What Was Bob Johnson Thinking?

In South Carolina today, BET founder Bob Johnson had this to say about Barack Obama:

"I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book."

Did your mind go there? Because mine did.

Later, Johnson issued a statement through the Clinton campaign:

“My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect. When Hillary Clinton was in her twenties she worked to provide protections for abused and battered children and helped ensure that children with disabilities could attend public school. That results oriented leadership -- even as a young person -- is the reason I am supporting Hillary Clinton.”

Jake Tapper titles his post on this: "Guess who's coming to dinner?"

Comments

Marc:

You are good. Very good. Did you see the Ballot Bowl on CNN now.

HRC is saying that Obama is comparing himself to JFK. She then says JFK was in congress, was war hero, etc. I turned off the TV.

I cannot bring myself to support this woman and her husband. I just cannot.

Posted by eorse | January 13, 2008 5:35 PM

Who are these people?

Good grief...it will be interesting to see if either HRC or WJC come out and roundly condemn what could even remotely considered Rovarian...

I am sick about all this race stuff...it serves no purpose other than to divide. Neither race or gender are wounds we need to go back and fight again.

All folks associated with all campaigns need to stop all of this. For the love of god, what are we doing to our country?

Speak to the issues. Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 13, 2008 5:42 PM

This is the brilliant (though deplorable) Clinton strategy:

First, you put out stuff though surrogates that is a little insensitive, but nothing that is not plausibly deniable nor easily fixed with an apology. Examples: shaheen drug dealer, penn cocaine, kerrey madrassa, cuomo shuck and jive, anoymous to guardian "hip black friend, etc" These are poison pills to be introduced into the media echo chamber. This Bob johnson comment is just the latest exxample.

After the poison pill is out there for about a news cycle or so, extend it by making a news cycle about the apology or backtracking or justification.

Make sure you come up with something new every week or two to keep the conversation alive.

The plan is never to be overtly racist, never to have a Keith Richards/Kramer moment, of course. The way to play the race card without looking like playing the race card is to knock off Obama by a "death by a thousand (racial) cuts" as opposed to any full-frontal racial attacks.

Now, the Obama people know that any polarizing discussion of race hurts them, so for the most part they just shut up abaout it, be magnanimous, and try to rise above. And for most the campaign through shaheen and kerrey they turn the other cheek and appeal to our better instincts as Hillary appeals to our bad instincts.

Obama has done that. He has remarkably made this campaign as little about race as possible. So much so that people had forgetten about the fact that he is Black. But when the clintons started falling behind, they had to find ways to remind folks "He's one of those people."

Now while Obama is going to try hard to stay above the fray, it is impossible to expect that every media outlet and black person in the country is not going to eventually get upset with the "death by a thousand cuts" race baiting.

So here is the next brilliant manuver on the part of the Clintons campaign. Once these non-Obama campaign people start complaining a little, hang their grievances around Obama's neck and say or imply that Obama is playing racial politics himself. Central to this is to make a straw man argument with the complicit help of media hacks. Basically ignore the really bad stuff (drug dealer, secular madrassa, hip black friend, etc) and focus on the least offensive (fairy tale) and then knock down the straw man that the Clintons are racists themselves while ignoring the pattern or subtle, death by a thousand cuts, code worded, rovian appeals to racism in the electorate. The media is structuring this story to play into the "blacks getting upset over nothing" mentality. Meida types are going to erect the straw man, knock it down and then accuse Obaam of race baiting when he is the vicitm of it and say that he is doing this to win in SC. This is brilliant "blame the victim" jujuitsu, folks and you saw HIllary doing this very thing today in the NYtimes, in the AP stroy, and on Meet the Press

And here is the Associated Press version of tHIllary's jujitsu: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Clinton-Obama.html

Noticed that they even got the Assocated press to write a story being sent to low-infomtion, casual voters in local papers thoughout the country putting Al Sharpton and Barack Obama in the same sentence.

Mission accomplished, they must be saying over at Clinton headquarters. After injecting race into the discussion, the Clinton people have just conned the NY Times and Associated Press and used Meet the Press to spread the lie that the LBJ/MLK concerns originated not in the broader black community but rather was some distortion coming from the Obama campaign, something that is demonstrably false.

They're cheering over at Clinton headquarters because the media is dutifully playing into the "Black folks yet again getting riled up over nothing and making whites feel guilty" narrative and muddying the waters by hanging this around the Obama campaigns' neck.

Hillary says "I think" this all came from the Obama campaign.

Please, she knows well that people like Clyborn and Brazille came to opinions on their own on this and that Burton, Axelod, Ploufe, etc did not manufacture their opinions

The goal of the Clinton campaign is simple and brilliant: make the Obama campaign personally responsible for every thing ever said by any Black person in America (while claiming that they are not responsible for the words of their national co-chair/shaheen, pollster/chief strategist/penn, key endorsers Kerrey and Cuomo, or the candidate's husband himself.

This is yet another way the Clintons are brillantly turning Obama, somebody who has gone out of his way to be a post-racial conciliator , as "the aggrieved black candidate." By morphing him into Jesse Jackson in the eyes of voters, just as republicans morphed Max Cleland into the images of Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the 2002 midterms, the Clintons are simultaeously playing "death by a thousand cuts" racial politics while tarring Obama as the racially divisive figure.

