.The whole point was to get the Obama people to respond angrily, which they did. Clintons win."

--Josh Marshall
Personally, I would be deeply embarrassed to support these people.

[AX10]

17. Josh Marshall has jumped onto the bandwagon too.

Jackas he is.

[Big Blue Marble]

24. Calling out the Clintons on their strategies makes you uncomfortable, eh? n/t

[AX10]

33. It's the truth.

At no time, have the Clinton's played the race card.
Obama's and Co made that up to get black voters on their side.

[Big Blue Marble]

36. You speak from desperation, I fear or total denial.

Give your candidate credit. She knows how to play in the dirt with the best of them.

[AX10]

38. Hillary deserves credit for how well she has...

done despite the crap thrown at her.

I will not support Obama if he is the nominee. He and his surrogates have proven that he is an empty suit who needs to thrown dirt on others to win.

.

[Big Blue Marble]

39. Consider that there maybe a little bit of projection in your argument.

I have never heard Obama throw dirt once. If you call defending yourself against dirt, throwing
dirt then that is your opinion nothing else.

I do give Hillary credit for how far she has come. I just do not like the way she got there.

[AX10]

41. He has. He does it subtly.

[cloudythescribbler]

50. please explain Obama's "subtle" smearing, with concrete egs & if possible, links nt

[murbley40]

74. Agreed.

[Bishop Rook]

12. I don't believe the Clintons are racist

I believe that some of their surrogates are playing racial politics, and that the Clintons are giving their tacit approval of these practices by not more swiftly and strictly decrying them.

The "doing something in the neighborhood" comment was what opened my eyes.

Unfortunately your analogy about the Dr. MLK comment doesn't fit. Because it would "take a President to get it done" for stem cell research--it takes laws and the stroke of a pen. I assure you, if the civil rights movement had continued, it would not have "taken a President" to get it done. There is a difference between policy advocacy (which is what the late Mr. and Mrs. Reeve were doing) and leading a nationwide nonviolent citizen uprising.

[Cant trust em]

23. Being racist and using race in politics are different

Though usually joined at the hip, you can use race to make a point without being racist. I think that Clinton has a point here, it just gets muddled in terrible communication and therefore winds up sounding racist. Had she properly lauded MLK after that, she probably would have been OK.

[Bishop Rook]

47. I agree

And as I said, I don't think the Clintons have a racist bone in their body. That being said, a great number of their surrogates have been sending messages with definite racial and prejudicial undertones. After the whole Donnie McClurkin incident, Obama at least had the decency to come out and say without any ambiguity that McClurkin was wrong; Clinton has said no such thing about Bob Johnson. The lack of condemnation is in this case a tacit approval.

[Bread and Circus]

13. kinda, sorta, but it's more sophisticated than that (read inside if u dare)

First and foremost, I don't think the Clintons are racist.

I do think however, that there's a lot more racist people in the Democratic Party than you might think.

However, they are not bringing up subtle race related comments just to incite anti-black response.

What they are doing is a sophisticated campaign of generating "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" about Obama. Hillary and Bill have done this but the heavy lifting is being carried out by their surrogates. This is involves bringing race as an issue to the forefront for the purpose of reminding people that Obama is the "black candidate" rather than the "transcendant (where race doesn't matter) candidate". In some respects, they are baiting the Obama camp to respond to further the "black candidate" concept. It's fairly masterful, though abhorrrent from an ethical standpoint, how they are doing it.

They know the more Obama's candidacy becomes about a black man defending himself, the more Obama will look "uppity". It's a passive aggressive technique.

Aside from that, they are employing the Rove doctrine by going to the heart of Obama's strength and planting memes in the press that creates a vague sense of doubt using unsubstantiated claims (like Bill calling Obama a "fairy tale"). They go further than that and make some outright lies and claims without any basis at all. Like how Hillary referred to Obama's record on MTP today.

Obama has taken the strategy of the high road. Win or lose, I hope he sticks with it. If he wins with it, then that will be a big story. If he loses with it, at least we can be proud of him. But if he goes negative, he will still lose because he will erase the fundamental basis for his candidacy. It would be akin to Hillary getting a sex change.

[robbedvoter]

16. yeah, I am aware about the Obama campaign memo requiring you to spread this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html
The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press.

