Obama, Hillary and the race card

[RecycleMichael]

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_race_card.html

Obama was the first to play the race card
Sean Wilentz
Sidney and Ruth Lapidus professor of history at Princeton University

Quietly, the storm over the hateful views expressed by Sen. Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has blown away the most insidious myth of the Democratic primary campaign. Obama and his surrogates have charged that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has deliberately and cleverly played the race card in order to label Obama the "black" candidate.

Having injected racial posturing into the contest, Obama's "post-racial" campaign finally seems to be all about race and sensational charges about white racism. But the mean-spirited strategy started even before the primaries began, when Obama's operatives began playing the race card - and blamed Hillary Clinton.

Had she truly conspired to inflame racial animosities in January and February, her campaign would have brought up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary sermons. But the Clinton campaign did not. And when the Wright stories and videos finally did break through in the mass media, they came not from Clinton's supporters but from Fox News Network.

Although Wright had until recently been obscure to the American public, political insiders and reporters have long known about him. On March 6, 2007, the New York Times reported that Obama had disinvited Wright from speaking at his announcement because, as Wright said Obama told him, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons." By then, conservative commentators had widely denounced Wright. His performances in the pulpit were easily accessible on DVD, direct from his church. But Clinton, despite her travails, elected to remain silent.

Instead, she had to fight back against a deliberately contrived strategy to make her and her husband look like race-baiters. Obama's supporters and operatives, including his chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, seized on accurate and historically noncontroversial statements and supplied a supposedly covert racist subtext that they then claimed the calculating Clinton campaign had inserted.

In December, Bill Shaheen, a Clinton campaign co-chair in New Hampshire, wondered aloud whether Obama's admitted youthful abuse of cocaine might hurt him in the general election. Obama's strategists insisted that Shaheen's mere mention of cocaine was suggestive and inappropriate - even though the scourge of cocaine abuse has long cut across both racial and class lines. Pro-Obama press commentators, including New York Times columnist Frank Rich, then whipped the story into a full racial subtext, charging that the Clintons had, in Rich's words, "ghettoized" Obama "into a cocaine user."

The Obama campaign and its supporters pressed this strategy after Clinton's unexpected win in New Hampshire. Pundits partial to Obama, including Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Nichols of the Nation, instantly mused that their candidate lost because of supposedly bigoted New Hampshire whites who had lied to pre-primary pollsters - an easily disproven falsehood that nevertheless gained currency in the media.

Next morning, Obama's national co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., cast false and vicious aspersions about Hillary Clinton's famous emotional moment in New Hampshire as a measure of her deep racial insensitivity. "Her appearance brought her to tears," said Jackson, "not Hurricane Katrina."

Obama's backers, including members of his official campaign staff, then played what might be called "the race-baiter card." Hillary Clinton, in crediting both Lyndon Johnson as well as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, had supposedly denigrated King, and by extension Obama. Allegedly, Bill Clinton had dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina by comparing it to those of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 1980s. (In fact, their electoral totals were comparable - and in the interview at issue, Clinton complimented Obama on his performance "everywhere" - a line the media usually omitted.)

Thereafter, Obama's high command billowed further race-baiter allegations into the media. Pointing to the notoriously right-wing Drudge Report, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign of deliberately leaking a supposedly racist photograph of Obama in African garb, which actually originated on still another right-wing Web site. Finally, David Axelrod trumpeted Geraldine Ferraro's awkward remarks in an obscure California newspaper as part of the Clinton campaign's "insidious pattern" of divisiveness.

One pro-Obama television pundit, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, fulminated that the Clinton campaign had descended into the vocabulary of David Duke, former grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

(In his Philadelphia speech on race, Obama pressed the attack by three times likening Ferraro to Rev. Wright.)

Since the Philadelphia speech, the candidate and his surrogates have sounded tone-deaf on the subject of race. On March 20, Obama described his Kansas grandmother to a Philadelphia radio interviewer as "a typical white person." The same day, Sen. John Kerry said that Obama would help U.S. relations with Muslim nations "because he's a black man." Another Obama supporter, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, called him the first black leader "to come to the American people not as a victim but as a leader." Her history excluded and conceivably denigrated countless black leaders, from Frederick Douglass to Rep. John Lewis. Obama remained silent, refusing to take Kerry and McCaskill to task for their racially charged remarks.

Neither candidate can win sufficient elected delegates in the remaining primaries to secure the nomination, and so the battle has moved to winning over the superdelegates. Obama's bogus "race-baiter" strategy is one of the main reasons he has come this far, and it is affecting the process now. But by deliberately inflaming the most destructive passions in American politics, the strategy has badly divided and confused Democrats, at least for the moment. And having done so, it may well doom the Democrats in the general election.

[USRufnex]

http://theliberalblog.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/31/sean_wilentz_is_a_balled_faced_liar-obama_was_not_the_first_to_play_the_race_card-gloria_steinem_and_senator_clinton_were.thtml

Wilentz is a balled-faced liar.

