Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did something Wednesday night that she almost never does. She apologized. And once she started, she didn’t seem able to stop.
Her biggest apology came in response to a question about comments by her husband, Bill Clinton, after the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily. Bill Clinton said Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina when he ran for president in 1984 and 1988, a comment many viewed as belittling Obama’s success.
“I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive,” Hillary Clinton said. “We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama.”
Personally, I hate apologies stated in the “sorry if you were offended” style. It feels too much like a blame the victim thing. But of course voiced inflection is very important, and I can’t decide from this transcript how sincere I would rate this bit if I could hear and see it (anyone got video?).
But THIS bit, I adore her for (emphasis mine):
“Anyone who has followed my husband’s public life or my public life know very well where we have stood and what we have stood for and who we have stood with,” she said, acknowledging that whoever wins the nomination will have to heal the wounds of a bruising, historic contest.
“Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee,” she said.
Absolutely! This needed saying, and I’m really glad she said it.
Then came the Ferraro question:
Of Ferraro’s comment, Hillary Clinton told her audience: “I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn’t speak for the campaign, she doesn’t speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee.”
Ok, but she could have made the statement much, much stronger by simply adding “Racism or bigotry of any kind has NO place in my campaign!”. I’ll assume that she said “very large finance committee” as a way of minimizing the roll of one single, racism-spewing Ferraro.
She also went on to apologize for the Katrina debacle, saying
“I’ve said it publicly, and I say it privately: I apologize, and I am embarrassed that our government so mistreated our fellow citizens … It was a national disgrace”
One thing I am quite disappointed with in this AP report is the headline. It reads “Clinton Apologizes to Black Voters”. Well, yes and no. She did choose a black press forum for her apologies. Makes sense if you want to get the message out loud and clear and to those most injured by the mistakes. But nowhere in the quotes does she single out black voters for apologies. And right that she didn’t. She needed to apologize to the entire nation, and I believe she did. So the headline is misleading, and should read something like “Clinton Apologizes to the Nation”. Let’s hope that as local papers pick up the story, they will correct this unfortunate (I might add bigoted) error.
OK people, were her apologies good enough for you? They are enough to keep me a guarded Clinton supporter. But guarded is the key word. As I mentioned elsewhere, how she was going to handle the Ferraro debacle was a deal breaker for this Clinton delegate. Now she has to prove her words by making sure her campaign lives up to them. One more strike, and I’m out.
There gets to be a point when you have apologized enough. You’re supporters have heard it enough and your detractors will never be satisfied. Move on. As an example Bill Clinton apologizing for his behavior with Monica Lewinsky comes to mind. I also disagree with your assessment of the Ferraro apology. If she had said what you suggested my response would have been, “DUH!” I myself have had reason to use the “sorry if you were offended”. There are times you truly do not understand the offense, but still want to express regret that something you said was taken differently than you intended, so I do not see that as the cop-out you suggest it is.
<
p>Might I suggest to you and to Senator Clinton that you use this instead:
<
p>I am sorry that I offended you. It was not my intent to do so. But I can see that regardless of my best intentions, I have hurt you. I regret that. I am responsible. I am responsible for the impact of my words and actions on you. I am sorry that (not if) I hurt you.
<
p>I’ve said this more times than I care to admit, and I haven’t said it as often as I should have – that’s my failure. But I think when we take full responsibility for our impact on others, and acknowledge both our intent ant their truth, we get to a better, more reasonable place. It might be worth the world to you to find out why someone was offended, rather than toss it off and move on. You might learn something new. In my opinion, an apology should be truthful and empathetic.
<
p>Yes, I had a little problem with the Clinton “I’m sorry if you were offended” line because it suggests that comments were neutral (to most), and people were just being oversensitive or different “if you were offended”.
<
p>Ferraro’s comments were absolutely over-the-top for me. Yes, I was shocked by her initial statement and by her subsequent comments (including her attacks on John Lewis and Rosa DeLauro on the John Gibson Show, reverse racism, “because I’m white”) but I actually felt more betrayed by Clinton’s decision to sent out African American Maggie Williams (!) to attack Obama for “playing the race card”; and by Clinton’s subsequent failure to act forthrightly in condemning Ferraro’s views as antithetical to the principles and ideals of the Clinton camp.
<
p>It makes me feel, as a woman of color, that I can like Hillary Clinton, I can even vote for her, but I can never ever count on her, when it matters.
For someone who likes to argue semantics like Hillary does, was this strong enough? According to her previous sentiments, I’d say she’s open to her own criticism.
<
p>Also, the linking of Jackson to Obama, as if they were together on this? She might be digging a “race-card” hole here that many people are going to fall into.
<
p>Divide and conquer Clintonism?
Olbermann’s “Special Comment” last night. KO’s commentary, by the way, has veered into the petty & absurd.
this was last evening, and undoubtedly the pre-planning had gone on throughout the day. i’m still glad olbermann did his piece though. even though she already was gearing up to aologize, it puts a hot spotlight on her campaign. i’m sure they know that another ferraro incident by a campaign major absolutely will not be tolerated by voters. well, too many voters, anyway.