[Bread and Circus]

21. I didn't get any memo. It's what they are doing, anyone with

eyes can see it. The fact that lots of different people are saying it, might clue you in that somethings there.

Seriously, there's just too many little race references that have come out of the Clintons and their camp lately for it to be "just coincidence".

You are beign woefully and willfully obtuse or lying through your teeth.

/shrug

[robbedvoter]

31. Somehow, however, you're spreading it - word for word...Some coincidence

considering the very convoluted premise...I've seen it posted on DU way before it was disclosed as well.

[Bread and Circus]

58. I think the coincidence is that there's very few explanations

either

a.) the clintons are trying to sow racial discord or
b.) the clintons are doing this just to change the terms of debate from "hope" and "change" to "hey, who's that black guy with the funny name".

I'm trying to give the Clintons a pass and say it's b.

Consider that a favor.

[AX10]

34. Here it is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

[cloudythescribbler]

53. Nice try -- but I read the memo at Huffpo, and it's just necessary background info about ...

the various incidents and press coverage of them. The explanation that the person you essentially smear as a pawn of some Obama machine in fact outlines what is going on quite accurately, and in plain, clear prose. (me, I'm not so masterful at the latter)

[cloudythescribbler]

52. a nice description -- and note how the 2000 'minstrel show' GOP Convention did the same ....

[loveangelc]

15. I don't think theyre above anything in order to win, so yes.

[lapfog_1]

18. I've posted on other threads.

Bill was NOT talking about the Obama campaign when he uttered the phrase "fairy tale". All you have to do is watch the video.

OTOH, when Hillary said "it takes a President to get things done" in reference to MLK and his "I have a dream"... well, I don't call it racial, however it IS insulting to the memory of Dr. King. I might point out that we have a MLK holiday, but we do not have a specific LBJ holiday. If we were (as Hillary was) crediting LBJ for the civil rights movement and legislation, why wouldn't we have LBJ day? It was a silly point for her to make, and altogether wrong.

And then there is the continued criticism of Obama for comparing himself to JFK and MLK. I watched the video on that as well... and I saw no direct comparison to either figure. Was Obama trying to cast his campaign as an difficult task? Yes. Was he reaching back to great leaders to inspire his followers to dare and hope. Yes. But did he say, even indirectly, "I am like those leaders."? No. And for Hillary and her supporters to keep on it is wrong, just as wrong as it is for the Obama supporters to keep on the "fairy tale" reference.


Not everything YOUR candidate does is golden, and not everything the other candidate does is evil. Try to keep an open mind about things... and if your candidate does something wrong, admit it or don't talk about it... but try not to spin it like Fox Noise Channel or Karl Rove.

[Cant trust em]

19. It still sounds pretty bad.

Credit should be given to the people who ran the first 26 miles, not the last .2 to complete the marathon. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt after watching the full remarks in context, but not this time. It just sounds awful.

HRC knows that she made a gaffe, and instead of apologizing and moving on, she blamed Obama for race baiting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ikowGJj8pg&feature=related

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AX10]

27. A hit below the belt.

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonnyblitz]

70. you think gays co-opted the civil rights movement??

interesting. I am not surprised that you support Obama.

[DURHAM D]

102. If I understand her point - us queers are supposed to start

wearing dark makeup...???

[cloudythescribbler]

54. and color me, as a Jew, embarassed by this show of wilful obtuseness

or worse.

[dkf]

22. The MLK statement was bad bad bad.

Sorry but I do see that in a very bad light.

[AX10]

26. And again with the Obama campaign,

it's all about image and not the substance.

[dkf]

30. Actually I am offended at the substance of that statement.

Imagine this statement: "Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony's dream began to be realized when President Wilson pushed passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, when he was able to get through Congress something others were 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 peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

You think Hillary would back this up? Not in a million billion years.

[DURHAM D]

104. That is just a stupid statement.

I can't believe anyone would suggest the comparison. Whoever wrote it doesn't understand much history.

It was an Amendment to our constitution. There is the little matter of it having to be passed by enough state legislatures to ratify. Who brought the pressure on the state legislatures? The President had no ability to move it along.

[stillcool]

25. I think they turned a mis-statement...

into a shit storm.

[mrdemocrat78]

28. Clinton... No, but her people... yes

and like it or not, you are still a representative of the people you surround yourself with.

