Hillary made an innocuous and perfectly accurate statement: "Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Obama's flacks have tried to misrepresent these words as some sort of attack on King and on Obama personally.
Obama's tactics have been pure Rove:
1. Obama had surrogates do the dirty work, while he stayed aloof. (Think Bush-v-McCain in 2000.)
2. He attacked his opponent's strength. The Clintons have always been popular in the black community. A large percentage of the voters in South Carolina are black; Obama needs black Clinton voters to switch over to him.
3. He put his opponent on defense by forcing her to be ultra-self-conscious about every syllable. It's getting so that a candidate cannot say "Hi!" without fear that someone will find some reason to be insulted by that word.
Disgusting. Democrats should not crib from Karl in an intra-party battle.
Obama's sense of insult is entirely feigned and strategic, as the leaked internal memo discussed here makes clear.
The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press.I'm also disgusted, albeit less so, by the Clintons' reaction to the Bob Johnson dust-up. Of course Johnson made reference to Obama's drug use, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. But Obama's youthful foolishness will be a major point of discussion in the general election -- especially if he faces McCain. If Obama's only response is going to be "How dare you bring that up?" -- he'll be creamed in the general election and thus should not be the nominee.
Like it or not, Obama did once use drugs. I hardly think that's a deal-breaker, but some folks do. A national debate must therefore ensue, and Bob Johnson has a right to be part of that debate.
On the other hand, Hillary is not a racist and did not appeal to racism. That is not open to debate.
Obama must learn that white people really don't dig it when their innocent words are twisted.
I could have said what Hillary said. If she's a racist, then so am I. And if Obama (or his flacks) want to accuse me of being a bigot -- well, screw him. He's the candidate; I'm the voter. He needs me; I don't need him.
30 comments:
When Hillary said, "Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," any half-awake deconstructionist can see she's referring to her own life. In 1964, Hillary was a Goldwater Republican. At some point in the 1960s she snapped and got straight. Otherwise we might have had to suffer two Phyllis Schlaflys.
It's a fair fight: Barack's youthful, recreational drug use/Hillary's youthful, recreational Conservative Republicanism.
These are politicians, duh. It's not a golf outing at Augusta National. South Carolina is a bell-weather primary campaign. Clinton has to pull support from Obama and Edwards or she'll finish behind them. It's not a campaign to win, it's a campaign to avoid finishing third (last). Third in South Carolina this time is disastrous.
Hillary seems to be using "1964" so that she can show how much she has changed, how much the society has changed, and how much experience she has had between 1964 and 2008. She's already a metaphor. Now she wants to be seen as an archetype. I repeat: This campaign is almost as great as the 1986 MLB season! Which reminds, me: Say it ain't so, Joe: If Barack is the party's nominee...?
You are for Hillary and the status quo. Everything thing that is written on this blog is about the status quo and more of the same. Anyone who wanders out of line is a trannie or a progressive out to destroy the left wing.
That damn status quo owes me five bucks.
anon, you are an asshole who doesn't know how to read. How many times have I said that I support Edwards? How many times have I said that I thought Hillary would be a weak candidate in the general?
H, my point is that there is no need for deconstruction here. In fact, what you call "deconstruction" can be just plain maddening.
Hillary made a simple historical statement, unimpeachably factual. And that's it. End of discussion.
If we force her to double-think and triple think all possible absturse and absurd interpretations of what she might say, then she won't be able to say anything. And neither will you or I.
Look, if you can scry racism into Hillary's innocent words, then I defy you or anyone else to put together five consecutive sentences that are incapable of being interpreted as racist.
As an experiment, let's take one of your own sentences:
"It's a fair fight: Barack's youthful, recreational drug use/Hillary's youthful, recreational Conservative Republicanism."
Ah. Let's deconstruct this. You're saying that Barack Obama is a drug user -- and that, by extension, ALL black people are drug users. And you are further insinuating we need someone with a background in conservative Republicanism to hold this horde of drug-addled blacks at bay.
H, I didn't know that you held such bigoted views! You really need to take a course in sensitivity training...
...see?
As I said: If you're clever enough, you can twist ANY sentence around and around in an attempt to make someone sound racist.
It's infuriating!
