Bill Clinton is not a racist but he and Hillary's camp ARE playing the race card.

Of course they're not racists. But of course they'll do anything to win. And they knew in order to beat the first viable Black candidate (viable for the very fact he TRANSCENDED race) they had to turn him INTO the "Black candidate" which it looks as though they successfully have done (at least in the eyes of older voters). From Billy Shaheen raising the "idea" that he MAY have been a drug dealer, to Kerrey claiming that the fact that his middle name is Hussein and the lie that he went to a Madrassa are "good" things, to Robert Johnson talking about his drug use and saying he was referring to his community service, to Hillary saying Obama was giving FALSE hope and that MLK couldn't have realized his "dream" without the help of LBJ, to Bill saying "this whole thing is a fairy tale" referring to his supposed change of position on the war, to Bill saying he "understands" Black people wanting to vote for Obama "for obvious reasons," they most certainly DID play the race card. And if they (yes, "they," not just Hillary) win the nomination and then ask Obama to be her running mate in order to bring the Black vote BACK to them, I hope he not only turns them down, but gives them a piece of his mind.

both of those camps are playing the race card.
Obama says if America elects me the world will see America differently
When Clinton spoke about MLK and Johnson she was not dissing MLK she was recognizing that Johnson also had a significant role
Obama camp screamed Clintons are dissing MLK. That's a race card.

Mrs Obama was telling the black community that they better get it last year. Thats the race card

Don't you get it?

Why did Hillary have to say ANYTHING about MLK? She lied, saying he compared himself to MLK which he didn't do, and then she went on to try to minimize MLK's role in the Civil Rights Movement.

Michelle Obama did NOT tell the Black community that they better "get it." She was responding to a question about why his support among Black voters was smaller than Hillary's, and she answered that Black people who LIKE Obama and WOULD vote for him are afraid a Black man can't win and that's why they won't vote for him...and that sooner or later they'd wake up and realize that's not true (as was proven in Iowa, which is when his support among Black people DID increase. She was right. She wasn't TELLING people they better get it. Don't YOU get it?

the Black vote will be there for her in November.

a reverse Perot.

national unity. A key organizer of the effort to draft Mr. Bloomberg for a presidential run acknowledged in an interview on Monday that that Mr. Obama’s rise could be problematic."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08bloomberg.html?ei=5090&en=2ad59834575add96&ex=1357448400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1199894847-zsK81Ufubka6/tDzb3Azug&pagewanted=print

And I've heard LOTS of pundits saying if Obama wins, Bloomberg is unlikely to get in Obama's way. Obama brings in Independents and some Repubs., unlike Hillary.

callers talking of how proud they now have one of their own--they have waited 350 years for his day--and similar comments.

It was wonderful listening to many of them.

The fact that Obama is Black (I know he is bi)--will play a role. He embodies blackness.
--as it will for Hill who is a women and embodies womanness.

I know you mean well, but that is simply too much.

First, I don't believe that an African-American would say that "they" (your term) had waited "350 years" for Bill Clinton's day. You say you heard it, I don't believe you.

Regardless, in your rush to aggrandize your candidate, your post trivializes an entire people and their amazing and proud history.

And you and many Clinton supporters wonder why their is animosity felt.

Duplicate.

unlike Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who were seen as "Black candidates" by White people.

But don't forget that her operatives got caught even in Iowa spreading the insidious and racist "Barack is a Muslim" lie.

an advantage. Bet he wishes he had left it alone.

in Iowa (3% black) or NH (3% black).

He WON Iowa, and it wasn't because of the black vote.

Once again, Bitwit lives up to his name.

For Iowa and NH, race being played up was a net negative to Obama (I say net because Obama not being white was also part of what made him new and different in his image which has a positive aspect for younger voters of all races who make up a lot of Obama's enthusiastic base). For South Carolina, race being played up is big positive for Obama. After South Carolina it will be mixed but probably net negative.

In Nevada it was Obama supporters who attempted to play the hispanic race card against Clinton and Obama did not disavow it. It was at the Nevada debate that all candidates pledged to not further racialize the primaries. One can make the case that it was in Hillary's campaign's interests to not allow race to be a focus after NH with SC approaching, but the case can be made that it was the opposite for Obama. And Obama's campaign has not been shy about both overtly appealing to African American pride in South Carolina AND in continuing to mine comments made by one or both Clinton's prior to the NH primary for racial content, to continually rally SC Black's away from Clinton.