I have felt that her campaign had a strategy (in South Carolina and other places) to intentionally reach out to white (racist) voters by signifying to them. Not only with the Jesse Jackson comments by Bill, but also with her own comments about how “it took Lyndon Johnson to sign the Civil Rights legislation”. ….So it did not seem like a few loose cannons but an intentional strategy to bring in white racist voters. These appeals included her own comments and the advertisements using fear as a motivator….This is all speculation, of course. I don’t KNOW and cannot PROVE that her campaign was intentional or strategic, but I don’t think that series of comments by both her and Bill were an accident. So if it were not an accident, the only logical reason was that it would win her votes to appeal to white privilege. In any case, it is not and should not be what the Democratic Party is about -and should not be tolerated within the Party.
<
p>As I told my friend the other night, even though I have been a lifelong Democrat, I would not vote for her in the general if she wins the nomination by using such racist appeals. The Democratic party has been a party of inclusion at least in the 40 years of my own life.
<
p>That said, her apology takes the edge off and is a relief. It makes melike her again (though I would still prefer Obama). So, I am hopeful that this marks a change in her campaign strategies back to the history that she talks about.
<
p>peace,
<
p>Tom
Allowing a climate in which, in effect, anyone has a letter of marque to say nasty (and often boneheaded) things about Obama is not a strategy, it’s chaos. She can hardly hope to control the news cycle with that.
<
p>If Clinton wants a shot at the nomination she needs a focused disciplined campaign with the ability to stay on message.
<
p>Maybe, just maybe, that’s what is going on here. We’ll see.
This message is a good start, but I’ll need to see follow-through in the days ahead. Instead of mentioning SC and Jesse Jackson, how about she says something along the lines of the progress we’re seeing as men vote in large numbers for a female candidate and whites vote in large numbers for a black candidate?
<
p>However, to some extent the damage to Obama among PA whites has been done, so the cynical part of me thinks that Ferraro has done her job and no apologizing now will change that.
“the damage to Obama among PA whites?”
I see a subtle effort by the Clintons to racialize the campaign — get PA voters to vote along the same racial lines as they did in MS. Rendell’s quote a few weeks ago about PA voters not ready to vote for a black candidate does the same thing. I think the message has gone out, particularly to more conservative white rural Democrats, that Obama’s appeal is just race-based, so they should vote for Clinton. Seem to me like a kinder and gentler version of the old GOP Southern Strategy to me.
You’re actually suggesting that the Clinton’s actually got MS voters to vote along racial lines? What proof do you have of that? Hillary didn’t spend a whole lot of time in MI – the numbers just weren’t there for her. Is this just more “conventional wisdom” or do you have some street cred on this?
<
p>And another thing…are you suggesting there are no identity politics at work with the people of color who are voting for Obama? And if there are – is that wrong?
It was never suggested that the Clintons made people vote one way or the other.
<
p>And yes, there are identity politics at work and it’s unfortunate that some women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, and it’s unfortunate that some African-Americans will vote for Barack because he’s black.
You know that.
This is what I was responding to, Justin:
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know what part of “effort by the Clintons to racialize the campaign–get PA voters to vote along the same racial lines as they did in MS you missed. I think this suggests that the author of this comment is suggesting that the Clinton’s racialized the campaign in MS…without any factual evidence.
<
p>And please don’t question my reading comprehension. You Obama kids are obnoxious enough without that kind of stuff.
The observation was that people appeared to vote along racial lines in MS.
The statement was that the Clintons were making efforts to ensure that happened again.
No where is the claim that the Clintons caused the voting trend in MS.
<
p>Obama kids are obnoxious? That’s cute.
Does it make you feel good to attack the person instead of the arguement?
Still waiting for a response to this.
Thanks to Freshayer on the thread below.
that is, voters, not campaigns. i’m glad people are paying attention to the recent exit polls where a majority of whites said they didn’t vote for obama*. that does indeed indicate that there is some serious racial preference voting going on in the primaries. we are all suitably aghast that such a level of racial bias still exists. But at the same time, well-documented racial bias among black voters is given a complete pass. No one stands aghast that 90% of black voters vote for obama. Apparently it is ok to vote for obama because he’s black if you are black, but not ok to vote for clinton if you’re white because she is white. i find this double standard disturbing. if ferraro had said “obama is where he is today because many black voters are voting in a racially biased manner” she would have been closer to legit. it is the racially-biased black vote (among other things, of course) that has helped tip the scales towards obama in the southern states. the stats are undeniable.
<
p>of course i understand that history has borne down very differently on blacks and whites. but racial bias is racial bias. it is not a whites-only club, as is so abundantly clear in this election. i don’t think it is ok is to give a pass to racially motivated voters of one race. if we’re going to examine and criticize racially motivated voting in this country, i think we need to look at all of it and hold all voters accountable to the same standards of fairness. it’s paternalistic to do otherwise. it tells me that we really do have a LONG way to go.
<
p>*unfortunately those people weren;t asked if they would vote for him in the general if he were the candidate. that would be defining data, imo.
