The Crucible Of Racial Politics

Race and gender have always been subtexts of the Democratic presidential race, and for the first time, really, since this whole thing began, they've become fully fledged texts. One reporter even claims that racial politics is "roiling" the Democratic race.

Today, former President Clinton appeared on prominent black radio talk show programs to tamp down a wave of concerns that his calling Barack Obama's candidacy a "fairy tale" was racially insensitive. One by one, to hosts Steve Harvey, Michael Basin and Al Sharpton, Clinton professed his admiration for Obama and insisted that he was only referring to Obama's lack of executive experience.

In turn, the Clinton campaign has accused the Obama campaign of artificially ginning up the controversy. Clinton aides seized on reports that an Obama press aide, in response to a research query from a prominent activist, included remarks by the Clintons in a compilation of racially insensitive remarks. Hillary Clinton said the accusations about her comments were "baseless and divisive," ABC News reported tonight.

The compilation produced by the press aide starts with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's linking Obama's style at press conferences to "Shuck and Jive." The next heading in capital letters reads: "MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON." The story excerpt includes Hillary Clinton's remark that Pres. Lyndon Johnson was instrumental to the passage of civil rights laws. Then the document features Bill Clinton's assertion that Hillary Clinton is "stronger than Nelson Mandela," former Clinton adviser Billy Shaheen's plea to the press to focus on Obama's youthful drug use, Mark Penn's invocation of the word "cocaine" when trying to defend Shaheen.

There is no evidence that the campaign circulated the compilation to reporters, or to anyone aside from the activist who requested the information.

Obama has not accused the Clintons of racism and an Obama campaign aide said that campaign does not believe that the Clintons themselves were attempting to sow racial discord. Nonetheless, several powerful black politicians and political activists, including Donna Brazile and Rep. James Clyburn, say they detect, in a pattern of curious remarks, a string of questions designed to raise the issue of race. Brazile has not endorsed a presidential candidate.

"Somehow, this story is being used to create a wedge or divide," Brazile told me via e-mail. "What we have is two historic candidates battling to become the first. Meanwhile, old wounds have been reopened and now it's a mess."

Clyburn, for his part, seemed to back away from a decision to endorse.

In a statement released late today by his press office, he says he "told the DNC, the South Carolina Democratic Party and the South Carolina General Assembly that I would do everything I could to ensure this first in the South primary is a success. My position and my focus remain the same, and I have conveyed that to the campaigns of Senators Obama, Clinton and Edwards."

“I encourage the candidates to be sensitive about the words they use. This is an historic race for America to have such strong, diverse candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. I want what is best for South Carolina and the nation – a successful South Carolina primary and a strong Democratic nominee.”

Obama, the son of a black man and a white woman, has been variously described as a "post-racial" candidate or a black candidate with "cross-over" appeal, both terms loaded with implications that Obama probably does not subscribe too. For one thing, his identity is unique; he's written a book about the pulls and pushes of racial solidarity and culture, so he probably understands, at a gut level better than anyone else in the race, why identity politics is so poisonous.

Some of his fans love Obama as a concept more than a man: his election, they believe, will expiate America's original and enduring sin, that of racial subjugation and slavery. Conservative critics of Obamas, like Thomas Sowell, urge him to use his candidacy as a teachable moment for other African Americans about race and culture; older, liberal activists, like Jesse Jackson, have accused him of not acting black enough, whatever that means. It is to Obama's credit that he has forged a completely independent way of inhabitng his identity. He has graciously allowed others to use him as a canvass, but he never quite reflects what they want to see. Indeed, Obama himself has made much more modest claims, and he has never overtly appealed to African Americans on the basis of his skin color or theirs. That is not his generational point of view.

If the Clinton campaign is percieved as resorting to race-baiting in South Carolina, they're super-duper-dead-in-the-water. And rightfully so, if they're a deliberate strategy to raise any questions whatsoever about Obama and race. But -- really -- the Clintons?

Instead of answering questions, I'll pose some more:

Did white women in New Hampshire reject a black candidate, thereby confirming the idea of a white curtain in the Democratic Party? Will South Carolina become a battle for the favor of black women, who are pulled, from the standpoint of identity politics, in two different directions?

One thing is certain: it's tough for people to figure out how to talk about a black candidate, including the campaign of the black candidate himself.

Comments

I don't think anybody thinks the Clintons are racist but clearly there is a pattern here, at least tolerated if not encouraged. I don't hate the Clintons but I don't think they are above doing what it takes to win. Remember that she considers this is to be "the fun part".
Clearly a large part of the African American community is outraged and it has spread since the first incidents. The cocaine thing pissed off a lot of people but by now, there are too many of these "misunderstandings" for them to calm down.
The issue that may arise for Obama though, and that would be unfair considering what you rightfully say about the way he sees himself and ignores racial appeal, is that there also may be a backlash of a backlash among some white folks who can support Obama but could desert as soon as any whiff of blackness comes from him (it is sad but that's the way it is).
Just the same way I can sense among people around me (men) a certain annoyance at how Hillary used - intentionally or not - the woman card in NH.

What a mess.

Posted by Benjamin | January 11, 2008 9:48 PM

There definitely seems to be a pattern of Clinton aides and supporters making racially insensitive comments. You'd have to be very naive about politics to think this was all unintentional.

The fact that the campaign went on the defensive against the weakest possible example (the "fairy tale" comments) and then accused the Obama campaign of "artificially ginning up the controversy" tells me this was definitely part of a strategy from them. They want to make it look like Obama's playing the race card. If they can get reporters to cover this story their way (and there's no reason to think they won't), it'll work in their favor.

Posted by Mike | January 11, 2008 9:51 PM

It's instructive -- in so many ways -- that the same kind of ... mistake? misunderstanding? ... keeps recurring. Her campaign is trying to put us in our our place.

Posted by Jeff | January 11, 2008 10:00 PM

You say at the end "The Clintons?"
Marc, what you fail to realize is the all consuming need to hold on to and accumulate more and more power is the driving force of the Clinton campaign.
The need to be in the spotlight long after they should have gracefully retreated, Bill's compulsive need for applause and both Clinton's addiction to power and keeping it is what their whole life is about.
To stoop to race baiting, either through surrogates or themselves, is not surprising. They are driven by their addiction to power and the limelight.
And like any junkie, are driven to do things thought unbelievable in order to get that fix.
Even when the news services have constantly corrected Bill on his lies about Obama and iraq, he is even today still saying them.
Hillary is in Nevada giving the impression that Obama is 'shiftless and lazy' to voters.
I don't find it at all surprising. They are not above doing literally anything to regain the white house. I suspect this is why Kucinich is asking for a recount. He knows the clintons would even stoop to vote tampering.
I'm not saying they did but, just that they are capable if they get desperate enough.
As a white person, I have been alarmed by the increasingly racial undertones of the remarks coming from the campaign and have long suspected them of keeping that Is He Black Enough silliness going for so long.
I put nothing past the Clintons.

Posted by vwcat | January 11, 2008 10:04 PM

Obama has refused to inject race into this election. Why? because a black candidate talking about race doesn't go very far and that isn't who he is.

But remember, the clinton's don't make these kind of mistakes. Everything they do has a reason. All their toeing of the race line has one intention, to talk about a subject Obama won't bring up. If all the crazies from the black movement go nuts, all the white voters toying with backing Obama will recoil.

The clintons are willing to give up the black vote so Obama loses the white vote.