You have succinctly documented Clinton's favorite hits. It seems just about everybody else except the most, um, dedicated Clinton sycophant sees that and is talking about it. The tag-team systematic nonstop invocation of race by the Clinton camp is probably the worst low the Democratic Party has hit in decades. Winning at any cost has been taken to a new level by the Clintons.

Yup, I can't believe how low they're going to bring Obama down. I hope, if Hillary somehow becomes president, Obama runs against her in 4 years and beats her. After 4 more years of secrecy, managing the news, and who knows what else, the country will see how wrong they were to elect Hillary.

I think the press corps WANTS to believe the race card has been played, but a couple of bone-headed remarks and some silly-assed statements from both sides' surrogates is hardly a racial incident. And Obama is hardly without sin in these matters; he's walked into more than one blunder himself.

The race-card issue is pettifoggery. The constant and baseless repetitions that "The Clintons are liars" and "Hillary will do anything to win" are quite a bit more serious. This used to be a surrogate-only sport, but Obama himself seems to be buying into it and has used it in a campaign ad.

This is not good for Obama. It sounds like the GOP in 1998, only from a position of weakness. As long as he continues this kind of response, the greater number of people will side with the Clintons. Obama needs to get back to the insubstantial-but-inspiring rhetoric; THEN, when he's comfortable again, he can get into the meat of policy issues. I find that he is excellent in dealing with issues, and still wonder why he didn't get into policy debates earlier, if for no other reason than to parry Clinton's strikes.

--p!

That's a joke. Obama was not the one who brought race into this. That's why he was so appealing to ALL races. The Clinton camp put the idea into people's heads that he's Black, a possible past drug dealer, a secret Muslim, etc.

It's been said that the Clintons will do anything to win by people who know them best.

Of COURSE this isn't good for Obama! The Clintons dragged him into it!

What is that, the new Obama post-hypnotic suggestion?

90% of these posts are:

1) The Clintons are liars.

2) The Clintons "will do anything to win". (Even BHO has said that -- in an ad, no less.)

And your conspiracy theory about the Clintons' alleged racism won't work, either -- the first attacks came from the Right, and Hillary clamped down on surrogates (e.g. Bob Kerrey) citing the attacks. These are matters of record.

"If it bleeds, it leads." That's the press corps' motto, not a devious plot by ten-foot-tall Bill Clinton.

--p!

That's a perfect example of them doing anything to win. You think the Clintons didn't TELL Billy Shaheen to say what he said? I got a bridge to sell you.

Bill Clinton lied about a blow job. That is not enough to convict both of them of habitual lying. Repetition won't make it any more true. And while you claim Hillary is doing "anything to win", when Obama does it, he's just fighting back against the giants -- poor guy!

Do you think anyone other than Obama supporters believes that?

Every single accusation made against the Clintons can be made against Obama -- because those accusations are malicious gossip and nothing more. Both Clinton and Obama clamped down on their surrogates -- so, did Obama directly tell his surrogates to smear the Clintons?

Or is it that political surrogates are prone to shoot their mouths off?

The idea that Clinton can do no right and Obama can do no wrong is a fantasy of a kind that exists in the moral framework of children. Nobody is without fault, and nobody is simon-pure. By trying to convince the world that the Obama-v-Clinton contest is a war between Good and Evil, you risk cultivating widespread incredulity about Obama. And people have heard the exact same complaints about the Clintons since 1991 from better mud-slingers than Team Obama. They will conclude that Obama is little more than the new smear artist, no matter how often you shout "No! Hillary is the bad one! Obama is good!"

I don't want to see that; I know this is the usual primary scrapping. But spending so much effort to tear the Clintons down, you will succeed only in tearing Obama down. That would be bad, because after the Hillary Clinton administration repairs the damage done by Bush, Obama should be ready and eager to take the reins, to build on our Democracy's new, stronger foundation.

--p!

of her campaign. They HAD to have Hillary's approval by saying such things, and I'm sure they did.

surrogates not directly connected to a campaign - it would appear that it is Obama that is "playing the race card" - not Clinton.

