You asked for evidence. Here it is.

Last night I wrote a diary on my view of the highly unfortunate eruption of racial politics in this primary. For the most part, it described my deep disappointment at the way the Obama campaign has pushed the race card in this campaign. Some people responded by casting doubt on my truthfulness (to put it charitably) and demanding evidence, which by itself is not unreasonable.

Original diary: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/12/4584 0/3701

I don't really feel like doing a whole lot of new research, since the topic is utterly depressing, but I will copy and paste a few examples I compiled when this was last an issue in the week or so after the New Hampshire primary. (I refrained from posting it then because the candidates agreed to an informal truce, but it is sadly relevant again.)

Keep in mind that all of these examples are from just five days in January, and that they all have to do with Obama staffers or Obama himself. These aren't random supporters who are unaffiliated with the campaign.

January 9. From http://www.startribune.com/politics/1355 7751.html

"I think that Senator Clinton, obviously, is a formidable and tough candidate, and we have to make sure that we take it to them just like they take it to us," the Illinois senator said. "I come from Chicago politics. We're accustomed to rough and tumble."

January 8. From http://www.politico.com/news/stories/010 8/7788.html

A senior Obama staffer just told me the Barack Obama campaign is livid over Hillary Clinton's recent comment about Martin Luther King Jr. and what was apparently her attempt to point out the difference between dreaming and accomplishment.

Some in the Obama campaign are now outraged at what they take to be a denigration of King's accomplishments and the sacrifices made during his era.

"Go ask black people what they think of that statement," the Obama staffer told me.

"People died for the civil rights movement in this country. People marched and put their kids in front of fire hoses! They were bitten by dogs! This is the worst thing she has said in this entire campaign."

January 9. From http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/ob ama_campaign_cochair_questions_hillarys_ tears.php

"But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."

January 12. From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12 /obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

"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."

January 11. From http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?u uid=6A698AA2-3048-5C12-0015C8592526ACA9

"A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements," said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.

"There's a groundswell of reaction to these comments -- and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we've heard for several months," she said. "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?"

January 13. From http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 108/Obama_Clinton_rewrites_history.html

Obama: "What we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. But Sen. Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it, and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

It should be noted that by January 13, the conflagration was already in full force. Given an opportunity to tamp down the flames, Obama decided not to do so and (1) essentially lied about whether his campaign had anything to do with pushing the story, (2) appears to agree that the statement was offensive, and (3) invited reporters to keep the story alive.

At this point I'll defer to someone of greater moral authority than almost anyone else alive, civil rights activist and congressman John Lewis, on January 14:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/ jan-june08/race_01-14.html

I knew Martin Luther King, Jr. I marched with him. I worked with him. He played a major role in inspiring people, giving people hope.

I also knew Lyndon Johnson. I was there with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on March 15, 1965, when we watched Lyndon Johnson deliver his speech in response to what was happening in Selma, when he said, "And we shall overcome."

I looked at Dr. King. He looked at me, and tears came down his eyes. And he said, "We will get the civil rights bill, the voting rights bill passed. We will march from Selma to Montgomery."

I think there's been a deliberate, systematic attempt on the part of some people in the Obama camp to really fan the flame of race and really try to distort what Senator Clinton said. I understand and I think most right-thinking people understood what she said.

Martin Luther King, Jr., created the climate, created the environment, but it took a Lyndon Johnson to get the legislation through the Congress.

No one is trying to say Dr. King did little. He did a great deal. He is not crying out from his grave in Atlanta saying, "Defend me." His legacy doesn't need any defense...

Let me say, Judy, President Clinton and Senator Clinton have a long record of working to bring people together. Long before President Clinton ever dreamed of running for president, long before Senator Clinton ever dreamed of running for president, they have a history, a very, very long history.

And no right-thinking, informed American would ever believe that President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton would do anything to use the race card...

Well, I think it did come out of the language that Mr. Obama is using, but the Obama camp is also doing something else. They're sending out memos to members of the media, trying to suggest that the Clintons are playing the race card.

I suppose if people have other examples they can add them to the comments. I may do the same, but then again, if I never hear about this topic again, it will be too soon.

Update: Just to clarify, the first comment above is not related to race. I put it there for context--stung after losing the New Hampshire primary, Obama announced he was going to run a more aggressive campaign, and that's certainly what we got.

Display:


Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 3)

Um, have you ever heard the phrase "just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you" the fact that the Obama camp has decried examples of possible race-baiting does not make them culpable in said examples, any more than the Clinton camp calling out MSNBC for its sexism makes them responsible for said sexism.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM EST

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 2)

Usually..when you are paranoid, you are just paranoid !!

I agree with OrangeFur, the MLK/LBJ comparison was not a racial offense ~ indeed, it was a valid point to have made (albeit it was ill advised for her to try to make that point at that stage).. .as John Lewis pointed out!