Posted by Brian | January 11, 2008 10:10 PM

What was the purpose of saying "shuck and jive"? What descriptive water did it carry? Why would Shaheen on the eve of a primary decide to tell a reporter for a national newspaper that he was worried that Obama would be mistaken for a drug dealer? When Penn went on air after the debate there was absolutely no need for him to bring up cocaine, again, especially after his boss had allegedly apologized? Are we to assume that these paid political consultants somehow just forget themselves in national media? Especially when, some would argue, they had something to gain from it. In other words, they did not have to go there, but they did. As for the fairy tale comment. Clinton was talking about Obama's position on the war, but he quoted him out of context. So, as a matter of fact, it is not a fairy tale at all. Obama stood before a crowd and predicted what would happen and it did. Then he voted to support the troops. Clinton understands that, I am sure he does. Obama's criticism of Clinton was that her decision to vote for the war was either one of principle or one of politics, but she would not commit to either. That is no fairy tale. The sad thing is that Clinton could have taken the high road, but for whatever reason they did not. This is not just academic, Marc, a lot of people have been offended. It's just sad. I wish the Clintons could have worked hard to get Gore in the White House, instead of fighting to keep Obama out of it. I don't think Obama has taken that route, and for that I am grateful.

Posted by JC | January 11, 2008 10:18 PM

how come there is now talk about jesse jackson jr., obama's co-chair who said Hillary's tears melted the granite state, but we have to look at those tears in context and question if those tears were for katrina victims.

Or how about supporters like Chris Rock who said, think about it, do you want to look back later on 50 years down the road and say I voted for a old white lady instead of potentially voting for the first black president.

I mean if Andrew Cuomo, who is a Clinton supporter, but not a part of her campaign can be cruciifed, why shouldn't Chris Rock, or Jesse Jackson Jr., who is a part of the campaign.

In my opinion, there is too much political correctness in America, and there is a double standard. Black people can address each other in specific ways, or they can use racist terms against white people, but anything that has some sort of negative racial connotation allows black people to label you as a racist.

THis is not a path the Obama campaign should go. Criticizing Obama's experience is not racist.

Posted by obambi | January 11, 2008 10:19 PM

Tell you what, I'll give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt when their campaign officials stop saying things like this (Clinton advisor quoted in The Guardian):

"If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2238148,00.html

To quote Bill Clinton, give me a break.

Posted by paddy | January 11, 2008 10:26 PM

I am a minority in this country. Clintons have done more for civil rights and for such a long time than all the Obama supporters who are using this as a wedge issue in a divisive way. The Obama supporters are deliberately misinterpreting partial and incomplete quotes and expressing insincere and false outrage in their short-term goal to win the South Carolina primary for their candidate. They and the Obama campaign are playing with fire in doing this. They will do irreparable harm to the Democratinc party and cause long-term harm to race relations in this country.

They may or may not win the South Carolina campaign with this strategy. But, they will for sure lose any legitimacy they have as a campaign of hope and unity. The supporters of Obama are doing him no favors by pursuing this strategy. They have already alienated a lot of voters including me by their hatred towards Hillary Clinton. I have observed their venom and hatred in various blogs over the last month. I have become a stronger supporter of Hillary over the last month as a result.

Please stop!

Posted by Long Time Democrat | January 11, 2008 10:26 PM

The Clintons will do and say anything to get back in to the white house. This only proves it. If they can manage to turn this back around against Senator Obama, saying that he is the one playing the race card, then they have won again. When is this country going to wake up and see these two for what they are. As John Kerry said, they only care about themselves and power.

Posted by Carolyn Grace | January 11, 2008 10:27 PM

With regard to the "fairy tale" comment, one of the commenters above correctly notes that this was the weakest example of racial insensitivity coming from camp Clinton, and therefore Bill chose to use it as the example to respond to.

The "fairy tale" comment was about how Bill Clinton thinks that Obama does not deserve credit for being a consistent war opponent, and in that regard it is a different kind of Rovian tactic that Bill is engaged in: unjustly attempting to take away the opponent's strongest issue.

Here, that attempt fails. Bill Clinton is perpetrating his own fairytale, in which he attempts to strip from Obama his rightful advantage as the only Democratic candidate who had both judgment and courage on the Iraq war from the beginning.

Obama’s October 2002 speech against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq has been well reported. Less well reported is that he followed up on that speech against the resolution with statements against the invasion itself, as it was nearing in March 2003.

First. On March 4, 2003, an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, reported this:

“Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question.... ‘What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,’ said Obama, a state senator from Chicago.”

Second. On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:

“Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam], then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, ‘It's not too late’ to stop the war.” [

This is relevant for two reasons. First, it shows that Bill Clinton is deceiving the public when he tries to plant the idea that Obama equivocated about the war or was not against the war at all relevant times prior to its being launched by George W. Bush.

Second, it draws attention to Hillary Clinton’s own contradictions on the war. From the beginning of her Presidential campaign, Senator Clinton has said that “If I had been president in 2003, I would never have started this war.” See Feb. 11 Concord Monitor, “Clinton Reintroduces Herself as Presidential Candidate.” But no one has asked her – at any of the fifteen debates – whether why, if she harbored objections to Bush’s decision to pull the trigger on the war on March 18, 2003, she did not – in the critical March 2003 period – use her very prominent platform to speak out against the invasion and claim that it would be a misuse of the authority she voted to grant Bush.

If we credit Hillary’s assertion that she had objections to Bush’s decision to invade, and couple that assertion with the fact that Hillary did not voice those objections publicly, she is worse than someone who just happened to have bad judgment, she is someone who is claiming the mantle of the real leader and doer in this nomination campaign, and yet who was abjectly craven at the single most important moment of her Senate career.

So the real “fairytale” is the one Bill Clinton is trying to propagate by attempting to strip from Obama his rightful advantage as the one who had both judgment and courage on the Iraq war.

Posted by RaymondA | January 11, 2008 10:36 PM

There is an important lesson that those who support Hillary Clinton need to know. She has made herself virtually unelectable through her alienation of the Black community. A dem can't win without a good turnout of Black votes. But with the smears of Obama as a muslim, a drug dealer, someone who "shucks and jives," the suspicsion of the Bradley effect in NH, the comments on MLK, etc, the Clintons in their desperation to win the primary have squandered their ability to win the general

Now, some Clinton people may think that they'll eventualy be able to con black voters back into the fold because they think black have no where else to go. But many Blacks may stay home and many Black may gravitate to Bloomberg, who I am certain will run if we nominate Hillary.

So a message to you white supporters of Hillary. Even if HIllary's foray into race politics doesn't offend you personally, you should be concerned that your candiate has become unelecatable. Hopefully Bloomberg will win in that scenario, but if a republican does, than you and your support of a racially divisive nomniee like HIllary will be resposible for a continuation of the war, a new war in Iran, and the overturning of Roe v Wade. Do you really want that on your consience?

Hillary can play the gender card with abandon because the majoirty of dem primary voters are women. Obama can't even forcefully respond to HIllary's race baiting because blacks are not a majority of the dem primary electorate and if Hillary succeeds in turning this primary into an identity politics, my tribe vs your tribe primary, then she will win. She has the bigger tribe. But if this primary is about transcending the tribal system, then Obama wins. Obama has to let some of HIllary's race baiting slide to avoid it beconing the topic of conversation. It's a tough position for his campaign to be in, but I think they can thread the needle.

I would hope that good democrats, black and white, will look at Hillary's divisive tactics as a mirror image of the Karl Rove playbook.

But how to fight back?

We have to make a distinction between the clintons being racists and the clintons using code words to appeal to racism in the electorate to won at all costs.

There is a distinction between the two.