I’ve commented before about looking too much at whom people are voting against. I am absolutely not supporting HRC because of a racial preference. For crying out loud I supported Deval Patrick beginning in January of 2006! As a white man what am I supposed to do? It seems I can support Clinton and risk being accused of racial bias or support Obama and risk being accused of gender bias. Here’s another thought: Why don’t we just assume people are voting for someone rather than against someone until we are presented with solid evidence to the contrary.
however, there is a statistically significant percent of Clinton’s supporters in PA who don’t share the color-blind values that you and most of us here espouse. TPM reports it at 39%.
who share her gender.
<
p>So what?
however, as you note, of the manifestations of a race awareness that are a part of our society, the type that compels one to support someone from a traditionally oppressed minority is much more understandable than the type that compels one to support a member of the majority race. Any comparisons are unsupported by the historical context.
<
p>Obama didn’t need a single black voter to win in any of the following states:
<
p>Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Minnesota
Nebraska
North Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
<
p>I’m not talking “breaking even” or even “blacks voted at the same rates and preferences as whites” … if no blacks voted at all, BHO wouldn’t still won all fifteen of those states.
are both clinton and obama competing for the vote of a block that might as well be staying home during the primaries? i’m not saying that that is what you are implying, but your post does make me wonder why they would both work so hard for something that doesn’t pay off. how many states did the black vote make a difference in? i’m sure SC was one.
where ___ is any and all of:
* male
* female
* black
* white
* Hispanic
* Native American
* Catholic
* Baptist
* Wiccan
* latte sipping
* Natural Light guzzling
* Soccer Mom
* Psycho Mom
* NASCAR dad
* gay
* hetero
* student
* senior
* union
* management
* unemployment
* NPR
* NRA
* NBA
* NOW
* NWA
<
p>By that I mean, all votes within a state are worth exactly the same.
<
p>My point was that had Ferraro said what you suggested, she’d still have been wrong. BHO has managed to get (depending on the state) a majority of black men, black women, white men, and white women. If no blacks had voted at all, Obama would have won all fifteen states I listed above. He’s no more the “black” candidate than HRC is the “women over 50” candidate or McCain is the “POW” candidate. All three are smart, accomplished, and multifaceted leaders, and none of the three can be boiled down as simply as Ferraro implicitly suggested could be done with Obama.
you list only non-southern states.
<
p>and just to be clear, i never said he is “the black candidate”, etc. i said that such an overwhelming majority of black voters are voting for him that some of it must be raced-based voting.
because there were enough blacks who voted that I can’t make the incredibly strong statement that BHO could have won if every single one of them stayed home.
<
p>Now, another analysis could be done where we assume that blacks vote 50:50 instead of their balance in each state, and BHO’d get more states on the list.
<
p>
<
p>Then again, we could renormalize HRC’s results on a turnout of 50:50 M/F, or even the traditional 46:54 M/F, and see if she still wins all of her states.
You’re wrong about Connecticut… [and potentially others].
<
p>See the CT Exit poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20…
And she was able to cite Jesse and Barack in the same sentence like her husband did – thus diminishing Obama’s campaign as just another civil rights motivated movement and not a legitimate race for the presidency.
<
p>I guess it would have been hard for race not to come into this campaign. The world just can’t get past it. Its sad really. But ultimately I do think once the Clinton campaign realized that the black vote was locked for Obama, they basically decided to play the race card on the other side and stoke up white voters to look at Obama as a black candidate. They did before South Carolina, where they knew they’d lose, and now Ferraro and others are doing this again. They know that a racially tinged campaign ultimately plays to their favor because their are simply more whites out there.
<
p>Ferraro may not have been sanctioned to make her racist and demeaning remarks – and that is what they were, but she like Bob Kerrey before her, when he said it would be great to have a president with a middle name HUSSEIN who went to school in a MADRASSAH, and Bill Shaheeen in raising the drug use, have clearly done this to help the campaign. Ferraro is a bigot in my book and the Clinton campaign let her role on for days before stomping on the story because it helps em. It is that type of stuff that makes me think I can never pull a ballot for Hillary. Never – the first time I may not vote for the Dem candidate for president. I just don’t think I can do it for Hillary – can’t bring myself to hold my nose. I may just sit home or vote Nader -even though he makes me sick.
so i have to wonder why you are willing to give obama a pass on the race strategy and not clinton. why isn’t it just as repugnant coming from the obama campaign?
but give us a few examples other than the campaign’s reaction to the Clinton campaign’s controversial comments.
lanugo said this above
. now, obama has stated that people shouldn’t vote for him because he is black, and that’s great. but then, for example, he pulled out all the stops in SC, putting on a black gospel show complete with donnie mcclurkin. with that move he is proving his black christian bona fides. that’s playing the race card – a card clinton could never play as a white woman.
<
p>another example is the obama campaign automatically jumping on the conclusion that clinton cmapaing, not drugde as was the reality, “released” that picture of him in somali garb. the obama campaign knew full well that that picture had been publicly available for several years. that whole episode was a slam dunk victory for the gop. that the obama campaign still uses it as fodder just shows how they are just as willing as anyone to split dems and ignore the truth if it is beneficial to the campaign.
is not, nor has he ever been a racist. Neither is Hillary. I found this link of Bill explaining exactly what the media wants to spin out of all of this. I’m with him and I’ve been around long enough to see where this is going. It ain’t pretty and it’s destructive. Accusing people of racism when they’ve spent their entire lives fighting racism, bigotry and sexism is not going to help Dems win back the country. Eyes on the prize. If we lose this election, it will be because of this sh*t. I can’t take much more, and I’m not alone.
