Dear Democrats - Obama campaign played the race card first, second, third, etc.
Submitted by Nick Kelly on March 30, 2008 - 3:53pm.
Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Racism | Superdelegates | Democratic politics
The Clintons are not racists and Hillary's campaign most definitely has not played the race card. Nonetheless, the media is full of stories designed to make Democrats as well as other voters think the opposite. Today, however, there is a rare voice of reason which begins to set the record straight on this matter. It's the voice of Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz in an Op Ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer entitled "Obama was the first to play the race card".
{snip}
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.
{snip}
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.
Professor Wilentz is also the author of "The Worst President in History?".
UPDATE: Here are some links and comments regarding Professor Wilentz's "race card" article:
jackson_dem, at Democratic Underground, says:
Here is the common sense test: cui bono? Notice the race card never appears before the Iowas, Wisconsins, Ohios, and Pennsylvanias? It shows up for the South Carolinas and Missisippis when it would benefit only one candidate: Obama. The Ferraro thing is a classic example. She made those comments before Ohio and Texas (3/4) yet they didn't get resurrected from oblivion until, yes, a day or two before Mississippi (the same time an Obamite in the New York Times was also tarring Clinton as racist for, like Obama himself did in Pennsylvania, running an ad full of "typical" white people). Why didn't it come up at the time? Because it was more convenient to bring up right before Mississippi. He was going to win South Carolina and Mississippi anyway. What was the point then? It was to increase turnout and win by as much as possible for the delegate count. Obama, thanks to a fawning msm, is able to get the benefits of playing this card without paying the price.
What the Professor says is correct. As an AA I was confused at first at what was happening until I figured out that Obama's campaign was deliberate in their race-baiting. I came to the conclusion that they are the ones who will do anything to win. They are smart enough to let their top surrogates do the dirty work. If this is the new politics and the politics of hope, no thanks. I'd rather stick to what I know.
George Mason University's "History News Network" carries the story
to thank them for running this. Thanks for blogging it, Nick.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Obama will do anything....from race baiting to intimidation to blocking re-votes....to win.
Anything
He's our own little GWB.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
you've done some extensive googling of Professor Sean Wilentz, because if I start posting, the fresh air in this windowless room will choke you literally to death.
This is a Fraud.
Have a nice day.
If you prefer to have a flame war, which is what your post implies, I suggest you think about how much help that will be to Senator Obama.
Yes, I googled the Professor. That's how I learned he authored the critique of our worst President ever. He's definitely not a conservative. So what? How does anything he may have previously said or done refute the substance of what he says in his excellent analysis of how the Obama campaign played the race card?
I am having a very nice day, thank you; and will be having dinner with two very ardent Obama supporters, one of whom has been a close friend for 32 years. Thankfully, neither of them is given to calling me names simply because I support Hillary and find fault with the things the Obama campaign has done to smear her.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I see you decided to edit the name-calling from your post before I got my above reply posted. Thank you, Westcott. I was rather disturbed that you originally stooped to saying "Have a nice day...Fraud".
But now that I see that all you have to say is a wish that Hillary loses, I feel much better; because I guess that means you cannot refute anything the Professor says in his Op Ed.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I see it every day from new Obama peeps.
One group.. "Hillary Haters"
These people will never vote for Hillary Clinton
The other.. "Hillary's Haters"
That includes many if not most who post here loudly and regularly. This group repulses others such that they would not support Hillary Clinton.
Now, as for "But now that I see that all you have to say is a wish that Hillary loses"
That can be inferred, but it's really "Hillary's Haters" that infest this site daily with hate, with sick, sick attacks with no foundation in reality.
So before we get into the past of the good Professor and his agenda.. What charges have been made against Barack Obama here?
Answer
ZERO
Is that reflected in your post? Of course not.
Second question.
Why, THE WEEK BEFORE MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY would Hillary Clinton.. WHO UNDERSTANDS WITH PRECISION WHEN AND WHEN NOT TO STOP AT ROPE LINES TO TALK TO REPORTERS, stop, and say:
I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, "We are going to do it," and actually got it accomplished.
Obama replied that this showed Hillary CLinton's belief that people in Washington are more important to the process than the people out in America organizing marches and having rallies etc.
