Just a note to the commenter that left a comment in the duplicate post of this story - since we had two copies, we deleted one copy and inadvertently deleted the one with the comment. Please do repost your comment.
Posted by Mary at January 13, 2008 09:36 AMthe comment was mine, explaining an apparent software glitch that made the duplicate post, after i edited. it's okay, now.
Posted by Turkana at January 13, 2008 09:39 AMThanks for this post, Turkana. And I think it is a good thing for Hillary to come out and directly address it on Russert's show. This is an important post because the worst thing we could have in the Democratic party is this type of crap instead of a real focus on what people would do in office. Neither Obama or Clinton have displayed racism or sexism in the way they live their lives - why accuse them of that in the election? It's a cheap shot.
Posted by Mary at January 13, 2008 09:42 AMclearly, some people are willing to tear the party apart, if their candidate doesn't win. both candidates need to shut such people down, whenever they show themselves. hillary's done a pretty good job of that. obama has yet to show any interest in doing so. that's my fundamental problem with him, because it suggests an hypocrisy to the entire premise of his campaign. if he starts taking appropriate action, i will credit him.
Posted by Turkana at January 13, 2008 09:50 AMAs a liberal democrat who worked hard to open the doors of opportunity to all Americans I am particulary upset about the racemongering used by Barack Obama to score cheap political points with African Americans.
He has to realize that just because the door to higher office is now open, Senator Clinton does not have to step to the curb and just allow him to walk on through.
Posted by ken at January 13, 2008 09:56 AMObama's race mongering is surprising and scary because it contradicts the whole basis of his campaign. Plus, what a weird and risky thing to do: imply that everyone who is against you must be a racist. Yeah, that'll go over real well in America.
The Obama campaign seems to think that they don't need to apologize ever, and that they don't need experience or accountability or specifics. I think you can really see the result of his never having had to waged a campaign before, either because he cleared the playing field (as in the Alice Palmer thing), or because he ran virtually unopposed (Alan Keys).
I fear this would be a disaster in the general election.
Posted by chrisss at January 13, 2008 10:05 AMWhat's particularly stupid about what Obama's campaign is doing is that playing the victim over charges of racism now means he probably can't win the general election. Nobody likes a whiny victim, regardless of whether they have justification for whining---and in Obama's case, of course, he doesn't.
Posted by MarkL at January 13, 2008 10:13 AMIf there ever was a doubt in anyone's mind that Timmeh! is an unfair hit-hack, knowingly running the edited version of "fairytale" out of context to open his "show" should convince them once and for all.
The government should send Timmeh! to the black hole prisons to interrogate terrorists. What he does on Meet the Press is clearly against the Geneva Convention.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 13, 2008 10:18 AMLooking at the Obama memo, the part that sticks out the most to me is criticizing Penn for using the word "cocaine". What a fucking joke! The word "cocaine" is racist---who know?
Posted by MarkL at January 13, 2008 10:22 AMI agree. I have been really discouraged by the way Obama has run his campaign. What happened to the politics of hope? The politics of change? Anybody who opposes him is a racist now? I am not a racist, I am a minority, and I have gone from just preferring Hillary Clinton to feeling like I would have a really hard time supporting Barack Obama in the general election. He is a hypocrite. He has injected the most charged and polarizing issue into the election and it has practically rendered him untouchable. No one is allowed to go after his record, and that is simply wrong. He cannot just walk into the White House unchallenged - that would do a great disservice to this nation. And his campaign is doing a great disservice to the country by making this about race...and seriously, have some respect for all that the Clintons have done. They may not be perfect, and he certainly has a right and should challenge Senator Cinton on her record, but he should also show a little bit of respect to the former president of the United States who has done a lot for minorities and not run around accusing him of being a racist (but, of course, all through his surrogates)...he is running a dirty campaign and I hope the MSM and voters call him out on it...
Posted by NS at January 13, 2008 10:23 AMHow funny is this, "And his campaign is doing a great disservice to the country by making this about race." Democrats have made a living at making campaigns about race. It's their way, it's the only way Democrats get elected. To quote a Maryland Democrat, "they want our votes, not our people." It's the "Democratic" way.
Posted by peter at January 13, 2008 10:34 AMThe Hilalry borg has assimilated many others, I see. Boy, that was a fair and reasoned post, Turkana. You simply parrot Hillary uncritically! Wow! But, as you like to say, you're not a Hillary partisan. Puh-lease. Your writings prove the opposite.
I am a historian of the civil rights movement. I write about this history and teach it every day. Hillary has it wrong, purposefully. She manipulated it for her own self-interest in NH to smear Obama and now is trying to back off and re-write because of the brewing backlash against her campaign by African Americans. And, of course, she is now playing the victim card again by accusing Obama of distorting what has clearly been a pattern of smears by her surrogates and husband. Right out of the Republican playbook once again... I'll give them this: they are really good at the dirty stuff.