The Clinton’r are accused of playing the card, not of being racist.
<
p>Neither is progressive, but one is clearly worse.
are too simplitic, in my view. I have known some very progressive people who have long histories of working against institutional racism who also harbor some pretty oppressive views.
<
p>Good people can say and do racist things. If we believe that only bad people are racists then it would be pretty easy to isolate the virus and help it heal. But racism doesn’t work that way. That’s what makes this difficult and complex. And suggesting the good people can never say or do racist things, to me, makes us complicit in our own oppression.
<
p>Once, a long time ago, I lived in a neighborhood with a bunch of young KKK thugs. A number were my neighbors from my street. They used to spit on my when I walked past them (I crossed the street after the 2nd time, I am a slow learner or a foolish believer) on the big avenue. One day, I was stuck trying to carry a large couch by myself up three flights of stairs. I struggled and struggled. Suddenly, I heard footsteps and saw two of my KKK neighbors behind me. They looked at me and asked me if I needed their help. I said yes. They carried that sucker up three flights and then helped me move all the rest of my stuff. They were poor, white, poorly educated kids who didn’t have money and neither did I, but I shared my soda pop with them, thanked them, and that was enough. They still tried to spit on me on the avenue in public and called me names, but on our street, from then on, we shared a nod.
<
p>So just as I believe good people can be racist or do or say racist things, I also believe racists can do good non-racist things. Very few things are absolute. This is our challenge and our hope. My challenge and my hope.
<
p>How on earth do you know what my assumptions are or aren’t? I simply stated above that neither Bill or Hillary Clinton are racists. Does that mean that I’m naive in some way about what racism really is? Are you somehow implying that I can’t possibly know what it’s all about and that I am somehow not cognizant of it’s impact? Because if you are, you know nothing about me and have absolutely no right to go there.
You’re right. I did make assumptions about your views on the nature of racism based on your words. You’re right, I do assume some naivete about your understanding of the nature of racism. This is arrogant of me, and I can see why you would be rightly angry with me, it’s condescending. You’re right, I don’t know you. And because I don’t know you, I made certain that everything that I said, in my reply, was qualified as “my view” or “my belief”. I accept your strong feelings, however, that I got it all wrong. I may have misunderstood your words, or I may simply be incapable of understanding what you are trying to say. I see that I have insulted you, and I am sorry for that, and you may wish to ignore any reply from me, that’s fair.
<
p>But here’s my reply:
<
p>You didn’t merely state that:
<
p>
<
p>You categorically stated:
<
p>
<
p>You further stated:
<
p>
<
p>My guess is that if I actually asked Bill Clinton, as the son of the Deep South growing up during segregation, if he had ever been a racist, he would truthfully answer “yes” (Carville, his friend and contemporary has spoken frankly about what white life was like during Jim Crow). I don’t think Bill Clinton would make such an absolute assertion about his life and about racism. Bill Clinton (whom I voted for twice) has led a progressive life, and has worked hard to challenge racism and sexism on many fronts, and, I believe, understands how hard racism and sexism are to overcome, even in himself.
<
p>And yes, your post (because that is what I am responding to) uses language to indicate that the term “racist” is an absolute (black or white) definition. One either is (a racist) or one never was (a racist). Perhaps I got this wrong, because I do believe this is not an accurate view of how people learn and change, or of how racism manifests in people. My post was my attempt to engage you in this on-going discussion on Laurel’s diary of assertions and counter-assertions on the nature of racism in this campaign. As you may have noted, I never called Hillary or Bill Clinton “racists”. I certainly didn’t call you a “racist”. I do, however, question what I believed were the assumptions in your post of who or what a “racist” is, i.e. that a “racist” is an absolute identity, not a transitional state of being. I do challenge the opinion that any feeling, belief or expression of racism, is never possible in “good” people like Ferraro (or “…people who have spent their entire lives fighting racism, bigotry, and sexism”) , or any other supporters in the Clinton camp (just as the counter critique of sexism in the Obama campaign is fair game).
<
p>I disagree with you that frank discussions, however uncomfortable or heated or even wrong-headed and dumb, about “Clinton campaign racism” or “Obama campaign sexism (what you call “this sh*t”) will be the blame for a Democratic loss in November (I don’t agree that we will lose). The reason I post at this site is because I think free and open discussion is the strength of our Party and our nation, not our weakness.
<
p>
per Webster’s:
<
p>
<
p>Based on this definition, do you still believe that the Clintons are or have ever been racists? Do you still feel that Bill Clinton would say that he felt superior because he is white? I don’t think so. I fully appreciate your somewhat apology, and I acknowledge that there are many different permutations and gray areas when it comes to racism, sexism and bigotry. I’ve encountered most of them in my day, and it goes both ways. During the Deval campaign, I had white people tell me that he didn’t stand a chance because he was a black man running for Gov with no political experience. I also had black people assuming he was the best candidate because he was black (not even wondering where he stood on issues). Various shades of racism exist everywhere. Ultimately, the goal should be to discourage the thinking that one shade of skin tone or sex is different than another. Making it an issue is doing exactly the opposite of what I would hope to see in a Democratic primary of this importance. I do hope you are right that it’s not going to have an impact. Time will tell.
