I thought that Republicans were racist.

What's with Bill Clinton talking about Obama's "Fairy Tale" or Hillary Clinton dismissing the work of MLK? Is it because they now realize that there is a possibility that America might have, for the first time, the first real black President? Now that a black man is running, is the honeymoon with the Clintons over?

1/14/2008 6:41:43 AM

slick willy already discussed this on al sharpton's radio show 3 days ago

1/14/2008 8:35:36 AM

Quote :

"Is it because they now realize that there is a possibility that America might have, for the first time, the first real black President"

^^ Obama is not really black, he is half-black/half-white. Or what used to be called "mulatto".

[Edited on January 14, 2008 at 8:42 AM. Reason : /]

1/14/2008 8:41:24 AM

There probably aren't many black Americans who don't have white blood in them somewhere, what difference does it make?

1/14/2008 9:02:05 AM

You misspelled "Official talk shit about hillary clinton thread"

1/14/2008 9:35:32 AM

While listening to FM Talk 101.1 this morning, they were talking about this. They had a clip of Bill Clinton bashing Obama for calling Hillary a racist for supporting a bill that sent jobs overseas to India.

1/14/2008 9:50:21 AM

[mud]

1/14/2008 11:48:27 AM

The liberals are the ones that are always stirring up racial stuff. Look at the ACLU

1/14/2008 11:50:21 AM

not that i really give a shit about these two tearing each other apart, in all fairness, Billy referencing a "fairy tale" was addressing the continual and repititous claims of Obama that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning.

It's a fairy tale because: 1) Obama wasn't in a position where he actually had to make a decision that mattered, 2) The resolution was passed by a lot of folks who were promised that the president would not advance the war as rapidly as it was.

1/14/2008 12:08:51 PM

Quote :

"2) The resolution was passed by a lot of folks who were promised that the president would not advance the war as rapidly as it was."

Man, if that excuse actually works, I've got a bridge to sell you. Also, I'll still respect you in the morning.


Promise.

1/14/2008 2:59:28 PM

I'm no fan of the Clintons, as many of you know, but I think this is a bunch of bullshit. The Clintons may be racists, but not because of the comments in question.

1/14/2008 3:56:42 PM

So does this mean that Bill ain't the 1st black president anymore?

1/14/2008 5:02:44 PM

Hillary responds on Meet the Press.

1/14/2008 5:26:46 PM

Yeah, this strikes me as a pretty blatantly political attempt by Obama to stir the race pot just before the SC primary. Maybe I'm overly cynical of politicians (well, I don't believe that to be the case...I should say that maybe Obama is a victim of my being rightfully cynical about politicians), but that's sure what it looks like to me. I've been a fan of Obama personally--though I find his politics nauseating--but this strikes me as a really dirtbag move, akin to the Bush campaign's push poll about McCain having an illegitimate black daughter just before the SC primary in 2000.

1/14/2008 5:43:20 PM

personally i dont think this is a big issue at all...but i'm white and just think there are way more important issues to discuss than this

1/14/2008 5:49:33 PM

^^Some people have argued that the Clintons are making these "missteps" on purpose to racialize the proceedings and put the Obama campaign on the offensive. That way when they call the call the Clintons on stuff like this white people will roll their eyes and think "OMG Obama is just like Jesse and Sharpton". And you get stuff like this, from Jesse Jackson, Jr. no less:

1/14/2008 6:48:33 PM

Quote :

"The resolution was passed by a lot of folks who were promised that the president would not advance the war as rapidly as it was."

I don't buy this excuse. I understand that Bush may have told these congressmen and women something different behind closed doors. But I was pissed at Congress at the time that they gave him authorization. He could have told me personally that he would not engage with Iraq militarily, and I would have still called him a liar. So how come I was smart enough not to fall for it, but our representatives in congress were duped with little to no suspicion. Hillary's excuse is a cop-out at the very best; it's a blatant lie at the very least.

1/14/2008 6:51:39 PM

Quote :

"Man, if that excuse actually works, I've got a bridge to sell you. Also, I'll still respect you in the morning. "

Man, I actually know some people who were involved in the drafting of that resolution so take your your ignorant opinions and shove them back up your ass where they came from.

1/14/2008 6:52:11 PM

I think this is playing out exactly how the Clintons planned it... and what Obama said.... They are using this "race war" to get people focused on something besides Obama's message/what he's been campaigning on the entire time...

which is CHANGE and Bringing people together..... This obviously is NOT bringing people together. So if this is Obama's doing, his campaign is incredibly stupid or just flat out trying to get Hillary the nomination...