[BeyondGeography]

29. They're playing the we'll do anything to win card

part of their charm.

[tishaLA]

32. i don't believe in "the race card"

which is something that came into popular speech, IIRC, as a result of the OJ Simpson trial.

What I do believe, though, is that the Clinton campaign is engaging in racially coded speech in an attempt to divide the electorate. That said, I don't think that all of the efforts to do so--namely, the "fairy tale" comment--is racially coded.

I also think it won't matter because Sen Obama will either sink or swim despite the Clinton campaign's comments. I'm much more worried about their other underhanded tactics.

[creeksneakers2]

37. Not long ago DU was abuzz about how the Clintons made

racist remarks. The debate about that ended with recognition that in fact the Clintons hadn't said anything racist. Once the accusations ran into the barrier of contradicting facts, the accusation just changed to get around the facts. Now its all supposed to be some sort of plot. "The Clintons tricked us into making false accusations against them!"

The Clintons are cursed with this type of opposition.

[Tactical Progressive]

67. Some people just have such a Clinton hate-on

that they, and especially when they get in groups, don't care what they have to say or do to satisfy it. They'll twist shit or even make shit up and it's all ok as long as it's in the service of getting at their enemy.

As you say, first it was supposedly the Clintons with racist talk. Then when it was shown to be obvisously not, it was the 'sum total' of all of the not racist things the Clintons had said. Now it's the Clintons have been baiting others to make racist statements. Ever more race-baiting bullshit from the Obama camp.

The way they have channeled their anti-Clinton animosity is only going to hurt race relations in America. But they don't care, as long as Obama can use it as a play. The black community in America should have shoved Obama back hard for even inferring that he is anything like Martin Luther King.

[emilyg]

40. No. I don't believe it.

[question everything]

42. Frankly, I thought it is Obama or, rather, some reporters

who flashed the race cards.

I first noticed it on Olbermann, when the mild mannered reporter from the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson I think his name, who is African American, commented that 'MLK is ours."

And I thought that no, he is not. Martin Luther King Jr. is a great American who "belongs" to all of us, just as Abraham Lincoln is. King restored dignity to our country, made us looking in the mirror and not being ashamed of ourselves.

Whites were as active in the Civil Rights movement as Blacks were. And while blacks had nothing to lose, whites did, yet they joined. Of the three young men murdered in Mississippi in 1964, two were white, Jews.

But, of course, it makes for a good politics. "MLK is ours and how dare you invoke his name."

I have even heard comments that Bill's talk of the "fairy tale" was a twist of the "I have a dream."

Hillary should stop explaining this. It is of no use. African Americans will run with this and no matter what she says will fall on deaf ear. She will probably lose SC but that's OK. There are still CA and NY, perhaps even IL and other states where voters will be able to see the truth.

[AX10]

46. MLK is a great American.

He is no one's property!

[DFLforever]

44. I think to the Clintons race is just one of many cards in the deck

they are willing to play to their advantage.


They'll not permit Obama to rise as a 'unity' candidate above racial
divisions. They don't intend to let any voter forget for a single minute
that Obama is African American.

That at least is what I've concluded from watching them and their campaign these last few weeks.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. No, I believe the Clintons are doing THIS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4053932

[Jai4WKC08]

55. To all the people who think the Clintons are doing this because

They will do anything, no matter what damage it might cause, as long as they win.

Do you really think they're that stupid? How can any Democrat win the general election with a party torn in two along racial lines. They KNOW they need black support, and they know they need black turn out. Bill would not have won either term without it.

There's no way that politicians as good as the Clintons would throw such an important part of our party under the bus. It would be suicide.

[FrenchieCat]

65. I don't think that they expected to be called on it.......because it was to be somewhat subtle.....

the fact is they were attempting to define Obama....and neutralize his biggest asset, his oratory power, and redefine him as simply a preacher preaching empty rethoric.....but not as someone qualified to be President.

But this is the real issue...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4054504

[Jai4WKC08]

75. Well OF COURSE she's trying to define him

That's what politicians do to their opponents, if they can. Especially when the opponent is relatively new to the public. There's nothing wrong with that. Do you think Obama, in the very example you link to, isn't trying to define Hillary's service as first lady as not being REAL experience? After all, she wasn't Treasury Secretary (and that's true), and earlier he said something about having tea with foreign leaders, so again not REAL experience in foreign policy.