Methinks someone (anon 1037) doesn't fully get the idea of Status Quo ..or maybe he's insinuationg that you are into the British band from the 60's (someone must be, they've sold about 120 Million records)... or maybe he thinks it's the same as 'in statu quo res erant ante bellum' in which case, I think we all are. I am,that's for sure. I liked it before W got elected. Sure, I didn't trust the guy as much as I trust my mom, but he was still more trustworthy than anything the repugs had (or have) and he knew what the definition of the word 'is' was (and probably also knows what status quo means). Staus Quo Ante Bellum, damn I wish we were there right now....
lee, I am shocked at your flagrant racism.
"or maybe he's insinuationg that you are into the British band from the 60's (someone must be, they've sold about 120 Million records)... or maybe he thinks it's the same as 'in statu quo res erant ante bellum' in which case, I think we all are."
So. According to you, only a British -- that is, white and anglo-saxon -- group of musicians can make decent music. I consider this statement an insult to Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, and thousand of other supremely talented black musicians.
Furthermore, your call for a return to "ante bellum" conditions is obvious code, since "antebellum" is a term frequently used to describe the American South in the days of slavery.
(See? I can do this all day!)
OK from now on i can no longer drink milk and read Cannonfire, as you just made milk come out my nose, Joe (and yes it was milk, not MLK, and it was also white). But really:
1) The idea that these guys make "decent music" (I'm still shocked they sold 160M records) is just too funny.
2) I fear that I may sound racist here, but i think at this point it would be important for both Hilary and Barak to understand this one fine point that even Snooky Young sang back in the day; "'Tain't Whatcha Do (it's the way that you do it)"...
I probably should apologize for using "deconstructionist", I know I'm promiscuous and sometimes to a fault. My tactic was to suggest that in the context of South Carolina (where it 'started' in 1861), Hillary would have to answer for her pro-Goldwater past since guys like you will publish anything fair and unimpeachably factual. She is smart to pre-empt any such ignoble attack if it's an attack, and she's smart to lay the foundation for her adult life's being one of mutability, what Obama calls change, a wretched word all over the Internet last year attached to 'loose'. Can't you appreciate the sensitivity of South Carolina? They still want to fly the Stars & Bars there. Although a non-issue in 2004, Strom Thurmond's love child became known then and blessed by his family. 1964 was when Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican and took the South with him. South Carolina went for Goldwater in 1964's LBJ landslide. It so happens I love Hillary, yet I get the impression you think I wrote or insinuated something uncomplimentary about her. I didn't, did I?
ok i don't want to sound like a racist (again) but i sure do hope that Huck can come out and beat McCain, I mean I must have missed this missive on The Huckster before, but really, i think we'd have an easy shot against this Cracker-assed Jeezuz-loving freak, all you have to do is bring up his past carpetbagging trough-feeding $camming (they don't call him The Huckster for nothing)> Oh how it would be a joyous day in Muddville if it were the Huck Vs. Edwards (or Hilary, or even Senator Your-being-a-racist). I am going to go pray to my white Jebus now and hope that he can work on that Huck...
Jeez, it's beginning to look like a Klan rally in here. Drinking WHITE milk, indeed...!
Can Edwards also "go to hell?" He disputes Clinton's "perfectly accurate statement" re: King and Johnson. Edwards did so at a mostly-black church in South Carolina, thereby targeting Clinton's strength. And doesn't this parsing of Clinton's language have a similar impact on Clinton's ability to speak without being ultra-self-conscious? At least he didn't do the "dirty work" through surrogates...
"I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion, that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that," [Edwards] said. "Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living in a fairy tale. Real change has never started in Washington. Real change came from those who have fought in the trenches."
Personally, Edwards is probably my personal first choice, and I also think Clinton's being attacked unfairly over this statement. But I'm interested in whether you'll apply the same standard to Edwards, or whether you see a clear difference in what he said vs. what came from Obama.
I didn't realize Edwards had said that. I have now achieved an almost perfect equilibrium of pissed-offedness.
That said, at least Edwards did not use surrogates to imply racism. He veered more into an "Beltway insider vs. Beltway outsider" meme. That goes down somewhat easier.
First things first: the closest Status Quo came to "decent music" was opening for Queen.
Anyway, Joe, I've been having trouble finding commentary from the Obama campaign calling her statement racist. The implication, rather, is that it denigrates the on-the-ground (and in-the-pulpit) leadership demonstrated by King as a private citizen acting according to his conscience. Personally, I'd agree; while the Civil Rights Act is quite an achievment, it was hardly the beginning of Dr. King's successes.