And yes, I agree with OrangeFur that the Obama campaign made hay out of that statement... his black support skyrocketed as a result of that statement, and the way his campaign played it.  

The campaign has now turned full circle, and the Clinton campaign is making hay ~ he is now being tarred as the black candidate.

The whole process is pretty disgusting...


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 0)

The way his campaign played it??? Sorry, they didn't play. As a matter of fact, Obama used exactly the same words as John Lewis used - he said the statement was ill-advised. No mentioning of racism or anything, just that.

You still don't have proof for the claim that his campaign played this in any significant way. The media played it, but Clinton should have known that they would jump on ill-informed statements like that. You don't have to be very clever to see that coming.


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:45:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 4)

"Go ask black people what they think of that statement," the Obama staffer told me.

"People died for the civil rights movement in this country. People marched and put their kids in front of fire hoses! They were bitten by dogs! This is the worst thing she has said in this entire campaign."

THAT qualifies as playing....and these words go a lot farther than saying that they are "ill advised"


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 0)

still looks a lot to me like  seeing racism and pointing it out.  How is it again that the victim is the one that's wrong?

I guess you think Geraldine was right too.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 2)

 John Lewis;
    Well, I think it did come out of the language that Mr. Obama is using, but the Obama camp is also doing something else. They're sending out memos to members of the media, trying to suggest that the Clintons are playing the race card.
by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

yes, but only because they are.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

marcotom and I had agreed that the original comments (HRCs LBJ/MLK comparison) was not racist in nature.

We were discussing if Obama had played that comment, and made everyone believe it was racist.

You may see racism in that particular comment; I do not !!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How is it racist (none / 0)

to point out that a President used his bully pulpit to further the cause of MLK? I'm sure MLK was grateful for any help he could get, from anywhere he could get it.


by georgiapeach on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 2)

I think there's been a deliberate, systematic attempt on the part of some people in the Obama camp to really fan the flame of race and really try to distort what Senator Clinton said. I understand and I think most right-thinking people understood what she said

John Lewis


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

Does his personal opinion amount to proof?


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes.. (none / 0)

By the standards on this diary, his personal comments definely stand as proof. Unless they're positive statements about Obama (Lewis recently switched to Obama) in which case they wouldn't.


by grover738 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We're having a primary, (none / 0)

not a trial. Do I have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama's campaign went out of their way to fan the racist flames? No. Do I need proof? No. All I need is my own perceptions to decide what I believe and what I don't. That is all most people need or want to decide who to cast a vote for.


by georgiapeach on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

4 Page Memo Given to Tim Russert (none / 0)

which Tim Russert said was pushing the race issue in view of South Carolina.

That's the proof.


by chieflytrue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (none / 0)

The MLK/LBJ comment was racist.  There are any number of examples she could have used to make her point - that legislation/leadership gets results where rhetoric does not.  

She could have pointed to the environmental movement, should could have used consumer safety, ethics reform, suffragettes and womens rights, ERA, any number of examples to prove her point that rhetoric is not enough.  

Instead, she intentionally chose to say that a black civil rights leader, with charisma and rhetorical skills, traits that Obama shares, was not enough to improve civil rights and that it took a white man in office to improve civil rights.  

She chose the inflamatory comparasion - a comparasion that was inflamatory because of its racial overtones.  She brought this on herself.  

The later comment by her husband regarding Obama and Jessie Jackson was simply displicable - I knew that the instant I heard it.  

There's a pattern here and it's not pretty.  Frankly, I could not give a rip about what the Clintons did to advance civil rights in the past. I am interested in what they are doing now.  My sense is that they've never competed with a black man  for something they want.  Now that they are, you are seeing their true nature - and it's ugly.  


by ruskin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 5)

I think this whole thread is nothing more than either politics or a bunch of rich kids using race to support their candidate.  Let me tell you I am old enough to remember the 60's and what was going on.  I know what racism looks like and all this is just nonsense.  BO is upset about what HRC.  Let me tell you the clinton's were fight a viscious battle against racism when BO was in college getting high.  Using the word racism in this way not only demeans the meaning of the word but insults those who really suffered from racism.

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:09:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 5)

Yep, Obama is building the McGovern coalition, and we who are old enough remember how that movie ended.


by SusanCLE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 4)

I think you mean the McGovern / Dukakis coalition.  NE liberals and others who have similar political views just dont understand why candidiates like McGovern, Mondale, Dukaksi, and Kerry never seem to win.  The snear and insult working class voters (Reagan Democracts) and they JUST dont UNDERSTAND why they vote GOP for president but Dem for congress.  HRC and Bill Clinton understand this and this is something BO and his crowd just dont get.  And rather than admit the obvious they just go around yelling racist like they did after OH.  And now they thing yelling racist even louder is key.  What they need to do is look in the mirror.