Where is this race card. Did Barack Obama need to eek out the other 17% that were not polling his way in South Carolina?
No. The Clintons.. using one of Dick Morris' old school tactics, needed to incite white voters to come out. In their, yes, race baiting chess move, they expected Barack Obama to cry race, and though he did not.. Hillary Clinton, all the way to Meet the Press, accused him of doing so. The shock of which shows plainly on Barack Obama's face when asked by reporters where Clinton got the idea that Obama was injecting race into the campaign.
Another question.. Are you calling Ted Kennedy a fool? An idiot? You wouldn't be the first for sure, but this episode got him to cease being neutral.. and he's been an ardent Obama supporter ever since.
Google the good Professor yet? Or don't you really care about facts, integrity, etc.
Do you consider it racist because LBJ is white?
Or what? What if LBJ were black? Would it be
racist then? This is a totally bogus charge.
It was a true statement no matter what the color
of any of the participants, including both
Presidential candidates. She did not cite the
work of LBJ because of his color, which neither
he nor she could help, but because of his
position as President. As for when it was said,
are we to check the calendar before we make a
true statement if any of the people we speak
about are African-American? Or white? Or what???
Balderdash, I say.
This is Dick Morris' brand of politicking. And it's racist in it's ends.
The idea was to anger African Americans. This in turn creates a backlash among white people who have yet to clear their hearts of racism, be it back of their mind racism, or overt racists and get them out to vote for Hillary Clinton against the newly branded "Black candidate", Barack Obama.
That's the concept, that was the plan, and it didn't work. Though it looks like it worked for some here!
Now, if you would like to find some sources of Barack Obama playing race cards, please do so. The fact is, YOU CANNOT! So Stop! Enough!
confused. Dick Morris said this? He was there?
He caused Hillary to become a rascist 20 years
ago and she's only been pretending to be a
friend to AA's all this time? Or did Dick Morris
talk to Obama? Or what?? Frankly, I think more
highly of African-Americans than to assume that
they are insulted by credit given to a President,
who happened to be white, for passing civil
rights legislation. That in itself is racist,
to believe one's color is more important than
one's behavior. Hmmmm, didn't MLK say something
similar?
Fool Me Thrice
It should be no surprise that the Clintons are playing the race card.
By Christopher Hitchens
(from slate.com)
How can one equal Bill Clinton for thuggery and opportunism when it comes to the so-called "race card"? And where does one even start with the breathtaking nastiness of his own conduct, and that of his supporters, in the last week? Barack Obama carries South Carolina having made no sectarian appeal to any specific kind of voter, and the best Clinton can say is that this is no better than Jesse Jackson managed to do. Really? Did Jackson come south having already got himself elected the senator from Illinois? And, come to think of it, was Jackson so much to be despised and sneered at when he was needed as Clinton's "confessor," along with Billy Graham, during the squalor of impeachment?
This calculated willingness to shop on both sides of the street of racial politics was actually analyzed quite shrewdly by Dick Morris, the former consigliere of the gruesome twosome, in conversation with Sean Hannity last week. The Clintons, he thought, would be quite happy to lose big to the "black vote" in South Carolina. It would enable them to signal that they were the ones to stem the flow of the color tide. Morris' host protested that this seemed a touch cynical. Morris jovially assured him that he knew the people he was talking about.
As indeed he did. It was Hillary Clinton who insisted on recalling Morris to the embattled White House, notwithstanding his various disgraces and notwithstanding the fact that he had been the adviser and strategist for Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Why am I saying "notwithstanding"? It was because he had performed so well for Helms, including helping him with the famous "white hands" ad that showed a white man crumpling up a letter that told him of preference for "minorities" in hiring, that Morris was thought of by the then-first lady as such a guru.