Funny how white progressive go through contortions to minimize the racial (racist?) dynamics of the race, while going into hyper-drive on the gendered (sexist?) side of the campaign. Sadly typical. This is why MLK himself, in "Why We Can't Wait," called white liberals the biggest enemy... they talk a lot of BS about racial justice but then don't do anything about it when the chips are down. Classic. There you go again...
This blog has absolutely no credibility.
Clinton. She should do this all the time. Every Democrat should do this to every member of the corporate press/media every time.
Why don't they? I do not know.
Obama. He's got to get the race thing over with before the general. Good rule by someone whose name I do not remember: If there is an elephant in the room, introduce him.
Posted by James E. Powell at January 13, 2008 10:44 AMMarkL:
"nobody likes a whiny victim"...
How about a "crying victim"?
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 10:44 AMHillary didn't fire back. Her campaign wrote a response for her, she memorized it, and blurted it out. Hillary isn't able to speak on the fly like Obama. Whenever she tries, she sticks her foot in her mouth worse than George Bush. Hillary needs to be heavily scripted and rushed off the stage before freelancing.
Posted by Ben at January 13, 2008 10:51 AMMore details coming out now, and fairly so:
Obama did NOT support the Congressional Black Caucus's move to contest the certification of the Ohio votes in 2004---you know, the election where many black voters were denied the right to vote by limiting the number of voting machines in their areas? Obama did not have the courage to question that.
He also SUPPORTED Joe Lieberman's re-election as an "Independent," AGAINST the progressive Ned Lamont.
Except for the 2002 Senate vote, Obama's Iraq votes MATCH Clinton's votes. His voting record is really no different, although he claims it is.
He discredits himself by claiming his loss was due to racism. And he has an obligation to his non-racist white supporters to nip this meme in the bud.
Essentially, his supporters called the voters of New Hampshire racists.
It's a deep and abiding insult.
The election on the Dem side has gone in the crapper along the lines of both race and gender. Clearly, it is going to be a long slog through this process and a lot of damage is going to be done within the Democratic Party and the progressive community before the general election even starts; this is too bad. Over the last few days I have witness liberal on liberal, progressive on progressive, lefty on lefty "violence" across the internet and in public. Some are using gender against others who are using race, when in fact both racism and sexism are clearly alive and well in this totally skewed process and in American society, more generally.
I see the clear sexism Hillary has faced as well as the clear racism Barack has faced. For the record, I support Barack and am not a fan of the Clinton/DLC approach to politics which argues that the Democrats should move Right, coopt Republican issues and be an echo party not a clear choice... this brought us NAFTA, GATT, expanded war on drugs, expanded prison-industrial system, expanded militarism, welfare deform, etc. They had their chance over the last 15 years and blew it. They don't get a do-over in my book. This is not the "experience" I am looking for. To me, these are the very policies and approaches that need to be repudiated in the next election. To me, we clearly need to head in a new direction. So, my opposition to the Clintons has everything to do with their record ("experience") and their policies, not issues of gender or race. I do very much like the idea of a female president and hope we get one in eight years after Barack is done (smile). I just can't go for another Clinton at this juncture in history.
What really bothers me is the way the Democrats, particularly the Clinton campaign, are "swift-boating" each other. On the side of Barack, I must admit that I thought his response to Hillary in that last NH debate when she was asked why people like Obama more than her, was a bad move, showing some condescension that smacked of paternalism. That undercut the reality that he has an stellar record on women's rights and GLBT issues. And, Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s, comments on TV the other day about Hillary were probably not helpful; though there might have been some truth in them, he did not articulate it well. Beyond that, though, I don't see a lot of this crap coming from the Obama campaign. I don't see them purposefully crafting a political strategy that cynically employs gender to undermine voters' faith in Clinton because she is a woman. I don't hear, for instance, Obama operatives suggesting Hillary is a lesbian, or whatever other gendered rumors they might employ along this vein... I don't see this, at least not to this point. Maybe the future will bring other things...
The same cannot be said about the Clinton campaign. Literally for weeks now the Clinton Attack Machine has been cynically manipulating the dastardly politics of race (and other things) against Obama in an on-going smear through surrogates and even Bill himself, who I have lost whatever sliver of respect I had remaining for him. The litany of smears emanating directly from the Clinton campaign - including but not limited to the black man as drug dealer suggestions, the references to Obama's middle name, to the "madrassa," the purposeful smear of his record on reproductive rights, the war and other key issues, the references to "jiving" and other racially charged language, the manipulation of the civil rights movement by Hillary herself (which shows, devastatingly, I think, that she has absolutely no understanding of how social change actually happens), the suggestion that whites only like Obama because he represents their "hip black friend," and on and on and on - is mind numbing and tremendously damaging to the discourse.
It is one thing to make the argument that whoever gets the Dem nomination will need to be able to stand up and fight back against the Republican attack machine. It is quite another for a Democratic candidate to employ those same tactics against one of their own. The point is not to become like the Republicans, but to shine light on those tactics, to flush them out into the open and to forcefully rebuke them. I just can't forgive the Clintons for going down this road. It makes clear to me that a greedy thirst for power and ambition are what drives them, primarily...