As to needing a politician to get a bill through Congress and sign a bill into law - that would appear to be Civics 101. Indeed in that speech She first noted that President Eisenhower did not push through a bill, despite there being civil rights activity going on. Indeed the LBJ tapes released show LBJ asking MLK to continue his protests because he needed those protests in order to get the Congress to move on his civil rights bills. It took both.

But Obama turned this into the race card - as shown by your post.

And that will result in a much larger win in SC, a smaller win by Hillary on 2/5, and Obama combining with Edwards to win at the convention as the most likely scenario.

The Greeks and Romans pushed the idea of "who benefits" - and after 2000 years that is not a bad place to start an analysis.

Race came into it when Hillary's camp made implications which Obama had to start responding to. Obama's goal wasn't to win big in SC and lose white support. That's the Clintons' goal and it seems like their mission may have been accomplished.

white votes - it fails at a basic level since the Clintons did nothing -

Saying pretend slights are in any comment by any Democrat that supports Clinton may work for you - it doesn't for the rest of us.

Good grief - we had a week of posts on the word "kid" used by a surrogate being close enough to "boy" to get offended. Get a life.

She has taken white votes away from him by all the smears/implications/innuendos.

Who are you telling to "get a life"?

out days later--after the toxic rhetoric had taken its toll. That is not a trait in a leader I want.

...to Hillary saying Obama was giving FALSE hope and that MLK couldn't have realized his "dream" without the help of LBJ, /////

in my book, because they started it and are feeding the racial meme. Obama is simply defending himself. He did say he didn't want to wrestle in the mud over race, but the Clintons gave him no choice.
So be very proud of them. :eyes:

:hi:

How is it that John Edwards, who is Caucasian, has managed to campaign this whole time without invoking race? Yet neither the Clintons nor their surrogates can seem to go 48 hours without doing it. Odd, that.

John Edwards has the most to benefit by having voters become disgusted with the brawling between the Clinton and Obama camps, and anything he can do to position himself as totally "above it" representing "the adult wing of the Democratic Party" plays to his relative advantage. It is how he can best play the hand dealt him with his opponents being the first Woman and first African American running who have a good chance of being elected President.

Still, he's managing to succeed in not invoking race. It's really not that hard to avoid doing, you simply don't make comments that could be constued as racial in tone. The Clintons and their surrogates can't seem to not do that.

and that happened in Nevada also. It simply is not a one way street.

and it worked until the Clinton camp injected race into it.

Sorry if you already saw part or all of it posted before. There is a very complex and high level dance going on to win the Presidential nomination. Anyone only looking at it two dimensionally trying to find a villian and a hero is going to miss a lot of important stuff. Of course Bill is a big asset to Hillary because he is a popular with Democrats ex-President. But Hillary also gets all the baggage brought her by being in the bullseye of the National Republican Party for 15 years while the G.O.P. kept searching for a formula to nuetralize the only full two term Democratic President since FDR.

The Clintons resorted to hard ball against Obama after Edwards and Obama settled on a campaign strategy this summer that played up and emphasized Hillary's negatives, which were laced with prior hits from the Republican slime machine. Bill in particular became frustrated that the media was not performing the traditional "vetting" function on Obama that it normally does in a Presidential campaign, instead settling on giving Obama their "celebrity" template treatment instead. This despite the fact that Obama has escaped serious vetting in any political campaign to date since his one U.S. Senate victory was a cake walk after the designated Republican candidate withdrew because of a sex scandal leaving extremist carpet bagger Allan Keyes as Obama's token opponent.

The media was willing to endlessly repeat the attack meme that they themselves were complicit in helping create about how "unlikable" Hillary was, but did not give attention to any aspect of Obama's biographical story that might cause him to lose support in the general election. The Clinton campaign clearly went too far in a negative manner in some instances in response to their frustration. Playing a race card at times became part of that. I am on record here at DU saying so at the time.

But Obama learned the trick of playing the victim card perfectly (and I am not disputing that he was often a victim when he played it). He learned how to globalize instances of unfair treatment of him and tied it to a preexisting anti-Clinton mantra that fed off of long standing media hostility toward the Clintons. And in the charged atmosphere that developed Obama managed to land a number of low blows himself by either he or those in his camp overly spinning some comments by Bill or Hillary Clinton out of context into affronts on African Americans and Martin Luther King Jr. specifically. That strengthened a growing racial backlash against Hillary in South Carolina. A truce was called for, probably with behind the scene pressure from leading Democrats being applied to both Clinton and Obama, and agreed to at the Nevada debate.

