When trying to put the Robert Johnson fracas in context, it's worth recalling that it's not just the estate tax, Johnson took a position on Bush's rigged Social Security commission where his designated job was to provide bipartisan (and multiracial) cover for privatization and he took to the job like a fish to water. I found that article, meanwhile, while searching for a great Jon Chait piece on the whole Johnson phenomenon that seems, unfortunately, to have gone missing in TNR's troubled archives.
« Huckabee and Catholics | Main | Clinton Attacks on Iraq »
Republican Talking Points, First Black Billionaire Edition
13 Jan 2008 11:13 pm
Comments (53)
That Uncle Tom Johnson sure put on a good Minstrel Show this morning.
Wait, I thought the first black billionaire was Oprah???
BET founder, 'nuff said.
Is this the same Robert Johnson who went to the crossroads at midnight and asked a stranger to tune his guitar? You'd think he'd have learned after that to not make these kind of deals.
A couple of things:
1) As a registered Democrat, this whole thing just makes me sad. We have a very accomplished field of candidates that features a woman and an Africa-American male, either of whom might actually have a good chance of winning the White House. We ought to be happy. Instead, a party that celebrates diversity and civil rights is now being bogged down in arguments over sexism and racism. Good times.
2) Obama didn't make today about race; Robert Johnson did and Obama did not mention race at all in his response to the comments.
3) I fully agree that some of the statements that have come out from the Clinton camp have not been about race. The "fairly tale" comment from Bill was in re: the Iraq war, and though Hillary and Bill are now distorting Obama's record and vote on it, it wasn't about race.
However, the Cuomo "shuck and jive" comments were pretty close to the line and the comment from the Guardian that cited an unnamed Clinton supporter as saying that if you have needs you'd vote for Clinton but that if you were young and didn't have needs, you could vote for Obama because he'd be your cool, hip imaginary black friend was over it.
In any case, this is a mess now. Even John Edwards commented on it today. Cue Hillary saying that they're ganging up on her again.
I think future historians will regard the success of the "Death Tax is Racist" argument as the second strongest sign of the idiocy and utter decadence of America's current political/media culture.
The strongest being obviously "the Iraq War is in Retaliation for the 9/11 Terrorist Attack"...
By all means let us take guidance from Bob Johnson, who probably had more people high in his BET studios as he ran a continuous stream of porn videos to amass his fortune. A man who shagged his vice-president, fired his wife and provided cover for the Bush administration. Of course he supports the Clintons. Is Marion Barry next?
And I guess that more than a couple of things. Carry On. And, oh yeah...Go Wiz and Go Warriors!
I've been willing to give the Clintons a pass for some of the dubious comments coming out of their camp, but this is really beyond the pale. This isn't just some random Clinton supporter, these are remarks made with Clinton at a Clinton event.
It really is starting to look like this is part of a plan to bait Obama into a dispute about race so that he can be painted as "the black candidate" to lower his support among whites and tarnish his likely big win in SC as a result of racial politics. If so, this is truly disgusting.
So Robert Johnson was a Bush supporter now supporting Hillary? Isn't one of the Obamaniac talking points that he is a great candidate because he's able to get former Bushies to support him? Since Hillary was able to do the same thing with ex-Bushie Robert Johnson, shouldn't they be saying his support is a good thing then?
Dan the Man,
No, Obama's campaign is not about getting Bush supporters to do Republican style race baiting for him. But maybe that is what Clinton's campaign is going to be about. Nice try though.
The Honorable Jesse Jackson, Jr. already made Obama the black candidate for South Carolina. The insinuations coming from Clinton supporters suggest her perfidy is only matched by her ambition. However, don't pretend the Obama campaign isn't making racial appeals when and where they think it is helpful.
ikl,
you are mostly correct.
what the clintons are doing now is truly disgusting.
they are attempting to color everything as racial politics, by subtly painting obama as a black candidate.
but i think they are trying to win in south carolina and they are pulling every dirty trick in the book to try to make it happen.
and, i think they are winning these ugly skirmishes.
we've been reading columns for months by the likes of maureen dowd and others who have questioned whether obama has the grit to give as good as he gets.
well, so far, he's getting pummeled and all he is doing is complaining - in typical democratic weenie style - about how mean the clintons are.
the fact that he does not understand how to really play this tough brand of politics - by attacking as hard as he is being attacked - says a lot about his readiness - or lack of readiness -to take on the republican hit machine.
maybe a little blow,
wrong, wrong wrong.
obama wants to stay as far away from racial issues as he possibly can.
that is why you never hear him make racially-tinged appeals in any of his speeches.
remember...he transcends race.
or so he would like us all to believe.