If this were a crime drama, the story line would be the innocent being framed by the real perpetrators. Oops, I just gave the Clintons their next line of attack, to compare Obama with OJ.

God, the Clintons are really good at manipulating the media. I wonder if Karl Rove is giving them the advice he hinted to in the wall street journal this week? 8 years of HIllary may be the best route to a 2016 Jeb Bush restoration and Karl Rove likely has a vested interest in the propogation of bi-dynastic wedge politics.

And then in the so called "Damage control" Bill Clinton goes on Al Sharpton's radio show. Why did bill Clinton go on Al Sharpton's radio show? It was a tactically brillinat manuver to get Barack 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."

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.

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." Look there is a pattern of reasonably high level surrogaes doing this dirty work, and not just against Obama. Earlier in the year, both Rangel and Vilsack came out to trash Guilliani on his marriages and infidelity right around the time the christian evalngelicans were gathering for some meeting. Of course, the clinton campaign denies that they had anything to do with that either.

How many times does this have to happen for people to realize that this is a pattern, not an isolated accident?

Now that people are starting to get wise to her tactics, she is going to play her "A" game: have black supporters like Ben Johnson put out the poison pills to enhance the plausibly deniable aspect by having the person saying them be black and not white.

If people really believe that these are all "Accidents" or simple "misunderstandings" then you have to accept the proposition that the clinton campaign is not in any control of its high level surrogates. Do we really think this lack of discipline will serve her well in the general or in the white house?

So take your choice, either Hillary is a nixonian race baiter or she is not in control of her own campaign.

Which makes people think she would be the best leader of the free world?

Posted by RKA | January 13, 2008 5:50 PM

So Obama tries to race monger his way to the white house and gets called on it. By the black founder of Black Entertainment Television. Talking to a black audience.

Obama is toast. Americans know that Hillary is not a racist and this knowledge was just confirmed by Bob Johnson. Calling someone a racist is one of the dirtiest smears possible in American life. Obama needs to fire anyone on his staff who has been involved in these smears, stating with Jackson Jr. and stand up and say he knows Clinton is not a racist.

Posted by ken | January 13, 2008 5:51 PM

Repulsive. Just repulsive. Don't expect Hillary Clinton to ever ever ever get my vote again. EVER. How stupid do they think we are ? Once is a mistake. When we get to ten "misunderstandings" of "surrogates" it becomes a pattern.

Posted by Benjamin | January 13, 2008 5:52 PM

Seriously, are Democrats (and the press) going to stand by while this woman runs a campaign of swiftboating and voter suppression?

What happened to all the searing soul searching after 2004?

Posted by This is some bullshit | January 13, 2008 6:00 PM

"Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible..." This is the icing on the cake. So, everyone who read this quote and has half a brain is being irresponsible because they know he was talking about drug use. I look forward to voting for Mike Bloomberg or John McCain if she wins the nomination.

Posted by WWNPHD | January 13, 2008 6:03 PM

I am so upset that I can barely type. How is it that not only is Hillary attacking Obama on issues but she has to have all of her supporters attacking him too. Is this the "Clinton Machine" that everyone is talking about. Obama has spent the past nine months running an incredibly respectable campaign now that Hillary is getting spanked in the polls she has to do what she does best, attack. It's funny because now her true colors are being brought to the fore. Do you see Oprah Winfrey attacking Hillary? Do you see any Obama supporters attacking Hillary? No, because they are above that. Now that Hillary knows that she is loosing she is playing games. I pray that americans can rise above this. This is our moment in history to say we are not going to be lead by these kinds of people anymore. I hope we seize it. If we don't our country will never recover. we will spend the next eight years filled with negativity and lies. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will become a Republican.

Posted by James | January 13, 2008 6:04 PM

Look, I don't think the Clintons are racist. But you're dreaming if you buy Johnson's later explanation for what he meant. It makes NO SENSE. The inference was clear, and what frustrates and exhausts so many of us about the Clintons is their frequent unwillingness to acknowledge a mistake. Putting out Johnson's counterintuitive statement reinforces that pattern.
One thing I haven't heard discussed much: how about the way he trashed Sidney Poitier? Come on, don't throw Sidney under the bus like that.

Posted by Paddy | January 13, 2008 6:17 PM

FYI... It was not a predominantly African American crowd according to msnbc.com:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/13/574964.aspx

Posted by RR | January 13, 2008 6:19 PM

P.S. Count me as another independent who would gladly vote for McCain (or Bloomberg) over Clinton. Obama, I'd think about. Clinton, can't do it.

Posted by paddy | January 13, 2008 6:20 PM

It would have been better if he just came out and said it instead of hiding it and then pretending he was talking about something else.

How many times have we heard that the cover-up is worse than the crime? That certainly holds true here. There's no way it would be getting this much attention if he just admitted it.

Posted by Mike | January 13, 2008 6:20 PM

Bob Johnson is just another billionaire media mogul supporting Hillary as the candidate of corporate America.

Posted by Patrick | January 13, 2008 6:26 PM

Why would they do it if they didn't think it would work???

Posted by heather | January 13, 2008 6:40 PM

The Revenge of Mark Penn.

God, the Clintons are disgusting.

Posted by Jack | January 13, 2008 6:41 PM

It's official: If Hillary is the Democratic nominee in November, I'll be abstaining.

And I'm a lifelong Democrat who has never voted for a Republican for national political office.