Since that truce was agreed to it has not fully been put in place, and I think Obama bears some blame for that and I choose to say so now because the conventional wisdom around here is that Clinton is always the one to blame for the ugliness, never Obama. Obama's refusal to distance himself from the racial subtext language of the spanish radio ad that was broadcast on his behalf by a Nevada union was just as shameful as anything the Clintons have done regarding race. That was injecting a race card into a new dimension of the Democratic contest. It was high profile Obama supporter Joseph Lowery who thundered in the South that Blacks who express doubt that Obama can win because of racism in America are exhibiting "a slave mentality". It is hard to find a more overt use of "the race card" to influence an election than that was. Atlanta's Mayor just twisted Bill Clinton's words whereby he called Obama's claim to be an unbroken fierce opponent of the Iraq war "a fairy tale" into Bill Clinton calling the hopeful aspirations that Barack Obama evokes the fairy tale instead. That was a very racially inflammatory twisting of Clinton's words.

Both sides bear some guilt now.

I do NOT think Edwards and Obama had a strategy to gang up on Hillary. I think Edwards tried to become a "me, too" candidate to inject himself into the race, which gave the APPEARANCE of them ganging up on her. Bill was frustrated that Obama was doing so well-not that Edwards was attacking Hillary.

And do you forget that the MSM was constantly calling Obama "naive" and saying he was making "rookie mistakes" when the things he was saying were correct in the opinions of many experts?

Yes, the Clintons injected race into this which is the ONLY reason Obama and his camp had to respond, sadly, playing into their game. Of course Black people were proud of Obama being so successful in his campaign and SAID so, just as women did with Hillary. But Hillary used her gender as an issue from the start. Obama responded to the Clinton camp out of necessity.

There was a point in this election campaign, in mid to late Summer after several debates had already happened, when there was a shift in campaign tactics. Prior to then viewers and pundits were commenting on, in a role reversal, how nicely the Democrats played with each other in public compared to the Republicans. Up to that point Clinton was the clear front runner and she was running a clear front runners campaign. In other words the last thing Hillary wanted to do was go hard negative and potentially upset the apple cart. Everyone staying mostly positive was her ticket to victory. There was then a conscious and openly announced decision by the Obama campaign to go negative against Hillary (and I don't equate negative with being underhanded). They said they intended to sharpen the contrasts between their positions and the politics of old represented by Clinton.

That was a pivot point to the campaign and it wasn't a Clinton initiative. Edwards arrived at that decision earlier than Obama did, but while it was mostly only Edwards attacking her Clinton focused on a strategy of ignoring him, thereby trying to help turn the contest into a two person race while staying positive and focused on fighting Republicans in preparation for the fall.

The media was not always kind to Obama but on the whole they were massively kind to Obama. They went into overdrive describing him as a "rock star". They endlessly promoted his book before he even became a candidate for President. Oprah, who after all is nothing if not media, was openly pushing him for President. Obama made the front cover of whichever it was, Time or Newsweek or both. All of this before he barely finished a year in the Senate. The phenomena of Obama was covered continually. The promise of Obama was promoted endlessly. What was not talked about much was Obama's actual record, especially his record before getting elected a U.S. Senator.

As to that part about Hillary promoting her gender but Obama not promoting his race, there are a lot of ways to respond but this is probably the simplest. If Hillary herself calls attention to her gender she is reminding a majority of voters of something she has in common with them. If Obama himself calls attention to his race he is reminding a distinct minority of voters of something he has has in common with them. I have no reason to think the behaviors would be not be reversed if the percentages were reversed. In South Carolina where likely a majority of voters will have race in common with Barack Obama, he has not exactly been shy about letting that be noticed.

Obama pointed out their differences, sharpening the contrasts, just like you said (and HE said). Edwards attacked. I still remember after that debate all the commentators were saying they expected OBAMA to be on the attack but it was EDWARDS who was on the attack. The media was hoping for a fight that Obama never said was going to happen. It was like they were disappointed in Obama.