And, recall, Bill Clinton cynically used race to get back in the race in 1992, to prove to southern whites and working class whites that he was tough on crime and could stand up to "those people." Remember Ricky Ray Rector? Remember Bill picking stupid fights with Jesse Jackson and Sister Souljah? Then there is the Clinton policy record on race as president... which was terrible for African Americans: (again) GATT/NAFTA, expanding the war on drugs, expanding the prison-industrial system, expanding capital punishment, welfare deform, etc...
Here is what is going on from the Clinton campaign right now, I think: Starting in 1968, with Nixon, politicians brought in the admen to craft campaigns for the television age. (see Dan Carter, "From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich" or "The Selling of the President") This has been the model for campaigns and politics ever since. They started from a cynical belief in the American citizenry. They believed that in the television age symbols were detached from reality more than ever before. They believed that the American people were/are lazy and wouldn't actually do their democratic duty to go beyond the rhetoric to check out the reality. As such, they realized that the symbols were the key things (recall all the cowboy stuff and flag stuff w/ Reagan) and that they could pretty much sell the American people whatever bill of goods they wanted without ever being called out for it, or at least not in time for it to matter in the election. The goal, then, was not to base a campaign on facts or policy details, but TO BRAND THE OPPONENT WITH A SET OF EMOTIONS/FEELINGS through the manipulation of symbols and coded language. For a recent example of this, see '04 when, despite Kerry's honorable record in the military - the height of "manliness" - he was effectively branded as a "wuss," "effeminate," and even "faggy." Bush, who fled military service and grew up in leisure, was effectively branded as the tough-guy cowboy. It had nothing to do with the reality of Kerry's life or positions, or Bush's for that matter, but the impressions were effectively branded and Bush won.
Now, what does this have to do with the Clintons in '08. I think they are scared to death of Obama. From all accounts, they think they are the smartest people in the world and know what is best for us; they feel entitled to the White House. Barack threatens that entitlement (and this seemed to be, at least in part, where Hillary's tears seemed to be coming from. She seemed to not be able to fathom why she might not actually get the White House). Moreover, Obama's transcendent and visionary politics is powerful and just may win the day... thus, they are really scared that their plan might not work out.
So, what is the Clinton campaign to do? Well, Barack's success has come, at least in part, for good or bad, because he has made white people feel ok with him, because he does not appear in many white minds as a "black candidate," at least not one that pushes race to the fore to the exclusion of other issues/groups. He has effectively been branded as this unifying figure, perfect for this multi-cultural moment. Now I know many have criticized him for this and claimed he is not "authentically black." I see it more as pragmatic politics. Because, as we have seen numerous times in the past, as soon as an African American candidate puts race up front, the majority of whites bail out. This is why Jesse Jackson is not out there on the campaign trail for Obama and why, I suspect, Sharpton is not endorsing him at this point. If he is to win and avoid the racial pitfalls of his predecessors, he needs to be this transcendent figure. The Clintons understand.
So, the Clintons, I believe, are trying to re-brand Obama in this post-NH/pre-Super Tuesday moment as a "black candidate." By having Bill and surrogates constantly ding Obama with racial innuendo, they have inserted this poison directly into the race, necessitating some kind of response from his campaign. Here is the trap: the minute the Obama campaign takes that bait, he becomes a "black candidate," not a transcendent candidate. Regardless of the reality, he gets rebranded in the white mind. I can hear it now: "There he goes. Playing the victim card, making it all about race, etc. He's not a uniter after all. He's a divider." [this is essentially what Hillary did this morning on Meet the Press!] (Note how liberal/progressive white political operatives and commentators after NH went through embarrassing contortions to minimize or dismiss any racial angle on that still-unexplained 10-17 point switch over less than a day. The same was not true of gender, which everyone embraced as THE defining issue. But, race doesn't play out in the light. Usually, it lurks in the shadows, behind the scenes in the subconscious that has been raised in white supremacy and in a culture where whiteness is normative and thus invisible to most white people). At the point when Barack and his folks step forth on the race issues, unless they are very deft, the Clintons win because a certain significant proportion of the white electorate will jump ship... or at least they are banking on it because that has been the pattern in the past. If you want examples, let me know and I'll provide as many as you need.
Once the smear and innuendo is out there in the political ether, it takes on a life of its own in the shadowy world of email, blogs and gossip. It becomes nearly impossible to defeat. So, here is how it works. Clinton surrogates throw all this terribleness out there. Then, Hillary steps forward, piously, and distances herself from it, maybe even apologizes and "rebukes" the person in her campaign who made the comments, and supposedly takes the high road ("plausible deniability" in that she herself didn't make the remarks). But the damage is done because it really has nothing to do with facts, but with branding impressions about Obama: Is he a Muslim in disguise? Is he really a drug dealer? Is he going to 'paint the White House black"? Is he really a scary black man? Is he... is he... is he? The whole thing cynically plays on the long terrible history in our country of making black men the bogey man: ooooooooooo.... scary black man! and the acknowledgment that this is a winning politic among whites because it is so divisive. And, when Obama and his people step for the to challenge it, the Clintons, as Hillary did today on Meet the Press, step back into the fray with the "gotcha!" playing the victim and accusing Obama - the real victim of this sleaze - of "playing the race card." In terms of pure politics and power, it is a brilliant and effective strategy; it has sadly won many elections over the last several decades.