But more importantly politically, if we Obama supporters accuse the Clintons of being racists personally - something none of us can know because we can't see into their hearts - it will probably backfire on to us because if the election becomes a race and gender war, we lose.

What is more important to point out is that we don't really know if the Clintons are racist or not, we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but their use of rhetoric and code wods is racially divisive, it's bad for the party and the country, and its reminisent of the Republican playbook.

Even if there is racism among the clintons ar their campaign, it's not really in our interest to point it out loudly. It's best to contrast their divisive approach with our inclusive approach.

You know how Obama has a line saying "I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America?" I think he should expand it into a riff: "I don't want to pit male American against Female America. I don't want to pit Black America against White America against Latio America, etc, etc."

Maybe that calls too much attention to the issue, but I think Obama needs to find some way, as HIllary seeks to win by appealling to our baser instincts, to rise above and win by appealing to our better instincts. It's the only way he can win. He won't win an identity politics food fight.

Posted by RKA | January 11, 2008 10:36 PM

I'd take the Clintons over John Kerry ANY DAY.

I, too, have become increasingly more supportive of Hillary over the past few weeks. It seems abundantly clear that the media failed to elbow out of the race in NH, so they are now screaming the 'race card' as the race heads to SC. It's really shameful - considering all the Clinton's have done for human rights and equality.

While I don't think this is a campaign tactic endorsed by Obama (whom I also admire) - his surrogates and supporters in the press are shameful.

I'd like to see Hillary win the nomination and I'd love to see her pick Obama as VP (he'd be great at mobilizing the country behind her far superior proposals and platform). Unfortunately, I don't see the opposite happening (Obama choosing Clinton) as the press wouldn't stand for it - and I don't think Obama has the stomach to resist.

Posted by Danny Campbell | January 11, 2008 10:39 PM

Can somebody please explain why Clinton should be crucified over what Andrew Cuomo said. Andrew CUomo isn't even a part of her campaign, and when he said Shuck and Jive, he didn't refer to any of the candidates in particular.

I mean.. this is getting ridiculous.

Posted by stopoverreacting | January 11, 2008 10:44 PM

Just a small correction: it's Michael Baisden, not Michael Basin.

Honestly, though, as others have said--once, maybe twice, I could look beyond this, but you've listed multiple instances from recent weeks where the Clinton campaign has said things that, in my view, constitute race baiting (and there are quite a few things that you left out, including the most recent "hip black friend" quote). Once or twice is a coincidence, beyond that, it's a pattern that should disturb us all.

Beyond the immediate ramifications (a primary loss in South Carolina, for instance), Clinton must think ahead to the general election. She has had little support from independents, so it's imperative that she turn out the Democratic base. Right now, as an African-American woman, I can't say for certain that I'd be willing to turn out for Hillary.

Posted by natthedem | January 11, 2008 10:47 PM

What has the Obama campaign descended to? Throwing the racism charges at the Clintons and the Cuomos? Clintons had the most minorities and women in their administration of any presidential administration. I am amused by the false outrage expressed here by the white supporters of Obama who I bet have not lifted a finger for the cause of civil rights in this country!

Posted by Long Time Democrat | January 11, 2008 10:54 PM

Like so many in the media, until Donna Brazile and Rep. Clyburn brought it up, you chose to ignore it.

There are plenty of us, on Black radio, Black talk radio, in the Black Blogosphere, who have been bringing this up.

We brought it up, after it became obvious that it was a PATTERN.

The disingenousness of the 'media' to connect the dots is what has disgusted some of us out here.

These are not 'Isolated Incidents'.

They are neither ISOLATED nor INCIDENTAL.

They begin with Sheehan.
Then his false apology; Clinton's fake apology - fake, why? Because PENN was on Hardball shuffling the same swill not an hour after the debate.

Then there were the THREE Iowa organizers that had to resign because of the Madrassa LIE.

Then came the Bob Kerrey endorsement of Clinton and his 'it's great Obama can relate to the Black Youth/Islamic Manchurian Candidate/Secular Madrassa' SMEAR...followed by oops, an apology.

Then came the Charlie Rose interview, which dripped with 'Who-Does-This-Negro-Think-He-Is?'

Then
The MLK insult....which supposedly The Community ' Misunderstood'.

The Mandela insult....which supposedly The Community ' Misunderstood'.

Hillary - the Country going ' backwards' by electing Obama

Then, we have the comments by Donna Brazile:
For him to go after Obama using "fairy tale," calling him a "kid," as he did last week, it's an insult. And I tell you, as an African-American, I find his words and his tone to be very depressing.

BOTH Clyburn & Brazille are from the SOUTH - they know what KID means when referencing a Black Man...it's first cousin to BOY- and I assume, even with all your deliberate cluelessness, you get why THAT is offensive.

Then, we have the Cuomo ' Shuck and Jive' - yet another ' misinterpretation' of the English Language.

And finally, we have today's ' Isolated Incident' from The Guardian:

In the words of that Clinton adviser: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

But, of course, I know....tomorrow, the Clintons will explain how THIS TOO, was ' misinterpreted'.

Funny how many times the ENGLISH LANGUAGE has to be ' reinterpreted' and 'explained' to folks for whom English IS THEIR FIRST LANGUAGE.

I will say it again:

When 'Isolated Incidents' are neither

ISOLATED

nor

INCIDENTAL..

They form a PATTERN.

You either choose to accept what the PATTERN tells you and go on accordingly.

It's 'Dogwhistle' politics, and Black folk understand the call of that whistle better than anyone..

Because our SURVIVAL in America depends on it.

But, it's ok. I know. It's all in my ' imagination'.

Uh huh.

Posted by rikyrah | January 11, 2008 10:58 PM

So I didn't gather from reading that the Obama campaign was raising the issue but rather it's others who are still fully dedicated to identity politics. Is that right? Of course it would be stupid for Obama to bring it up. Obama right avoids highlighting the race issue reckoning correctly that it would be a mistake. When other are carrying a useful storyline for you, and that is being done, the first rule is not to step on the story. And while others get all in a huff over this or that perceived slight, Obama has the opportunity to stand above it. He is an awfully good candidate.

Posted by Jeff also | January 11, 2008 11:03 PM

It's sad that the Obama campaign has to be linked to this story: this is all happening because of a pattern of Clinton surrogates and culminating in the Clinton's themselves making racially insenstive statements. Similar gender-biased statements have not come out of the Obama campaign to my knowledge. Yet they are forced to be lumped into this fight and take it on? Distracting from Sen. Obama's own message of unity and change in politics.

Frankly, the bigger problem in the fairy tale remark Marc was that he LIED about Sen. Obama's opposition to the war. He completely distorted Sen. Obama's comments and the sheer mendacity of his statements and the lack of rebuttal by the media to say, hey, that is NOT what Sen. Obama said is striking.

Similarly, while Ben Smith at politico has a good recap of what is angering many African Americans as well as the current quote (Barack Obama being the hip young black guy if you don't have problems you should elect) it neglects to illustrate how this race baiting HURTS the Obama campaign and makes the implicit case that it helps.

We have deep racial and gender issues in this country that are slowly being exposed by this campaign; but I do not believe we can have this discussion in a political crucible. It just divides the nation deeper.

I don't know why you sound so shocked about the Clintons, Marc, because no one is saying they are racist. Simply that a pattern of racially charged codes has emerged from that campaign from the top to the bottom, surrogates and themseleves and it is making people in the African American community stop and wonder what the hell is going on.