I think Obama loses a tit-for-tat exchange with the Clintons on race. I think he's got a small window of opportunity here to use the Bob Johnson comments to transcend the discussion and make a true modern civil rights speech that A) slams the image of pimps and hoes that is pervasive on Clinton supporter Bob Johnson's BET and B) gives a truly modern civil rights speech on what is needed from all of us to be equal and free.
If Obama can rise above the Clintons, makes a big show of rising above the Clintons, AND lifts people with him then he going to win the exchange. But I don't think he wins without being more confrontational in exposing the political games that the Clintons play.
Obama's got his work cut out for him.
and, i think they are winning these ugly skirmishes.
I'm not so sure. It's almost as if Hillary's supporters are doing their damndest to stamp down any bounce.
Johnson is a tool, though: Michael Kinsley covered the tax issue in 2001:
Bob Johnson is a billionaire, or close to it. He started BET in 1980, with $500,000 of mostly borrowed seed money, and sold it to Viacom late last year for $2.5 billion plus the assumption of around $500 million in debt. Johnson owned a majority of the company. The sale to Viacom took the form of an exchange of stock: Viacom got all the stock in BET and issued new shares of Viacom to give to Johnson in return. An SEC filing by Viacom describes the sale as a "tax-free transaction"—which is precisely why mergers and buyouts are often done this way.If Bob Johnson has paid income tax on even one tenth of the money that would be in his estate if he died tomorrow, it would be astonishing. And under current law, that accumulation of wealth is wiped off the books for income tax purposes the moment he passes on. This so-called "stepped-up basis" rule means that when and if Johnson's heirs sell their Viacom stock, they would pay income taxes only on any gain in value since the stock became theirs.
If I'm right about the strategy, then the Clinton's are just writing off SC. There is no way that they are going to win SC by dividing white and black voters unless Edwards drops out and doesn't endorse Obama (which I doubt will happen before SC because he would have done it already in that case). If Obama wins big among blacks, he wins SC - the white vote will split between Clinton, Edwards and Obama.
The problem with hitting back hard is that Obama loses if he prolongs the conversation about race. He needs to go after Clinton on her dirty voter supression ploy in Nevada instead. Over and over. Until she denounces it or defends it.
Robert Johnson? At this point, why not just try to get Shelby Steele to endorse Clinton? It's not like Johnson has that much pull with the black community anyway.
i think the desperate nature of the clintons' actions over the last few days says a lot about what happened in new hampshire.
if they'd actually and legitimately pulled off that last second stunner, by finally finding their candidate's voice, do you think they would be using this high risk strategy?
i dont think so.
the fact that they are engaging in these ugly racial appeals says to this reader that they knew that they did not legitimately win in new hampshire and that they have to do any and everything they can to stop obama before he gets the kind of momentum that would crush their campaign.
with a friendly secretary of state and local political machine, you can do wonders with an election. however, that kind of easily manipulated infrastructure will not be present everywhere.
what we are seeing now is about the strongest evidence imaginable that they never expected to get any "bounce" out of their "win" in new hampshire, and the only way they can win is to make obama unacceptable to voters.
they may pull it off.
I wrote: Isn't one of the Obamaniac talking points that he is a great candidate because he's able to get former Bushies to support him?
iql wrote: No, Obama's campaign is not about getting Bush supporters to do Republican style race baiting for him.
That didn't answer my question. But it's pretty funny Obamaniacs would now say it's wrong to get former-Republican supporters to do Republican style race baiting, when they are getting current Republican supporters to do Republican style race baiting for them. Like this Red State article:
"Barack, you're not in Iowa or Illinois anymore. Rather, you are the latest target of the Clinton "machine", and an increasingly desperate machine at that. Moreover, you are a member of a "victim" racial group that the Donkey's powers-that-be have determined must be taken care of by said Donkey, but not vice versa, especially when you pose a threat to the the ambition-driven former First Lady and present reigning Queen of the Liberal firmament."