It remains to be seen if this approach will work AGAIN this time around, but it is clear to me that this is what they are attempting. The risk is that there does seem to be greater consciousness out there of these types of politics and so many are calling it for what it is and a backlash may be in the works, but the Clintons are on the offensive and Obama and his allies need to fight back HARD. The Clinton Machine is playing with fire in the black community in that African Americans, somewhat inexplicably given the actual Clinton record on race, have historically been great supporters of Bill and Hillary. They are on the verge of alienating huge numbers of black voters and putting not only SC in Barack's hands but a number of other states in the South and elsewhere, including New York and California and even Ohio.
So, this is what distinguishes Barack and Hillary from each other right now for me. I hate to see the Clinton's swift-boating Obama by playing to our worst impulses on race. I don't view Barack in messianic terms, but I do feel strongly that he is the best option we have to make real change. I know Hillary is facing a lot of sexism, particularly from the pundocrisy, and that is also shameful and deserves to be called out for what it is. But, I don't see it as much or in as calculating a way from the Obama campaign. Maybe you disagree with me on that point, but I just don't see that, at least right now. Perhaps they will turn to these terrible politics, too... but I hope not. oops, there's that word again... "hope."
Posted by at January 13, 2008 10:54 AMThis is exactly what I'm worried about: Obama's tactics will tear apart our party--unless we elect Obama. After this smearing, I can't see how HRC wins the nomination and succeeds. I always thought she'd have a problem before, but now I can't honestly seeing her having a chance. Obama still does.
Also: these tactics are completely working. You don't just have to check other "liberal" blogs, but just people on the street. "The Clintons are racists" has quickly become accepted as truth by many (Hell, even Herbert, one of my favorite Times columnists, repeats the same distortion).
Patrick,
Dude, she never "cried" in the first place nor did she play "victim." The woman was tired and the press went absolutely hysterical (Clinton even dismissed such outrageous press coverage as obsessive). That's what pissed people off.
According to your "logic," if ever someone is upset about the press and it happens to benefit someone, then that person is responsible. Let's see: Many people, including myself, were pissed about the press asking, "Is Barack black enough?" I guess Barack is to blame then.
Posted by Nathan at January 13, 2008 11:26 AMIt is clearly Obama's campaign team who is exploiting race for political gain.
It's pretty insulting, and very much a cheap shot.
He DIMINISHES his message by allowing his supporters to promote such false stories.
Might work in South Carolina.
Won't work in the Western states he needs to win the nomination.
Get on this, Obama. Nip it. Stand AGAINST this trash talk.
Posted by Mary at January 13, 2008 11:37 AMHillary did a pretty damned good job with Tim's usual gas-bagginess. Bravo!
Posted by Flamethrower at January 13, 2008 11:40 AMI agree. I thought Hillary handled that self-important gasbag quite well.
And speaking of gasbags, who would believe that anybody would read the overwrought tangent of someone who would write a 13 paragraph comment on a blog post? Get over yourself, dude.
You can't run for president of the United States and think your candidate isn't going to get criticism. It's naive and juvenile. And whining that the Clinton's are racists is not going to fly outside of South Carolina.
Posted by chrisss at January 13, 2008 11:49 AMben,
"Hillary isn't able to speak on the fly like Obama."
do a little homework. obama used teleprompters for his iowa and new hampshire speeches.
Posted by at January 13, 2008 12:12 PMI thought the anon 13 paragraph post raised a number of very compelling ideas and was highly original and persuasive.
Who wrote it?
Posted by euzoius at January 13, 2008 12:14 PMThis is why people like Rove and the Clintons can manipulate. You all appear clueless about how politics actually happens. Funny.
Oh, yeah, but this isn't a Hillary site, or anything.
patrick,
you do realize that even bagley and peter come off better than you, right?
Posted by Turkana at January 13, 2008 12:20 PMApologize?
Heck, I'm STILL waiting for an apology from Obama for campaigning with a guy who thinks I can be cured of being gay, as though my sexual orientation makes me diseased, flawed or less than human. I haven't received an apology yet, but I'm still HOPING for one!
No, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a campaign of hope and a different kind of politics, and then turn around and sling the mud and pander to the haters. I mean you can, but they've got a word for that: hypocrite.
Posted by cc at January 13, 2008 12:36 PMTurkana,
Ok. The Hillary borg doesn't like me. I'm not surprised. (smile)
I notice that no one took on the actual argument I made. Respectfully, I suggest you go read the books I cited and you'll have a better grasp of how the politics of race have played out over the last 30 years and you'll finally be equipped to see the Clintons for what they are this year. They did the same thing in '92 with Ricky Ray Rector, Jesse Jackson and Sister Souljah. It has, sadly, been the most effective politic in our nation since 1968!