Thank you for deciding to reply, I appreciate it. I have actually been thinking a lot about our conversation, and I appreciate your thoughts. I took some time to reply because I didn’t want to simply to react but to consider your perspective, however different I may believe it to be from mine, because I wanted to learn something from that difference, I wanted to learn something from our exchange.
<
p>Funny thing was, you did exactly what I did after my last post, you went and looked for a definition of racism, because it was clear that we did not share the same definition. Recognizing that we did not share a common language and then seeking to find it is the foundation for reasoned and respectful discourse – so thank you for doing that. Like you, I looked up racism, and I found quite a number of definitions from Websters to OED to professional articles, to books just on the definition of racism; this illuminated for me the challenge of a shared definition. Here are two I found:
<
p>
<
p>
http://www.websters-online-dic…
<
p>You asked me if I really believed that Bill Clinton is or has ever been a racist, for me, meaning is he or has he ever engaged in racist behavior or word or thought. Let’s both stipulate that we can’t either of us ever know for sure since we’re not Bill Clinton (You are not Bill Clinton are you? Just checking), so our beliefs are just that. So, my belief is, yes (but wait until you get through the paragraph) Bill Clinton has sometimes been a racist. I do believe that he actually has thought about and struggled with the racism that permeated the culture he grew up in, but he was not immune to it, as a son of the segregated South (Central High wasn’t desegregated until 1957). (Carville talks about being in a mob of boys yelling the N-word at blacks trying to integrate, he says he believed what every other white person believed, until he read a book about race at 15, that changed the trajectory of his life & lost him lots of his white friends.) I also believe Bill Clinton is not a racist, because I believe racism is not a permanent state of being. It is mutable. I have to believe it is mutable because I believe our nation does not have to be bound by racism or singularly defined by it or condemned to it. I have great faith in our country and in the people of our country. This is part of the reason Obama’s call to change so resonates with me.
<
p>Let me add one other thing, I actually do not believe Hillary Clinton is or has ever been a racist, (again not that I can know for sure, it’s just my belief) because I have read much about her young life. About the influence of her pastor on her as a young girl, and her courageous struggle to separate her beliefs about race which were grounded in her religious faith, from her love for her father who was quite a vitriolic and unapologetic racist. My issue with Hillary Clinton was my disappointment with her in how she dealt with Ferraro’s comments (about Obama) which I stated I believed were antithetical to Clinton’s ideals and principles.
<
p>I am sure we won’t agree on everything, but I still want to thank you for causing me to think more deeply about this issue.
<
p>And yes, I still believe we are going to beat McCain, no matter who leads our party.
Your two examples of “playing the race card” are both tied to religeon far more than race.
The fact that he has been unfairly categorized as a person of a different faith, simply because his name stirs up the ignorant and racist elements of the voting public, more than justifies these attempts to refute those false accusations.
Obama has “rejected” the support of Farraukahn, distanced himself from Jessie Jackson(despite the Clintons’ efforts) and boldly stated that race and gender should not be an issue. The Clinton campaign would rather keep those issues in the spotlight it seems.
<
p>Talk about a “slam dunk for the GOP”. I’m glad I missed the try-outs for the Hillary GOPtrotters.
laundry list that seems to be a rather accurate tally of political hackery. It’s on both sides and it’s got to stop.
…….So much for suggesting a time out. We need a rewind to early 2007 when a Republican victory was as likely as snow balls in hell. Better get out the camera to be ready to document cause I think Pigs flying will be next if they (HRC & BHO) don’t cool off.
<
p>I repeat an early posts postscript of Karl Rove must be dancing a jig right now.
a Clinton supporter per se. I’ve been around enough campaigns to know when games are being played, and they are being played plenty by both sides. The one thing I despise more than anything else is playing people for suckers, and that’s what I’m seeing. It’s hypocritical. You can say anything you want about Bill Clinton’s stupid sexual exploits but dammit, he was one of the best Presidents of my lifetime. We had budget surpluses and the crazies were somewhat under control. Even if I don’t agree with Hillary on many, many things, I know that she’s a far better choice than McCain. She’s loudly and proudly proclaimed that she (and thusly her supporters) will be behind the winner of the primary. That is as it should be.
if he wasn’t trying to aim at black voters with the obama gospel hour, why did he choose a patently black gospel concert form, location and star list for that event? why does he only speak from the pulpit of black churches? i never see him giving an address from a mostly white church. why not? because in such events he’s appealing to black christians as a black christian. not to christians as simply a christian (he does that in other ways).
<
p>don;t blame me for religion being mixed up in everything – obama is constantly indulging in god talk. if i had a nickel for each time he said “i praise jesus every day”…
<
p>of course he rejected farraukahn. he had to even if he supported him (i have no idea whether he does). it would be for the same reason that he underplays the more militant history of his home church in chicago – he doesn’t want to frighten the scared white folks with any indication that he himself is a panther-style Militant Black Man. and he can’t afford to be associated with islam anything because too many of the very christains he curries votes from are scardy about that too.
You certainly imply this. I don’t think you want to go there, Laurel.