Obamaniacs, suffering from CDS, now have, as one of their best allies, Red State. Congratuations.
the clintons are playing brilliant and exquisitely brutal racial politics.
of course, if obama hits back on the racial issues, even if he is right, he will suffer among voters, because he's been trying to, remember, "transcend" race. every and any time he has to talk about mlk or civil rights or anything related to black folks, his message of being beyond race gets stepped on.
but what may happen, and i think the clintons are trying to make this happen, though it is a long shot, is that black voters may again look at obama as being a candidate who cannot be elected because he is black and those black voters may therefore start to move away from him. lots of black voters, myself included, have been hesitant to support him because we imagined - correctly as is being shown - that when crunch time actually came, he would be branded as an unacceptable black candidate and would lose.
now, i dont think he is unacceptable by any means and he has not lost yet, but you can see the foundation of that attack strategy being put into place right now.
and if i am having these nagging doubts about his viability - again - i know black voters in florida and south carolina and other places are having the same doubts.
obama needs to attack clinton on issues that have nothing to do with race. he needs to attack and attack hard. put her on the defensive.
iraq is one such issue, for instance.
but he has scrrewed up that line of attack because he refuses to come up with an iraq strategy that really is distinguishable from clintons'.
I find myself agreeing with frankie d almost all the time. I will note that it looks like Obama has indeed adopted a strategy of attacking Clinton on other stuff not about race (i.e., the Las Vegas lawsuit). I'll also add that when it comes to responding to attacks, Obama has shown an uncanny ability to come up with good comebacks that both show toughness and elevate him above the nastiness of his opposition. So, yes, he has his work cut out for him but thus far he's done pretty well with these kinds of challenges.
Dan the Man says that Ben Johnson standing next to Clinton on stage is the analogous to stuff written on some random Republican website with no connection to Obama. This stuff refutes itself!
You weren't even really trying, this time.
frankie d
The Obama campagin doesn't want the entire primary season to be about race but it uses Obama's "blackness" when and where they believe it is to their advantage.
The Obama campaign leaked the "Clintons are racist" memo.
Congressman Jackson made it abundantly clear who 'the 45% of African Americans who will participate in the South Carolina primary' should choose. It was no coincidence that he said Katrina over and over again instead of casualties in Iraq when needling Clinton about crying.
"Si, se puede" isn't only about the Culinary Workers whose own motto is The Las Vegas Dream/El Sueño en Las Vegas. It is an appeal to Hispanic voters in CO, NM and AZ on February 5.
Obama is also using black, gospel and urban radio to get his message out both in interviews with his surrogates and paid ads with direct appeals to black voters.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/25/obama_courts_black_vote_in_sc.html
Yeah, God forbid Obama buy ads on "black" radio stations. Or appeal to Hispanics. We won't want him to get any actual votes now would we. If that is "using race" then every Democrat and more than a few Republicans "use race." Sorry, that argument was BS.
That said, Jackson Jr. needs to shut up if he is going to make such clumsy attacks. I suspect that the campaign may have already told him that . . .
Hillary's strategy here is obvious: make race an issue by putting out all sorts of racially-tinged statements and then when Obama responds to these ridiculous smears, say, "See! He is playing the race card! Just like angry negro crack dealers always do. Oh, did I mention he is a coke-head Muslim hipster?"
The Hillary camp is trying desperately to get Obama to talk about race. This doesn't mean Obama has never mentioned race. (Uh, I thought Democrats always talk about the importance of race as an issue in this country.) The point is that they want him talking about race on defence, so they can paint him as another Al Sharpton. The only problem is that this Clinton strategy is so transparent and vile that it is backfiring in a major way.
Do you always resort to cheap condescension when presented with opinions you disagree with?
You should stay at the children's table if your only modes of communication are smiles and tears.
I wrote: Isn't one of the Obamaniac talking points that he is a great candidate because he's able to get former Bushies to support him?
iql wrote: No, Obama's campaign is not about getting Bush supporters to do Republican style race baiting for him.
Dan the Man says that Ben Johnson standing next to Clinton on stage is the analogous to stuff written on some random Republican website with no connection to Obama.
You still haven't my question.