Deal with that, guys! I can't take anyone here (or over at Kos or elsewhere) seriously that refuses to see any of the obvious crap the Clintons are pulling. You just sound like silly partisans to me. Sorry, that's how you come across.
Look, my career is about politics. I've been actually doing it for several decades and I teach and publish about it, too. On a certain level, I love the politics of politics. In that mode, I gotta hand it to the Clintons, they are brilliant at this stuff... but it is what I called it above: a calculated attempt to re-brand Obama as a "black candidate" instead of a transcendent, transformative figure. Hats off to 'em since it appears to be working, but I see it as a shame for our nation and the cause of racial justice, let alone the prospect of any kind of "change." Do you really think we are headed for anything but deeper divisions and more partisan rancor for the next 8 years if it Hillary? Heck, a startling proportion of her own party doesn't really like her... That matters and is gonna matter big time I suspect, in the Fall.
You all are probably going to win this in the end, but I can tell you that history is not going to be kind to the Clintons on all of this when it is said and done. The historical assessment of the Clinton I record (as more and more documents become available) has already begun to turn this way. You might not be able to see that right now, but my vantage is a bit broader as a historian of this stuff.
So, we can all rant and rave and become blog-o-lunatics, but we are only really making jack-asses of ourselves in the end if we fail to see it for what it really is...
peace.
Patrick, If your career is about politics, you are really miserable at it. The lack of credibility is all yours here.
Rewrite your history if you must, but it won't be read.
The memo put out by Obama's campaign tells you who is injecting race into the mix, and it's not Clinton.
Ralph. I am in a profession - not a blog - where arguments are based on evidence and where intense scrutiny is given to every argument and its evidence by highly trained peers. It all washes out in the end. Again, I'll be vindicated on this one, but whatever... time will tell.
The new strategic approach by the Obama campaign to stand up to the racist smears of the Clinton campaign is understandable. Given the slime, to decide, you know what, we're going to take this to the American people, makes sense. You guys always say we need someone who is willing to stand up to and fight back against swift boat-style attacks, and that is what the Obama campaign is doing. You gotta love white liberals defending the campaign that deployed the racial innuendo ad nauseum, then blaming the guy who is the target when he responds and calls it what it is... Seriously. You are embarrassing yourself when you say that stuff.
peace.
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 01:33 PMActually, it looks like Patrick is all about himself - paragraph after paragraph of his assumptions, his accomplishments, his whining about his treatment at the hands of imaginary opponents. Obama's just the cover story - Patrick's mainly concerned with Patrick. Isn't it obvious?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 13, 2008 01:35 PM"If your career is about politics, you are really miserable at it."
The professional accolades, scholarly reviews, and money I've made suggest otherwise.
peace.
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 01:39 PMThe professional accolades, scholarly reviews, and money I've made suggest otherwise.
What'd I tell you? All about him. Fact is, Ann Coulter makes these same claims, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who would call her a credible political commentator.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 13, 2008 01:50 PMI am more and more disturbed by the fact that Obama supported warmonger Joe Lieberman in his re-election campaign in 2006, rejecting progressive Ned Lamont, who supported withdrawal from Iraq.
Obama voted for ALL war funding, and was AGAINST any timetables for withdrawal.
That has nothing to do with Hillary or racism, folks.
It appears he supported Joe Lieberman's position on the war, and voted for funding all of it, with no timetables for withdrawal.
Verrrrrry troubling voting record, despite the lofty rhetoric.
Posted by Mary at January 13, 2008 01:51 PMWell, iamcoyote, that's pretty mean and personal, but whatever. If that is how you role, that is cool. Yeah, MY politics flow from MY experience. Newsflash. Women in the women's movement used to say the same thing...
I think the fact that I've lived it and studied it for many years matters for something. If you don't, that is cool, but it is my point of reference. It is not just a realm of armchair analysis for me. I've worked on dozens of campaigns. I've studied the secondary literature and explored the primary sources. And, I've been forced to sort it out deeply, as I teach about it regularly. Apologies if you think that makes me arrogant or self-indulgent, but I think if you go back up and read my actual last few posts that they also have a substantive argument based in evidence that you and others don't care to deal with. That is cool, too. It is what it is... Whoever else comes here and reads this stuff will be able to judge for themselves.
Your friends here might reinforce your views, which they also share, you may enjoy singing to the choir, but I don't find that very stimulating, or a very effective way to grow and learn. That is really what I've been pressing you all about for the last week. I'm not long for this world, so you'll get your blog back soon enough, but in the meantime, here we are...
So, ok, iamcoyote. You reveal yourself to be just as petty, cruel, mean and personal as I am when I am messing with you guys in that more partisan tone/way. Again, whatever...
We'll agree to disagree. Again, the Hillary campaign's deft manipulation of racial innuendo and code words will probably win the day; it usually does.