I never quite understand how the Clintons' initial exploitation of racism was overlooked the first time around and has been airbrushed from the record since. After falling behind in the New Hampshire primary in 1992, and after being caught lying about the affair with Gennifer Flowers to which he later confessed under oath, Clinton left the campaign trail and flew home to Arkansas to give the maximum publicity to his decision to sign a death warrant for Ricky Ray Rector. Rector was a black inmate on death row who had shot himself in the head after committing a double murder and, instead of dying as a result, had achieved the same effect as a lobotomy would have done. He never understood the charge against him or the sentence. After being served his last meal, he left the pecan pie on the side of the tray, as he told the guards who came to take him to the execution chamber, "for later." Several police and prison-officer witnesses expressed extreme queasiness at this execution of a gravely impaired man, and the prison chaplain, Dennis Pigman, later resigned from the prison service. The whole dismal and cruel and pathetic story was told by Marshall Frady in a long essay in The New Yorker in 1993 and is also recounted in a chapter titled "Chameleon in Black and White" by your humble servant in his book No One Left To Lie To. For now, I just ask you to imagine what would have been said if a Republican governor, falling in the polls, had gone out of his way to execute a mentally incompetent African-American prisoner.
Or leaf back, if you will, to the New York Times of March 23, 1992, and the jolly headline, "Club Where Clinton Has Golfed Retains Ways of Old South." Yes indeedy, the Country Club of Little Rock had 500 members, all of them white, and the aspirant candidate had himself photographed there more than once until Jerry Brown made an issue of it. It was then announced by Clinton's people that "the staff and facilities" at the club were "integrated"—a pretty way of stating that the toilets were cleaned by black Arkansans. Yet all this was forgiven by credulous liberals who were sure that they had discovered a New Democrat who was a Southerner to boot.
Many of these same people do not like it now that they see similar two-faced tactics being employed against "one of their own." Well, tough. And many of the most prominent and eloquent black columnists—Bob Herbert, Colbert King, Eugene Robinson—are also acting shocked. It's a bit late. I have to say that Bob Herbert shocked even me by quoting Andrew Young, who said that his pal Clinton was "every bit as black as Barack" because he'd screwed more black chicks. How is Hillary Clinton, or Chelsea Clinton, supposed to feel on hearing that little endorsement? One gets the impression, though, at least from the wife, that anything is OK as long as it works, or even has a chance of working. When Toni Morrison described Clinton as "black" on the basis of his promiscuity and dysfunction and uncertainty about his parentage, she did more than cater to the white racist impression of the African-American male. She tapped into the sort of self-hatred that is evidently more common than we might choose to think. Say what you will about Sen. Obama (and I say that he's got much more charisma than guts), he is miles above this sort of squalor and has decent manners. Say what you will about the Clintons, you cannot acquit them of having played the race card several times in both directions and of having done so in the most vulgar and unscrupulous fashion. Anyone who thinks that this equals "change" is a fool, and an easily fooled fool at that.
....sorry, but that you would disparage Professor Sean Wilentz and then quote the "drunken popinjay" just strikes me as hilarious.
Keep fooling yourself, my friend.
Cherchez la motive. There was zero motive for Hillary to go racist and every motive for Obama.
Face it.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
...Never cited him. But nice try.
I don't care what articles you keep posting Westcott.....
Any sane person looking at the evidence would notice immediately that it made no sense for Hillary to go racist......but made lots of sense for Obama to do so....and he did, big time.
Maybe what they say is true
Drinking Koolaid does destroy brain cells
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
No one ever can.
Why, the week before Martin Luther King day, with the black vote breaking upwards of 80% for Obama, would Hillary Clinton, who knows full well how to use the media, why, would she make a point to stop and say that it was LBJ.
I know why, I've explained it many times. I'll be karma banned if I have to explain it further.
Make no mistake about it. The Kool-Aid is on your hands.
That's the real danger of Hillary Clinton. The projection of all of the hopes and work for feminism and women is being incorrectly put on her campaign. And she had the right connections and the ego to make full use of it. And when she fails to win the nomination, the anger that comes with that failure will be devastating for many, when it should never have been.
It should have been Barbara Boxer, she would have won this nomination handily. Of that I have little doubt.
...of codswallop!
hahaha
You've gone completely round the bend.
Maybe it's not Koolaid but good old fashioned Clinton Hatred.
Pitiful!
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
There wasn't a racial microgram in Clinton's comment on LBJ until Obama supporters made it so.
What Clinton said is 100% true -- without a sympathetic Congress and a President to push for it, King's dream would have remained just a dream for a much longer time.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Her point was perfectly clear, and it had nothing to do with race at all. And you know it. So does Obama.