He was gaining ground with Black and White voters before all this, so why now?

A lot of voters are getting dragged into this whole race thing and forgetting what the real issues...
I wouldn't put too much past Billary.

1/14/2008 7:58:33 PM

^^ Hey look, stupid is contagious! Who'd have actually believed it?

[Edited on January 14, 2008 at 7:59 PM. Reason : ^^]

1/14/2008 7:58:56 PM

But the issue in question--among others--is important to many black voters. Just look at this one-month shift away from Clinton:

Quote :

"And black voters appear convinced that [Obama] can win: 'African-Americans [have] switched from favoring Clinton by 52-39 percent a month ago to an even larger preference for Obama, 60-32 percent, today [emphasis added]."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/Story?id=4130467&page=2

And then there's this. To avoid a backlash, maybe? Hmm--curious.

Obama Damps Down Racial Controversy

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-damps-dow.html

And here's a pretty good discussion from ABC News about this:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5931691&ch=4226716&src=news

[Edited on January 14, 2008 at 8:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2008 8:07:08 PM

^ i think the shift towards Obama is that average people are finally hearing him speak on the issues.

people other than the hardcore political junkies who have been paying attention to the primary ramp-up for the past year.

he's a persuasive speaker.



[Edited on January 14, 2008 at 8:15 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2008 8:12:07 PM

^ I think you're correct on all points. I'm just saying that this latest racial flap doesn't help Clinton right now--unless there's a backlash.

1/14/2008 8:30:35 PM

obama has already shown himself to be way too smart to overtly play race cards.

clinton has nothing to gain and everything to lose trying to battle him on that.

1/14/2008 8:34:26 PM

Quote :

"Some people have argued that the Clintons are making these "missteps" on purpose to racialize the proceedings and put the Obama campaign on the offensive. That way when they call the call the Clintons on stuff like this white people will roll their eyes and think "OMG Obama is just like Jesse and Sharpton". "

That could also potentially be what's happening.

Kinda like an insurgency campaign where the objective is to get your enemy to overplay his hand and piss everyone off.

1/14/2008 8:55:43 PM

this is what is going to happen...they are going to join forces...Hillary for Pres and Obama for VP...then, Edwards will HAVE to drop out, along with all of the rest...then...

JUGGERNAUT!!!!1

1/14/2008 9:50:47 PM

Obama won't be anybody's VP.

1/14/2008 10:05:18 PM

I don't think so, either.

anyhow, the real question is: /message_topic.aspx?topic=508606




[Edited on January 14, 2008 at 10:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2008 10:05:40 PM

^ But how do you explain such a huge one-month shift in blacks' preferences:

Clinton over Obama by 52-39 percent a month ago

Obama over Clinton by 60-32 percent--today

You know that black folks didn't just start listening to Obama about thirty days ago. Something has happened.

1/14/2008 11:57:00 PM

The fact that Hillary has alienated black civil rights leaders in SC probably has at least something to do with it...

1/15/2008 12:07:28 AM

That, and the fact that many people (black and white) thought that white people would never vote for a black president until Obama won Iowa. That perception was probably holding quite a few people back from throwing their support behind him.

1/15/2008 12:18:07 AM

Quote :

"That could also potentially be what's happening. Kinda like an insurgency campaign where the objective is to get your enemy to overplay his hand and piss everyone off. "

It could be what they're trying to do, but I can't see Obama falling for it at all.

He knew coming in his race was going to be an issue, and he's been doing an EXCELLENT job, IMO, not making it one. He's had comments about his raced asked of him in the media, and he just remains calm and rolls with it (the one that sticks out in my mind is the reporter asking him if being black has anything to do with his cool demeanor).

1/15/2008 12:41:35 AM

Quote :

"You know that black folks didn't just start listening to Obama about thirty days ago. Something has happened."

the so-called "race issue" is a non-issue -- it was over before it had even begun.

and the shift you're pointing out is not an "overnight" shift. these are the endpoints on a month-long trend.

the "big event" was Obama winning Iowa, against a Clinton machine that was only days before declared unbeatable. We're not talking about just a "good showing" -- it was a decisive victory.

All of a sudden, Obama had center stage in a globally televised victory speech -- and he was on top of his game.