One time, fine explain away. But now, there is a whole list that coils around the campaign from volunteers, to staff, to close advisors, to surrogates, to the Clintons themselves. And to ignore the pain that generates is to ignore a fundamental truth. Just as it is to ignore that Sen. Clinton being a woman and her emotional momment is conveyed as a weakness and her crying and losing control rather than feeling emotion. And it stems from her gender.

A young, hip, black man. That was what the quote from the Guardian said today. A man Sen. Clinton called naive for holding her own view earlier in the summer. If a man had called Sen. Clinton a naive young thing - hell - I can not imagine the out cry.

You posted something thoughtful, but it just highlights the coded divide that is in this country. And it exists not simply along race: Jews, Muslims, Women, Latinos. We are a nation divided historically but there is a truth in what Sen. Obama says; what connects us remains stronger. I hope in the course of this discussion as it moves forward this remains true. That we have changed that much.

Posted by Rhoda | January 11, 2008 11:04 PM

This is all so transparent.

Obama has had his surrogates, starting with campaign spokesman Eugene Robinson, playing the race card since Tuesday night blaming those awful racist voters in New Hampshire for their loss.

Yesterday, the Obama campaign trots out Jesse, Jr. to ask why Clinton didn't cry over Hurricane Katrina.

And, today, the incredibly hypocritical Donna Brazille e-mails juicy questions about the Clinton's pattern of racism to Ben Smith at Politico before leaving her day job as an Obama hack to go over to CNN and decry the injection of race into the contest.

I hope Obama keeps playing the race card as hard as his team has been playing it. What's next? Get Robert Gibbs to do one of his famous YouTube ads...you know, like the Howard Dean/Osama ad only showing Hillary and Bill morphing into KKK hoods?

So much for Mr. Kumbaya.

Posted by hwc | January 11, 2008 11:15 PM

The Clintons are going to do whatever they can to win. After all, Hillary did say she's in it to win it. The remarks that the Clinton camp are making shows how these people will not change America-- they will just continue on down their merry way of dividing the electorate.

Posted by Natascha | January 11, 2008 11:23 PM

Marc,
Who puts race and gender in this campaign? The Clintons? The Press? Or everyone.
When Tim Russert asked Obama about those who feel he lacks the experience, that his resume is thin, and why not wait Obama talks not about his qualifications, not about what the job requires: rather he quotes King and says that the urgency of now demands he run. King was talking about the civil rights movement and obama is talking about himself. And he uses king to not answer the question, to avoid a huge concern.
And who else can quote king but him?
Yes his racial identity is tricky for his staff to talk about but so is Hillary's being female difficult for her campaign to talk about. This aspect of each is an asset that is difficult to discuss for each.
His campaign has yet to show him with a group of Black people or a group of any minorites. We know he is friends with Deval Patrick and that Deval patrick supports him but we didnot see pictures of them together in NH. His campaign quotes King but avoids pictures of black folks. His campaign seems to love press about his father's family and I see his father's face and relatives faces but I do not see pictures of his mother or his mother's parents who raised him in his teenage years and got him into a private school in Hi. I hear about how authentic his 4 years in Indoneysia make him but I don't see pictures of him and his mom and his step father there. And as he tries to win over black america in S.C. I bet we do not start seeing those pictures now.
Its so true that Barack is this amazing window on a changing america, that he's not just this and not just that, and its absolutely true that like Tiger Woods, America seems ready to embrace him, but it is complicated and Obama's campaign seems to control the imagery more than any other candidate, that we are being massaged and even manipulated and marketed by his campaign.
Comparing king, kennedy and johnson became very apt because so many people started comparing Obama to a young jack kennedy and he and michelle as having the excitement of jack and jackie, and because obama and many others focused so intently on his king-like ability to speak. Obama and his campaign invite those comparisons constantly. That she works while others talk is true of her and her message and while it was a difficult point to make the Obama people walked into it, it rings true to a lot of us, it stung them a great deal, and it is not a racist construction. It was more akin to lloyd benson's rejoinder back to the indiana senator who tried to link his looks and his youth to jack kennedy. The older uglier and more wrinkled candidate are wise to exploit these moments.
Cuomo's quote was about all candidates performing in the expected dance in front of the media: performing to expectations.
The guardian quote is just a dopey competitive quote from a campaign worker talking to a british reporter an ocean away. It's fair to assume it was off the record, that it was said informally, that it wasn't an organized part of the campaign's intended message. And it is fairly certain that Obama campaign workers said dopey crap about hillary's wobbly near-tear moment last week and that such a slight wasn't news because its okay to bash women for crying and bash women voters for responding to it but its not okay to make fun of young flighty college aged liberals who are anxious to vote for barack but probably don't ever socialize with black folks. But lets remember these are both sociologically interesting phenomenas and merit some observation.
Race and gender and age and social status continue to be interesting aspects of candiates, campaigns and voters and we shouldn't be surprised that it gets talked in all kinds of ways.

Posted by Michael | January 11, 2008 11:25 PM

These Clinton supporters in here disgust me just as much as Bill and Hillary. bell hooks said be wary of the white libeal. This disgusting pattern of events and the response by many liberal whites has finally made me understand what bell meant.

The Clintons have accused him of having dealt drugs. Their campaign workers were twice caught spreading the madrassa lie about Obama. On and on and on up until this very day. Now he's not presidential material, but an "imaginary black friend" who's cool! It's disgusting and their response was disgusting.

I'm pissed that those radio show hosts fell into the "fairy tale" trap and didn't get down to the nitty gritty. The "fairy tale" comment was the least offensive of them all. But it's what's made the news and now white people are going to try to turn this around on Obama, an honorable man having to walk a tight rope because some whites still can't honestly confront race. He's doing a hell of a job and I support that man 100%. He's complete class and dignity! Bill isn't half the man he is and he knows it.

That said, the one encouraging thing was that after all three of Bill's interviews on black radio, I heard not one caller say they were satisfied with his explaination. Not one. They all said it was just spin and they remain disappointed and no longer trust the Clintons.

I am young so I don't feel any kind of loyalty to the Clintons. But as horrible as all of this has been for our community, it's almost healthy, because the reverence we had for the Clintons was completely UNHEALTHY. We were a bunch of loyal lap dogs and that is a pathetic position to be in. And this is what allowed Bill and Hillary to be so bold, because they actually believed we'd side with them. That we'd let it slide and turn the other cheek because we loved them as much as we love Jesus. Well, it's not working out that way. And especially not with blacks under 30, who've never been enamored with Bill and Hillary because were children when he was elected.

But what they're doing to Obama makes my blood boil. The way they've taken advantage of the real love the black community felt for them disgusts me. I am heartbroken for Obama because he is just the epitome of what a black man in this country can do if he is given the opportunity and works his butt off. He's what every little black boy should aspire to be. And to have him slandered and belittled by two corrupt,entitled, and morally bankrupt trolls like the Clintons just burns me up!!! No matter how hard you try, no matter how brilliant you are, no matter how sucessful you are, you're still just a "boy". Oh, wait, I mean "kid".But he is strong and I believe he will come out on top.

The Clintons have ruined their relationship with the black community. They know it and that's why they were on damage control today.

I hope all decent hearted people come out and send a signal to Bill and HIll. Vote against her. This country deserves better.

Posted by Kelley | January 11, 2008 11:35 PM

@ Michael: And who else can quote king but him?

Um, John Edwards did, extensively at the start of his campaign.

Posted by natthedem | January 11, 2008 11:38 PM

Michael,

What are you even talking about? Take your ass back to stormfront, hatemonger.