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:23:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (none / 0)

So when did Obama scream racism exactly? Or is it fair to blame everything his supporters do on him, while the same obviously doesn't the other way round.


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 2)

SC primary.  Of course he doesnt do it that would show some spine.  He has his spin doctors do it.  But But But he is above that.

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:12:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the reason the right is afraid of Hillary (2.00 / 3)

is because she clearly is NOT a Kerry or a Dukakis. Neither is Obama, but because of his position on health care and increasing military spending and 'not demonizing' the Bush people who broke laws and his buying into the big lie on Social Security (now THAT will REALLY hurt black people) and a few other issues, they think they can live with Obama.

The crooks can live with him.. they think..

People wonder where all these people who seem to support Obama but who don't have a real clue about the real issues (in fact, they avoid discussing them) They come from the right, thats where some of them come from.

They are pretending to support both sides and stirring up s***.

In my opinion its because they are literally desperate to avoid a Hillary Clinton Presidency which could result in some really big changes in the country. Substantiative changes that we really desperately need.

To those who say Obama will bring about 'change' - Show me where in his platform - I see lots of hopes but no real specifics.

Thats why I think Hillary is the better choice.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (none / 0)

Nice one, hey when McCain talks about being tortued so people could live free, while Hill toking up, that will be cool too!


by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 3)

She didn't say that it took a white man in office to make those things happen. Now, you are guilty of catapulting the propaganda. Her point was that it took a powerful elected official leaning on all those levers of power to pass the legislation that made the ideals become reality. And to twist that point is playing a really cynical game.


by SusanCLE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 3)

I second that!

Further, LBJ gave up a LOT for the civil rights legislation too (the entire south for a whole generation).


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (none / 0)

Ask yourself, why did she use MLK / LBJ / civil rights as an example and not a non-racial issue?

For example, there are plenty of white environmentalists out there - why didn't she use Rachel Carson as an example?  She could of said "You can write all the books you want but it takes a committed elected official to get environmental progress"

Instead, she used MLK to interject a racial aspect to her point.  There's no other explanation.  


by ruskin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 2)

Because she was responding to a question about Obama's response to her 'false hopes' comment in the previous debate. The question pointed out that Obama was comparing his hopes to MLK's hopes for civil rights, and JFK's hopes, and what did Clinton think of that. Her response was pretty obvious, MLK was a great leader but he worked with a great Democratic president, LBJ, to accomplish his dream.


by souvarine on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 1)

I don't think anyone in their right mind decries LBJ  for his part in the civil rights movement or is trying to denigrate his importance.

However, it is incredibly naive to think that Hillary and her advisers did not pick that specific example for the specific reason that it involved a white person and a black person... so much thought goes into political messaging, particularly on the level that they are playing on, that there is no way that the racial overtones didn't play into the decision.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 2)

I think there's been a deliberate, systematic attempt on the part of some people in the Obama camp to really fan the flame of race and really try to distort what Senator Clinton said. I understand and I think most right-thinking people understood what she said

John Lewis


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (2.00 / 2)

John Lewis, on January 14:

   I knew Martin Luther King, Jr. I marched with him. I worked with him. He played a major role in inspiring people, giving people hope.

   I also knew Lyndon Johnson. I was there with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on March 15, 1965, when we watched Lyndon Johnson deliver his speech in response to what was happening in Selma, when he said, "And we shall overcome."

   I looked at Dr. King. He looked at me, and tears came down his eyes. And he said, "We will get the civil rights bill, the voting rights bill passed. We will march from Selma to Montgomery."

   I think there's been a deliberate, systematic attempt on the part of some people in the Obama camp to really fan the flame of race and really try to distort what Senator Clinton said. I understand and I think most right-thinking people understood what she said.

   No one is trying to say Dr. King did little. He did a great deal. He is not crying out from his grave in Atlanta saying, "Defend me." His legacy doesn't need any defense...

   And no right-thinking, informed American would ever believe that President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton would do anything to use the race card...

   Well, I think it did come out of the language that Mr. Obama is using, but the Obama camp is also doing something else. They're sending out memos to members of the media, trying to suggest that the Clintons are playing the race card.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seeing what you want to see (2.00 / 2)

Or, it could be said that it is the supreme compliment to compare ANY American to MLK and that what Senator Clinton was saying is "even though Senator Obama is a remarkable human being, someone I could rightfully compare to Doctor King, even Doctor King himself needed a strong president in the Whitehouse to push civil rights legislation through Congress."

You see, you could CHOOSE to see her remark that way, in a way that still politically benefits her while demonstrating respect for both Senator Obama and Doctor King, and meant in no way to diminish his accomplishments that should it serve to offend the black community would have suffered for insensitivity but not racism.