Get you fabricated implication off of my comment, please. Your reply, however, is a fabulous example of the style of race baiting that sometimes comes from the obama campaign or its supporters. Classic, really classic. I am disgusted.
what did you mean by “I have no idea…” other than that you weren’t sure. I’m just asking, not accusing you of anything. If you don’t believe he does then say it without hedging. You’re really overreacting here.
how on earth does an honest admission of ignorance on my part lead you say that i imply that he does support him? i implied absolutely nothing. i say that i don’t know, because i don’t. do you understand the difference?
This seems obvious to me but your perception of what I said is different.
I certainly didn’t say that you believed it even though you said you weren’t sure. It’s the second part that I was asking about. Sounds like a major misunderstanding. Sorry for the offense.
you can restate your question then, and we can try again.
the need to introduce doubt into someone’s strongly worded expression unless there is evidence to the contrary. If there is evidence that BO said something that suggests support for Farrakhan’s positions then it should be brought forward, otherwise we should say nothing else. That’s all. With the exception of “(i have no idea whether he does)”, I have no quarrel with what you said. I don’t think you needed to say that to make your point.
Is that better?
the reason i added in “i have no idea” was because i hadn’t read or heard obama’s repudiation of farrahkan. unless i can at least read the words myself, i don’t want to form an opinion on whether i think it is in earnest. and that’s really all. sorry if it looked like i was trying to raise doubt about obama. far from it. in fact, i was trying to be fair by not making statements about something over which i was ignorant.
<
p>fwiw, i have since gone and found the quote. it’s a strong one and seems pretty earnest to me. but of course, can we ever know if a pol is truly earnest, or just acting earnest? 😉
Do you see Hillary going to ‘black’ churches? No.
Why should BO make a special effort to go to a ‘white’ church if that’s not where he usually goes?
<
p>I don’t balme you for religeon being mixed up in this. I blame the ignorance that the Clinton campaign (and soon the McCain campaign) seems to be pandering to.
Hillary Clinton has gone to several “black” churches, from Georgia to California. If “seeing is believing”, go to this link for photographs.
so, you want her to talk with surety about what she doesn’t know? saying “as far as i know” is not a dismissal, it is taking personal responsibility for one’s opinion. would you have rather that she said “well his fans say that he is”? wow, when we start being suspicious of every figure of speech and every admission of lack of clairvoyance (see my exchange with Mark below), we’ve really hit rock bottom. time to chill out a bit.
and above, not below.
But you knew what she was doing when she said that. Don’t try to claim innocence with that one.
but if you’re running for office, you go to where you can get a crowd. He could get a sympathetic crowd at a black gospel show — just as he’s gotten sympathetic crowds at primarily white college campuses. That doesn’t make him playing a race card — that makes him campaigning.
He may (or really his campaign may) have criticised some statements from her campaign or surrogates as racially charged but he has if anything just been respoding to what they are saying. Give me a real example PLEASE of where he has played the race card. If you cannot think of one then your comments are baseless here.
<
p>Most of the criticism of some of the Clinton statements have come from blacks with nothing to do with the Obama campaign – like S Carolina Rep Clyburn who was neutral throughout the primary there. The Clintons have pissed black folks off on their own and then they go and blame the Obama campaign for making a race an issue when it was their statements that stoked people in the first place. Classic. And the sad thing is supporters like you who I know are tolerant good people then take the bait and say Obama is playing the race card too. Sad really. I’d think progressives should be railing against all racially tinged remarks and not just blaming the black candidate for bringing race into it.
<
p>GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE OF WHERE OBAMA PLAYED THE RACE CARD!!!
If you don’t have any – you are making a baseless charge.
Link to a piece in The New Republic:
<
p>http://www.tnr.com/story_print…
…that people are calling Geraldine Ferraro, or Bill Clinton for that matter, racists. That is absolutely absurd.
<
p>Geraldine Ferraro is an amazing woman. She has dedicated her entire career to progressive causes, womens rights, civil rights, gay rights, etc. etc. She doesn’t have a racist bone in her body.
<
p>Her comments were taken entirely out of context and blown completely out of proportion by the mainstream media and by the Obama campaign. It is shameful that she has to endure this kind of vitriol. And as a Clinton supporter, I am even annoyed that Hillary felt she had to repudiate Ferraro.
<
p>I, for one, find it refreshing that Geraldine Ferraro is standing up to these transparent folks who throw out the accusations of racism so easily. She was offering her analysis of this campaign…she also pointed out that had she not been a woman, she would not have been considered as Mondale’s running mate in ’84. Does that, then, make her sixist?
<
p>Her comments were not racist in any fashion, and I continue to think she brings a keen, fresh perspective to political discusssion.
the absurd point that you will now be viewed as having made a racist statement for not thoroughly denouncing Geraldine Ferraro. I wish I was kidding. The one thing I can say for the Deval campaign is that this stuff was not a part of it. Had it been, I’m not sure Deval would have won.
had the class never to say the Deval was only doing well because he was black. If she had said that it would have gone there. Ferraro and Co obviously do not have such class. They brought race into front and center and when Obama makes it an issue he get’s blamed by Hillary’s screech club for playing the race card. Fucking ridiculous.