Posted by kelley | January 11, 2008 11:42 PM

A previous posting by RKA explains this extensively. Whatever the rationale for the Clintons' maneuver, the Obama camp should avoid falling in the trap of making this a big deal. Obama cannot afford making race central to his endeavor, it would be the end of it. Obama's appeal is in his promise to make us understand that far more unites than divides us. Obama's promise is to focus on solving this country's problems and heal the world by appealing to the decency he finds in all humans irrespective of race, gender, ideology or geography. We should leave tribal wars to others to wage and focus on making Obama's dream a concrete and practical reality.

Posted by Dossevi Trenou | January 11, 2008 11:42 PM

Kelley, you are not making much sense! Are you saying that any criticism of Obama by a white person is racist? Seriously, we should all unquestioningly take him at his word? I saw the video of Bill Clinton talking about Obama and Iraq war. It was very clear that he was talking about Obama's politics of the Iraq war.

When did the Clintons accuse him of dealing drugs?
When they found out about those workers they asked them to leave. When Billy Shaheen said those stupid things he was asked to resign.

The Obama campaign put out a memo insinuating Hillary being too close the Indian American community? Should we infer, therefore, that Obama is racist towards Indians? I don't think so. Did he fire his campaign workers who wrote that memo? Why did Obama share a stage with that odious anti-gay bigot McClurkin? Did you express the same outrage at that time against Obama? Did he ever apologize for that behavior?

I think you are engaging in slander and a bit of exaggerated outrage to push your candidate. You are just playing politics!

Posted by Long Time Democrat | January 12, 2008 12:03 AM

The Clintons are users--they use women, they use tainted money, and they misuse the language to the point of devaluing speech as a social currency (how old were you when you learned the meaning of is?) They are long-time partners in trying to destroy working-class women who complain about having been victims of Bill's predatory tendencies.

And now our purported "first black president" and his wife are accused once again of playing the race card to win an election.

Paul Cowan, a SNCC volunteer, noted many years after he had left Mississippi that "there is a kind of Jesus Christ complex that many middle-class whites bring to their relations with people whom they consider oppressed." (See John Dittmer's, Local People: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Mississippi, p. 263)

What better description of the self-centered and self-serving posture of a couple whose "triangulations" (a political term, not trysts) include candidate Bill's Sister Souljah moment (where he deliberately twisted the entertainer's words in order to diss Jesse Jackson) and his flying home to Arkansas for the lethal injection of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally handicapped black death row inmate, to spotlight his "toughness" in backing of executions. (Rector's brain was so addled that before going to the execution chamber that he saved the dessert from his last meal "for later.")

Compared to these earlier transgressions, the Clintons' rewriting of civil rights history might seem to some as lesser sins.

But they do bring to mind Cowan's remarks and underscore the Clintons' tendency to be willing to belong to a righteous coalition ... when they can lead it. The price they extract is homage, the sister of entitlement.

And their remarks not only dishonor Martin Luther King and a host of other black martyrs in the cause of human rights, but also the memories of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, Viola Liuzzo and many other whites who actually risked something in the same cause.

Add all of this to Hillary's flip-flopping on the issue of torture (see www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Hillary_and_torture_audio_version.html) and to some rightwing radio commentators hints that the practice might not be all that bad if practiced in the United States and you have a troubling panorama indeed.

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Posted by Martin Edwin Andersen | January 12, 2008 12:06 AM

Who really did not see race coming to a head in this election?

I am just surprised that the Clintons are surprised by it.

Posted by Rico | January 12, 2008 12:31 AM

What is going on here? The Clinton campaign is accused of "racial insensitivity." Sorry, I don't see that at all. What I do see is Obama supporters taking statements out of context, taking perfectly appropriate criticisms and distorting their meaning and proclaiming that this kind of criticism is somehow racist. I was especially disgusted by Donna Brazile's little tirade. This is either a calculated attack on the Clintons to drive a wedge between them and African-American Democrats, or a super-sensitive, paranoid reaction accusing the Clinton campaign of using "code words" to appeal to racists. This is a real tragedy. It's not the Clintons but the Obama supporters who have injected racism into this campaign. What a vicious, undeserved attack on the Clintons. This is the way to destroy the Democratic party. A lot of people owe the Clintons an apology, but I won't hold my breath waiting to hear it happen. This whole exercise is so self-defeating. To shout racism where it doesn't exist can be enough to turn non-black voters away from Obama, because they will identify with the Clintons for being falsely accused. Is this what we can expect for the rest of the Primary season?

Posted by Racial insensitivity - baloney! | January 12, 2008 12:42 AM

Loving the Clintons doesn't make a person a hater.
There's no stormfront to get back to.
Obama can say that Hillary is for the war a thousand times (and has) but that doesn't make her for the war. She voted to give a president the power to go in and talk about going in so that the president could continue foriegn policy.
The idea back then was that it was the kind of power and unity a president needs at a precarious moment in human history to add weight to negotiations and demands about inspectors and whatall. All the simple minded reactionaries in the world can change what that vote was at the time but that doesn't make it a vote for war. She knew that a president ought to have the backing and room to wiggle a sword without declaring war. She knew that Bill would've needed that kind of unity vote and backing by the majority of both parties in such a moment and she held her nose and voted that way for Bush. In that way hillary's 'war resolution' vote was sane and principalled and legitimate and not poll-driven. I am anti-war and a pacifist and a lefty and I get that. I don't trust bush or his daddy or his people or his grandaddy but it was still probably the right vote to make because if Hillary or Obama were president then or now, I would want the two parties and two houses of congress to give the president enough room to rattle a sword here and there: presidents throughout our history have had to do this.
Many times I oppose the decision the president makes or thier timing and yet on the whole its been important for them to be able to do so.
A very sad truth is that bush abused this bit of leash congress gave him to conduct foriegn policy but Hillary's vote was a principalled one.
And obama pretending otherwise is a lie. ampifying an oversimplification is a lie.
That Obama tries to raise money on this vote of Hillary's by misrepresenting it is slimy and beneath him.
The other lie that Obama runs on is that being Hillary in the first lady role for eight years means nothing, adds nothing, doesn't count. Jokes by comedians that thier wives wouldn't get the laughs and that no one wants a pilot's wife to fly the plane don't capture any real truth here. Hillary's role in the white house is clear from all the books about Bill's presidency and from her poll ratings and book sales and her fund raising for every democrat in the country these past 16 years.
It was easier for Obama to oppose the vote because it didn't mean anything to him, he bore no responsibility for his position because he didn't have to make the vote: he was still just a state pol. He wasn't part of the institution that was being asked to do the right thing.
I will have an easy time supporting Obama if Hillary loses but I will not think he is ready.
Nor do I think the bill I voted for 16 years ago would be ready for the different world we have now. He too would have been a big risk and perhaps too big a risk.
I don't work for her campaign or give money to her campaign but after 16 years of watching her operate on the world stage I do think she is ready, that she is our Eleanor.

Posted by Michael | January 12, 2008 12:50 AM

Two points for Marc:

1. This campaign has been going on for months. All summer and fall, there was not a single possibly racist comment from the Clinton campaign. A few weeks ago, she announced that she would begin attacking, calling it the "fun part" of the campaign. Since then, we've had two or three campaign volunteers in Iowa forwarding the "Obama is a secret Muslim e-mail," Shaheen asking whether Obama had sold drugs and Penn repeating "cocaine" on national TV, Bob Kerrey with his "Barack ___ Obama with his muslim father and madrassah education" comments, Hillary's MLK/LBJ comments, Bill's "fairy tale" comments, Cuomo's comments, and the anonymous quote from the Clinton advisor about Obama being the cool imaginary black friend. Odd how there were no such comments prior to a few weeks ago (when Hillary announced she's start going negative), and there have been so many such comments since. Is there a credible explanation?