It took a president to pass civil rights legislation. Gee, that's what she said. She didn't say MLK was unimportant; in fact, she said just the opposite. But he wasn't enough. And NOT because he was black. Good God, NO one would think such a thing, or say it if they did. But because he got people motivated, marching, believing, and all that is good, but it's NOT ENOUGH.
She was saying that it takes someone like her to make the changes that Obama talks about.
The Dick Morris argument is stupid on its face. Anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black wouldn't need Clinton to remind them of it.
why ask it over and over?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Hillary was pointing out that the President has to know how to work with the network of people who govern our Nation. Hillary is leaps and bounds above Obama on that. Just because someone has goals (goals that almost every active Democrat has) doesn't mean they know how to devise a solid plan on reaching the goals. You have to work at it and know all angles of the issues. Obama is bright, but needs more time to be prepared to be President. Just because someone can win an election doesn't mean they are ready to be President.
Obama accusing Hillary of using the "Racecard" on this is such BS. Very Karl Rove. Obama and his team timed it perfectly.
The absurdity has reached new heights.
It's a sickness to treat every action and every word of a white person a laced with racism, while black people get away with it routinely.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
And the logic and reasoning shown in your
previous posts purporting to show "racism" in
Hillary Clinton are typical of the "thinking"
being done by Obama supporters, I'm not
surprised that his supporters cannot explain
why he should be President. Hopeful emotional
responses to someone and made-up reasons to
hate his opponent do not, in my view,
constitute a justification to elect that
person to be President.
are more impressed by sophistry than by real logic.
I have to hand it to him, though. Hitchens is still nearly as good at making stupidity sound smart as is Tony Blair.
I don't often choose to go ad-hominem here, but since Hitchens's statements are so outrageous and beside the point, I think I'll make an exception. And really Westcott, I think you ought to know me well enough to realize that I would be one of the the last guys to be persuaded by any argument from Christopher Hitchens.
Apparently, though, you think the neo-con war-monger to be a convincing source.
As soon as I read the word "thuggery" in his alcoholic inspired sophistry, I knew Hitch was into the sauce again.
It's a shame, really. He used to be pretty damn smart.
Then I got to "breathtaking nastiness" and "sectarian", and I actually almost felt sorry for the man who used to know the importance of accuracy and fact-checking.
Sorry, Westcott, but the angry shell of a man still called Christopher Hitchens long ago ceased to be a credible source - except perhaps for Tony Blair, George Bush, and Dick Cheney.
But the old neo-con war-monger is still a fair to middlin' sophist, I'll give you that.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
......heading into the primary on SC where the Dem vote is over 50% AA, Hillary figured she'd WIN by "angering African Americans!?!?!?!
Have you any idea how stupid that sounds????
You'd have to be living in an alternate universe to think this.
There was ZERO political up side to going racist for Hillary......but LOTS of upside for Obama to go racist....and it worked for him. I give him credit. He managed to turn AAs against the best friends they have had in the White House in generations with his bogus "racism" claims........which of course was his plan. I'm sure he is very proud.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
MORRIS: Well, rather than go through the specific thing that Bill and Hillary have done, or the surrogates have done, just look at the fact that before Obama won Iowa, race was totally absent in this contest. Nobody talked about it. There was no polarization based on it.
Since Obama won that contest, the only thing we've heard talked about is race. No more change, no more experience, just race. And it has polarized. Blacks are now voting for Obama by 67-16, and whites are now voting for Clinton by 42-20-something.
And I believe that, whether it was their specific remarks or their surrogate's remarks or the way they're playing it, I think that's a conscious strategy on the part of the Clintons.
COLMES: But was that something the Clintons created, Dick, or was that something in the nature of the way things are when you have a woman and an African-American vying for a nomination? That it's not the doing of the candidates themselves?
MORRIS: Well, why hasn't it polarized over gender? Why don't we have all kinds of comments about women not being able or -- or, you know, what did Gloria Steinem, she didn't solve the problem. It took a president. There are all the comments about race.