But INSTEAD, it's somehow more valid to see it as a life long Democrat and champion of equal rights and human rights, someone without so much as a hint of previous racist scandal in her background after two decades of searing public scrutiny was somehow, magically, a racist.  

Offer all the legitimate criticisms of the Clintons you like (and there are many) but anyone who knowingly promotes the rumor or the suspicion that the Clintons are racists based only one the most thinnest of "evidence" (but primariyl through drawing convienient conclusions) does not deseve my respect.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seeing what you want to see (2.00 / 0)

I don't care about the Clinton's record on race.  I care about what Ms. Clinton's said and done during this campaign.

Her purportedly lauditory record on racial issues makes her current behavior all the more disappointing and frustrating.  

Also, ask yourself, while the Clintons were helping out the African American community, were they ever fighting a black man to get what they wanted?  It's far more likely that they approached the race issue from the perspective where they had the power and privilege and they were helping out people who were disadvantaged.  With Obama, they are dealing with someone who is their equal.  

They desparately want to be back in power.  It's an unfamiliar situation for them - to be opposed by a black man.  So, its not surprising that they would act in manner that might be inconsistent with their prior history.  


by ruskin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

point well made n/t (2.00 / 0)


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seeing what you want to see (none / 0)

Obama is disadvantaged? Since when?


by SusanCLE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seeing what you want to see (2.00 / 2)

re-read the comment. He says that in the past they may have viewed their efforts as helping the disadvantage and now they are being challenged by a black man who is their equal.

At no point in the comment did he suggest that Obama was disadvantaged.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:33:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (1.00 / 0)

"Instead, she intentionally chose to say that a black civil rights leader, with charisma and rhetorical skills, traits that Obama shares, was not enough to improve civil rights and that it took a white man in office to improve civil rights."

WRONG.  The point was it took an experienced politican in Washington to twist arms and get this agenda passed.

It's unfair to use the term "white man in office", as we have only had them as Presidents.  There is no inclusive example to use at the moment.

You disgust me.


by Si Ella Puede on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Was a Racist Comment (1.00 / 1)

and MLK was the only example of this phenomenon in the history of politics?!  Wow what a coincidence that Obama just happens to share skin color with MLK, who just happens to be history's only example of what Hilary was trying to say.  

Actually, I don't think that they share skin color exactly, but that's not a problem as long as you have the editing equipment to darken Obama's skin to match.

Now if she can just figure out a way to help McCain's campaign at the same time, it'll be her best. talking. point. ever!  

Maybe she could comment on how McCain isn't just eminently experienced at foreign policy, and not just on the good side of the commander-in-chiefiness threshold, but also in possession of a historically more favorable melanin  count.  That'd be REALLY classy!

Do you think before you type or just regurgitate whatever transparent justification you've been spoon fed?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

The intention was NOT racial... The way it came out sounded a bit off.  It wasn't WHAT SHE SAID but HOW SHE SAID IT.

The first quote is a ridiculous one... There is NOTHING about racial in there... Chicago pride maybe but nothing racial.  Orangefur is really making it up as he goes along.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

I should have clarified this better. The first quote was included just to show that he was telegraphing his intention to go negative. And the next week, well, this is what we got.


by OrangeFur on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:44:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 1)

Enough of your amoral attitude. What you see above is PROOF that the Obama campaign INTENTIONALLY not only pulled out the race card, they fanned the flames of race-baiting. And guess what? It worked.

None are so blind as they that will not see.

That phrase was never more appropriate or true.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

This diary is NOT proof.  It is full of opinion and speculation.  What's also insulting is to imply that the majority of people voting for Obama (the majority of all votes by the way) were so foolish as to not see what so many people on MYDD call clear race-baiting.


by shalca on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 1)

Right! Uh huh.

Don't try hoodwinking me. I've seen the light. And it ain't Barack.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

you and a solid 900,000 fewer folks than have seen the light and it IS Obama.

Gee whiz, if you could only vote another million times or so.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (1.87 / 8)

There is a personal dynamic to the unfounded charges of racism. When people accuse Clinton of being racist, that puts them in the camp with the civil rights activists and other heros. That's why this rhetoric that the Clintons are racist is clung to so fiercely - it's flattering to the person making the charges. It also justifies the sheer hatred and misogyny that we see coming out of the camp.

Obama has run a morally deplorable and unbelievably devisive campaign. Hopefully, we'll recover from it, but it may be another 4 years before we do.


by Little Otter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:30:44 PM EST

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

What do people get out it when they accuse the Obama (or hell Obama himself) campaign of sexism and/or misogyny?  


by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 1)

The funny thing is that it is the same people that cry foul when one accuses the Clinton campaign of racism.

We should refrain from either. It just doesn't help.