2. This is a multi-candidate campaign, with several candidates competing against each other. Odd how not a single ambiguously racist comment has come from any campaign other than Hillary's (other than Biden's obviously clumsy "clean and articulate" line). Edwards, for example, has attacked Obama on various issues. Why haven't we heard any possibly racist language from his camp? Is messaging just better from the other campaigns than it is from Hillary's?

Posted by Dave | January 12, 2008 12:57 AM

In turn, the Clinton campaign has accused the Obama campaign of artificially ginning up the controversy.

With good reason. Whose campaign, after all, serves to immediately gain from any controversy surrounding race? Obama's, that whose. I mean, anything can potentially be viewed through the prism of racial conflict. Giving LBJ a portion of the credit for civil rights legislation is "insensitive?" Give me a friggin break. Obie's campaign better watch their step. They might think they can hoodwink African American voters into thinking the Clintons are racists, but I doubt it'll be successful. And it might just risk a white backlash.

THis is not a path the Obama campaign should go. Criticizing Obama's experience is not racist.

Exactly. If this is they way it's going to be, then I'm said to report that the country frankly isn't ready for its first black president.

And their remarks not only dishonor Martin Luther King and a host of other black martyrs in the cause of human rights...

One of the wackiest things I've read on the internets in a long, long while. There's absolutely no question -- it's a well-documented matter of historical record -- that President Johnson and his mastery of the legislative process were instrumental in getting the landmark 1964 legislation passed. It also took a fair amount of political courage, as he had to face down the ample racists in his own party.

Posted by Iguana | January 12, 2008 12:59 AM

President Clinton's record on equal opportunity:

Building One America. The President has led the nation in an effort to become One America in the 21st Century: a place where we respect others' differences and, at the same time, embrace the common values that unite us. Dr. John Hope Franklin, Advisory Board Chair, and Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook served on the Advisory Board to the President's Initiative on Race, which the President charged with overseeing this effort. The President, the Administration and the Advisory Board were actively involved in public outreach efforts -- including holding numerous public meetings and town halls -- to engage Americans across the nation in this historic effort. One of the critical elements of the President's Initiative on Race was identifying, highlighting and sharing with the nation promising practices -- local and national efforts to promote racial reconciliation. The Advisory Board presented their final report to the President on September 18, 1998, and recommended that conversations on race continue.

Creating an Administration that Looks Like One America. The President appointed the most diverse Cabinet and Administration in history. The Clinton Cabinet includes three African Americans: Rodney Slater, Secretary of the Department of Transportation; Togo West, Jr., Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Alexis Herman, Secretary of Labor. Additionally, African Americans serve in the Administration as Surgeon General, Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Director of the National Park Service, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, Department of Education General Counsel and as the Department of Education's Chief of Staff.

Thirteen percent of Clinton Administration appointees are African American, which is twice as many African Americans as any previous administration.

White House appointees include: Bob Nash, Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Personnel; Thurgood Marshall, Jr., Assistant to the President and Director of Cabinet Affairs; Minyon Moore, Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs; Cheryl Mills, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel and Ben Johnson, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Public Liaison; Alphonso (Al) Maldon, Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs; and Tracey Thornton, Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs.

Increasing the Number of Judicial Appointments. President Clinton has named 14 African Americans as U.S. Attorneys and 12 African Americans as U.S. Marshals. The President has nominated 57 African Americans to the Federal bench, 16 percent of his total Federal bench nominations.

Ordered an Assessment of Affirmative Action Programs. The President ordered a comprehensive review of the government's affirmative action programs which concluded that affirmative action is still an effective and important tool to expand educational and economic opportunity to all Americans. This review of federal affirmative action programs has helped to ensure that these programs are fair and effective and that they can survive legal challenges. As a result, programs that benefit African Americans, including students, working men and women, and business owners, remain in effect andare more likely to be upheld by the courts.

Reducing Backlog and Expanding Alternative Dispute Resolution at Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The FY99 budget included $279 million -- a $37 million increase over the previous year -- to significantly expand EEOC's alternative dispute resolution program and reduce the backlog of private sector discrimination complaints. The final budget fully funds the President's request -- providing the first real increase for EEOC in several years.

Creating a National Memorial to Honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In July of 1998, President Clinton signed a new measure authorizing the creation of a national monument to Dr. King on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Opposed California Prop. 209 and Similar Measures. The Clinton Administration strongly opposes state and local initiatives to eliminate affirmative action programs that expand opportunities for African Americans and others. The Administration opposed Proposition 209 in California and filed amicus briefs opposing Prop. 209, which currently prohibits state affirmative action programs. The Clinton Administration opposed a similar initiative in Houston, which was defeated and opposed an initiative in Washington that is similar to Prop. 209. In all these cases, representatives of the administration have spoken out strongly against these initiatives as unfair and a barrier to equality.

Ensuring Election Fairness. The Clinton Administration defended racially fair redistricting plans against claims that they were unconstitutional and prevented election day discrimination against minority voters and voter intimidation and harassment by monitoring polling place activities in a record number of states and counties.

Increasing Voter Registration. During 1995 and 1996, the National Voter Registration Act or "Motor Voter" law registered nearly 14 million new voters and made voting easier for millions more. Notably, 1996 saw the highest percentage of voter registration since 1960. [FEC, 6/97]

Working for Fair Housing. To respond to the increase in reported cases of serious fair housing violations, HUD will double the number of its civil rights enforcement actions by the year 2000. HUD has also committed $15 million to 67 fair housing centers around the country to assist in fighting housing discrimination. In addition, the President proposed and won a major expansion of HUD's Fair Housing programs. The FY99 budget expands HUD's Fair Housing programs from $30 million in FY98 to $40 million in FY99. That 33-percent increase includes $7.5 million for a new audit-based enforcement initiative proposed by the Administration.

Working to Ensure Fairness and Remove Barriers to High Quality Education. The Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education is working to eliminate discriminatory educational practices within schools that contribute to deficiencies in minority student achievement. These priorities included the inappropriate placement of minority students in special education, limited access of minority students to challenging curricula and programs such as gifted and honors classes and the lack of comparable resources.

Defended Fairness. The Clinton Administration has filed more cases between 1993 and 1997 to enforce fair housing laws than any other Administration (more than 500 cases). For instance, this Administration desegregated a Vidor, Texas, public housing complex and ordered a Mississippi bankto implement remedial lending plans for minority customers who were unfairly denied loans by the bank.

Eliminated Discriminatory "Redlining" Practices. The Clinton Administration negotiated agreements with health care agencies to eliminate discriminatory "redlining" practices denying home health care services based on residential location.

Apologized to the Victims of Tuskegee. President Clinton apologized to the victims of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and their families, and directed Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala to issue a report about how best to involve communities, especially minority communities, in research and health care. HHS awarded a planning grant to Tuskegee University to help it establish a center for bioethics in research and health care.

Working to Ensure a Fair and Accurate Census. The Clinton Administration is working to ensure that Census 2000 is the most accurate census possible using the best, most up-to-date scientific methods as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. According to the Census Bureau, the 1990 Census missed 8.4 million people and double-counted 4.4 million others. Nationally, 4.4 percent of African Americans were not counted in the 1990 census. While missing or miscounting so many people is a problem, the fact that certain groups -- such as children, the poor, people of color, city dwellers and people who live in rural rental homes -- were missed more often than others made the undercount even more inaccurate. A fair and accurate Census is a fundamental part of a representative democracy and is the basis for providing equality under the law. The President is determined to have a fair and full count in 2000.

http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/ac199.html

Posted by Long Time Democrat | January 12, 2008 1:23 AM

What has Obama done for civil rights and to enhance equal opportunity?