And I think the reason is that if you look at the Clinton playbook, race has always been a vital part of it. We talked a couple of shows ago about the Sister Souljah comments. End welfare as we know it was his campaign slogan.
I remember in 1996 and 1997 -- 1996 we had a targeted ad campaign aimed at blacks, because they were more likely to serve on juries, and Clinton needed blacks votes to get acquitted in the event there was an indictment.
And in -- throughout this whole thing you've had, either pro- or anti- , a deliberate playing of the race card, and I think that's what the Clinton strategy is.
COLMES: Are they racist?
MORRIS: They're basically saying Obama -- no, they're not. But it doesn't matter. They use race to win elections, just like they're not sexist, but they'll use other people's affairs to try to win the election. They'll use ever tool that comes to hand.
HANNITY: There's an -- there's an African-American New York state senator who's basically saying that the Clintons are deliberately fueling a racial feud. Hillary was booed at a Martin Luther King tribute, and now that's getting some widespread play.
Bill Clinton not only went on Reverend Al Sharpton's show, but he's done a series of interviews with prominent African-American hosts. After doing one in Chicago this morning, the New York Sun reports that the series of callers were deeply skeptical and, frankly, angry with the Clintons.
Couple that with James Clyburn's comments that he may now, you know, abandon his neutrality in South Carolina. Is this backfiring?
MORRIS: And by the way -- by the way, did Clyburn abandon his neutrality?
HANNITY: He's contemplating.
MORRIS: Contemplating it, yes. I think that all of the black politicians, including Sharpton, who you had on, are going to have to endorse Obama, because the constituency is voting for Obama by 5-1.
And I think the Clintons realize that. I think they know that, when there's a serious chance of a black getting elected, that the black voters are going to go en masse to the African-American candidate. And they know that, to win, they need to provoke a white backlash.
HANNITY: Right. Let me...
MORRIS: And the way to do that is to persuade people that Obama is trying to get elected based on race.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/morris_sharpton_on_hannity_col.html
Boy, you don't care WHO you cite to slander the Clintons.
I'm sure the people of SC didn't know Obama was black until Hillary brought it up (by mentioning LBJ... huh?). Yeah, she was really trying to stir up the racism.
Let me add to my earlier advice:
Get a life SOMEWHERE ELSE.
He was responsible for getting Bill Clinton re-elected. and has worked very closely with the Clintons. But of course, you already know all that.
And, I have a life. Tho I do enjoy the third grade level discussion and rampant troll rating when uncomfortable truths are levelled at Hillary Clinton, on a post, by a shill, that attempts to smear Barack Obama.
best bet really is to just ask Mr Kelly to remove the offending post, rather than troll ban polar opposite viewpoints.. especially when said polar opposite viewpoint have reasoned background information, and electoral logic, that back them up.
This Obama race card slam only attempts to paint him as someone who plays race cards, yet, for what? To get the rest of the black vote that is already voting for him at 80-90%? No explanation, no reason.. just a smear. By a Princeton Professor though, how cool is that?
Where's the analysis and critical thinking on "White Guilt".
Get it through your heads. People like Barack Obama. People Trust Barack Obama. People feel comfortable with Barack Obama.
People feel comfortable having him in their home or on their living room TeeVee in a 24/7 news cycle that is dominated by political hate.
ANd by the way, I watched "The View" twice! Once for Hillary Clinton, and she did very well. And a video from last Friday for Barack Obama, and he did very well.
So what's your point? At least we know that Hillary listens to General Clark. Would Sen Obama? There is no way to know.
Proud to be an American.
I know what I'm seeing. I know how this whole thing is affecting me, and people I work and live with each and every day.
And more to the point, you know too. You just don't want to see it.
Hint: There's lots and lots of critical thinking in the CCN. But little from the Obama camp. They're too infatuated.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
She has them all the time, every day. Lots of people go see them. I see a news item locally here and stop on over to see if anyone is talking about it on here.. Nothing.. Nothing but hate hate hate Barack Obama.
There are several sites that are small blogs that Obama peeps have set up, and every day it's Obama did this, Obama did that. Pictures. Sound clips. It's great stuff. every now and then there's a jab on Hillary.. The Bosnia trip stories were a bit of a distraction, but they're mostly, if not entirely about what's going on with Obama's campaign.
