Clinton Daily Talking Points

Campaign Talking Points

Over the last few days, the Obama campaign has distributed recent
comments from Senator Clinton and President Clinton to suggest that they
were diminishing Senator Obama's candidacy and casting aspersions on the
legacy of Martin Luther King.

Both Senator Clinton and President Clinton have devoted their lives to
helping people of all races and genders create better lives. With Dr.
King's birthday upon us, it's important to keep in mind that his true
legacy is about the things that bring to together not tear us apart.

Sen. Clinton invoked Dr. King because he was someone who understood
that words need to be combined with action in order to change lives.

There are media reports that the Obama campaign is distributing a memo
in an effort to sensationalize and drive this story. This is
unfortunate, especially coming from a campaign that says it is about
bringing people together.

Nobody wants to see the injection of race or gender into this campaign.
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are running as individuals. It is
absolutely extraordinary that the two leading candidates for the
Democratic nomination for president are an African-American and a woman.

Sen. Clinton's record on civil rights isn't just about what she's done
throughout her 35 years of advocacy, it's about what she'll do as
president. During this campaign, Hillary has advanced specific plans for
increasing opportunities and empowering communities. From cracking down
on predatory lending to creating opportunities for young people to
protecting the vote to restoring the Gulf Coast, Hillary is laying out a
clear blueprint for how she'll empower African-Americans as President.

As we go forward into this political season we must all be careful to
heed the lessons of Dr. King and focus on the things that unite us.

Comments

So is this really over?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 15, 2008 7:55 AM

Wait... The memo says, "There are media reports that the Obama campaign is distributing a memo
in an effort to sensationalize and drive this story."

That doesn't exactly sound like a cease fire. That sounds like what she was saying before the cease fire.

I mean, Obama bent over backwards yesterday to say that the Clintons weren't racists and weren't trying to diminish Dr. King. What more does he have to do to make her happy?

For the sake of the party, please, Clinton, call off your dogs already.

Posted by Dan | January 15, 2008 8:10 AM

Senator Obama still needs to get rid of Jackson Jr, and fire whoever was responsible for writing that memo.

Clinton has fired anyone on her staff who has stepped over the line, but Obama has not.

Obama is demonstrating that he either cannot control his staff or that he is endorsing their race mongering. Either way it shows that he is not fully prepared for the big league yet.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 8:17 AM

It looks like the clintons say they sahve accepted a truce and do something completely different. But of course, you all in the media are too busy proclaiming HIllary the conciliator and Obama the agitator, when the reverse is true, to notice that, huh?

Posted by RKA | January 15, 2008 8:26 AM

How is it that her campaign can simultaneously attack and say that we should be uniting in the same statement.

It is like on Meet The Press when she said she didn't want to inject gender into the race right after she said she was running to break the glass ceiling.

Posted by JBS | January 15, 2008 8:32 AM

Look, everyone, please let's stop acting like idiots here (guess I'd include myself in that category). Maybe the best thing to do is just interpret this memo charitably -- she still feels a little defensive and just needed to take one last shot. Okay... WE'RE DONE NOW. Let's just move on with our lives please.

If Clinton and Obama continue to do mutually assured destruction, the whole party is going to suffer. We will look like idiots, because we are acting like idiots. And soon enough we'll be singing "hail to the chief" to President McCain.

Posted by Dan | January 15, 2008 8:34 AM

Why is she bringing it back up? How dumb. I hope Obama ignores it. She's just trying to instigate. She is now in a position where if she comes out being negative it will make her look bad. She she is trying to bait him into starting the fight again. Funny how its okay to disseminate false information about Obama about his stance on Iraq and the women's rights, but when any one disseminates information about her somehow its not right. This woman is crazy. What a terrible example for women and girls all over the world. i really hope Obama has the sense to ignore their stupidity.

Posted by Uzoma | January 15, 2008 8:44 AM

Ken:

The problem with what your suggesting is that trying to purge everyone involved could go on forever and just lead to more nastiness. E.g., the Obama campaign shouldn't say to Clinton, "well, I think you should disown the B.E.T. guy" and then Clinton would say "well, you should disown Jesse Jackson, Jr." and then Obama would say, "well, I think X should be fired," and Clinton would say, "well, I think Y should be fired."

