January 2008
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Dec		Feb »
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Messy

Jan 14, 2008

maha

-->

The Obama campaign has released a memo detailing a number of racially charged remarks made by the Clinton campaign. Josh Marshall writes,

We seem to be at the point where there are now two credible possibilities. One is that the Clinton campaign is intentionally pursuing a strategy of using surrogates to hit Obama with racially-charged language or with charges that while not directly tied to race nonetheless play to stereotypes about black men. The other possibility is that the Clinton campaign is extraordinarily unlucky and continually finds its surrogates stumbling on to racially-charged or denigrating language when discussing Obama.

Josh argues that many of the charges from the Obama campaign are based on comments taken out of context. Maybe. But the Clintons have been distorting Obama’s record on opposing the Iraq War. I think the Obamas have put the Clintons on notice that they can play that game, too.

More on war records from Ezra Klein:

The issue isn’t the issue — about which Obama was correct — it’s his consistency on the issue. Barack Obama was right on Iraq, and Hillary Clinton was wrong. Obama could have made a couple more speeches, but there really wasn’t much he could do to divert the course of the war as a lone Senator. By contrast, there was very much Hillary Clinton, and her husband, could have done to divert the war — and all it would have taken was exactly what Obama did. A prescient, fiercely oppositional speech during the run-up to the invasion. Nor has Clinton, who routinely promises to end the war once in office, exercised political leadership in the Senate, using either her media power or parliamentary pull to sustain a brave stand against the conflict. Instead, she has spoken of her desire to end it and, in reality, gone along with the cowed, ineffectual approach of the Senate Democrats: Register opposition, vote against bills, eventually pass spending measures that continue the war. I understand that the narrative she’s trying to push is that real change takes perpetual work, but she’s not been working for this change. That may be because she doesn’t believe in this change, but either way.

Elsewhere: Chicago Dyke on how Republicans tried to buy black clerical leaders. Actually, to a large extent, they succeeded.

Update: Liza Sabater and racial tension headache.

Spotlight

7 Comments

k • Jan 14, 2008 @12:42 pm

While I condemn The Clinton War Vote because anyone with eyes could see that cheney train coming down the track in spring 2002, what did Clinton know and when did she know it? What committees was she on and what briefings did she get and what bogus information did she and other Senators get at that time? That is what the focus ought to be on, not Dems tearing apart Dems for what deranged Republicans have done. Bill Clinton surely did not condemn the rush to war at the time. I recall a Mr Gore did and was pilloried as what he said did not fit the narrative the herd was running with. Both She and Obama have raced to the middle and not taken principled stands.( telecom amnesty anyone?) I remember a Sen Byrd who at the time said that the vote he most regreted was the vote to approve Tonkin in 65 I believe it was. Clinton needs to address what her real motivation was and spill it and put that behind herself.
hettiemae • Jan 14, 2008 @12:49 pm

In the eight years I worked as a substitute teacher, I observed many times that when a teacher made a black student angry that student would claim racial prejudice. The teachers were always held blameless in the school officials’ hearings after the accusations. The accusations from the Obama campaign are just as unfounded in my opinion.
Ed Deevy • Jan 14, 2008 @1:20 pm

It is not that long ago since blacks growing up in the Deep South would be subjected to numerous insults on a dialy basis. I saw it first-hand as a white man working with the anti-poverty program in the Sixties and early Seventies. I have no trouble understanding why blacks today would be hyper-sensitive about percieved insults. Sadly, I realize there is very little understanding of this sensitivity in the so-called progressive community.
maha • Jan 14, 2008 @1:55 pm

Sadly, I realize there is very little understanding of this sensitivity in the so-called progressive community.

I grew up in a segregated community and appreciate how ugly racism can get. However, as a white progressive I am weary of being reminded of what a racist clod I am. Fine; I don’t always see what racism is still out there. I admit that. But we all shuffle through life nursing our own emotional and psychological wounds while being insensitive to other people’s emotional and psychological wounds. This is not limited to race by a long shot.
Jack K., the Grumpy Forester • Jan 14, 2008 @1:59 pm

…with regard to both issues, I find myself flinging my hands up in despair (probably doesn’t help that I’m not a supporter of either of these candidates)…

It appears that both sides are playing old-fashioned politics on the race issue, with Clinton’s people saying things they need to try to explain away later and Obama’s folks making some stretches in order to support the accusations of “Clinton injecting race into the campaign”…

On the issue of Iraq, Obama’s positions and votes since election to the Senate are just as nuanced and triangulated as Clinton’s. Neither voted for the Kerry “date certain” amendment and both have voted for the off-budget Iraq appropriations. ‘Who was more right about the invasion’ is a fine debate club resolution, but it isn’t necessarily illustrative of possible future actions as president nor does it answer how either one proposes to get us out of this mess…
joanr16 • Jan 14, 2008 @6:58 pm

OK, I read the memo, and I think most of the examples are a stretch, at best. The Obama campaign could use a lecture from Al Gore on wasting paper. And Bill Clinton should just stay home.

As for me, I’m sticking with Edwards.
uncledad • Jan 14, 2008 @9:43 pm

In my opinion this is just the latest example of the lazy media making a big deal out of some questionable comments (most taken out of context). Just another way to avoid discussing real isuues. I am not a Hillary fan by any stretch, but she seems to be getting railroaded on this “race” issue, all the while the wingnuts sit back and laugh (just turn on FAUX news you’ll see the real/fake effect).