Did you know. Barack Obama is probably the only candidate to have ever visited the economically devastated little town of Altoona PA? He went bowling while he was there! That had to turn some heads. :)
You guys should try actually supporting Hillary Clinton... actually months ago.
Next time I come here, I want to see a picture of Hillary Clinton Bowling. :)
We DO support Hillary. With our TIME MONEY and TRAVEL.
How dare you. You are over the top. Do not, ever, ever, ever insinuate how we should speak, type or live our lives. Ever again.
Talk to me about over the top. Talk to me about this Hillary Clinton support. Out of line?
It's like this every day. Do you not know that? Do you not look at what is posted here? I do. Every day.
I saw Howard Park lose his mind. I didn't like that at all. He's one of the for real good guys.
and then posting in support of Hillary, or telling the other commenters/diarists what they should or shouldn't post?
Proud to be an American.
I've started doing a few posts over at DailyKos. For example, here is one today:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/30/114922/144?new=true
I've also corrected them on a few things they've said about the Texas county conventions from yesterday.
Howard made some amazingly crazy comments about CCN.
It's not easy seeing old comrades lose it. I can't imagine how mixed up he must have been.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Look at it this way. I've been pointing out
that actually "doing" is not his style. Well,
here's something he was "doing." LOL
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
Thanks for at least trying to inform the Kossacks today that I'm a decent guy :)
p.s. - here is my personal bowling story
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/3/30/8552/35026/195#c195
Seems about right. Looks good but can't deliver the goods.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Yeah, and Hillary will drop out next week.
Because the Obamans want her to, and they are not to be denied.
Sure.
Sorry, but you have presented not a single truth, uncomfortable or otherwise, about Hillary Clinton. I don't see much logic in your posts either. Mostly just name-calling.
If you really want to know why someone might want to "paint" Obama as someone who plays race cards, it's because that's what he's done. NOWHERE do you refute a single fact or argument in the original post. You call the professor a fraud, but offer NO justification at all.
Pathetic.
But I'm fairly certain that most here would rather that my comments weren't posted, and if asked, and able, I would take them down too.
As for "NOWHERE do you refute a single fact or argument in the original post. You call the professor a fraud, but offer NO justification at all."
There's nothing to refute. Jesse Jackson Jr? Ok, what would you like me to say about his comments. Some talking head on the Bradley effect? I'd never heard of it before, and actually the first I did hear of it was from a fellow Clarkie in an email pondering the differing outcomes with Primaries and caucuses. And then there was a post by Quigley (Who still kicks ass by the way) where he suggested that there are some in Southern New Hampshire that have racist tendencies after moving their from Boston, or who still work there.
So what is it about Barack Obama that is to be refuted? Which is why it is a smear.
The title doesn't read "Jesse Jackson Jr. plays races card" nor is it "Some talking head beating the Bradley effect horse" or whatever. It's a smear on Obama's character. Plain and simple.
Try refuting the article with that in mind, instead of imagining that I titled my diary "Jesse Jackson Jr. plays
races card".
Who knows why the paper entitled their article the way they did? Maybe column size limits? I entitled my diary more accurately, don't you think?
Obama's character is separate from the character of his campaign. He is not a hands-on manager, and he makes that pretty clear.
Still (and this is a criticism of his hands-off management style, if not his character), it's too bad he has allowed his campaign to repeatedly play the race card on his behalf. I wish he would have told them to refrain from that. I guess though, like with his preacher, he's not real quick to criticize his trusted supporters.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I've seen racism and that ain't it. I did grow up
in Little Rock, after all.
Troll ratings are for trolls. Don't like it? Leave.
Black Americans, white Americans, brown Americans, etc.
Americans of all colors disapprove of racism, and I'm sure you must know that, Westcott. Therefore, why do you even suggest that only black Americans disapprove of racism?
quoting Westcott:
This Obama race card slam only attempts to paint him as someone who plays race cards, yet, for what? To get the rest of the black vote that is already voting for him at 80-90%? No explanation, no reason.. just a smear.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
....the older African Americans in SC were sticking with Hillary until Obama played the race card. He needed to pull them away from her and that did the trick.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
Part of getting bills passed is knowing how to work within the laws of the land and with the network of people who govern our Nation. Hillary knows she wins that one. Even Senator Lott praised her for going across the aisle to discuss issues. "She really does her homework."