Do you get the point? It's like World War I for God's sake. We're fighting over a little patch of ground and it's totally f**king meaningless!!!

Posted by Dan | January 15, 2008 8:47 AM

Dan,

Clinton has fired people who worked for the campaign when they crossed the line. Her actions match her words.

Obama has not taken any action that match his words. He says he deplores race mongering. Yet he does nothing about it in the area under his control, ie his campaign.

Once again, Obama is long on rhetoric but short on results.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 9:14 AM

After the "truce," Rangel eviscerated Obama on NY1. It should be noted that Rangel also was the hit man for attacking Guillinai on his marriages and infidelity a couple months ago (talk about chutzpah!)

You know, it's too bad there is a writer's strike. Because Steven Colbert could call what HIllary is doing "truciness." As a total tangential side note, the writers strike has been great for hillary because she is totally unaccountable to the john stewarts and steven colberts of the world who are great at pointing out what the so-called serious media does not.

But if you want a general sense of Hillary's sincerity on these matters, this quote from sunday says it all:

“You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don’t think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign. We’re running as individuals.”

Who needs, writers, actually? The tragicomedy that is our politics just writes itself. It is kind of funny for a few seconds, and then you realize that the BS on the part of the media and candidates like Hillary are why nothing ever gets done, but why we just fight these same old battles over and over again.

I am sick of our Groundhog Day politics.

That is why I am with Obama.

Posted by RKA | January 15, 2008 9:18 AM

ken,

Again, Jackson Jr. wasn't in the news because of the racist-quasiracist-notreallyracist-noyou'rearacist nonsense. He was in the news because he said Hillary was a jerk for crying under the duress of campaigning and not crying in public for Katrina (had he said 9/11 would you be OK w/ that? Conservatives gave her a ton of shit for chatting it up and looking bored during Bush's address to Congress). It's stupid. Hillary yawning during a national tragedy just tells me she's super tired because she's been up all night after a few thousand people died in the state she represents. If she cried for Katrina, in public, I'd probably be disappointed by it in the same way Edwards' exploitation of New Orleans to kick-start his campaign bothers me.

However, Jackson Jr.'s remarks about Katrina weren't calling Clinton a racist. He was saying that, as a representative of the black community (and, unfortunately, a representative of the backwards black identity politics that Obama's trying to get past) he didn't think blacks, like himself, would be moved by tears from a person who didn't cry when they were in trouble. He didn't say Hillary didn't dig black people, but that black people won't necessarily dig Hillary when she appears to care more about her own relatively petty struggles than their, you know, drowning/etc. It's too nuanced a point for him to make clearly, and one that shouldn't be made at all just for reasons of strategy, but it's not racist. Your continued attempts to lump it into a tit-for-tat dialog of who's-the-least-racist are ridiculous. I don't know who's pushing the "well why doesn't Obama fire Jackson Jr. and the researcher who wrote 'D-Punjab'" defense within the Clinton camp, but I've seen it come up all over the place during the last week.

Posted by Zach | January 15, 2008 9:40 AM

it is a fact that someone in obama's south carolina staff prepared that memo. it was done yesterday. clinton says it is "unfortunate". how in the fuck is that an "attack"? apparently, for obama supporters, facts are smears.

if obama came out and said bill clinton prepared a list of attacks he thinks i made against mrs. clinton and that is unfortunate, you who support obama would in no way consider that an attack on hrc. because it isn't! it's a statement of fact for crying out loud.

Posted by english teacher | January 15, 2008 9:44 AM

Because Obama is black he believes, as do his supporters, that he does not have to be held to the same standards as Hillary Clinton.

Obama believes that his rhetoric is sufficient and that he, unlike Senator Clinton, does not have to take any concrete action when his campaign crosses the line.

If Obama's words were not just more empty bullshit he would follow them up with firing the staff member who wrote that memo and fire Jackson Jr for his racial smear of Hillary.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 9:52 AM

For crying out loud, would it kill you to use capital letters? So rude to ignore grammar on a board that's intended to attract an educated readership. Save that crap for the yahoo boards or someplace where people are illiterate.