Some facts please!

Posted by Long Time Democrat | January 12, 2008 1:25 AM

What has Obama done for civil rights and to enhance equal opportunity?

Some facts please!

Posted by Long Time Democrat | January 12, 2008 1:26 AM

Long Time Democrat:
You are wrong. The Decider actually has more minorities in his administration(of course that doesn't equate to competence ie: Alberto Gonzales).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 12, 2008 2:17 AM

Barack Obama's Record

On Obama's civil rights record, from:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/

Record of Advocacy: Obama has worked to promote civil rights and fairness in the criminal justice system throughout his career. As a community organizer, Obama helped 150,000 African Americans register to vote. As a civil rights lawyer, Obama litigated employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and voting rights cases. As a State Senator, Obama passed one of the country's first racial profiling law and helped reform a broken death penalty system. And in the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.

Posted by Kiku | January 12, 2008 2:45 AM

Ask yourself who stands to gain the most from this dialogue? Then perhaps you will have the answer to who started this debate, intended or perhaps "misunderstood." I agree, as Bill said, "give me a break." I'm just glad that I see the light! Unity works for me any day, even if it is only Hope.

Posted by Terry | January 12, 2008 2:47 AM

Obama's Plan:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/

The Problem

Pay Inequity Continues: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents, while African American women only get 67 cents and Latinas receive only 57 cents.

Hate Crimes on the Rise: The number of hate crimes increased nearly 8 percent to 7,700 incidents in 2006.

Efforts Continue to Suppress the Vote: A recent study discovered numerous organized efforts to intimidate, mislead and suppress minority voters.

Disparities Continue to Plague Criminal Justice System: African Americans and Hispanics are more than twice as likely as whites to be searched, arrested, or subdued with force when stopped by police. Disparities in drug sentencing laws, like the differential treatment of crack as opposed to powder cocaine, are unfair.
Barack Obama's Plan
Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement

Obama will reverse the politicization that has occurred in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. He will put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil Rights Division.
Combat Employment Discrimination

Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes

Obama will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
End Deceptive Voting Practices

Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.
End Racial Profiling

Obama will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice.
Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support

Obama will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates.
Eliminate Sentencing Disparities

Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
Expand Use of Drug Courts

Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.

Posted by Kiku | January 12, 2008 2:47 AM

If the Clinton campaign is percieved as resorting to race-baiting in South Carolina, they're super-duper-dead-in-the-water. And rightfully so, if they're a deliberate strategy to raise any questions whatsoever about Obama and race. But -- really -- the Clintons?

Why do the Clintons get a pass on all things race? Here's Joe Lieberman a day or so after Bill Clinton went to Connecticut to stump for him. Lieberman: "Ned Lamont can have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton," Liebermen said. "I'm proud to have had Bill Clinton, Senator Dodd, Senator Inouye, Senator Salazar and a lot of other great Democrats." It was an accident that all the black supporters where clustered on one side of that equation? At the same time Lieberman was saying this, he was circulating fliers in the black community implying LAMONT was a racist.

Bill Clinton a few weeks later on Lieberman/Lamont: "I don't have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he's going to vote with us to organize the Senate."

Doesn't "unmitigated blessing" endorse Lieberman's ugly racial politics?

I'm not saying that the Clintons are racist, they're not, it's a ridiculous claim. What I am saying and many people are saying is that the Clintons are not above using the issue of race to win a political battle. That's not the same thing.

Personally, the Clintons are not racist. Politically, they're cut throat and would do anything to win to the point of being amoral. Both statements are true and one does not excuse or explain the other. Much psychoanalyzing was done of Bill Clinton's "compartmentalizing" the various parts of his life to explain how he could do something so stupid with the Lewinsky affair yet be so capable in other matters. I see a similar dynamic in this political campaign - a "compartmentalizing" of the personal beliefs of the Clintons, and in another less public, less discussed, but all too real box -- the ugly tool of racial politics that have existed in this country for more than 200 years.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 12, 2008 3:43 AM

If you want to see a great Hollywood dramatization of the Clintons 1992 campaign (and its many sub-plots) and what they are capable of and the damage they do to people and how they throw people away they no longer need, check out John Travolta as Bill and Emma Thompson as Hill in "Primary Colors" (1998). I don't think the movie was a big box office smash, but it did well. I saw it when it came out a few years ago. Travolta and Thompson nail it. Great movie and supporting cast. Billy Bob Thornton as the James Carville character. Adrian Lester as the George Stephanopoulos character. And Kathy Bates as the Vince Foster character. Priceless performances! The Clintons will do anything to get back into the White House.

Posted by Michele | January 12, 2008 4:23 AM

Personally, I don't find anything racist about their remarks. Bill Clinton was only stating that Barack stance on the Irag war was a fairy tale, and the free ride he has been getting from the media as if he was this angel that descended from heaven and can do no wrong, while they, the media and pundits, bash and humilate Hillary. I guess it was easier for the media and pundits to critize a white female than an African-American. As for Hillary's comment she was only stating the fact that it was LBJ who passed the the Civil Rights Act that MLK had fought for. I don't get why it makes it okay for African-American's to make fun of other ethnic groups, but heaven-for-bid you critize them you are labeled as a racist, and everything is blown out of proportion. This is such double standard, and hypocritical. You should be ashame to judge so quickly. You need to calm down and realized the good that Bill and Hillary has done for the African-American community when they were in the White House. Maybe you owe them that much instead of critizing them because of their remarks that was taken out of context.

Posted by magda | January 12, 2008 5:33 AM

As the saying goes....payback is a bitch.
You live by the PC sword - you get cut by it on occassion as well. This is priceless. I'm loving it. The left feeding upon itself.

And can someone please tell me what it is that the Clintons did that is so exceptional for blacks? I keep reading quotes like "given all they've done for human rights and/or the black community". WHAT DID THEY DO??? Please provide details.

Bush has had far more blacks (and other rminorities) in his admin - and in far superior positions - than Bill Clinton did. He also committed far more money to AIDS in Africa. Not saying Bush is the end all and be all for the black community - but Clinton wasn't either.

First black President? lmao. How do people convince themselves of such utter nonsense?

Posted by slick | January 12, 2008 5:41 AM

This is now a lose-lose for Obama. If he's smart (and I believe he is), he will come out asap and shut this down. Take the high road - which is the bullsh*t he's peddling (and I just love how people are falling for it).

Obama is every bit the cynical politican that the Clintons are. He's just selling a better brand of snake oil - that's all. Nice to see all these idealistic believers. Bill Clinton was absolutely correct - pure fantasy. Perfect for libs. They love make-believe.

Expect the two campaigns to make pretend kissy-kissy in the coming days. So predictable.

Posted by slick | January 12, 2008 5:51 AM

Democrats complaining about a minority candidate playing the race card.

You can't write this stuff, really.

Posted by RRC | January 12, 2008 6:49 AM

Does this mean the Clintons' Official Black Status has been revoked?