Obama accusing Hillary of "Pulling the Racecard" for the above is sickening. In my opinion, he in reality, "Pulled the Racecard." One of the dirtiest moves in politics ever. He had it timed perfectly.
....that Ted was POed at Hillary for not giving equal billing to JFK. It had nothing to do with MLK. The Kennedy's hated LBJ and were furious that Hillary lauded LBJ for passing the Civil Rights Bill and ignored JFK who gave a speech or something.....but otherwise did zip to benefit the AAs lot.
And then Caroline got all misty eyed over the "fact".....which turned out to be a complete fabrication by the way.....that JFK had helped Obama's Dad get to the US.
Oh the webs we weave.
You would know all this if you didn't submerse yourself in the echo chamber
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
Mrs Clinton, trying to make a point about presidential leadership and Mr Obama’s constant references to Dr King, the civil rights icon, said: “Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”
Mrs Clinton has since tried to clarify the comment, but the damage was done. Mr Clyburn, who had previously said that he would stay neutral, told The New York Times that he had been “bothered a great deal” by the remarks and was rethinking his position.
::
By the way. Clyburn was key to calming this storm. Why Mr Kelly and the good professor decide to continue down memory lane on this vile subject is completely beyond me.
distorted the meaning of what Hillary said.
That's the part I hope more people will understand by reading he Professor's Op Ed. Thanks for helping with this by not refuting what he said, Westcott.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I mean, when you post:
You really do deserve to lose
Submitted by westcott on March 30, 2008 - 5:28pm.
That's all I really have to say.
and then you continue to post for hours, and falsely accuse me of making charges against Barack Obama, it's very hard to trust that you actually mean anything you post here.
Is that clear? Or, do I need to explain further?
Please continue to try to defend your candidate and his campaign, if you wish; but it would probably be better for you to stick closer to the substance of whatever criticism might be leveled against him or his campaign. That's what the Professor did in addressing the Obama campaign's uncalled for attacks on the Clintons. If he's wrong about any of what he wrote, please show us where and how.
Thanks in advance for trying to help us become better informed about the fine and entirely scrupulous way Senator Obama's campaign is being run.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Not.
From the Wikipedia. Not the greatest source, but seems more than adequate for this purpose. The entire entry follows:
Sean Wilentz is the Dayton-Stockton Professor of History at Princeton University, where he has taught since 1979.
Born in 1951 in New York City, Wilentz earned one B.A. at Columbia University in 1972, before earning another at Oxford University on a Kellett Fellowship, and his Ph.D. at Yale University. His historical scholarship has focused mainly on the early years of the American republic. His major study to date, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln, received the Bancroft Prize in 2006 and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His first book, Chants Democratic, won several awards, including the Beveridge Award from the American Historical Association.
A contributing editor at The New Republic, Wilentz writes widely on music and the arts as well as history and politics, and has received a Grammy nomination and, from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, a Deems Taylor Award for musical commentary. He is the historian-in-residence of bobdylan.com, the official Bob Dylan website.
In 2006 he wrote an article about the George W. Bush presidency, entitled "The Worst President in History?" which appeared in Rolling Stone Magazine.
Wilentz appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 1998 to argue against the Clinton impeachment. His testimony — he told the House members that, if they voted for impeachment but were not convinced Clinton's offenses were impeachable, "history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness" — cheered Democratic partisans but was criticized by the New York Times, which lamented his "gratuitously patronizing presentation" in an editorial.
Wilentz is married to University of Chicago historian Christine Stansell.
Perhaps you meant Wilentz is a fraud in the same way that all people thought to be good Democrats before they endorse Hillary Clinton beome something to scape off the bottom of one's shoe. You know, like Joe Wilson is a opportunist, George McGovern is senile, Wes Clark is... well, you spend enough time at dKos to fill in the blank, don't you?
You'll get there.
Wilentz is Hillary's hack. Taylor Marsh with credentials.