Obama got coverage because of his inspiration he was obviously stirring in people. The others didn't give off the same vibe/message. But his record was covered, or more precisely, his lack of a record (even though he had nearly 20 years in public service including years in the IL Senate. He WAS called on his supposed naivete' and rookie mistakes, and that's fair, but the Clintons and their camp turning him into a "Black candidate" shouldn't have happened.

That could be true (about the gender vs. race, but the facts as they stand are still the facts.

Clearly there is something compelling about him, but the attention he received was qualitatively different than that given to other potential Presidential candidates as a result. Like I said above, I never would claim that he ONLY got positive attention, but I sincerely believe that his past was not probed in the same way that other potential Presidential candidates have been vetted by the media.

And I actually like Obama also, so there :)

I can live with that. :)

That Hillary needs the black vote to guarantee her the nomination. Obama upsets that strategy. No doubt, Bill would like to think he can get the black vote for Hillary or a good percentage of the black vote. That seems likely to me that that would be part of their startegy. But, I don't know that I would call it "racist". I think we may need to come up with a new word?

they're NOT racist but they ARE playing the race CARD.

Because they both are trying to use it to their advantage. At this point, it appears Obama is using it more effectively. But not in a "racist" way.

encouraged "the extremes."

MLK knew this form of divisive politics only serve *the political* elites as it pits factions against one another.

The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Chapter 23: The Mississippi Challenge

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/autobiography/chp_23.htm

JULY 16, 1964: King asserts that nomination of Senator Barry Goldwater by Republicans will aid racists.

Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated.
---------------------

Could the same be said that HRC's form of "Democratic Conservatism" (DLC = Corporations first and always) is TOXIC to our country? Is it not *curious* that both HRC's Clintonian DLC's operatives and The RNC have been using the same ole DIVIDE AND CONQUER type campaigning and dirty tricks since Nixon resigned the Presidency?
---------------------

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

The celebration of final enactment of the civil rights bill curdled and soured. Rejoicing was replaced by a deep and frightening concern that the counter-forces to Negro liberation could flagrantly nominate for the highest office in the land one who openly clasped the racist hand of Strom Thurmond. A cold fear touched the hearts of twenty million Negroes. They had only begun to come out of the dark land of Egypt where so many of their brothers were still in bondage-still denied elementary dignity. The forces to bar the freedom road, to drive us back to Egypt, seemed so formidable, so high in authority, and so determined.


http://www.aznews.us/it_is_time_to_demythologize_goldwater_by_telling_the_truth,_goldwater_was_a_racist.htm

The best thing that ever happened to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s is Barry Goldwater lost his bid to become president of the United States by a landslide.

If Goldwater had won, the United States would not have Civil Rights and equal justice for all. Blacks would still be riding in the back of City of Phoenix buses and forced to use their own restrooms. The Orpheum and Herberger Theatres, Chase Field, and US Airways Center would all have two entrances. Front grand entrances for whites. Back dark small doors for Blacks to use.

Hell, Nixon was too LIBERAL to the Goldwater Conservatives who have gifted Lee Atwater's tactics to the right wing duopoly of "old guard" politicos clawing and scratching by using the old *DIVIDE AND CONQUER* strategy in order to HOLD ONTO THAT GOD ALMIGHTY POWER. :thumbsdown:

:hi:

I think he has diminished himself and his legacy by using these kinds of deplorable tactics all to see Hillary installed in the White House as Prez. I've always defended them but I can't now. I see what they are capable of and it's very ugly indeed. Seeing them attempting to blame it all on Obama is beyond disgusting when they are the ones who started it. Just how stupid do they think people are?

and welcome to the DU! :hi: It's nice to have someone else aboard who gets it! But re: "Just how stupid do they think people are," sadly, there seems to be just enough stupid people to give Hillary the nomination and then the Repubs. the presidency.

And people thought the DLC was a Democratic idea!

What a fuckin' joke!

Yeah, a joke that some people are buying into.

And it was obvious!!

And rightfully so.

But, I forgot, she doesn't apologize for anything she does - just like George Bush!!

If SHE ends up winning, the Clinton fans will realize too late that they voted for another 4 years of Bush-like politics.

:hi:

While Obama was actively supporting them in his community, fighting poverty on a daily basis, what community efforts was Hillary involved with at the time?

Besides being the wife of the governor of Arkansas, that is.

The Clntons don't have any use for the Grassroots or the Democratic Party Base.
Show ME the $MONEY.