It seems there is a failure here to see the obvious. The charges of racism and race baiting have clearly originated in the Obama campaign. There is no other person who would benefit from this becoming such an issue. Deval was the one who had too much class to use it. His buddy is far behind in that category. Racism goes both ways. So does hatred and divisiveness. I can see where this is going, and it does not bode well for any of us.
But basically saying the only reason Obama is where he is, is because he is black is racially charged. Its demeaning and wrong and I’m amazed that delusional Clinton backers can’t get past their own blinders to just admit that.
<
p>That takes away from all Obama has done – like he is nothing more than the color of his skin.
<
p>Think about it. If Chris Dodd were painted black – would he be winning this race. No.
<
p>Obama is more than his skin color. To say otherwise, as Ferraro has, is bigoted. Its like saying every black fireman or police officer is only where they are because of affirmative action. If they weren’t black they would not be there. Very simplistic, very racist.
So, let’s see, we’ve got two beacons of the Democratic Party, pillars of progressive policy and civil rights…Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton. And, all of a sudden, they throw out their entire belief systems and become racists to help Hillary’s campaign?
<
p>Really…to accuse either of these two Democratic heroes of being racist just sickens me. It’s very sad that the campaign has come down to this.
What Bill Clinton said about Jesse J and Barack was race -based and meant that way, we didn’t misintepret it. He knew what he was saying and it was meant to diminish Barack’s SC win by saying it was only about race and that Barack was the heir to Jesse Jackson.
<
p>He could have said well John Edwards won SC and not one other state in 2004. No, he choose to connect Obama to Jesse J because he knows Jesse is a lightning rod with many white voters.
<
p>If you can’t admit that – then you are delusional.
<
p>I’m not saying Clinton is racist, but he has used racially-tinged messages to make his points. Make Barack black, make him the heir to Jackson and the civil rights tradition which puts a lot of whites off.
<
p>The campaign has come down to this because too many Clinton supporters like you excuse the bullshit coming from your own candidate and her surrogates. If you want it to end, you should say as a supporter to them that you think this type of race-baiting should not enter the campaign. Instead, you go and defend it and blame Obama for it. He didn’t say it so don’t blame him, blame your candidate.
Huh? I have answered what?
<
p>
<
p>Frankly, lanugo, it is very sad to me that you can so casually throw around accusations of racism. Very sad indeed.
<
p>Of course, you don’t know me…but if you truly believe that I am defending racism and race-baiting, I guess there’s nothing more I can say. Except that I am honored to be in the company of Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton.
That is different than saying she is racist. Plenty of people make comments they may not mean to be racist but are.
<
p>So what do you think about her comment? I think it is racist. It demeans Obama as just a lucky black face. It puts race above quality. If that is not racist what is? I’d love an answer.
They would just rather make this an issue about calling people racist instead of owning up to the fact that what Ferraro said was racist (even if she is not).
<
p>All this race-baiting of course helps Clinton and that is why they are doing it.
I think that Ferraro’s statement was a textbook political gaffe: saying something that is true, but ought not be said out loud.
<
p>There. I think what she said is true. I have been hearing, for quite some time, that the inauguration of Obama, alone, would transform America and our image abroad and undo much of the hostility engendered worldwide by Bush and Cheney. Why would anytone think this? Because they think the world likes hope and change? No, they are saying that the election of a black man, alone, would do a great deal to change the common view of America abroad. They are probably right about that.
<
p>In the same vein, Senator Clinton is lucky to be a woman, lucky to be married to a former President, and lucky that he came on Monica’s dress.
<
p>Although these things are true, they ought not be said out loud, and would not be said out loud by a decent politician, which Geraldine Ferraro is not.
<
p>I think that the comments were neither untrue, nor racist. They were impolitic, and probably trivial.
I remember when Isaiah Thomas said that if Larry Bird were black he would just be another good guy. That pissed me off. Larry was the man, regardless of skin color. It was racist and I remember all of Boston flipping out about it.
<
p>Ferraro essentially just said the same thing. She deserves the putdowns she got. If that was not a racist comment I don’t know what is. Yes, she didn’t use the N word but she basically said Obama was nothing but a black face – no tribute to his talent, his knowledge, his ability. I think it sucks and I think the fact that so many so-called progressives defend it because they like Hillary is just friggin nuts.
<
p>The election of a black man would send a big message to the world. No doubt. And that is part of the Obama appeal.
<
p>But that is only a bit part of what makes Obama special. I don’t think his supporters sat back and said, hey, let’s pick a black guy this year – that will change the world. No, we think he kicks ass as a candidate and would do so as a president regardless of skin color. Believe me, his race is costing him as many or more votes (especially now that the Clintons have successfully made it such an issue)than winning him and will do so sadly in the general as well.
<
p>If it was just about skin color why didn’t more established black pols get into this. We got plenty of black congressman around, black mayors etc…NO. Obama is just really excellent. The fact that he’s black may be frosting to some, but the cake had to taste good first.
<
p>I’m proud our country has a great candidate who may be our first black president. We all should be. But, he’s more than a dark complexion. You know that. So does Ferraro and Hillary. They just wanted to take him down a notch. Scummy stuff.