Fine, fine, maybe there's a peevish parsing of words going on, but I have to wonder what her intention in saying this was (and I don't really know the context, I'll admit). Is she trying to claim the progressive high ground by running on Lyndon Johnson's record? That hardly makes her an appealing candidate, in my eyes.
And besides, if people didn't find a way to overreact to every sentence out of her mouth, when would she ever get to demonstrate her masterful back-pedaling skills?
jon: I note with dismay your use of the word "masterful." Obviously, you have also reverted to the terminology of the antebellum south, and you harbor a longing for the days of "master-slave" relationships.
Okay, you caught me. I also accidentally typed "back-pedaling" when I meant "black-peddling."
Joseph: Most of the time I agree with what you write on your blog and I unfailingly find it all interesting, even if I don't agree, but I must object to this post from you. There is something much bigger at stake here than your being "offended" by the Obama campaign's response to her remarks about LBJ. I think that we are so screwed in this country (the economy, the war, to name the first two issues) that we truly do need a fresh face, a new voice, a youthful energy to lead us out of the logjam we find ourselves in. I personally know Obama and I tell you he's the real deal. I am a feminist almost exactly Hillary's age and, believe me, I have long anticipated being able to vote for a woman who has a viable chance of becoming president. But she will not get my vote this time around. I have no nostalgia for the Clinton days (if you doubt that statement, I urge you to read "The Shock Doctrine" for starters) and nothing Hillary has said or done over the past year or so has convinced me otherwise. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to walk down the center in order to capture the nomination and then the White House, but, if elected, he would, in my opinion, prove to be a truly transcendent leader. If you have any doubts, please remember that his wife is his toughest critic (I've watched her in action) and she's as liberal (and visionary) as they come. I know I am off-topic here, but your post seemed so over the top (for you) that I felt compelled to tell you how one of your longtime readers is justifying her vote for Obama.
ok three things:
1) form now on i will only drink Strawberry Quick. So my milk will neither be White only, nor "colored" like regular quick... (of course it will be commie pink, but hey, i couldn't find any green milk powders in the store...)
2) Iowa John, what do you have to say about Pictures of Matchstick Men?
now most importantly-- do you think that it's possible for Edwards to keep his nose clean here and let Obama and Clinton suffocate in the mud they're slinging and then walk through the middle higher ground? Gosh, that would be so cool (as cool as when i saw Al and Tipper dancing on the side of the stage with Bill Walton at a Grateful Dead show back in the early 90s)
It is unfortunate that so much valuable time is spent on the tit for tat.
I could understand if Los Angeles was on fire and being looted as a result of Clintons' comments.
But the flames that are being fanned are figments of media imagination. If Clinton and Obama had the maturity to run this country, they would continue to pound away at the issues that perpetuate class warfare and racism, the Economy, the War, compassionate conservatism that is anything but, balancing budgets, etc...
If the two are serious about racial issues, then how about skirting all of those other difficult issues and discussing how to rebuild New Orleans.
-sig Mentor
anon (I'm talking to the anon who claims to know Obama), I have read (and previously discussed) "The Shock Doctrine." And I say you're full of it.
As I've said many times, I do NOT want Hillary to win the nomination, but that doesn't mean I'm going to put up with this maniacal progressive lying about her that we see on all the left sites. She has the most liberal voting record of anyone in the race, and yet the fucking detestable progs are painting her as the new face of Bush.
You can't see a difference between the Clinton years and what followed? You are just plain STONE COLD NUTS. Bill Clinton was the best president of my lifetime, and I'm not much younger than you are.
If there was no difference, then why did all the Friedmanites mount such a massive effort to demonize Clinton as a commie during the 1990s?
There's no point talking to you. You are simply insane.
Lee, "Pictures of Matchstick Men" strikes me as largely unremarkable psychedelic fair. The hook isn't bad, but more than anything it makes me want to listen to Vanilla Fudge.
I could see a music-minded director (i.e., Tarantino) finding a good use for it.
Oh, and Top of the Pops film is always hilarious, because the drummers aren't allowed to make too much noise, so they look like they're tickling babies with their drumsticks.
*Ahem* Er, yeah, um . . . how 'bout that politics, eh?
Joe, I strongly agree with what you wrote, but I, like you, will still vote for Obama if he is our nominee.
Anyone trying to make a case that the Clintons are racist, is either a right-wing troll pretending to be a Democrat, or a seriously misguided pure progressive/Obama supporter.