And yes, of course, the argument in this case is that it's great that he's a fantastic orator but that's not enough. That's part of the "no experience" factor -- that he talks a great game, but what has he really accomplished? It's the same argument we used to make about John Edwards.

I don't believe they "didn't expect to be called on it." I think the Clintons of all people know they will be called on EVERYthing they say or do.

I will grant you that it seems Bill Clinton may have taken his standing with the black community for granted. That is, he was perhaps not as careful as he should have been because he took too much to heart the line about being the "first black president." But I'm sorry. I just don't believe either one of them would intend to offend African Americans. I don't believe them capable of it, but since I like them, perhaps I'm giving them too much credit. But I certainly believe they are smart enough politicians, with enough foresight toward the general election, to KNOW they need Africans Americans and cannot afford to alienate such an essential part of our party.

[mojowork_n]

56. I don't agree with some of the name-calling here, but I found a blogger today who

couldn't disagree with you more. He said he wrote this between 'getting ready for work' and 'making breakfast', but however quickly it was composed, it puts the question into historical perspective, outside any pro-HRC *or* pro-Obama agenda.

Link:



Excerpt:

"With the dust-up between the Barack and Hillary camps over Clinton’s intensely stupid gaffe comparing war-monger Lyndon Baines Johnson with peacemaker Dr. Martin Luther King, it seems a good time to bring up several embarrassing facts about MLK, his life, and his actual legacy.

I’ll start by pointing out what no-one who hangs her/his last hope of change on elections and elected officials wants to hear during an election year. Powers and principalities resist changing oppressive patterns until failure to do so threatens their first concern…. Stability. Neither John Kennedy nor Lyndon Johnson welcomed any “opportunity” to make history. They were both dragged kicking and screaming through the morass of political risk into signing legislation that was put before them by a massive and disobedient movement that threatened the social order (and not by violence, but by unmasking the mimetic of racism and war by offering their bodies).

That is why Clinton’s claim that King’s dream was only “realized” by the stroke of Genocidal Johnson’s pen actually is offensive as hell. Pointing out that the enormously creepy Johnson — also a Democratic Party political operator like both Obama and Clinton — drove the nation deeper and deeper into the murderous quagmire of the American military occupation of Vietnam… is, shall we say, inconvenient.

Johnson campaigned against Goldwater in 1964 as the comparative “peace” candidate, portraying the Bad Republicans as the war mongers; whereupon he was elected by the credulous public in a landslide, and escalated the occupation into the deaths of almost 3 million Southeast Asians, 58,000 US troops, and the still under-reported genocide resulting from a horrifying chemical war directed against the whole peoples of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

All politicians, and even hamburger empires, like to quote MLK’s “I have a Dream” speech, selecting two or three useful, out-of-context quotes designed to be inoffensive to consumers and white people who believe they live in a meritocracy. So does the press… and now it’s their turn.

When Dr. King spoke out against the war in 1968, and when he called out the US as a malignant and imperial power, and when he connected the racism that underwrote Jim Crow and its de facto correlatives in the oh-so-innocent North to the racism that allowed America to sleep soundly while Vietnamese men, women, and children were being slaughtered wholesale… then he was beyond the pale. The mainstream press — far from embracing King — fell all over themselves to denounce and marginalize him. The includes all the so-called “liberal” sheets that still tell the rest of the media what is and is not “news.”

Dr. King had the courage to tell us then that every bomb dropped in Vietnam exploded over Harlem...

[cloudythescribbler]

57. Not only are the Clinton's stirring the pot of the race issue, but there are ...

swarms of Obama-bashing trolls on the site (several though not all of those who have posted here in defense of the Clintons) who put forward specious arguments and accusations to cover up the obvious strategies of the HRC campaign.

Incidentally, when I posted a thread citing a reporter at Huffpo who, citing (admittedly unnamed) aides of the HRC campaign who saw getting whites to flock to the HRC camp as part of the 'reconfigured' strategy coming out of NH, there was a firestorm of protestation, some saying that the quote which said it plainly somehow hadn't, others claiming that Huffpo was essentially a journalistic sewer, etc.

Now, there are invocations of the 'memo' (which shows nothing of the game plan attributed to the Obama campaign by one poster here) from Huffpo. Where are the Obama-bashing trolls who categorically condemned Huffpo as a source when it was convenient? Probably with the ones who raised a HUGE fuss about the special caucuses for those working at the casinos in Las Vegas LONG before their union endorsed Obama, RIGHT???