Ferraro’s comments could have been considered a “gaffe” if she had not stubbornly defended them over and over and over again.
in understanding what a gaffe is, or how to avoid it. She has long been something of a poor politician.
disgusts me. The way Obama has played the race card is one of the prime reasons I can’t support him in the primaries, although I will vote for him as the nominee. He and his surrogates have managed to portray every criticism of Obama as racially motivated. The Muslin rumors are unfortunate, but besides the fact that there’s no evidence that the Clinton campaign is spreading them, I fail to see how they are racially based. I really don’t think most people suspect blacks of being Muslims. The rumors are based on his name and background, not his race. It was unfortunate that the two county coordinators in Iowa passed on the e-mail rumor about him being a Muslim, but I think it was more an act by people who aren’t smart enough to see through Internet rumors.
<
p>Likewise, Billy Shaheen actually made a good point. It was Obama who talked about his drug use. Shaheen said that he thought the Repoublicans would usae his drug use against him, and imply that he dealt drugs. Do you really think he was wrong? And how is that racial? He didn’t make it up out of whole cloth. What does it say when a discussion of drug use is deemed racial by the Obama campaign. Who’s bringing race into it? And how many times have Obama supporters talked about the things the Republicans will say about Hillary? How many references to past events are acceptable, if Shaheen’s comments aren’t?
<
p>The fact is, before every single primary, commentators all assess Obama’s chances based on race. Where are your angry letters when Olbermann says “He should do well in Mississippi with its large black voting population?” For that matter, how outraged were you when Obama said the black vote would increase by 30% if he was the nominee? Do you think he’s getting 90% of the black vote because all black voters happen to agree with his policies? I’m sure it comforts black voters to say things like “It’s not about race,” but come on. The fact is, there’s no problem with it being about race. Who in their right mind would ever argue that the first viable black Presidential candidate wouldn’t get massive support from the black community?
<
p>I have no problem with tough campaigns, and I happen to think Obama’s campaign complains too much about tactics. It’s not a “smear” every time Hillary says something about Obama. But what I do think is out of bounds is painting the Clintons as racists. That IS a smear, since accusing someone of racism is like calling them a child molester in Democratic politics. Oppose them all you want, but the Clintons have done too much for the Democratic Party to be treated that way.
<
p>The remark about MLK wasn’t racist, either. Obama makes a habit of quoting Dr. King (no racial connection there, I’m sure) but if Hillary says something benign like “It took a President” it’s called racism. Keep declaring every word that comes out of her mouth as racist, and suddenly you have a laundry list of racist comments you can refer to off-handedly, as if they are indisputable fact.
<
p>Obama has done a masterful job of playing the race card, to the extent that he’s able toi whip up a racial firestorm around every incident. The reaction to the “as far as I know” comment was the most scurrilous. Clinton first answered “Of course not,” then added “there’s no basis for that.” How is that hinting that he’s a Muslim? I guess she was so clever that she knew Kroft would ask the question three times, so she saved her loaded ansawer for the third one. How ridiculous.
<
p>Same with the Drudge photo. I’ve never seen so many Democrats endow Drudge with credibility as if he were Edward R. Murrow. He never said the Clinton campaign sent him the e-mail, he said he “obtained” it. And I think by now he’d have leaked the name of the Clinton person, if there was one. He publishes a fragment of an e-mail, doesn’t identify the sender or recipient, and say “this e-mail was sent by soemone in the Clinton campaign.” Based on that, Hillary has endured the most withering criticism. What other poorly sourced Drudge stories do you take as gospel, or is it only when he says something damaging to Hillary that he suddenly gains credibility?
<
p>The worst thing (as far as OBama playing the race card) was the Jesse Jackson incident. I knew exactly what Clinton meant. South Carolina was the first primary where any of the candidates had enjoyed a blowut victory. If you’re the loser in that contest, it’s standard campaign practice to try and frame the outcome in such a way as to minimize the damage. Any realistic observer knows that Obama had such a huge margin of victory because of the overwhelming black support he received. Is there any evidence of that? Well let’s see, is South Carolina one of the few states to have previously gone for a black candidate ? I think so, but I’m not allowed to use that context, or I’m a “racist.” I was complaining to a friend of mine that the media can talk about Obama’s black support all day, but we can’t. She said, “Oh, we can. It’s just Bill Clinton who can’t.”
<
p>And please stop with the examples of states with small black populations who have voted for Obama. A more relevant measure is to look at th hose states and tell me if there is any other block of voters wher he gets 90% support. I don’t think anyone is saying he only gets black support. But it’s the largest block of voters where virtually all of their votes go to one candidate.
<
p>I think the Obama campaign, and all of his supporters who continue to spread this hate, should be ashamed of themselves.
that both race and gender are significant factors in this campaign. It is perfectly normal and acceptable that both women and blacks be drawn to a candidate that affirms their identity, particularly because both groups haven’t traditionally enjoyed full participation and representation in our society. What is problematic is minimizing the accomplishments of one or the other because of their gender or racial identity. The Clinton campaign, without being racist, has several times crossed the line with regard to minimizing the legitimacy of the Obama candidacy. The motives are not clear, but the perceptions are. At the very least these spokespeople have shown that they have a tin ear with regard to acceptable discourse in our party. The tin earedness has been exploited by the Obama campaign just as any misstatement on any issue would be.