Dividing the Democratic Party and the country by race and gender through Karl Rove techniques is the last straw. For what? Her own personal ambition? In the words of Stephen Colbert, Hillary: you're dead to me.

Posted by Michael | January 13, 2008 6:44 PM

Count me as another former female Hillary supporter who will under no curcumstances support her if she gets it. Bloomberg and McCain have better leadership qualities and a lot more class.

Posted by Cindy M | January 13, 2008 6:55 PM

This issue isn't going away before South Carolina. It benefits one side.

Interesting story here about a de facto endorsement of Obama by a Republican governor of South Carolina of all places.

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/governor-mark-sanford-in-south-carolina.html

Posted by Jake | January 13, 2008 6:57 PM

You go Barack!

Obama Meets the Press Himself

ETHAN MILLER/GETTY IMAGES
Takes after Clinton at post-church Vegas press availability:
On Clinton’s charge that he is distorting her statement on Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King:

“I am baffled by that statement by the senator.”

On Clinton campaign saying in a Sunday conference call that there is no difference in their record on war in Iraq because both voted for war funding:

“Sen. Clinton started off trying to make history and now she’s trying to rewrite it.”

Asked if Clinton is trying to “swiftboat” him:

“I think they have decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign and I don’t think anybody who’s watching would deny that. I gather that she’s determined that instead of trying to sell herself on why she would be the best president, she’s trying to convince folks that I wouldn’t be a good one.”
The Page, 6:45 PM

Posted by Bobbi K | January 13, 2008 6:58 PM

Nothing much to add here except that there's a pattern here and it's extremely ugly. I can't point to anything similar to these ~10 comments from Obama supporters over the last couple of months. If Clinton repudiated these comments as thoroughly as Obama did (D-Punjab), then I'd be willing to listen. It sounds like an echo machine, but I swear this is my first post on the thread: I'm a straight-ticket democratic voter. I have always had a mild distaste for the Clintons, but I respected their management skills and was willing to support them in the general if they won. After the last couple of days, I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. We are seeing the Clintons for exactly what they are now, and it's revolting.

Posted by John M. | January 13, 2008 7:32 PM

I'm another life-long democrat -- I've voted for Hillary twice here in NY -- who will never vote for her again, no matter what. I liked her until this campaign -- despite the failures and betrayals of the first Clinton administrations. I would rather see a President McCain than turn over the nation to these people without the slightest degree of integrity or character.

Posted by Michael H. | January 13, 2008 7:37 PM

Yeah, this is really gross. (And look, we have our very own Clinton operative in "ken" to perpetuate the "Obama started it; he's the racist!" meme.) Johnson was obviously not referring to Obama's work as a community organizer. If he were, why would he frame it as something he wouldn't dare utter? What a pathetic game he's playing.

He will, of course, be given a free pass for this because he himself is Africa-American, which is exactly why he was recruited to speak.

Imagine the fury if someone said "Bill Clinton was too busy doing who-knows-what with what's-her-name to realize that Al Qaeda was preparing to attack America" and then later that someone explained that "Oh, I wasn't talking about Monica Lewinsky. I was talking about Clinton's regular meetings with Madeleine Albright. Why are you bringing sexual issues into this campaign!?"

Posted by tinisoli | January 13, 2008 7:38 PM

Just to elaborate: even putting the racism question aside, the pure dishonest negativity that is coming from Clinton right now is obscene. What in the world is she thinking? That people won't notice? That after her emotional moment she has carte blanche to attack? That Obama cannot win against a negative campaign? Her problem is that she doesn't have a vision for where to take the country, and that is going to be exposed thoroughly over the next three weeks. So her only option is to attack Obama and try to drag him into the muck.

Posted by John M. | January 13, 2008 7:40 PM

"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this drug use insinuation"

Posted by Hillary Can Iron My Shirt | January 13, 2008 7:43 PM

Oh she knows that people will notice - but she is also counting on two things - sowing the seeds of doubt about Obama so that people either vote for her or don't vote at all in the primaries and the second is that Democrats will vote for her in the general election because she will cover over the mess in the meantime - knowing that Democrats will look for an excuse to vote for her over letting a Republican take the White House. It's a pretty straight forward calculus really.

Posted by C.B. | January 13, 2008 7:51 PM

A window into the HIllary strategy in the upcoming days.

She will let the outrage develop to a certain point, provoke people to respond, etc. John Edwards will stick up for Obama, again. So will others.

At the tuesday debate, you'll have two male moderators (williams and russert) and Obama and Edwards all calling her out.

And she will brilliantly use that to laim that the men are beating up on her.

She will turn the tables and cry victim after she has stuck the knife in the back of Obama.

There will be another emotional moment within 48 hours of the Nevad Caucuses and she will rally white and hispanic voters, mostly women, to really around the aggrieved woman.

Her manipulation of the American people, the American media, and the American psyche are the stuff of Legend.

Even Karl Rove was not this skilled.

Posted by RKA | January 13, 2008 8:00 PM

Paddy - they won't acknowledge this because it's NOT a mistake.

Posted by ava | January 13, 2008 8:01 PM

I think she needs to adjust the calculus CB.

I'm a chronic Democratic voter (though I prefer to think of myself as more anti-Republican) and I have adequately fond memories of what the country was like in the nineties. But this time the Clintons have simply gone too far. It was arrogant of them to think that she'd coast to the nomination. It'll be twice as arrogant to think that if she bulldozes the most positive and popular political figure of the new millennium that we'll all begrudgingly or gratefully head to the polls in November to usher her into the White House.