I think that Obama supporters and others who are willing to look at what is in their midst, even when it isn't pretty, should at least be able to see clearly what is going on, AND THEN TAKE STEPS TO JOIN TOGETHER AND RESIST IT (including after the primary campaign ends)

[ShadowLiberal]

60. No I don't think they're playing the race card, but their tactics are still getting very outrageous

Their unfair attacks and distortions of the truth are really pissing me off lately. However I've never believed that they were racist when the controversy's were just about the Martin Luther King comments.

[gdaerin]

61. yes, shame

[ShortnFiery]

64. Yes!!! They're capable of ANYTHING. I have zero trust for either Bush OR "The Clintons." eom

[VotesForWomen]

66. you are correct. if the clintons are racist, obama's campaign is in big trouble, because most of ame

america is way more racist than the clintons.

[candymarl]

68. I'm not an Obama folk

but I agree with you. This is all a distraction. The media parse what this one or that one meant. How about just reporting what they said? In its entirety? How about questions about the real issues? Like jobs, poverty, the housing slump, Iraq, Afghanistan, veterans care etc.? The press is trying to make this into a pissing contest. The think the voters, in both parties, are tired of it.

[Essene]

69. Absolutely. Look at the facts. It's pretty obvious. (list of incidents)

These were no accident. There was a systemic pattern of smears and race baiting.

The Clintons themselves obviously condoned and lead this tactic. It's a heartbreaking, disgraceful truth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMEAR FACT CHECK: Hillary's attacks on Obama

### Clinton aids confirm race baiting agenda

It isnt a direct quote and it's the Guardian after-all, but it's on record. "Aides believe that, combined with a surge of support among women, Clinton's 'crying' incident, and the possible role of race in bringing white voters to the New York senator's side, they see the makings of a reconfigured strategy to carry the campaign forward." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/11/as-new-hampshire-dust-set_n_81159.html

### He's likely to get assassinated.

Somebody who introduced Hillary Clinton emphasized the comparison with JFK and how he got killed. “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated." The Clinton admin distanced themselves from his comments, calling them inappropriate, but the damage was done. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights/

### He's no MLK. And dreams need a President not speeches.

She dissed MLK, suggesting REAL change only happened because of President Johnson (not MLK's dream or the civil rights movement). She then implied that he doesn't remotely compare to MLK or Kennedy. "You know, today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me. He basically compared himself to our greatest heroes because they gave great speeches." Sad. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights/

Think about it...

“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act.” “It took a president to get it done.”

“You know, today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me. He basically compared himself to our greatest heroes because they gave great speeches. President Kennedy was in Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed. He was beaten. He was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important speeches ever written in America, the “I have a dream” speech. And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed, because the dream couldn’t be realized until finally it was legally permissible for people of all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens."

Somebody remind Hillary that she supported Barry Goldwater back then... o.0

### Al qaeda will strike!!

"Look what happened in Great Britain," she said. "Tony Blair leaves, Gordon Brown comes in, the very next day, there are terrorist attacks... So you've got to be prepared on Day One with everything ready to go." Sorry, but that's a disgraceful comment, directly suggesting terrorist will strike with the election of Obama. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/05/cnr.06.html

### Flip flopper (abortion swiftboating)

Just watch the ABC debate from 1/5/08. She repeated this charge in various ways, although in fairness she did get into specifics in a few cases (which i think is fair game if you challenge the record itself on the issues). However, for a couple months... this has been her primary charge against him. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4092530

However, when they intentionally distorted his record on abortion to effectively swiftboat him in NH, that's really the kind of politics the democrats cannot afford in the primary. http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NEWS01/801060396/1043

### The hip black male who can't provide

In the words of that Clinton adviser: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. 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." http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2238148,00.html

### False hope.

"An untested man who offers false hope." "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered." Clinton herself said this. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4088317&page=1 & http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012851.php

### Obama just shucks and jives

Andrew Cuomo, NY Attorney General, and Clinton fan... came out swingin at Obama after NH primary. “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference,” he added. “All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.” http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Dept_of_word_choice.html

### Hispanics won't vote for him

Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen: “The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/12/racial-tensions-a-potential-boost-for-clinton