Clinton friend Gloria Steinem with her NYT op-ed piece and her lying assertion that black men have had an easier time to the top than white women and Senator Clinton's use of the racial code-words, "spade work," were the beginning of the use of the race card; and no Clinton sycophant Wilentz can change the facts.

No wonder the idiot press never solved the Kennedy assasination, they can't even get 75 day old current events right, in which the whole world saw what happened.

Ask yourself three common sense questions:

(1) If the Clintons did not play the race card why did blacks in Michigan (Michigan was soon after NH where the Clintons played the race card after losing Iowa), vote for no candidate rather than vote for Clinton?  Yeah, we know, Jesse Jackson got on the phone and called individually one at a time,  300,000 black Michaganders and told them to vote against Clinton.

Give me a flying break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Black people ain't stupid and we know Clinton played the race card first, second and third!!!

(2). If the Clintons did not play the race card why did Senator Clinton skip next in line South Carolina and run off to Nevada, Los Angeles, Laveen, AZ and New York?

She ran off because she knew that blacks were steamed about her conduct and race baiting; and she knew she would be unwelcomed there.

(3). Let's say for the sake of argument that Clinton did not play the race card, and blacks misunderstood what the Clintons were saying, what would you imagine the first thing Senator Clinton should have done to her misunderstanding friends in South Carolina?

Wouldn't you expect her to make her first stop after NH in South Carolina and say, "listen my black friends, I didn't mean it like that?"

Wouldn't you as an ordinary citizen, if you had been mis-interpreted by your neighbor, wouldn't you go to the neighbor and say, "no it's not like that?"

I think most of us would.

But what did she and Bill do?

They walled off in the bunker, the news reported it, and came up with their updated Southern Strategy of trashing Obama, sacrficing the black vote, in favor of Hispanics and white women; ran off to Nevada, Los Angeles, AZ, New York, and only spent two of ten possible days in South Carolina, with the result that Obama swamped her in South Carolina.

That's their record; and Wilentz can lie about it all he wants to, but it doesn't change their sorry gutter record.

No, no, Wilentz you can try and sell that garbage elsewhere, but not here.

[cannon_fodder]

Wow, I'm actually surprised at how this is tearing the party apart.  There are so many talking heads and in some instances big wigs outright bashing the other guy then back bashing to be met by more retribution.  In general, the candidates themselves are only engaging in the typical level of bashing - but the pundits are really stepping out there.

If it was White Male vs. female or black would the situation be different?  Could they/would they be going for the throat like this against either at the risk of seeming to alienate the other?  The white guy would obvious have to be careful and the black guy/woman couldn't just chuck the race/gender card out on the table without getting called on it.

It's like watching a 5 month long slow motion train wreck in the democratic party. Man I love it.  []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wow, I'm actually surprised at how this is tearing the party apart.  There are so many talking heads and in some instances big wigs outright bashing the other guy then back bashing to be met by more retribution.  In general, the candidates themselves are only engaging in the typical level of bashing - but the pundits are really stepping out there.

If it was White Male vs. female or black would the situation be different?  Could they/would they be going for the throat like this against either at the risk of seeming to alienate the other?  The white guy would obvious have to be careful and the black guy/woman couldn't just chuck the race/gender card out on the table without getting called on it.

It's like watching a 5 month long slow motion train wreck in the democratic party. Man I love it.  []

CF,

That's plenty of time for the Libertarians to come up with someone who could kick everyone's donkey isn't it?

Weren't all the pundits saying back in January and February how the GOP was fractured and needed to re-invent itself?  

[cannon_fodder]

On the national level, libertarians are damn near unelectable.  As part of the party platform they are not supposed to engage in pandering - just give their take on things.  That works well on local levels from time to time but on a national level people aren't ready to be told "we will have to either raise taxes, cut benefits, or totally reform the Social Security system."  Let alone being told the government should not and if elected WILL not solve all of your problems.

I'd like to think they hold that line if/when elected, but all I know right now is that the current parties both do not suit my needs.

[FOTD]

BFD....glad this has been through the campaign process. It's not tearing the party apart. The party will be unified and kick the Repugs out of offices for abusing their power.

Anybody see and hear all the booing when Shrub ran out to throw the first pitch and then ran off the field? Some people just can't help booing war criminals. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_booed_as_he_throws_inaugural_0330.html
The country has gotten wiser in the last 3 years.

Here is a comic that best suits this thread....notice the resemblance!
http://candorville.com/2008/03/31/scary/
Check it out. Most of you like this stuff  because it's easier to understand.....

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

On the national level, libertarians are damn near unelectable.  As part of the party platform they are not supposed to engage in pandering - just give their take on things.  That works well on local levels from time to time but on a national level people aren't ready to be told "we will have to either raise taxes, cut benefits, or totally reform the Social Security system."  Let alone being told the government should not and if elected WILL not solve all of your problems.

I'd like to think they hold that line if/when elected, but all I know right now is that the current parties both do not suit my needs.

I agree.  I think a libertarian candidate will have to run as a republican.  I also believe that there are a lot of Republicans out there that are actually libertarian but don't know it or won't admit it!