All the other candidates in their speeches just stood around with family and not-so-photogenic friends, and gave blandly formulaic musings of thanks to their various Iowa hosts.... Obama, OTOH, kicked everyone on off the stage, commanded sole focus, and gave a powerful speech about the future of the nation, his vision for the presidency, with the verbiage and cadence that was reminiscent of earlier civil rights leaders, yet in a way that was all-inclusive and without the racial tensions of the Sixties.

The guy is a force. a month ago, he was considered my many people to be on the periphery. but all of a sudden, with that Iowa win and the subsequent increase in direct coverage, a vast swath of middle america is realizing what his early supporters recognized all along: This guy is Presidential material.








[Edited on January 15, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ]

1/15/2008 12:55:29 AM

clearly...

Hillary hates niggers.

1/15/2008 7:59:20 AM

But George Bush doesn't care about black people.


Kanye says so.

1/15/2008 8:31:25 AM

Bush is opening doors with a diverse Cabinet

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — With little fanfare and not much credit, President Bush has appointed a more diverse set of top advisers than any president in history."

Quote :

"'Bush did not go out and say, "I'm going to create an administration that looks like America," which is how Clinton led off,' says Paul Light, a political scientist at New York University who has studied presidential appointments. 'He has just gone about recruiting a diverse Cabinet as an ordinary act. That's remarkable in the sense it sends to future administrations: "This is just the way we're going to do business."'"

Quote :

"Bush's defenders and some other analysts say his record on diversity deserves more notice than it has received. Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, calls it 'a strong governing management trait that has been under-reported.' One reason it has gotten little attention is because Bush himself rarely talks about it. At a convention of minority journalists in August, Bush declared, 'If you look at my administration, it's diverse, and I'm proud of that.' But he doesn't cite numbers. Bartlett and other Bush aides sounded surprised when told that Bush's record on diversity in top jobs matched that of Clinton, who was praised for expanding opportunities for women, blacks and Hispanics. Another reason Bush hasn't gotten as much credit as Clinton: The interest groups most likely to praise diversity of personnel generally disagree with Bush on policy. Leaders of the NAACP and NOW opposed Bush's re-election and criticize him for curtailing affirmative action and other programs designed to help women and minorities [emphasis added]."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-09-diverse-usat_x.htm

Bush Appoints Openly Gay Man as U.S. Ambassador to Romania

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0925-01.htm

[Edited on January 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2008 3:18:45 PM

I heard on NPR today that Bill Clinton is a straight talker.



There is no punch-line, btw.

1/15/2008 5:25:14 PM

It doesnt happen often but Joe is right, this is a non-issue.

It was basically the media trying to run with a story that was blow out of proportion. What it did illustrate is that we as a country are not ready to discuss racial issues. The media sensationalizes any aspect of such.

Hillary was talking about how LBJ had to sign the act, not give him credit alone for the movement. However, it was mostly democrates that tried to vote it down and repubs that passed it. 82% of repubs compared to 69% of dems. Often overlooked when trying to paint one party as racist. FYI

1/15/2008 6:08:22 PM

Quote :

"It was basically the media trying to run with a story that was blow out of proportion. What it did illustrate is that we as a country Democrats are not ready to discuss racial issues. The media sensationalizes any aspect of such."

1/15/2008 7:19:36 PM

^^ Here's the thing about the LBJ statement, though - one that gets me, even though I'm cracker-white and have little to no association with the Civil Rights Movement: the argument that LBJ "had to be there to sign it" just smacks of a co-opting of the achievement, if you will. LBJ didn't do the legwork of civil rights. Hell, he wasn't even a very good advocate. And the man he tarred and feathered for being an opponent of the Civil Rights Act - Barry Goldwater - could hardly be cast as a racist himself, given that his own opposition was due to the question of the role of the federal government, rather than the inherent virtue of the proposed end.

The point is, it was MLK and the movement associated with him - thousands of other people doing all the heavy lifting. All LBJ had to do is lift a goddamned pen. And you know what? Trying to act like LBJ is somehow on equal footing with Dr. King and the rest of the people who risked their lives to bring about change is kind off-putting. (After all, while LBJ might have put his career in jeopardy, he certainly didn't put his life in jeopardy like others). And it's especially off-putting because of the self-aggrandizing nature of it - trying to lay claim to that mantle by virtue of her own ambition to be president. That somehow just being an ambitious politician in the right party is as good as actually being a part of (or leading) a movement for genuine change.