### Obama is just poetry.

She's been stumping with comments about how he's just talking poetry and she's ready to govern with prose. Cute. " a doer, not a talker." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_rdp

### Obama is just a fairy tale.

Bill Clinton's rant the other day that i think shocked more than a few of us. Clinton flat out called Obama a liar, said he was a fairy tale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDx4NZr2u4

### Muslim (danger danger!).

Several Clinton campaign folks were removed over this. One may argue this absolves her from responsibility, yet anybody paying attention realizes this smear is arguably one of higher impact ones. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/10/second-clinton-volunteer-_n_76047.html

But this is only wacky emails having nothing to do with Hillary's camp! Not like Bob Kerrey and others kept this issue alive in the public dialog or anything. http://themoderatevoice.com/religion/islam/muslims/16573/clinton-support-bob-kerry-continues-to-raise-obama-muslim-issues/

### Drug record makes him unelectable.

Top Clinton advisor steps down after making various arguments about how Obama can't get elected due to his drug use. In the context of all the other stuff, this most certainly has racial overtones and will be taken that way by many minorities. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004077664_obama17.html


### Obama is in this only because of blind media.

Bill Clinton also suggested it was "wrong" that Obama has been able to get through 15 debates without being called a liar by the press. He implies the blind, uncritical media is the problem. "The press never reported on" yadda yadda. "Give me a break!" He thought Hillary was going to lose NH and was basically blaming the media for this "fairy tale." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDx4NZr2u4

### Obama lacks depth and reality.

"On a lot of these issues it is hard to know where he stands, and people need to ask that." "As famously was said years ago, 'Where's the beef?'" Clinton said that herself. In the context of the other smearing, this takes on racial overtones (onfortunately, because it otherwise is fair game). http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4088317&page=1

### Male chuavanism and the gender card.

Folks may reasonably disagree on the interpretation, but she's clearly playing the gender card lately - even implied that her gender alone equates to meaningful change in the White House (just imagine the outcry if Obama said that about being black). She said that in the 1/5/08 debate. Similarly, the spin out of NH is that his comment was rude and poor Hillary's being beaten up on by the boys *tear*. That's how i intepret this spin, and it seems very clear to me. And if you question her crying about her campaign hardships, she implies THAT is male chuavanism too. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4092530 & http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/clintons-candid-assessment/

And additionally... i'd like to just focus on this clip from the NH Debate. She was attacked on the issue of likability. She joked that he's likable. He DEFENDED HER in return. She even says "i appreciate that," yet all the Clinton spin doctors (and Rove) are trying to pretend he attacked her. Watch for yourself and be honest. These 2 were just handling an obnoxious question with grace, but now the Clinton base is trying to turn this into a chuavanistic attack by him? Get real. Watch it. It was friendly. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7RuzYvtCw

Lying about a black man's "tone" towards a white woman is easy to get away with in 2008, I guess.

### Obama is Bush 3.0

"He’s very likable . I agree with that…. You know, in 2000 we, unfortunately, ended up with a president who people said they wanted to have a beer with." “I think it’s good to have a likeable president. But if I remember right, many people said they wanted to have a beer with George W. Bush. Maybe they should’ve left it at that – have a beer, don’t vote him in as our president.” It's a slick way to deflect the likability argument, but she even tries to imply this has policy implications, electing an inexperienced guy just because he's likable.

### Obama is too liberal.

"Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with 'left-wing' intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/04/new-hampshire-will-be-key_n_79873.html

### Obama is too conservative.

They claimed he was "unwilling to take a stand on choice." His controversial gay marriage position is a legitimate issue, for sure, but they've tried to paint him as too conservative. http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_abortion.php

### Obama is soft on crime.

"Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges." "Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world." All the attacks on his record now are going to be cast in racial terms, unfortunately. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4088317&page=1 & http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/04/hillary-hits-obama-for-op_n_79918.html

[Jai4WKC08]

77. Half of the items on that list are just plain inaccurate

And the other half have nothing to do with race and are legitimate criticisms.

[Tellurian]

85. Nothing short of Obama supporters playing the "Victim" card once again!

What will they do under attack by Republicans...whine to us how life isn't FAIR?