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 2)

they get to state the truth. He did and his wife did make sexist statements.  but you will notice Clinton never called either of them on it.  She can't , but I sure as hell can.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 2)

Obama's rhetoric has been overtly sexist - "tea with ambassador" is at odds with the generously documented historical record of her time as First lady. That's no different than if someone accuses Obama of shining shoes in the state legislature rather than having been a state senator. It's the exact same comment - Obama's comment denies historical reality based on gender and the latter denies historical reality based on race.


by Little Otter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:57:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

Ah okay, so its all good then, wow wonder what those crazy negroes are thinking getting all offended and such, tsk, tsk!


by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

Seriously?


by OrangeFur on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nothing (none / 0)

because it never sticks.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (1.00 / 2)

and the other reason is.....

wait for it....

the Clinton's are stooping to racism out of desperation, cuz PA has a lot of folks who are, as the GOP puts it, racially conservative.

It's just another piece of progressivism to which Hilary is willing to put to the torch out of desperation and refusal to recognize that she has already lost.  She has lost because she is trailing by enough with few enough states left that any action she could take that would be drastic enough to bring Obama down would be such a slimy thing to do that it would cost her the nomination anyway.

Some examples might be:

* racism

* pretending like the first go round in Florida and Michigan was either valid or fair, like nobody noticed that everyone was told ahead of time that they wouldn't count and nobody noticed Barack wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.  I guess when insulting entire states isn't good enough, the experienced politician insults the intelligence of the voters.  It's makes the whole thing more personal, you know.

* taking credit for accomplishments that aren't her own

* or maybe even just making some shit up  about NAFTA just before the Ohio primary.

Even after Pa she'll be down in popular votes & the number of states won, and about the same amount of delegates as she is right now once N. Carolina votes.  

But I am  glad she's staying in the race because she's....
 just. so. fucking. classy!


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:53:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 2)

You are a seriously uninformed individual. Obama took himself Off the ballot in Michigan. That's why he wasn't on the ballot - he didn't want to be there. he chose to ignore the wishes of Michiganders - that's pretty much his tough luck. Hillary didn't take herself off the ballot and that's part of the reason she won.

John Conyers mounted a campaign on behalf of Obama in Michigan which is more than Hillary did.

Neither Hillary nor Obama campaign in Florida and they still had record turn out for the primary. Lots of voters were hoping their vote would count - over a million of them. If Obama supporters didn't turn out in the numbers they wish - that's their problem.

Hillary, for the record, is supporting revotes in both states. Obama is opposed.


by Little Otter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

AND THEY WERE TOLD AHEAD OF TIME THAT IT WOULDN'T COUNT!!!  

Gee you're a regular Soloman over there.  I am very informed.  I knew every word that you just types.  I also didn't choose to conveniently ignore that first fact in bold  at the beginning of this comment.

I am a VERY informed individual and you are dishonest to a degree that makes nothing else that you ever have to say to me valid until such time as you acknowledge that facts here.  Losing doesn't justify cheating.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 2)

But a lot of people chose not to believe that. Over a million people voted in Florida. What separates them from other voters?

And no, you didn't know Obama took himself off the ballot or you wouldn't be whining about it. If you choose not to participate, then when people don't vote for you - that's your tough luck. It was a dumbass manuever to try and get people in Iowa pissed at Clinton. It backfired badly.

Still, Clinton is the one who is supporting revotes even though she won both, and her supporteers have offered to pay for half.

No one has lost yet. And no one is cheating. Obama had the same chance in Michigan and in Florida that Hillary did. He lost in Florida fair and square and pulled himself off the ballot in Michigan. Now, he's whining about it.


by Little Otter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (1.00 / 1)

My god you're on acid or something !!  How is it that you are able to write english, but not understand it when you read it?!

You said:
And no, you didn't know Obama took himself off the ballot or you wouldn't be whining about it. If you choose not to participate, then when people don't vote for you - that's your tough luck.

which is about as removed from reality as anyone can get.  I really hope it IS drugs an not an I.Q. thing.

He took his name off of the ballot because the ballot wasn't supposed to count.  The proof that I am right and that you must be on something is that everyone but the folks in this little echo chamber has dismissed the idea of seating the delegates based on the first go 'round out of hand.   DNC won't go for it, Florida state democratic congressional member say nope, and even Hilary is pushing for a revote these days.  That's because even she has examined the tripe you just said and realized it won't fly.

It'll be a revote or no delegates.  Why?   Because most people aren't on whatever you took this morning.  Try Flintstone's chewable vitamins instead.

And please study ethics.  I could recommend some books if you  like.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

Then why didn't he take himself off the ballot in Florida? Why didn't dodd take himself off the ballot? Your reasoning is stupid it's hard to believe you've even tried to foist that off.