[Edited on January 15, 2008 at 7:25 PM. Reason : ^^]

1/15/2008 7:25:07 PM

^steve, by no means am I a clinton fan, but I dont think at all she was trying to take anything away from MLk jr. She was just stating that it takes someone in power to actually make the changes(laws) no matter how unpopular they might be. I see your point, I just dont think that was the point she was making.

1/15/2008 9:54:44 PM

^ I'm not trying to take issue with you, per se - my point was more just to extend off the LBJ comment. Sorry if it seemed like I was conflating you as a Clinton fan; this was not my intent.

Frankly, I think the accusation that Clinton's comment was somehow "race baiting" is extremely overplayed - but I also stand by the assertion that she was trying to implicitly elevate the role of the political class (via LBJ as a proxy) in being instrumental in change. LBJ just had to be there and not be hostile to change. If it comes across to me, as a whiter than white individual, as a cheapening of the accomplishments of the civil rights movement, I can hardly imagine how someone actually connected to that movement would take it.

Any way you slice it - even in the most innocuous context - I don't see how Clinton's comment could come across looking good. It's a fairly cynical observation when you really think about it.

1/15/2008 10:06:39 PM

Quote :

"All LBJ had to do is lift a goddamned pen. And you know what?"

If you keep in mind the fact that uber-politicians like Clinton believe that everything good comes from gov't, then it's easier to understand her statement. Private initiative is always to be discounted.

[Edited on January 15, 2008 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2008 10:43:15 PM

^ It's a fair point.

1/15/2008 11:35:27 PM

So the Democratic Primaries have been reduced to marginalization.

Hillary's attack dog at it again saying Obama is just like Jesse Jackson.

So the race for Democratic Presidential Candidate is now about race, instead of ideas.

I thought Republicans were bigots?

1/27/2008 6:53:56 AM

I like how the black vote is so easily dismissed...like Clinton's insinuation that blacks voted for Obama because he's "one of them," knowing full well they'll vote for Hillary regardless if she wins the nomination in November, talk about adding insult to injury.

1/27/2008 10:39:26 AM

^it is one of the constants in elections.

1/27/2008 10:57:09 AM

Quote :

"Here's the thing about the LBJ statement, though - one that gets me, even though I'm cracker-white and have little to no association with the Civil Rights Movement: the argument that LBJ "had to be there to sign it" just smacks of a co-opting of the achievement, if you will. LBJ didn't do the legwork of civil rights."

You are right. Hundreds of thousands of white people did, along with the many blacks involved. Civil rights would have never come about if white people didn't support it. But, we all are supposed to believe that blacks were the only people who fought for civil rights.

1/27/2008 2:14:40 PM

Quote :

"Here's the thing about the LBJ statement, though - one that gets me, even though I'm cracker-white and have little to no association with the Civil Rights Movement: the argument that LBJ "had to be there to sign it" just smacks of a co-opting of the achievement, if you will. LBJ didn't do the legwork of civil rights. Hell, he wasn't even a very good advocate."

I don't think you quite realize how much of a political hit it was to him at the time. It eventually lead to the Southern strategy etc. Johnson had to have the balls to sign that piece of legislation.

1/27/2008 3:20:11 PM

Exhibit One:

Quote :

"Bill Clinton's Old Politics By Robert Reich I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton's ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife's campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it's not fair – indeed, it's demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama's anti-war position is a 'fairy tale') or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed [to] counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton's 1992 campaign – indeed, the entire 'New Democratic' message of the 1990s – was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we're witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics."

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/01/bill-clintons-old-politics.html

Exhibit Two:

Kennedy Will Endorse Obama In Blow to Clinton

Quote :

"He coordinated his announcement with Caroline Kennedy, with the two agreeing that she would break the ice with the Times piece."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/27/ST2008012702331.html

Exhibit Three:

Obama wins South Carolina by 150,000 votes

Quote :

"Sen. Barack Obama won the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary Saturday by a convincing margin. Obama garnered nearly 300,000 votes in a high-turnout primary -- that's 55.4 percent, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Sen. Hillary Clinton came in a distant second, with just over 140,000 votes, or 26.5 percent. John Edwards came in thrid place, with just under 100,000 votes, or 17 percent."

http://www.keyetv.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=08537758-8142-4ee2-9fe6-b68e09e4a2c4

Obama's making his moves.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 2:00 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2008 1:56:59 AM