[Jai4WKC08]

100. I think it's too harsh to say they're playing victim

While I agree with you that Hillary has done nothing so extreme as what the Republicans will do, I believe some of the anti-Clinton rhetoric we're seeing is precisely the kind of response we will need against them. LOL -- even if it's not true, it's still effective framing. The Repubs twist words and get an emotional, viceral response. I'm glad to see our side capable of doing it.

That said, I'm not going to fall for it, or fail to call it what it is.

For example, one that really gets my goat is the claim that the Clinton camps has said "al Qaeda will kill you." I've heard this one all over progressive radio, usually with the accusation of fear-mongering a la Karl Rove. But in fact, neither Bill, Hillary, nor any of her surrogates said anything of the sort.

What they have said is that every new president gets tested, and it's true. Bill was tested in Mogadishu (and blew it, and it affected his ability to act in Rwanda and elsewhere). JFK was tested by Khrushchev and it's how we got the Cuban Missile Crisis and almost a nuclear war. I think probably every president has been tested or challenged to some extent, but the extent is greater when the new president is younger. Maybe it'll be equally great if we elect a woman, but if Hillary can come off as tough enough, and with Bill at her side, she can perhaps avoid or at least minimize it. But whatever gets thrown at a new president, it's just a fact that the world is a very dangerous place and we'll have had 8 years of Bush doing his damnedest to make it more so. If Obama and his supporters cannot convince voters that he is "ready on day one" instead of resorting to complaints about Rovian fear tactics, he will not win a general election.

[indimuse]

71. great analogy..

thanks again BD

[Perry Logan]

72. The Obamites' accusations get refuted again and again. But they just keep repeating them.

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. refuted by whom? Bill & Hill?

:rofl:

[Thrill]

76. I think they are clearly trying to put stuff out there

to make people aware of stuff. Like remind people that he is black and remind people that he admitted to doing drugs when he was younger. Its just uncalled for

[Skidmore]

78. I believe that Bill Clinton, a seriously flawed individual who

engaged in behavior that resulted in this party and the nation being drug through the mud, and his wife are now engagin in the same sort of "politics of personal destruction" they so descried. I find it abominable that they are seeking to destroy another person through innuendo, and that they have virtually attacked a part of the Democratic base that stood by them when times were tough. It is despicable and worthy of condemnation. Yes they are playing the race card, and others as well. They are seeking to destroy a very promising leader.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

79. no the clinons aren't playing the race card

they just made some gaffes which they probably regret. One can to be so careful in campaigns something isn't blown out of proportion!

[Jai4WKC08]

80. Three theories

No one needs to buy all (or any) of them... I'm not sure how much I do... but I think they should be given some serious consideration. Even if they are not a definitive cause of what's going on, they could be at least happening and having some effect.

1) Fifteen-plus years of a dedicated and well-funded right-wing crusade to destroy the Clintons has taken its toll on all of us. Even those of us who support Hillary and like the Clintons harbor some sort of anger or resentment toward him for giving his enemies the ammunition they needed to hunt him down. Nor are any of us happy with everything he did during his administration -- no one ever is -- so it's easy to find something that turns off each of us. I would also submit there are elements of the far left who would like to see the downfall of the Democratic Party and so stoke the fire.

2) The GOP and its corporate media would like VERY much to divide the Democratic party along racial lines. So they are purposely analyzing everything the Clintons say and figuring out how they can spin, twist, misquote and cherry-pick it to alienate African Americans. This is not to say that there are not some legitimate issues of concern to the black community. Just that it's not as bad as it looks, and that anybody can be taken apart, word by word, and made to look very ugly indeed. Most of us have favored one political leader or another who has had this done to him or her.

3) Someone is targeting Bill Clinton specifically, to make it look like he's harming his wife's campaign so she or her advisors will make him take a back seat or step out of the campaign all together. This is because they know Bill is extremely popular among rank & file Democratic voters and probably one of her biggest drawing cards. If they can shut him up, they hurt her. This could be the GOP/media too, and they are probably complicit, but the immediate benefit probably lies within the Obama and/or Edwards campaign.

[vee]

81. What's your take on Nixon ending the Vietnam War, as opposed to the pressure from protesters?

[Arugula Latte]

83. Of course they are. It's all about the Clintons, didn't you know that?

Whatever the Clintons need to do to get and keep power, they do, no matter how nasty it gets.