Posted by tinisoli | January 13, 2008 8:07 PM

The comments are despicable. The attempted cover up is pathetic.

A lot of people are saying that the Clintons are brilliant political operators. I don't see it that way. This latest move seems transparent and clumsy and will hurt her in SC. From a position of total dominance and certainty they've slipped and are fighting for their political lives. This is the work of desperate frightened people, not the cool calculations of people in control.

The polls and endorsements are going Obama's way. The unpleasant noise that has accompanied his rise is the ugly hiss of air escaping from the Clinton's thin skinned campaign balloon.

Posted by bobhope | January 13, 2008 8:43 PM

People disagree about politics and candidates. I read comments on this blog from people who say they will not vote for Hillary now but they've been saying that same thing for weeks anyway.
Everyone gets to support who they want and dislike who they want.
Hillary is a great candidate and I supported last year and I liked her 16 years ago and she has earned my trust.
I get that some folks don't feel that way.
I will vote for Obama if he beats Hillary. I might even vote for Edwards if he beats the two of them. But its pretty funny to read bloggers here say they will vote republican if Obama doesn't win- gosh the issues like the war and the economy and the environment must really mean alot to you guys.
Obama's campaign was always fighting the odds, just like deans and perots: even with 100 million dollars he may not be able to advertise his name to a win.
How anyone can say hillary's campaign is more desperate than edwards or obamas- especially when the comments here trade in so little fact and are so reactionary is astonishing.

Posted by Michael | January 13, 2008 8:50 PM

Memo to the Obama campaign:

Ok, I have laid out above what I think Hillary is doing.

Here is what I think you all need to do about it.

My advice is not to fight with the Clinton campaign in the he said/she said weeds. The closer this fight is to the muddied ground, the better it is for the Clintons' type of strategy.

My advice for Obama and his campaign would be aggressively be the racial and gender concilliator. He needs to add to his line, "I don't want to pit red America against Blue America" and make it into an entire riff: "I don't want to pit male america aginst female america. I don't want to pit black america against white american against latino america, etc).

Also, i think that he needs to respond to hillary when she says, as she did in the last dedate, that having the first woman president would be change. What he should do is contrast himself by saying explicitly that he is not running to be "the first black president" but that he is running to bring people together around a common purpose. He should acknowledge the divisons of the past, particularly the suffering that women have often suffered at the hands of men, but he needs to make the case that we are all better if we move beyond our divisions instead of being balkanized by them.

The needle he has to thread is not running against the idea of a woman president, but more against the triablisic notions that race or gender should even matter. He needs to move the conversation back to vision of the country and away from the race and gender of the candidates.

Previously, Obama would always say the true enemy is cynicism. Cynicism is still a major threat, but now tribalism has become an even bigger threat to our nation. He should make the connection that xenophobic tribalism led our country astray in going into Iraq and that using tribalism to divide us in our politics domestically is the wrong thing for a leader to do.
Obama has to respond to this stuff.

Obama and his campaign need to realize that this is more than just race baiting by Hillary Clinton. This more than just an attempt to tie Obama in the average voter's mind as a free-loading black guy using affirmitive action to get ahead of white people unfairly when it is not his turn.

This is, even more importantly, an arrow straight into the heart of the premise of Obama's candidacy: that he is a concilliator, a uniter not a divider. HIllary wants to stir up the racial pot and say to voters, "Look, Obama can't unite us. Look, we're all talking about race now. Obama's idealism is just a pipe dream. Come back to Hillary."

As much as Hillary tries to lure him off of it with these poison pills, Obama cannot cede the high ground. HE needs to strongly respond, not with tit-for-tat, but to elevate the discourse and contrast himself as a uniter and explicitly say that HIllary is a divider. Play up electability and red state appeal. Don't be afraid to talk honestly about race. If this 800 pound gorilla is completely ignored it will raise its ugly head at some point. Tactics will not win, but the unvarnished truth just might.

This will be a test of Obama's calm temprament. He cannot show anger even though he has every right to be really mad. He needs to sorrowfully attack her from a defensive position (as hillary did in the crying moment, but Obama should do so without any affected emotional melodrama) and then quickly pivot to his positive agenda and message.

He will also need good surrogates to refute Hillary. Use female ones whenever possible. You need Napalatano and McKaskil to call Hillary on her games so she can't say the guys are ganging up on her. HIllary wants to fight you with one hand tied behind your back. Say nothing and her smears stand; fight back and you (and the guys) are beating up the girl. You need to use female surrogates to do some of the heavy lifting as you rise above.

Barack, you are in the fight of your life. I know if anyone can do this, you can. We're counting on you.

Posted by RKA | January 13, 2008 9:00 PM

it's now official. as a commmitted registered democrat, who wants to end the war in iraq, i will vote for john mccain over hillary clinton in a general election, should it come to that.

this is indisputable, unacceptable, race-baiting, and it is now part of an unmistakably deliberate pattern. that it comes from the mouth of an african-american is irrelevant.

this is not about civil rights, to which the clintons are committed. this is not about racism per se -- the clintons are not racist. this is about the willingness to disgustingly exploit racial divisions as a political tool to win elections.

from this point forward, i will never cast a ballot for hillary clinton.