Posted by Rigamarole | January 15, 2008 9:55 AM

RKA, Hillary Clinton is explaining why Obama should have never said this: "Obama kept the debate alive when he weighed in for the first time, calling Clinton's comments on King and Johnson "unfortunate" and "ill-advised." "

Now, RKA, if you can explain to me why saying that MLKJr gave us inspiration but LBJ gave us legislation is "unfortunate" and "ill-advised" I'm willing to hear you out.

Otherwise, I think she gets to re-defend those comments under the current peace agreement.

Posted by Jan | January 15, 2008 9:56 AM

excuse - but the date on the Clinton talking points in January 15th

I thought Senator Clinton agreed to a "truce" on January 14th?

You know that truce that she announced at the same time Charles Rangel called Obama "stupid" for injecting race into the discussion -- Rangel also called Obama "dumb" and a few choice other tidbits

Oh you mean than truce yesterday and today Bob Johnson had an interview readily available on line calling Obama "too perfect" and the candidate the white people came up with the take on the Clintons??

OH you mean that truce??

Posted by winnie | January 15, 2008 10:01 AM

Ken:

No, Ken, it’s time to grow up and start talking about real issues like health care and global warming and not this mutually assured destruction trash. And if you can’t accept that, you seriously make me ashamed to be in the same party as you.

Here, I'll help get you started. "Hillary Clinton is a better candidate because she has health care mandates and this solves the free rider problem." See that? That's a real issue. And it's a pretty good argument. Who knows, maybe it's right. Here's another real argument you could make: "If Hillary Clinton ever has a question about what to do, Bill's going to be there to discuss stuff with her, and at least we know he did a good job when he was president." See? Again, another real argument. You remember how to make real arguments, don't you?

Please, for the love of God, don't respond with some robotic talking point. You don't work for campaign, presumably, so you're allowed to talk like a real human being.

Posted by Dan | January 15, 2008 10:21 AM

I'm with JBS on this. How can you call for party unity and then attack in the next sentence -- and be taken seriously?

Posted by GOPer4Obama | January 15, 2008 10:36 AM

Hillary Clinton is a lying witch.

She can't help herself.

The Dems are screwed.

Posted by betty in baltimore | January 15, 2008 12:07 PM

"...she'll empower African-Americans as President." White paternalism at its finest! Memo to Hillary Clinton and White Liberals who still don't get: We already feel empowered that's why we're fighting for our seat at the table.

Posted by Dawn | January 15, 2008 1:21 PM

Ken,

You know what I'm loving about this long primary process? It's exposing the closeted bigotry in the Democratic Party. It's absolutely hilarious listening Democrats who are supposed to be the Party of Affirmative Action rail against the "double standard" the Senator Obama supposedly enjoys. Those are conservative talking points, my boy. Why don't you just say what you really mean...call him an affirmative action candidate.

Posted by Dawn | January 15, 2008 1:27 PM

"It is like on Meet The Press when she said she didn't want to inject gender into the race right after she said she was running to break the glass ceiling."

JBS,

Didn't you get the memo? White women are free to appeal to women for votes and are championed for their grit and solidarity, but a Black candidate--male or female--can't do that without be labeled a race baiter or playing the race card. Despite the fact that White women on average have higher incomes, higher educational rates, and lower unemployment than both African American men and women, somehow the narrative is that White women are still oppressed and Black men have made it.

Posted by Dawn | January 15, 2008 1:32 PM

So the clintons are playing the same old games. Pretend to be a grown up, then still attack and point the finger at the other guy.
I am so sick of the clintons and wish these two would go away and leave us alone.
These two are just unbelievable.

Posted by vwcat | January 15, 2008 1:32 PM

Dawn, I am trying my best to make sure he is not our 'affermative action' candidate.

If Obama wins I want him to win by earning it after a full examination of all his strengths and weaknesses. So far I see that his supporters are not willing to do that. So I am trying to knock some sense into them.

If, after all is said and done, and Obama wins our nomintation after a full and vigorous vetting I fully expect him to kick ass in the general election.

If however he is picked out of some naive hope for unity with the Republicans then we are fucked.

My belief is that once fully examined the nation will prefer Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama or anyone the Republicans offer this year. The problem is that we got to get my party to make that full examination.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 3:30 PM