[vee]

84. Would you agree with the statement "It took Nixon to get it done", regarding the Vietnam war?

Or would you give activism it's just credit?

[GalleryGod]

88. 'Scuse Me? Did I serve with You? Did we muddy our boots on the same real estate?

My hero, Lt. Gen Hal Moore who was a real "flip-flopper" when he changed tactics at LZ X-RAY and annihilated 1,950 PAVN's with a force of 395 1st Air Cav Troopers.

No friend, then Colonel Moore told Westmoreland and McNamara post-LZ X-RAY that we HAD to be allowed to chase General Giap's forces PAVN, into Cambodia & Laos, they were "All ready 'home' " like today's "Insurgents".

Nixon did just a wonderful job....35,000 Troopers died on his watch.

[vee]

91. You may have served with my fine Uncle, we buried his torso in 69

[GalleryGod]

92. TAPS may he RIP.

"Garry Owen!"

[vee]

94. Thank You

[vee]

86. If you are offended by the statement "It took Nixon to get it done" regarding Vietnam...

then you should be equally offended by the statement "It took a President to get it done",
regarding Civil Rights.

For all the same reasons. Race not being one of them.

[GalleryGod]

89. I'm offended that anyone would post on this site that Tricky got ANYthing done except

lose 35,000 good infantry= A Generation of Young Men (as Bobby said) AFTER his inauguration.

[GalleryGod]

90. Want to see A Hero? The guy on the RIGHT !

[vee]

93. Then it is the demonstrators and thousands that protested that truly...

deserve the credit for bring them home then? Even though it was Nixon
that signed the paper work?

Can the same not be said for the Civil Right activist, MLK in particular?

[Jai4WKC08]

95. Actually, it was Congress that cut the Vietnam war funding

But neither Civil Rights nor Vietnam was an either/or, black/white thing. It took activism to get the politicians moving, but it took hard-working, savvy, professional politicians to change the laws.

[vee]

96. Like Nixon?

[vee]

98. So what do you need first hard-working activist or hard-working savvy, professional politicians

which is the catalyst for real change?

[Jai4WKC08]

101. You need both

Which is what Hillary was saying.

What happens if you have the activism without the politicians? A revolution? Even a successful revolution takes professionals to put together a working government afterwards.

In my opinion, if there had been no political leaders who were willing to respond to the Civil Rights leaders and the people they inspired, then the more violent factions would have prevailed and we'd have had civil war instead of civil rights.

But we still would have needed someone to pick up the pieces after the fighting stopped. And God only knows what they would have cobbled together. Not every people has been fortunate enough to have people with the wisdom and ideals of our Founders.

[GalleryGod]

87. Nope. But My Wife & I want our $5,000 BACK from Bill (92 & 96)

Bill and I also have the same Birth DATE, August 19th, thus the SAME Draft Lottery # 319.
I honored my contract with Pa. Military College and the U.S. Army.
Bill? Well we know all that,don't we.
Here's a bold prediction: Bill MOVES the OFFICE> "Downtown" after all this is done.

[Tellurian]

105. I hope Bill moves his office to the WH..

And/Or builds a Third Wing!

[Avalux]

97. They aren't playing the race card; they are practicing GOP tactics.

It could be about anything; but in a nutshell, the strategy is to introduce an emotionally charged issue into the campaign in a very subtle way, wait for the other side to react, then accuse them of starting it and propogating it.

Rove has done this countless times in the past and it works. I am sad the Clintons' ambitions have caused them to stoop this low. I was always proud of the fact that Democrats didn't play dirty like the Republicans; not any more.

[zulchzulu]

99. Clintonian Carvillian dirty politics is the problem

If you remember how Bill Clinton went to South Carolina and played the race card with the Sistah Souljuh moment, he clearly used the Raygunesque "Welfare Mom" meme with a slight twist. That was Carville at the driver seat on that one.

Hillary's swipe at MLK's influence was stupid, but perhaps was market tested to appeal to the Southern President (Johnson) overriding MLK's importance. Add that Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and it was a major appeal to his followers.

The Clintons can turn on the racist card knowing that those darkies will return to the fold after the smoke clears.

[Tellurian]

106. darkies? Your subconscious racism is showing, zulu..

[ieoeja]

103. Yes n/t

[bagrman]

107. The biggest story is about who got black balled for the news reporting. They want either H or O.