Posted by del | January 13, 2008 9:10 PM

Well since it was Obama who started witht the race mongering right after the NH debates I see why someone like Johnson would call Obama out on it.

Obama is essentially saying that Hillary Clinton, along with millions of like minded Americans, who fought the good fight to open the doors of opportunity to all people are now racists.

I have never been more insulted in my life. Obama is acting like Hillary Clinton has turned a fire hose on him just because she refuses to step to the curb and allow him to pass.

His attitude is causing our party great harm and will backfire on him with any demographic except the tiny minority that refuse to use their common sense.

Posted by ken | January 13, 2008 9:42 PM

What ken is doing is simple.

Erect a false straw man ( that Obama started this, flamed this, or called Hillary a racist) and then knock it down.

You say Hillary doing this today as well.

Sadly,there are people who willfall for this. If George Bush can convince 2/3 of the voters that Saddam ordered 9/11, is there any doubt that HIllary Clinton has the capacity to turn Barack Obama the concilliator into Al Sharpton the divider into the minds of the public.

You all in the media need to think about whether you plan to be accomplices in this. In you effort to provide balance to "both sides" even when one side is clear falshood, you all diminish the truth instead of shedding light on it. Remember that your sacred duty is to enlighten the generally ignorant masses, not to to serve as magaphones and conduits for this jujitsu that appeals to the worst sentiments of the American people. You have a public responsibility. This is your country too.

Posted by RKA | January 13, 2008 10:07 PM

Hold on. It was Obama's SC press secretary and Obama's spokeman that organized the quotations from the HRC campaign in a way as to suggest that they were racially insensitive. Are you really SO paranoid as to believe that Bill's fairy-tale comment, Hillary's MLK comment, Cuomo's shuck and jive comment, all that were in RESPONSE to questions asked of them, represent some concerted effort to bait Obama into playing the angry black man?!?! Are you KIDDING ME?! This is obscene. What has happened is that the Hillary made a clumsy statement vis-a-vis MLK, her husband made an accurate comment vis-a-vis Iraq and the Obama campaign and its surrogates are going on this tendentious RANT about race.

This is a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. Who benefits here? The Clintons? Clearly not. Getting called out as racist by African-Americans before a MOSTLY black primary is a terrible strategy to stem the Obama tide. The Obama campaign most clearly benefits. If this were a general election, obviously we'd be talking something different.

Posted by john | January 13, 2008 10:29 PM

Remember, Robert Johnson is the one who stood with Bush to pass the regressive estate tax repeal.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/08/estate-tax-bob-johnson

Why is Clinton allied with him?

Posted by matt | January 13, 2008 10:30 PM

Does anyone actually think that the Clintons are legitimately offended by these near constant insinuations that they're racist? They have been incredible progressive on civil rights issues. If I had spent a large portion of my life advocating for progressive ideals only to have Democratic surrogates and an opponent's campaign not-so-subtly suggest I'm playing the worst type of Republican racial politics, I'd be LIVID. The Clintons are rightfully upset. This is absurd.

Posted by john | January 13, 2008 10:38 PM

John, your thinking is overly simplistic. The Clintons have made the calculation that after Iowa and Blacks throughout the country saw that the idea of a black president was not a "faity tale," that the ship has sailed for them to get substantial numbers of black votes.

It is precisely because the black vote is important in a dem primary why is so important to them stratgeically to polarize the dem electorate on racial and gender lines to win. Obama is going to get the blacks, the college eductaed whites, especially men, and the youth. HIllary has no chioe but to gin up turnout of the segments of the dem coalition least receptive to blacks: non-college educated whites, and hispanics.

Furthermore, she needs to play up the gender card early and often. Blacks are not the majority of the dem electorate, but women are - close to 60%!

The only path to the nomination for Hillary Clinton is though an electorate polarized on gender and racial lines.

What people need to understand is that the interests of the clintons are in direct contradiction to the interests of the party. Who knows if the clintons are in their hearts racists or not...but there is one thing for sure...they are not patriots. If they loved their county, they would not divide it in order to rule it. They would say that they are only going to win in a way that appeals to the better instincts of the American people, not in a way that pours salt on old wounds, not in a way that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against the republicans by dividing our party in the worst way.

Those of you who have cast your lot with the clintons need to ask yourselves whether you can live with yourselves if you tacitly condone this sort of thing by your silence. Perhaps you are jaded, cynical, and bear calluses from all the battles you have fought over the years. And yes, many of the things you all accomplished over the years should be commended.

But you all need to ask yourselves if HIllary Clinton is worth your soul and the soul of our great party. You have to ask yourselves whether or not you will sleep well at night knowing the sort of politics you have embraced. Think of the reasons you got into this in the first place. Is this what you signed up for? Is this what you want your mark on this planet to be about?

The choice is yours.

Posted by RKA | January 13, 2008 10:50 PM

john,

Bill's comment about Barack vis à vis Iraq was not "accurate". Obama was and always has been opposed to the "dumb war" in Iraq. The lone quote that people like you keep pouncing on as evidence that Obama waffled on the issue is the one in which he conceded that if he'd been privy to secret intelligence on Iraq's WMD program perhaps he would've come to different conclusions. This is the equivalent of saying "If I had known something that I didn't know at the time and still do not know today, then sure, maybe I would've thought differently. DUH." This is a conclusion that any rational, honest person would come to if asked that question. IT DOES NOT COUNT AS A FLIPFLOP OR CHANGE OF POSITION. If anything, Obama stands out these days because he actually employs logic and reason, wehereas people like McCain and Bush would never even suggest that they would have done something differently, even if given different information or the benefit of hindsight. To them, consistency and "resolve" are everything; analysis and nuance are treasonous.