But, again, face this reality: the prospect of a Clinton restoration when we have other better options for real transformation turns a significant proportion of Democratic party members and voters off. Like it or not, fair or unfair, that is undeniable and we will all face the consequences in the Fall, if she is the nominee. Combine this with her roughly 50% starting point for the "hell no" vote, and I suspect she may have some trouble in the Fall, particularly if the opponent is McCain. So, she is no slam dunk in the "electability" argument, either. Believe you me, her campaign is already trying to devise strategies to deal with these realities in the Fall, should they make it that far. They are not as naive or unthinking as you. See, the key to being a good political analyst is to not let yourself get taken in by the persona or aura of your - or any other - candidate. The key is to see them in brutally stark and honest terms so you can devise the best strategy to play up their strengths and neutralize their weaknesses. The fact that this site can hardly find one darn thing to criticize the Clintons about just shows that you are fans... short for fanatics. You drank the Clinton kool-aid. Cool. I hear you. That feels good sometimes, to believe in a noble lie. The campaign needs an army of you... and apparently they have it, as does Obama and Edwards and all the rest. But we are definitely in camp Hillary here at The Left Coaster.
peace.
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 02:02 PMIamcoyote:
My personal integrity was attacked by a commenter, so I responded. The attack was against me, so my response was about me. If that makes me a jerk in your book, ok. Others can decide.
On your Coulter slam: The difference between my professional publishing on politics and that of Ann Coulter is that all of my work is peer reviewed by top historians, political scientists and sociologists in my fields, which are modern American political history (1945-present) and African American Studies. My work is stringently vetted, Coulters is not. That is how academia works. So, thanks for the misrepresentation/smear...
peace.
Mary:
So, from your post giving your version of Obama's war record followed by your opinion of that record, I assume you do not support Hillary, either, since her record is even more pro-Iraq war and even more militaristic than Obama's. I'd be happy to provide some sources, if you doubt me on that...
peace.
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 02:13 PMyour problem- i should say this specific problem- is that you don't respond to the linked texts. the south carolina memo says what it says.
Posted by Turkana at January 13, 2008 02:21 PMBREAKING: Looks like another Clinton campaign surrogate has smeared Obama. This time it was BET founder Robert Johnson who smeared him on the drug stuff and for being, well, with all the Sidney Poitier stuff, I guess he meant to call Obama an Uncle Tom.
Sad: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/bet-chief-raps-obama-in-sc/index.html?hp
So, I want to make sure I've got this straight. Hillary is on Meet the Press in the morning blathering on about how it is not her campaign, but Obama's, that is playing the race card, how she is the victim of racial politics, despite 5 or 6 instances of her campaign surrogates saying something AT BEST very questionable about race, and meanwhile the same day, one of her surrogates in the battleground state of SC makes what can only be described as a complete and utter racial smear against Obama. Uuuuhhhmmm... I think that should give most independent-minded sentient beings enough evidence to pause and reconsider the genuineness of Clinton's morning comments. One or two of these incidents might be dismissed as a rogue supporter who put their foot in their mouth, but now we are up to five or six or seven or something like that. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...
I mean, seriously. Does this make you feel good about American politics? is this the kind of thing you want from your candidate? from your democracy? Can you actually countenance this? It doesn't turn your stomach? It doesn't completely reinforce every single negative claim about the Clintons that is out there...? I mean, seriously...
peace.
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 02:29 PMJohnson didn't smear Obama---he referred to something Obama has admitted. Sorry that's a problem for you.
Posted by at January 13, 2008 02:32 PMclearly, patrick, johnson's a racist.
Posted by Turkana at January 13, 2008 02:39 PMWow. No Name, you really are going to play it like that? That is sad and embarrassing for you. If you don't think this is a calculated racial attack, then dag, all I can do is shrug and shake my head... there may be no hope for America if most professed liberal/progressives are coming from you're coming from. You think it was a mistake/coincidence/accident that the campaign trotted out a "prominent" African American surrogate to level these shotgun blasts? C'mon. You aren't that glassy-eyed, are you? Yeah, this incident is not about race... uh-huh.
Are you lookin' for a beach-front house in Nebraska?
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 02:40 PMPatrick, has it right. The Clintons are attempting to remake Obama into a Scary Black Man.
Scary Black Man is does DRUGS!!
Scary Black Man is a MUSLIM!!!
Scary Black Man will RAPE YOUR DAUGHTERS!!!
The sad thing is that "progressives" have shown their true colors in this primary when it comes to race. At every turn, Clinton and her supporters use coded racial language and when people point this out, as well, being racist, Clintonites cry foul and employ the Republic-CON mantra of PC-craziness. You know the line, "We have free speech, blah, blah, blah. There was no racist intent, blah, blah, blah. This word can be used in a non-race context, blah, blah, blah. You darkies need to 'get over yourselves,' blah, blah, blah."
It's very disgusting to see.