It was an attempted Machiavellian strike at Clinton that didn't work out as hoped. The idea behind pulling their names off the ballot was that Iowa voters would get mad at Clinton. What happened was that Michigan voters quite reasonably got ticked at Obama and Edwards.

He pulled himself. He has no cause to whine. If he wanted to win Michigan, he shoulda left name on the ballot. He made a decision. He has to live with it. And no, he isn't entitled to half the delegates in a state where he didn't want to compete. And Clinton kicked his ass soundly in Florida, so he isn't entitled to half there either.

Such disregard for the voters of those two states. Weird.


by Little Otter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are multiple innacuracies in (2.00 / 0)

this statement.

First, it omits the fact that Clinton herself said the Michigan votes would not count in October of 2007.

Second, it omits the fact that only 24% of Florida Democrats support seating the delegates elected in the primary.  This is because no one thinks the Florida in any way shape or form was a real primary.

Third, it omits the fact that Clinton's senior aide voted FOR punishing Florida and Michigan.  

Forth, it omits the fact that her campaign chairman threatened Michigan with removal of their delegates in 2004 when he was chairmen of the DNC.  


by fladem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are multiple innacuracies in (2.00 / 1)

No one thinks FL was a real primary? That's like saying the 2000 election wasn't real either. Ask the Dem voters of FL who actually cast ballots in FL what they thought, especially the majority that voted for Hillary over Obama.

The whole MI and FL brouhaha is more the result of certain Dems not wishing to offend NH and IA affecting their chances in the primary. Apparently many here forget how many on the Left were crying for states other than NH and IA to begin the primary season with, as neither state was deemed representative enough of America as a whole.

Only Hillary had the cajones to support the Left's position on this.

Please explain why Obama should benefit from a 50/50 split of the delegates when he's not on board for a revote in the state. Sounds to me like he's the one doing the disenfranchising.


by SoCalHillMan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are multiple innacuracies in (none / 0)

So at what point before the 2000 election was it announced to everybody that Florida would get no electoral college votes?

What color is the sky in your world?  Insist as stubbornly as you want.  Nobody outside of this little echo chamber agrees with you.  You won't see the delegation seated without a revote and your insistence on clinging to this nonsense only detracts from your credibility in your future attempts to speak on Hilary's behalf.

See what you do today affects your credibility in the future.  For instance, if I had spoken out publicly and repeatedly against a war that turned out to be a colossal mistake and then you had voted in favor of that particular war only to later be in a position where one of us had to debate someone else about that war... well... I would have credibility and you would not.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are multiple innacuracies in (none / 0)

Nobody outside of mydd agrees with me? What color is YOUR world?

What kind of credibility would I have if I said I didn't support a war yet continued to vote to fund that war upon being voted into office, even though I know to continue fighting that war is a colossal mistake? I would think zero, yet Obama supporters conveniently tend to ignore inconvenient facts such as this.


by SoCalHillMan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are multiple innacuracies in (none / 0)

Voting to start an unjustified invasion and occupation really is not the same thing as paying for food, medicine, armor, and armament for soldiers who are already in harm's way.  You can keep saying it, primary voters will keep showing you that you're wrong.  But hey, stick with that message.  It's working out great.

Yes, nobody outside of this little echo chamber (ok, very few is more accurate) agrees with you about whether the first go 'round in Florida and Michigan was fair and valid.  Even Florida democrats think it was bullshit.  They have come out against seating delegates based on it.  

You're wrong.  It's that simple.  But please, PLEASE, stick with that message too.  It just adds to Hilary's classy mystique.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She didn't (2.00 / 0)

Hillary is on record in October saying the Michgan vote wasn't going to count.  Her campaign (which had enourmous influence over the whole process) voted to punish Florida.


by fladem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:42:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She didn't (none / 0)

Hey, things change. If Obama can game the system, I'm all for Hillary as well.

You're talking to someone who wants a streetfighter going up against the GOP machine in November. Those people don't play by the rules at all, and people who talk about hope and change have yet to prove they can win.


by SoCalHillMan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:46:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She didn't (none / 0)

Link to Obama gaming the system please.  

Oh and that diary where someone completely misrepresented an e-mail doesn't count.  They found gamesmanship where it wasn't.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

I love how the losing side shoots the messenger.  Weak, very, very, weak.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

Morally deplorable? Unbelievably devisive? What the hell campaign have you been watching?


by AHunch on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (1.00 / 1)

I'm watching the one where the Clintons ARE engaged in racism, and ARE trying to change the rules in the middle of the game (rules to which they had no objections before the primary season started).

I'm watching the one where Michigan and Florida were told ahead of time that their delegates would not be seated.  I am watching the primary season wherein a candidate took his name off of the ballot because the DNC told everyone it wouldn't count and then, in an insult to everyone else's intelligence, the other candidate waits until AFTER the primary has come and gone to say that it should count.  