Nobody from the Obama campaign "organized" the quotations about MLK/LBJ. Those words came right out of Hillary Clinton's mouth, the press then reported them, and various people across the nation reacted to them. The Obama campaign's response was essentially non-existent. You cannot blame Obama for Al Sharpton having Bill on the radio to explain what he'd said, nor can you blame Obama for Hillary going on MTP today and further blowing smoke up the press's ass. In fact, you may notice that it is the Clinton's who always seem to be there when this racial crap pops up. Where there's smoke, there's fire. And where there's dirty tricks being played, there's Hillary or Bill or Mark Penn or some other unscrupulous, ruthless political pro.

Posted by tinisoli | January 13, 2008 10:53 PM

this is not about civil rights. clinton, obama, and edwards are all committed to civil rights. (which, by the way, should be a bare minimum qualification to run for president in 21st century america -- especially on the democratic party line.)

this is about the use of race as an electoral tool by washington political operatives. a hillary clinton presidency would no doubt be 'good for civil rights.' but hillary clinton's campaign has absolutely no compunction about using racially divisive tactics in order to get there. i cannot endorse that under any circumstance.

you don't need to be a racist to cynically exploit other people's racism.

Posted by del | January 13, 2008 11:50 PM

So non-college educated whites and hispanics only vote for Clinton because they are the 'least receptive to blacks.' Thanks for the insinuation gabacho.

Posted by F you | January 14, 2008 12:01 AM

That's a very good point, del, that is probably too nuanced and subtle to make the cut of the mainstream media, but it bears repeating: Bill and Hillary may not be overtly racist themselves, and they may indeed be quite wonderful when it comes to civil rights and the empowerment of Africa-American people, but by playing to racism and insisting that Obama's ethnic heritage become an issue, they are stooping to a Rovian low that really is unacceptable.

Posted by tinisoli | January 14, 2008 12:07 AM

The Obama campaign's response was to craft a memo and leak it to friendly press. (I fixed that for you tinisoli) Obama's campaign is playing racial politics as well.

I know Bob Johnson was insinuating Obama was on the down low and it is despicable. Why can't Obama supporters be truthful about what is originating from his campaign and from his surrogates?

Posted by amsb | January 14, 2008 12:42 AM

And this business about Bill and Hillary being longstanding champions of the interests of black folks yet another unexamined aspect of these shenanigans. Remember progressive Bill rushing back to Arkansas to observe the execution of Ricky Ray Rector (and regardless of what you think of the death penalty, using the execution of a human of any race as an opportunity for political showboating is grotesque); what about his famous "Sister Souljah" moment, when he embarassed Jesse Jackson in order to prove that he'd be a white Democratic candidate who'd finally stand up to the scourge of Jesse Jackson and the traditional civil rights establishment. The Clintons --and I say this as someone who has voted for both of them every time I've had the opportunity -- may be sympathetic to black folks generally, but will throw them under the bus for political purposes wihtout blinking an eye. But one of the additional genius aspects of this recent shenanigan politically is that it recirculates the dubious notion that the Clintons are these historic champions of black folks, which is a) patronizing to black folks, and b) not necessariy true.

Posted by reggiethecat | January 14, 2008 12:50 AM

RKA, grow up! No one is selling their soul by voting for Hilary Clinton. If you think this is the most disgusting thing that any candidate can do than vote for someone else. But, get off your high horse.

If you look at the totality of Hilary Clinton's public life, it is to serve. She is campaigning in a man's world, and she can stand up for herself. That's what I admire about her.

You state that the Clintons are not patriots because they want to win by dividing the country into racial divides. The Clintons have put themselves out for public scrutiny since the 1970s and have been attacked viciously. But, they still come back and want to serve this country. To me this makes them true patriots because they are placing their reputations on the line over and over.

Finally, who are you to judge Hispanics or non-educated college whites? You write about Clinton's race baiting, but in the same breath you insult these two groups.

Posted by EWard | January 14, 2008 1:18 AM

The very best part about this whole Robert Johnson thing is this other quote he made today:

Johnson, who accompanied Clinton to church, criticized Obama for allowing his campaign (as he described it) to distort what Clinton was saying.

"Barack knows better than that, why he would let his people let that come out just shows to me either he is not in control of what they are saying or he's allowing them to say it knowing it's wrong," Johnson said.
(Click my name for the full article/post)

How much more shameless can you get?

(I also posted this over on MY's blog, but it deserves a mention here, too.)

Posted by apistat | January 14, 2008 3:51 AM

Bob Johnson is the last person to talk about anyone being dishonest. The Obama campaign is not the reason why some African Americans were offended by what Hillary Clinton said; they heard the speech and drew their own conclusions.
They didn't need Obama's campaign to express their objections. There are many black people from Democratic Congressman to avergae citizens expressing outrage over what Hillary said.