Posted by Just curious | January 12, 2008 7:11 AM

Bill's fairy tale thing wasn't racist, it was just stupid and dishonest. He's been pounding that same drum for quite awhile, in an effort to make Hillary's war vote ok, which even if it were true wouldn't make Hillary's war vote OK. And Bill knows it's not true because Obama has explained this ONE comment again and again, and hell, it was obvious to me when he said it in 2004, that oh, he HAS to say that to be nice to Kerry, the nominee. I mean he said it as nice as he could, but he never said that he, Obama, supported the war, ever. It's the stupidest attempt at a gotcha I've seen this entire campaign, and I'm amazed Bill can puff his wheezy chest up to pretend to be indignant about it each time. Well, no I'm not amazed, because I've taken acting. You take the emotion from somewhere else if you can't believe the lie. He's taking it from his true indignation that someone is denying Hillary - and him - their due. And man is he angry.

Posted by Phoebe | January 12, 2008 7:41 AM

And the MLK thing wasn't exactly intentionally racist, just - again - mindblowingly stupid. Her defenders keep saying that yes, LBJ did a politically courageous thing, faced down racists in his party, etc. And lovely, but nobody's attacking LBJ here.

Hillary essentially trivialized MLK at LBJ's expense, saying Mr. Inspirational isn't the one who signed the law, let's remember the president did that! First, Mr. Inspirational, MLK, - and a ton of other incredibly brave, non-famous people - created the movement without which there would be no law. And no dis to LBJ again, but they faced down hoses and dogs and guns and went to jail. And some got killed. Second, why is she the LBJ here? Obama can inspire people AND be the president who signs laws, right? Her comment makes no sense except in light of her persistent vision of herself as the only possible boss, that famous sense of entitlement she has. It's patronizing as hell. And white woman's sense of entitlement + patronizing to black guy = well, people are going to see it as racist even if you don't think it is. Even if she didn't think it was. But it was stupid and offensive even without any racism at all.

Posted by Phoebe | January 12, 2008 7:55 AM

"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this racial slur"

Posted by Jan | January 12, 2008 8:32 AM

Obama is being scummy and so are his advocates. They are twisting words trying to score some quick points in SC, a state Obama must win.

It is sleazy and sad.

The Clintons spoke at Mrs. King's funeral. They have stood up to the Republicans for the last 20 years as the GOP as tried to reverse civil rights and voting rights.

Obama and surrogates should be ashamed.

Obama is a fraud. He doesn't care about you or me, whites or blacks. He is white when it suits him, bi-racial when it suits him, and he is black when it suits him. He only cares about himself and his political career.

Obama should stop and think for a minute. He lost by 11% among registered Democrats to Clinton in NH. If he keeps suggesting the Clintons are racist he will lost registered Democrats by 20% going forward.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | January 12, 2008 8:57 AM

People need to stop being so dumb and getting played by Obama.

Clinton wants to win SC. Why would she insult black people? Why would she race bait? That wouldn't help in SC.

Obama is simply being a Chicago pol playing ever card in his deck ... incl the race card.

Posted by Dick Flatts | January 12, 2008 9:00 AM

Great point, Dickie Head. Why would the Clintons and their surrogates do this?

Could it be that they're Machiavellian assholes who can always claim to be "misunderstood"?

Bottom line, dude, is a pattern is a pattern.

Speaking of patterns, how about Hillary's sisterhood pattern of playing the pathetic game of identity politics? Isn't she blatantly the gender card? Maybe that appeals to ball-less castratos like you.

Posted by Joko | January 12, 2008 9:10 AM

"Im Hillary Clinton and I approved this racial slur"

Posted by Billary | January 12, 2008 9:12 AM

I would just like to ad that the Clintons have been particularly brilliant in how they have played the race care. It usually follows a pattern.

1) Step 1: have a surrogate say something racially insensitive but nothing over the top (i.e. no Keith Richards/Kramer moments, of course...it has to be subtle, it has to be in plausibly deniable "code."

2) Let it hang out there for a day or so and spread under the radar.

3) Once the story is starting to die, remind voters of it yet again by half-apologizing or kind of backtracking so that the racial comments get abother newscyle

4) Play a great game of spin in the "apology" which sends the message to the casual white or hispanic voter that this is "once, again, the blacks getting worked up over nothing and demanding special favors."

You saw that yesterday, Why did bill Clinton go on Al Sharpton's radio show? It was a tactically brillinat manuver to get Brack Obama and Al Sharption in the same news story and thus subtly linked in the minds of your average, relatively unsophisticated voter who does not take the time to hear Obama's full inclusive speeches, but has just now read an AP article in their local paper mentioning both Sharpton and Obama and she or she is thinking to himself, "When I get behind that curtain, there is no way that I am voting for that guy." It was also brillinat that the whole discussion is over the least offensive of all the clinton smears - the fairy tale comment. The media is structuring this story to play into the "blacks getting upset over nothing" voters.

The Clintons got really worried because the voters and media had stopped looking at Obama as black. Their manuvers - subtle or not - are a way of reminding voters, "Hey, don't forget - he's one of those people."

They are tactically brilliant and they play the media and the public for fools. Somewhere in Hell or Pergatory, Richard Nixon is smiling today. "At last! I have a true heir," he must be saying.

Now the Clintons are not dumb, they knew there would be blowback from the black community, but they know that blowback will help them get solidarity with voters they needs and Obama had been making inroads with in Iowa: lower class white democrats.

Furthermore, as this contest moves towards Nevada and Feb 5th, the Clintons know that by ginning up a little racial crucible, they are going to help turn out hispanic voters. Look at what one of Clinton's own pollsters said in buried in the last two paragraphs of Ryan Lizza's latest article:

"On the morning after Clinton’s victory, I talked to Sergio Bendixen, one of her pollsters, who specializes in the Hispanic vote. “In all honesty, the Hispanic vote is extremely important to the Clinton campaign, and the polls have shown—and today is not a great day to cite polls—that even though she was slipping with women in Iowa and blacks in South Carolina, she was not slipping with Hispanics,” he said. “The fire wall doesn’t apply now, because she is in good shape, but before last night the Hispanic vote was going to be the most important part of her fire wall on February 5th.” The implications of that strategy are not necessarily uplifting.

When I asked Bendixen about the source of Clinton’s strength in the Hispanic community, he mentioned her support for health care, and Hispanic voters’ affinity for the Clinton era. “It’s one group where going back to the past really works,” he said. “All you need to say in focus groups is ‘Let’s go back to the nineties.’ ” But he was also frank about the fact that the Clintons, long beloved in the black community, are now dependent on a less edifying political dynamic: “The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

So the clinton campaign has admitted on the record that part of their electoral strength going forward is hispanic racism against blacks. The clinton people know the demographic changes in this country are favoring Hispanics and so its ok if Blacks are thrown uder the bus at this stage of their political career. Unlike with Sista Soujah, the black polulation did nothing at all to deserve this slap in the face except for start to vote for Obama.

Just as Bill Clinton was proclaimed the "First Black Preisdent" Hillary "chips and guacamole" Clinton is now going to try to be crowned the "First Hispanic president."

The Obama campaign has a real challenge on their hands, You guys strepped up a bit off the doormat yeasterday, but you can't let Hillary change the race into this. If there was ever a time for Obama to be a racial concilliator, the time is now.

As a footnote, there is somebody who could really help a little prevent the coming Hillary strategy to drive a wedge between blacks and white/hispanics: Paging Bill Richardson. I know that you are keeping your options open to be able to serve in either administration, but are you going to sit back on the sidelines and thus condone Hillary's strategy to divide our country racially for her personal political gain? I really hope you and other hispanic leaders speak up against this strategy. HIllary will trhow you undeer the bus when convenient as well. In Iowa she says that undocumented workers merely accused of crimes should be deported with "no legal process." But in Nevada, she says there a are" no illegal women." Don't get seduced by the clintons. Now is the time to stand up for the America that Obama represents or let America be torn apart by the Clintons.

Posted by RKA