I am watching a primary season in which Hilary's staff darkens Barack Obama's image in a commercial, makes shit up about NAFTA just before the Ohio vote, and has nothing to say about Geraldine's hate speech.

Oh yeah, and I am watching the primary season where Barack Obama is inches away from a prohibitive lead anyway!!!!

Yes, we can.  


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

Check the Dem rules. You'll find the pledged delegates are not legally bound to vote for Obama. In fact, none of his caucus wins guarantees that all his delegates will show up when needed. That's why neither one has this locked up and will have to take their case to the convention. Obama supporters ignore this reality at their peril.


by SoCalHillMan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:01:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

Wow!  That's pretty thin.  Those delegates are chosen by the campaign that won them.  They are campaign members and close personal friends.  They are vetted.  Neither side will get 1 of the other's, not even 1.  If that's the plan, I hope y'all stick with it.  It really IS over if that's all you've got.

and Obama supporters are the hypnotized dreamers who aren't seeing reality.  Oh, it's a funny world we live.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

From what has been recently reported, Obama lost 8 pledged delegates in CO to Hillary on the basis of simply changing their mind about the Dem's choice for November, mostly due to the fact that some Obama people that might've kept them in line didn't show up.

By the way, even after the voting, the pledged delegates are still free to vote for whom they want regardless. That, my friend, is in the rule book.


by SoCalHillMan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

yeah, it's in the book.  It's also really, really, unlikely that they will do that.  As I said, please stick with that plan. Pin your hopes on it.  It'll work!  No really, it will!

Show me a link to the Colorado story please.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

here's another candidate who's ready on day one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqYbyUIGd J4


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 1)

The Democratic primary of 2008.


by OrangeFur on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is the rose-colored glasses (none / 0)

that every one of us is guilty of wearing.  I lean more towards Oabma, so I will admit my bias up front.  But, I am trying my best to hear and respect all opinions out there, including on this site.  

But, the more I read and listen, the more I want to throw-up.  

Can we all just admit to our own biases please.
The Clinton faithful are blaming the Obama camp for using race to further their cause, and the Obama faithful only see the Clinton camp injecting race into the equation at many points throughout the race so far.  

How do we bridge this gap?  On here, the solution seems to be to call each other morons and claim the one and only REAL TRUTH.  Come on people.

Is it possible that both sides have used the issue of race and maybe even gender to help further their cause?

DO I have an opinion on who I feel has started most of the hullabaloo?  YES.  But, I can admit I don't know the truth, b/c I am not on the inside and I can't possibly have all the information needed to claim the TRUTH.

So please, for the good of the party and all progressives every where, can we please begin admitting our own bias and start trying to listen more instead of pointing fingers and looking like the unintellegent party, instead of the very intellegent party that I think we are?

PLEASE PEOPLE, PLEASE!


by chill on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those quotes (2.00 / 2)

are all responses to Clinton campaign statements.

The only unprovoked references to race I ever heard Obama use was the occasional MLK "dream" segue, which many politicans of all races use.

In short, the Obama campaign is not playing the race card, and nothing you have posted suggests otherwise.  And they couldn't even if they wanted to, even in a Dem primary.  Can you imagine the backlash if Obama started railing against "the man" or saying something like "This is our [meaning African-Americans] turn!"?


by corph on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST

Responses to statements (2.00 / 7)

that contained imaginary racism.  Responses that tried to drum something up from nothing.

Look, you've got the candidate himself in a very carefully-parsed statement slamming Sen. Clinton's totally innocuous historical comment about the cooperation of MLK & LBJ and putting up the thin pretense that he is merely describing other people's reactions, while at the same time calling on the press to question Clinton about her statement.

You've got the Obama campaign putting out a talking points memo to journalists of so-called racist statements including Hillary's MLK-LBJ statement and Bill's "fairy tale" comment, which was far from racist.


by Trickster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Responses to statements (2.00 / 1)

And when i was growing up fair tale was one of the MOST racist words you could use.  If you yelled "fair tale" in a public place it would start a race riot.?????

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Responses to statements (none / 0)

That memo was not in any shape or form issued by the campaign. You know that very well, but you just prefer to keep spreading lies because it serves your candidate. A volunteer sent out that statement and Obama later regretted that.


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Responses to statements (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, because Obama NEVER takes responsibility for anything. it's always someone else. Except when he gets busted earlobe deep in Rezko shit - I'm surprised he didn't blame that on Michelle.


by Little Otter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:10:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wow! (none / 0)

Earlobe deep in Rezko shit, huh? So deep that he's not even a part of Rezko's corruption trial. So deep that despite a long media investigation nobody has said he has done anything wrong. You'd think HRC supporters would be sick of fake scandals after whitewater.


by grover738 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wow! (none / 0)

There hasnt' been a long media investigation. obama won't turn over law firm papers or even his schedule as a state senator. In fact, he has so vigorously refused to answer questions, that the Chicago Sun Times ran a headline the other day with their phone number telling him to call them.