Go read all of his unbiased reporting. Then go read all of the writing about him of his colleagues on the subject of his political bent for Hillary Clinton.
Why are you here?
Your hate-filled BS is not welcome here.
Invectives and ad hominem attacks do not
further civil discussion, or promote exchange
of ideas.
So split! Buh-Bye now.
that Wes Clark is Hillary's "hack," too. He has
whole-heartedly, deeply, and openly endorsed her.
Just because someone who has great respect among
his peers and the public decides to support
Hillary, they don't therefore turn into a "hack."
Or, if they do, count Wes among them.
Your only problem with either Wilentz or Taylor is that they are Hillary supporters.
HOW DARE THEY!
Sheesh. Get a life.
It's that they're shills that disregard facts and reason that get in the way of whatever argument they're trying to make at the time.
It's that they're liars. It's that they have little if any journalistic integrity.
Other than that, it's fine that they support Hillary Clinton.
And by the way, I can't wait to see actual support of Hillary Clinton right here on CCN.
It's non existant, save the every now and then call to raise some money for her campaign. Where's the coverage of her events? WHere's the discussion of policy and experience? Nothing! Nothing at all. Bizare notion of support really.
In fact, CCN is obsessed with Barack Obama and slamming him every minute of the day.
On all counts.
What on earth do you hope to accomplish here? You can't possible think you're going to change any minds, because you don't bother to put forward any arguments or answer any of the questions put to you.
Just a bunch of empty name-calling is all I see.
I say again, get a life.
Remember Taylor Marsh posting Obama used Jay-Z's music at an event with the lyrics, "I've got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one." She never backed down from that even though there was zero evidence it happened. I went to her website to follow up on that a few days later and she was sticking by the BS story. Spreading New York Post lies makes Taylor Marsh a liar.
...that was playing when Barack and Michelle Obama strode into his victory party in Des Moines, Iowa?
Has Obama ever disputed that it was "99 Problems", as reported?
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
.....tho' the video doesn't show what was playing before U2. There was nothing playing at the beginning of the video.....and of course videos can be modified just like pictures can.......but....say we give him the benefit of the doubt and the report by the NY Post wasn't true.....Taylor just reported what the newspaper said. How would she know it was a lie......if indeed it was.?
OTOH, some might say that these are lies.....
1. Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed.
2. Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma.
3. Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.
4. Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "
5. Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.'
6. 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.'
7. Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force.
8. 'Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform.
9. Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.
So it's Taylor 1 and Obama 9 .......oh. and Hillary 1 due to the Bosnia flap.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
You forgot about Obama having to admit that
he lied about his father being brought to
America by the Kennedys. That makes 10.
Tho' actually it's probably way more cuz the guy lies like a rug.
Wasn't "Dreams of my Father" mostly fiction..tho he marketed it otherwise?
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
The video/s are modified. All of them posted on youtube and google were modified, changed, to the same song.
I can't wait to see actual support of Hillary Clinton right here on CCN.
This would be funny if it weren't so sad.
just in the past few weeks. I think you've not been keeping up with the posts.
Proud to be an American.
I simply want to change the subject to what I consider the bottom line (from a "Clarkie" point of view).
Is it more important for you to have Obama as President with McPeak being his top trusted military adviser, than having Hillary as President with Wes as HER top trusted military adviser?
In her foreign policy speeches, particularly in the details, she is sounding more like Wes, every day. I almost suspect that Wes might well now be writing her speeches.
That is a fact. It's funy because I hear echos of General Clark in a lot of Barack Obama's discussions on foreign and military policy too. :)
I never liked McPeak.. seems to me kind of an asshole. I don't expect he'll have any interesting role, the campaign has slapped his hands twice already.
I'm sure Wes agrees with the following pearls of wisdom from St O ...
“The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush’s father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, .......
Well except for the Bay of Pigs and Iran Contra, that is.....
hahahaha
Fact is unlike Obama, Wes liked the foreign policy of William Jefferson Clinton just fine and has said so many times.
You're making sh*t up just like the rest of the Obama followers.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
accuse a Hillary operative of "McCarthyism".
I apologize in advance if that's incorrect. My dinner with my two Obama supporting friends was quite enjoyable. :)
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
in a smoggy windowless room.
Thanks!