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 02:40 PMOh this is hilarious, isn't it? Patrick displays his credentials as a scholar of African American history and then he writes this:
Again, the Hillary campaign's deft manipulation of racial innuendo and code words will probably win the day; it usually does.But, again, face this reality: the prospect of a Clinton restoration when we have other better options
Anyone want to know why I emphasized those words there? Maybe this will help:
The circumstances surrounding the disputed election of 1876 strengthened Hayes's intention to work with the Southern whites, even if it meant abandoning the few Radical regimes that remained in the South. In an election marked by widespread fraud and many irregularities, the Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden, received the majority of the popular vote; but the vote in the electoral college was long in doubt. In order to resolve the impasse, Hayes's lieutenants had to enter into agreement with Southern Democratic congressmen, promising to withdraw the remaining federal troops from the South, to share the Southern patronage with Democrats, and to favour that section's demands for federal subsidies in the building of levees and railroads. Hayes's inauguration marked, for practical purposes, the restoration of “home rule” for the South—i.e., that the North would no longer interfere in Southern elections to protect African Americans and that the Southern whites would again take control of their state governments.
Who wants to bet that Patrick here knows full well what he's doing when he uses the words "Clinton restoration" to refer to a Hillary Clinton presidency? And where's the next primary gonna be - S. Carolina, right? Who's using the "deft manipulation of racial innuendo and code words" now, bub? All while whinging like a two year old. What a creep.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 13, 2008 02:42 PMTurkana:
I would say he is consciously deploying a harsh racialized politic against Obama. I think someone could reasonably make the argument that it is a racist line of attack, even when it comes from a super-wealthy black guy. And, again, Johnson's race is a part of this, as well. Part of the calculation is to have an African American make the charges.
I thought more of you than that, Turkana. I;m being serious. For all the partisan BS around here the last few days, including my own, I see you as one of the more intelligent Hillary folks around TLCer. I'm frankly surprised to see you try to justify this smear at all... but, that is what it is.
... all is fair in love and war, huh?
Hey, for what it is worth, I did not post the previous email that has the name Patrick on it and starts:
"Patrick, has it right. The Clintons are attempting to remake Obama into a Scary Black Man.
Scary Black Man is does DRUGS!!
Scary Black Man is a MUSLIM!!!
Scary Black Man will RAPE YOUR DAUGHTERS!!!"
I tend to agree with the general point of the post, but I did not write it or post it.
Just want the record clear on that...
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 02:49 PMiamcoyote:
I don't know if you'll believe me, but that wasn;t my line of thinking or reasoning. I appreciate why you might assume that. Your email is really a smart line of reasoning, and it is rooted in my field of study, but I was really just making the more mundane and recent connection to restoring what I see as the very moderate/conservative DLC Democratic 1990s. I'm not a supporter of that; I don't think that is the best path forward for the party. I really meant a restoration of those politics, but I kinda like what you wrote, so maybe I will claim that after all.... (smile).
Seriously, that wasn't my conscious intent, but I see how you can read that in.
peace.
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 02:53 PMPatrick, can you at least stop posting long, hostile, hysterical, self referential screeds and then finishing them with "peace"? Its just weird. I'd even say it was insulting. You *aren't* advocating peace, you aren't creating peace, and you aren't interested in peace.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 13, 2008 02:56 PMIgnoring Patrick, whose posts are not without their own prejudice, and for the other posters on the board looking for facts and not emotions:
Except for the 2002 vote when Obama wasn't in the Senate, his voting record on the war is NO DIFFERENT than Clinton's.
On the other hand, Clinton campaigned for and supported Ned Lamont in Connecticut, recognizing Joe Lieberman's warmongering.
Obama , on the other hand, PUBLICLY supported Joe Lieberman and rejected the Democratic nominee against the war.
Clinton SUPPORTED timetables for withdrawal.
Obama PUBLICLY rejected them.
So.....Bill Clinton was right, once you check the facts and the voting records:
Obama's claim to be "against" the war from the beginning IS a fairy tale.
Supporting Joe Lieberman's re-election speaks VOLUMES about Obama's motivations.
Posted by Mary at January 13, 2008 02:58 PMSeriously, that wasn't my conscious intent, but I see how you can read that in.
If this is true, there might just be a lesson in there somewhere for you. If not, we've already learned it long before you showed up, which explains your hostile reception.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 13, 2008 03:31 PMYou all make me sad. It is sad to see the strange way this little white "progressive" oasis refuses to see the obvious racial smear in Johnson's statement. And, if you don't think that was all calculated, well...
iamcoyote: you wanna come teach my class tomorrow?
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 03:47 PMYou should also know, Patrick, that you aren't the first Obama supporter to use the term "Clinton reconstruction," which makes your denials, coupled with your (reported) credentials, seem a little weak. It's obvious that some are using the term deliberately, why shouldn't we believe you're doing so as well?
And I agree that there might be more sockpuppetry afoot, though I have a suspicion you might be the perp, since you've already got a history of "messing with" people.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 13, 2008 03:48 PMiamcoyote:
don't be such a drama queen. The term "Clinton restoration" is in popular use right now. i think you're over-analyzing. whatever.
iamcoyote:
why would I pretend to be myself?
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 03:52 PMiamcoyote:
I wouldn't deny that I use the term "Clinton restoration" deliberately, just not in the way you suggested. And, that is exactly what I think a Hillary win in the Fall would be. So, I am not sure I understand your criticism.