Reporters don't get to issue subpoenas. There has been no investigation whatsoever of Obama's relationship with rezko. And what did Rezko want in return for spending $675k of his own money to benefit Obama?


by Little Otter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Responses to statements (none / 0)

If empty rhetoric is all that is coming out of your mouth, I consider this case closed.


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:29:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Responses to statements (none / 0)

Agreed.  This person will not engage in honest conversation.  That would mean losing.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:38:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Responses to statements (none / 0)

NO this comes from Drudge and it my understanding that if you are on the BO campaign that if Drudge says it it MUST be true.

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those quotes (2.00 / 3)

Please see the Spanish radio ad in Nevada he ran that called Clinton "shameless" and "without honor", which are code words to the Latino community that basically equate to, as one Hispanic blogger/commenter put it, Obama calling her an "f*** bitch."

But no, he doesn't play these games.


by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In response to what? (none / 0)

I'm not looking it up for you.  And even if he implicitly called her a "bitch", that's still not playing the race card.


by corph on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those quotes (none / 0)

"Youv'e been Hoodwinked...Bamboozled!"


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 1)

This is exactly why I wanted you to provide proof. At least you had the moral strength and honesty to try to find some. Anonymous reports by some staffers are not worth the ink they are written on - unless you want to allow anonymous reports from Clinton staffers as evidence as well.

But let's be real for a second. What you collected here while you were trying to find proof that Obama played the race card is actually showing quite the contrary. I feel even better about Obama after reading this diary. You really have nothing to support the idea that he is pushing the issue.

The only thing I didn't like at the time and will reject and denounce any time somebody asks me to is the comment by JJJr. That was completely uncalled for.


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:39:22 PM EST

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 2)

John Lewis, on January 14:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/ jan-june08/race_01-14.html

   I knew Martin Luther King, Jr. I marched with him. I worked with him. He played a major role in inspiring people, giving people hope.

   I also knew Lyndon Johnson. I was there with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on March 15, 1965, when we watched Lyndon Johnson deliver his speech in response to what was happening in Selma, when he said, "And we shall overcome."

   I looked at Dr. King. He looked at me, and tears came down his eyes. And he said, "We will get the civil rights bill, the voting rights bill passed. We will march from Selma to Montgomery."

   I think there's been a deliberate, systematic attempt on the part of some people in the Obama camp to really fan the flame of race and really try to distort what Senator Clinton said. I understand and I think most right-thinking people understood what she said.

   Martin Luther King, Jr., created the climate, created the environment, but it took a Lyndon Johnson to get the legislation through the Congress.

   No one is trying to say Dr. King did little. He did a great deal. He is not crying out from his grave in Atlanta saying, "Defend me." His legacy doesn't need any defense...

   Let me say, Judy, President Clinton and Senator Clinton have a long record of working to bring people together. Long before President Clinton ever dreamed of running for president, long before Senator Clinton ever dreamed of running for president, they have a history, a very, very long history.

   And no right-thinking, informed American would ever believe that President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton would do anything to use the race card...

   Well, I think it did come out of the language that Mr. Obama is using, but the Obama camp is also doing something else. They're sending out memos to members of the media, trying to suggest that the Clintons are playing the race card.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

Clearly, John Lewis was at the time a surrogate for the Clinton campaign. Is this proof for anything? Others said the complete opposite.


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (none / 0)

you insult Lewis and you are fool.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the same John Lewis (2.00 / 1)

who has now endorsed Obama.


by fladem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is the same John Lewis (none / 0)

well arent you the wiz?!

no kidding.

It was after they threatened he and his family.

But lets pretend that never happened...


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked for evidence. Here it is. (2.00 / 1)

I disagree with most of this.  Responding to something else based in race is not playing the race card.  But I do have one question...How is the first quote, about Chicago politics, racial?


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:39:48 PM EST

HMMMM (2.00 / 3)

John Lewis:

Well, I think it did come out of the language that Mr. Obama is using, but the Obama camp is also doing something else. They're sending out memos to members of the media, trying to suggest that the Clintons are playing the race card.


by SusanCLE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST

Re: HMMMM (none / 0)

That was done by a volunteer in SC. It was wrong and Obama said so. What else do you want?


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HMMMM (none / 0)

It was a volunteer, not a surrogate or something. And that person actually only used quotes by Clinton and other press reports. It was not a big deal. But I agree, it was a mistake and he probably could have reacted more quickly to it. But how about some perspective here? How does this incident compare with what Clinton, Shaheen and Penn started quite some time ago? You are willing to give them any benefit of the doubt and try to hang Obama on one single issue were he didn't act quickly enough?


by marcotom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]