The comment Johnson made about Obama's drug use was low. Why didn't he bring up Bill Clinton being dishonest about having sexual relations with an intern? Or better yet, why didn't he mention how he fooled black people into thinking that BET would be cable network that black people could be proud of? This is a clear example of how some in the black community like to bring others down; the crab in the barrel mentality. I am frankly insulted that Bob Johnson was dishonest when he created Black Entertainment Television, or as I call it; Bootleg Entertainment Television.

Johnson claimed that BET would be a one stop shop for news, entertainment and politics. The network would address issues of the black community. Well we all found out that was a lie. BET became the safe haven for exploiting common negative stereotypes of black people. He made billions off of exploiting black people.

Clinton stuck her foot in her mouth, and no matter what she meant to say, she said it and people commented on it. Instead of taking responsibility for what she said or meant to say, she is too busy trying to blame the Obama campaign for adding fuel to the fire.

The bottom line is this: Support a candidate because you believe in their plans for the country; not because you are in some type of pay back mode. You see some black people, especially some in the older generation, feel that since the Clintons supported some issues that affected the black community that we owe them our lives. That we owe them favors for as long as we live; and I say that is complete BS. We paid the Clintons for what they did, by voting for Bill Clinton during his run for second term in office; we don't owe them a damn thing now. I applaud the Clintons for their service to this country, but that doesn't mean that black people have to sign over their first born just because the Clintons supported causes that affected African Americans.

Posted by Native Son | January 14, 2008 7:25 AM

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that BET gave black audiences exactly the kind of programing they demanded?

If the black audience wanted news, education, and uplifting cultural shows shows then that is what would have been programed.

You can't blame Bob Johnson for his programing, without also blaming the culture that demanded it.

Posted by ken | January 14, 2008 7:55 AM

Would a Clinton supporter please explain to me, rationally if possible, how Hillary can win in the general election? Up to 50% of the American voting public at large polled that they would never vote for her "UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". Keep in mind this polling was done over the past couple of years and PRIOR to her alienation of many black voters, Barack Obama supporters, and independents through her and her husband's, plus their surrogates, deluge of slimy and disingenuous tactics in order to "win".

I'm seriously very curious how she could win under these circumstances. I've crunched the numbers and by my judgement she should be praying for either a Huckabee nomination or for a Bloomberg to jump in (ala Ross "Giant Sucking Sound" Perot) to divide the Republican vote.

Perhaps I'm missing something here and my math is skewed. I look forward to your enlightening comments.

Posted by Bobby | January 14, 2008 8:42 AM

F you and Eward,

If you are so outraged about some random commenter poiinting out that Hispanics might not be inclined to support a black candidate, then you should be similarly outraged by this on the record quote by Sergio Bendixen, one of Hillary's pollsters in the New Yorker:

"The Hispanic voter and I want to say this very carefully has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_lizza

Look, nice try to turn the tables and say I am insulting hispanics and downscale whites by stating a fact that they are less receptive to voting for a black candidate. I don't think this makes them bad people. They are often in economic competition with blacks and have a lot of resentment about affirmitive action, thinking it gives people a leg up that they do not deserve. Hispanics and Blacks have had many instances of antagonism over the years.

You can't put your head in the sand and pretend these a black candidate does not have to overcome these beliefs in some members of the electorate.

The issues is whether a leader pours salt on these divisions for the sake of poltical expedience, as do the Clintons, or do they try to move people beyond their divisions to a better place, as does Obama.

Look, the clintons will do whatever is in their personal political interest at any given time. When it is electorally advantageous for them to be civil rights chamions they will be. When it is poltically advantageous to have sista souljah moments or to race bait Obama, they will do that too.

In the challenge of running against a black candidate in a dem promary, the clintons are going to try to put together a coalition of women who embrace gender triablism, downscale white dems, and hispanic voters. If the blacks are not going to vote for the clintons, the clinons will take the same attitude as the republicans which is to use anti-black sentiment to create their new coalition.

What is in the best interests of the clintons is in the worst interests of the party and the country. They need to divide in order to rule. If they were patriots, there would be some things they would be unwilling to put the country through in order to fulfil their personal poltical ambitions. But nothing is really off the table for them.

Posted by RKA | January 14, 2008 9:19 AM

"Hispanics and downscale whites by stating a fact that they are less receptive to voting for a black candidate. I don't think this makes them bad people".

Sure it does. While I don't know too many Hispanics, I do know plenty of rednecks and I'm here to say they're 99% assholes.

Posted by Jan | January 14, 2008 9:30 AM

Jan, whether or not that is true is irrelevant because wirting them off does not move the ball forward. Behavior can be changed. It may take generations, but it can happen. Obama is trying to move the ball forward and be a concillaitor. He won't magically solve all problems overnight, but he will set a tone of leadership that will be able to talk honestly about the problems we face and take us in the right direction. We can't give up on ordinary people even if they have mixed emotions on race. We can and should run political leaders who exlouit these feelings out of washington, but Obama's hopeful message is that we can move things forward if we have the courage to do so. It's easy to get anngry and cynical, but the way to win is not to stoop to the level of your opponents. That is what they want. The way to win is to rise above and appeal to the goodness of the American people, not be hamstrung by the darker aspects of it.

Posted by RKA | January 14, 2008 9:49 AM

Johnson is a self made billionaire and one of teh most successful African American men in the world. HE can day ANYTHING he wants about race, and about Barack Obama.

The white Republicans will say faaaar worse and show NO REMORSE doing it.