Posted by coyote at January 13, 2008 03:58 PMi think you're over-analyzing.
This from the guy who cries "racism" when someone consults their blackberry.
So, you're namestealing again. Looks like your done, dude.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 13, 2008 04:01 PMI have done no such thing. Seriously. What do you mean?
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 04:50 PMOh, I see now. That was an honest error. I must have just started typing and not put my name in. It was an honest error. Why would I post under your name but in my own voice?
honest error...
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 04:52 PMPatrick - I know of a whole blog full of historic academics who'd love to snack on you. It's called progressivehistorians.com
I double dare you, you anonymous fraud.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 13, 2008 05:53 PMObama's tactics will tear apart our party--unless we elect Obama.
Nathan, you have lost your freaking mind if you think anyone is buying that. Obama has lost any claim whatsoever he had to being "uniting". Accusations of racism from his campaign have just sunk him. That is some nasty, nasty Chicago politics, and I want no part of it. Ever.
Not because it is an insult to the Clintons long and admirable record (though it is). But because what he is doing is HURTFUL to the party as a whole, and its fragile coalitions. I had thought he could not top McClurkin for showing complete lack of concern for those coalitions, but I was wrong.
He proved to me today that his own ambition and dream are much more important to him than the hopes and dreams of this country.
Posted by WMCB at January 13, 2008 07:30 PMSheesh, I'm glad I am an Edwards supporter, for what that is worth. It seems to me both Obama and Hillary are running campaigns that are polarizing the electorate. Remember those famous words, "United we stand, divided we fall."
Rove can go on vacation. We are giving the GOP their strategy for defeating a Democratic nominee in the Fall.
Posted by Judith at January 13, 2008 07:36 PMPatrick,
Why not hold both Obama and Clinton personally responsible for what their staffers and supporters say? Obama's national co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. and his supporter Michael Eric Dyson both made inflammatory comments and yet they're never mentioned in the press. I've said it before: since the Obama camp is never punished for their explosive distortions and smears, they'll keep pushing it (as the South Carolina primary memo proves), which will only serve to fundamentally weaken the Democratic party.
Obama is a politician. To believe that he's somehow above dirty tricks is delusional.
Posted by Nathan at January 13, 2008 11:28 PMJudith,
I too am an Edwards supporter, but I hate that Edwards has gotten in on this by again repeating the distortion that HRC demeaned MLK. I still he wish he was a viable candidate. He's the first politician I feel proud to have supported. Honestly, I hate both Clinton and Obama; politically, they're ugly as sin.
Posted by Nathan at January 13, 2008 11:31 PMWMCB,
What I said was that the best chance we have after this insanity is Obama b/c, whether you like it or not, racism is considered a serious affront by Democrats while misogyny is treated as rudeness and rabid Clinton hatred is considered fair. So the Clinton camp being smeared as racists will cripple her nomination (assuming she gets it); remember this is all in addition to the 15 years plus of right-wing demonization of her that we've all absorbed.
I agree that Obama is playing the ugliest of political dirty tricks, but you and I (and readers of this blog) are the rarest of exceptions. The majority of people believe the distortions and outright lies. I don't like it, but that's how it is.
Posted by Nathan at January 13, 2008 11:42 PMWell Judith, you can't have it both ways. Your Edwards guy has stepped in it well. He's again doubling up on HC by aligning with Obama. He's no different than Obama now. Love one, love both, proud of one, proud of both. And while we're at it...Al Gore's Senator father voted against both the Equal Rights Act and the Voter Rights Act. He didn't support these Acts that his president was wanting. Edwards needs to pull out and retire to his "presidential" compound, take care of his wife.
Posted by peter at January 14, 2008 03:53 AM"I'm not in the mood to play with those [Gays] who are trying to kill our children." If McClurkin's comments had been aimed at Jews what do think Obama would have done?
Fuck Obama, he threw us under the bus and we aren't going to forget it.
Posted by Gay Veteran at January 14, 2008 11:16 AMuh, people, haven't you figured out by now that Patrick is a right-wing troll. Hell, I'd say that he is actually pants pissing peter but patrick writes better
pants pissing peter: How funny is this, "And his campaign is doing a great disservice to the country by making this about race." Democrats have made a living at making campaigns about race. It's their way, it's the only way Democrats get elected.
as opposed to the ReThugs who scheme to block minorities from voting
Posted by Gay Veteran at January 14, 2008 11:26 AMThe only way the Democrats are going to win this election is with a moderate, same for the Republicans. Obama has too much far-left baggage (it wasn't drugs that Johnson was referring to) to ever win even one moderate Republican vote, and both parties will need to take some of the other. We Democrats need to think about this. Calls of racism are not favored by moderates. If the Democrats lose this time we will more than likely have a draft and an endless war ahead. These young people who are supporting Obama need a good lesson in American politics. Grown African-Americans and the good ol' far left professors should know better. Same is true of the Republicans.
Posted by partridge at January 14, 2008 01:08 PM