Here's a good test.  Simplistic but accurate.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I would be interested to see how some folks on this forum score!

[FOTD]

While all this seems more a distraction than an election year issue, here's a read on Clinton's "Great White Hope" strategy.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0308/Gov_Rendell_Fox_is_most_objective_cable_network.html

Gov. Rendell kissing up to Fox is sick.
FOX news has done a number on Obama just short of donning a white sheet like Hannity, Fartz, Limpbaugh et al. do.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

On the national level, libertarians are damn near unelectable.  As part of the party platform they are not supposed to engage in pandering - just give their take on things.  That works well on local levels from time to time but on a national level people aren't ready to be told "we will have to either raise taxes, cut benefits, or totally reform the Social Security system."  Let alone being told the government should not and if elected WILL not solve all of your problems.

I'd like to think they hold that line if/when elected, but all I know right now is that the current parties both do not suit my needs.

I agree.  I think a libertarian candidate will have to run as a republican.  I also believe that there are a lot of Republicans out there that are actually libertarian but don't know it or won't admit it!

Here's a good test.  Simplistic but accurate.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I would be interested to see how some folks on this forum score!

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 50%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.
(Scores falling on the Centrist border are counted as Centrist.)

CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government interventionand sometimes support individual freedom of choice.

Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

[RecycleMichael]

I have the same score as Rufnex.

There must be a mistake. He is fairly normal and I am not.

[Gaspar]

LIBERTARIAN

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

I'm going to make a new thread for this.  It's really not appropriate here.

[FOTD]

Even as he closes in on the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters--including some in his own party. In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of registered voters, Obama trails presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain 40 percent to 52 percent among whites. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama's challenger for the Democratic nomination, also trails McCain among white voters but by a smaller margin, 44 percent to 48 percent. (For the complete results, click here).
Among voters overall, however, Obama fares better, tying McCain 46 percent to 46 percent in a hypothetical match-up. (That's down slightly, within the margin of error, from the last NEWSWEEK Poll, conducted in late April, in which Obama led McCain 47 percent to 44 percent). In that contest, he is boosted by a strong showing among nonwhites, leading McCain 68 percent to 25 percent (Clinton leads McCain 65 percent to 25 percent among nonwhites). But even this result shows some of the electoral challenges facing Obama in a year when Democrats generally appear to hold an electoral advantage--boasting a 15 point advantage in generic party identification over Republicans, 53 percent to 38 percent. Clinton fares slightly better against McCain: 48 percent to 44 percent (within the margin of error). She enjoys this slight edge even though Obama leads Clinton 50 percent to 42 percent as the choice of registered Democrats for the party's nomination. Clinton's white support is unusually high: at a comparable point in the 2004 election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received the support of 36 percent of white voters, compared to George W. Bush's 48 percent, and in June of 2000, Bush led Al Gore 48 percent to 39 percent.
Obama's race may well explain his difficulty in winning over white voters. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, participants were asked to answer questions on a variety of race-related topics including racial preferences, interracial marriage, attitudes toward social welfare and general attitudes toward African-Americans. Respondents were grouped according to their answers on a "Racial Resentment Index." Among white Democrats with a low Racial Resentment Index rating, Obama beat McCain in a hypothetical match-up 78 percent to 17 percent. That is virtually identical to Clinton's margin in the category, 79 percent to 13 percent. But among white Democrats with high scores on the Racial Resentment Index, the picture was very different: Obama led McCain by only 18 points (51 to 33) while Clinton maintained a much larger 59-point lead (78 to 18).
Who exactly are these high Racial Resentment Index voters? A majority, 61 percent, have less than a four-year college education, many are older (44 percent were over the age of 60 compared to just 18 percent under the age of 40) and nearly half (46 percent) live in the South.

Confusion over Obama's religious background may also be hindering his ability to attract white support. Asked to name Obama's faith, 58 percent of participants said Christian (the correct answer), compared with 11 percent who answered Muslim, 22 percent who did not know and 9 percent who said something else. Obama's name could be contributing to the confusion; 18 percent of white Democratic voters say they judge the Illinois senator less favorably because of his name, compared to only 4 percent of white Democrats who say it makes them judge Obama more favorably.
While the NEWSWEEK Poll clearly suggests a lurking racial bias in the American electorate, the role of race in presidential politics may be diminishing. In 2000, only 37 percent of voters thought the country was ready for a black president. Now, 70 percent of voters think a black candidate like Obama could win the White House.
Methodology Statement
The NEWSWEEK Poll was conducted May 21-22 by Princeton Survey Research Associates. It is based on telephone interviews with 1,205 registered voters nationwide and has an overall margin of sampling error of 3.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

quote:
No wonder the idiot press never solved the Kennedy assasination, they can't even get 75 day old current events right, in which the whole world saw what happened.

The press are not idiotic, they just like to promote their own agenda. I've seen countless times where the media only promotes information specific to their agenda. BTW, I agree with the rest of your post.