Posted by Rich Flatts, Charlotte, NC | January 14, 2008 9:54 AM

I am utterly discussed when I heard Johnson’s remark, it is not because he is supporting Clinton. He has all the rights to support whom ever he chooses. As it has been suggested Johnson has made BILLIONS in the demising of young African American with the garbage his so called BET network has fed our children for sometimes now. I would suggest he spends his time and effort cleaning up after himself. Johnson you have corrupted a whole generation so please, leave this kind of remark for some one with more integrity.
Do us all that favor.

Posted by Jr | January 14, 2008 10:09 AM

Rich Flatts: You have the writing skills and logic of a twelve year old glue sniffer.

Posted by Barry | January 14, 2008 10:12 AM

I'm so sick of the Clintons and White Liberals generally with their patronizing and paternalistic attitude toward Black folks. Senator Obama was never comparing himself to MLK, but what if he was? Who the fuck does Hillary Clinton think she is to chastise him? If he was out-of-bounds, it would have been for the elders like Reverend Lowry to call him on it, not some White woman who was campaigning for Barry Goldwater when Dr. King was risking his life. Listening to Bill Clinton this morning on TJMS, acting like some damn backwoods hick rather than a former president, it was more than clear he was saying, "I've been good to you niggers, so you owe me." Now he wants to cart out a no account MF like Bob Johnson who made a billion damn dollars selling the dignity of Black folks on BET (Black Exploitation Network). I'm so sick of the MF Clintons I don't know what to do!!!

Posted by NMP | January 14, 2008 1:06 PM

NMP: Couldn't have said it better myself. It's pathetic, transparent, and hugely calculated. Yet people fall for it. I just shake my head and wonder WTF.

Posted by James | January 14, 2008 1:31 PM

I am totally upset with the Clinton's. You talk about dirty politics.Bob Johnson is an Uncle Tom. I've always supported the Clinton, but never again. It's has nothing to do with the "black-white" issue. Because in this country that will always be. It doesn't matter about interracial this or that. Race is an issue. But for the Clintons to be so negative about Senator Obama it's shameful. As for Hillary crying on national televison how desperate is this woman. We've had 16 years of the Clinton and Bush administration. It's time for a change, that word have been used alot lately. Bill Clinton sounded like so irate lunatic this morning on the TJMS. Jackie couldn't conduct the interview because he wanted to "hog" all the time to get his point across to us "ignorant" black folks.
Everyone keeps talking about their experience. My cat could do a better job. I'm so turned off by all this "#!!?!!!##.

Posted by SAT | January 14, 2008 1:37 PM

rich flatts of this blog = dickie flatts on politco blogs

A Clinton troll - and not very imaginative at that (rich? dickie?)

Posted by winnie | January 14, 2008 2:02 PM

Of all the people she could have stood side by side with today, why Bob Johnson? On the eve of the possibility of electing the first African American or woman as President of the United States, why on earth would Hillary Clinton associate herself with a man that has spent his life’s work trying to profit of the exploitation of African Americans, African American women and girls in particular?

Bob Johnson stands for everything Hillary Clinton OUGHT to be against. This man single-handedly set the cause of African Americans back hundreds of years. His exploitation of Black women and girls is particularly morally repugnant. Hillary Clinton is supposed to be a defender of the American worker, yet Bob Johnson made his billions at Black Entertainment Television by notoriously paying his on air talent slave wages.

To be sitting up in a the pulpit of a Black church grinning and laughing side by side with this multimedia crack cocaine dealer and pimp is the slap in the face of every Black woman and girl in this country.

Instead of repeating Bob Johnson’s comments on Senator Obama wholesale, reporters should be asking him about the circumstances under which his wife and BET cofounder left the company. They should ask him about his “relations” with the female executives at his company. They should ask him why his own sister allegedly sued him and whether Johnson properly paid his taxes. All of these issues are raised in Johnson’s biography, The Billion-Dollar Bet. Bob Johnson is not an African American leader, he is a bottom feeder.

Let us not forget that for SIX YEARS Bob Johnson skirting broadcasting rules to broadcast some of the most vile disgusting depictions of African American women in cable television history. BET’s “ Uncut “ featured such cultural gems as:

“What That Thing Smell Like”, by Black Jesus
Shake It Like a Pitbull, by Cold Cannons
F@#king, by David Banner feat. Jazze Pha -
“P#$$y Licker“, DJ Slim -
“I Got That Drank“, Frayser Boy feat. Mike Jones and Paul Wall -
“Let Me See You’re @$$ Drop“, Joker the Bailbondsman -
“P#$$y Poppin'“, by Ludacris feat. Shawnna and Lil Fate

This is not okay. Would Hillary Clinton sit in a church pulpit with Larry Flint or Hugh Hefner? Then why is she sitting in a pulpit with Bob Johnson? Or is she only concerned about the degradation and exploitation of White women? Does her brand of feminism extend to Black women and girls too?

When Hillary Clinton sits side by side in an African American church with a noted misogynist and smut peddler she sends a clear message: she’s not overly concerned about the damage this man has caused African American girls and women. Does Senator Clinton care about our daughters? I don’t know. The Senator should seriously reconsider the company she is keeping. Bob Johnson is no friend of Black America or Black women and children!
http://whataboutourdaughters.blogspot.com/2008/01/am-i-going-to-have-to-get-obama-t-shirt.html

Posted by Gina | January 14, 2008 7:37 PM