Clearly, Hillary's statement about Dr. King's dream and LBJ is not hard to understand...Dr. King had "the dream," and LBJ was the one who used his clout to get civil rights legislation passed so he could sign it into law, thus "the beginning" of seeing the dream come true.
CLEARLY, IF LBJ HAD NOT USED HIS CLOUT AND SIGNED IT INTO LAW, DR. KING'S DREAM WOULD NOT HAVE BEGAN TO COME TRUE (BEGAN TO BE REALIZED).
Indeed, since Nixon and Ford would have never pushed legislation to "begin the realization of Dr. King's dream," it would have fallen to Jimmy Carter to try to pull it off...and Carter never, ever had the clout that LBJ had in 1964.
John (SluggoJD)
Update
Both Obama and Clinton have issued positive statements in support of the common good, and in support of each other. Hopefully this will all die down quickly.
We must do our own part as well.
John (SluggoJD)
ABC News' David Wright, Andy Fies, and Sunlen Miller Report: Sen. Barack Obama told ABC News Monday there is nothing in Sen. Hillary Clinton's record that would give him any cause for concern about her in terms of racial politics.
Asked how Obama interpreted two recent remarks by the Clintons that prompted an angry reaction from some in the Black community, Obama sought to damp down the racial dynamics of the controversy.
Many African Americans were offended when Hillary Clinton told an interviewer in New Hampshire, "Martin Luther King's dream became a reality when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Some say she seemed to suggest that it took a white politician to fulfill a black man's dream.
"I don't think it was in any way a racial comment," Obama told ABC News. "That's something that has played out in the press. That's not my view."
But, he said, the comment was revealing about her political character. "I do think it was indicative of the perspective that she brings, which is that what happens in Washington is more important than what happens outside of Washington," he said.
He said he believes the quote betrays a belief on her part, "that the intricacies of the legislative process were somehow more significant than when ordinary people rise up and march and go to jail and fight for justice."
He called that a "fundamental difference" between them.
Joseph says..
He's the candidate; I'm the voter. He needs me; I don't need him.
He needs you like he needs a tumor and stop lusting after Elizabeth
dennis
Wow. and here we were all excited that "Dennis" was DK (since last time, in the abductions post, he did sign as Dennis Kucinich) but i guess that wouldn't be the case. DK wouldn't talk like that. DK wouldn't call Cannon a tumor. DK would have again responded with issues (of his own choosing)... and if DK could ignore the first several comments about The-Wife-who-would-endorse-
Ru-Paul-if-hubby-don't-place he wouldn't bring it up here.. but in the Shrimp Fucks Cabbage post down there... But in case it is Mr. DK-- our sympathies for you and yoru brother Perry (...won't even ask about the bank heist)
"2. He attacked his opponent's strength. The Clintons have always been popular in the black community. A large percentage of the voters in South Carolina are black; Obama needs black Clinton voters to switch over to him."
"
But black folks we know that we never trusted the Clintons all along. We just pretty much tolerated them because our natural enemies in the white supremest party hated them so much. What's that saying? "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? It was a friendship of convenience if you will. But now it looks like that friendship is over. Don't listen to the high profile black folks coming out in their defense, listen to the man on the street. Listen to black folks talking at the water cooler at the offices. Listen to what we are saying amongst each other if you really want to know what's going on. (Sorry white people, I know some of you can't listen because you don't know any black folks like that. But just take my word for it on this one, you will have to just trust the field)" -The Field Negro
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2008/01/we-never-trusted-them.html
will, I wouldn't trust that site to represent the views of the majority of American blacks. I'd like some poll data. I mean, you can prove pretty much anything with anecdotal evidence.
Poll data? The country is split over how to pronounce 'data'.
Check out apparent Edwards supporter Kevin Alexander Gray's interview with Amy Goodman today about South Carolina:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/15/race_politics_dr_king_and_the
(the link is good) or watch it there.
Highlights: He's a black lawyer (and author and former ACLU lawyer) from SC who says he has the same "working people" heritage as Edwards, who won the SC primary in 2004, has little in common with Clinton or Obama; he says Hillary has no 'record' about race, but Bill's no friend if you look at his record.
It's a wonderful interview even though Amy ran out of time.
Senator Obama's been looking for a way out of the race for a while now. Looks like he just inadvertently (?) gave himself one.
Post a Comment