Where did I talk about "analogy"? Duh. In reality, attacks on Clinton by Obama are inevitably repeated in right-wing blogs (like Drudge, Red State) because CDS is part of what those blogs do. And the Obama campaign has been using these right wing sites to spread its message. So it's absolutely correct to say that Obama's campaign uses Bush supporters to spread their propaganda for them.
A case in point was the Obama campaign's racist meme. The Obama campaign talked to the Politico about it. As Atrios pointed out, the right wing tilt of the Politico became obvious when it admitted their favorite websites were "Drudge Report, Real Clear Politics, Times "The Page". Drudge: conservative. Real Clear Politics: conservative. Halperin, formerly of the Note: conservative"." Using these right wing websites is one of the ways Obama spreads its message against Clinton.
So I do apologize for saying Red State, when I should have said the Politico and especially this Politico article which started it (note the quotes by Obama supporters and his campaign) even though, of course, Red State got much of its information from the Politico.
The Clinton Smear Machine is a well-oiled machine.
They are pounding on Obama and he is not fighting back.
I hope to god this is more like the Ali Rope-A-Dope victory than the John Kerry "I'm a dope" flame out.
Obama needs to hit back, but is in a tricky position.
How he responds will determine who the next president will be.
The very best part about thise 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?
Wow...this whole process is making me ill.
What the hell is happening to my country?
I hold out hope that Obama is not suckered in by all this...his message is sound and what this country is really hungry for.
If only we, the people, don't get sucked in by the tactics and succumb to dividing ourselves again.
Vote hope, not fear. Vote American, not divide and conquer.
jim
I would agree with the second part of your comment. Obama's campaign's use of race has almost all been affirmative in nature. Congressman Jackson's remarks and the leaked memo were different however. The Congressman's implication was that Senator Clinton did not care about Katrina and by implication African Americans. The memo was an attack however justifiable.
I assume the Obama campaign has studied the the Washington and Braun campaigns extensively and probably those of Wilder and Patrick and have chosen their tactics accordingly. If the issue of race comes to dominate the debate perhaps Obama will take a look at the Kennedy campaign and maybe re-work this speech.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
Just a little blow: No, I only make fun of arguments when they appear to me to be made in bad faith. You seem like someone coming in to stir up trouble between supporters of candidates you oppose rather than make reasonable arguments. Sorry if I've got you pegged wrong. You did make a good point about Jackson Jr and I acknowledged this. The other stuff you said seemed pretty intellectually dishonest so I treated it accordingly.
the clintons are playing brilliant and exquisitely brutal racial politics.
Maybe, but the same could have been said for Lee Atwater. I never voted for any of his clients either.
Sending Robert Johnson out to do your dirty work is beneath contempt. Someone in the Clinton side needs to read up on what became of good King Pyrrhus.
well, it is tragic that the media has now created a situation where two democratic politicians are trying to slay each other over the race issue. hasn't one of rove's most successful tactics been to take away his opponent's strength and make it a weakness? why are democratic voters even giving this kerfluffle the time of day? i say this back and forth over race could potentially do tremendous damage in the general election to either obama or clinton. and given the absolute logical leaps i have to go to in order to see the "racism" in any of clinton's comments, i fear that this "controversy" just goes to show how naive obama and his supporter's are with regard to the right wing/mainstream media noise machine.
good job obama, you are playing right into the hands of the right wing by accusing clinton of "racism". as the poster mentioned above, this just ties in too closely to the long running right wing meme that the clinton's are racists. the whole thing is a media created tempest designed to damage BOTH candidates. and it seems to be working.
English teacher, you do a good job blaming Obama. On issues of race, it's always the black guy's fault, right?
Cause, you know, Obama always wanted to make this about race. There's nothing that gets a black guy into the presidency faster than playing the race card. All those black presidents we've had, it's all been from playing the race card.
I'm really surprised he isn't an Obama supporter after all he's the candidate that thinks Social Security needs to be dealt with.
Where's the Krugman editorial condemning Hillary for having Johnson play such a prominent role in her South Carolina campaign after he'd served as one of Bush's pawns on the Commission to Strengthen Social Security (http://www.csss.gov/members/). Obama tried to bring up Social Security at the last debate, but got shot down by the WMUR moderator who was too concerned with trying to stage a fight b/w him and Clinton. Obama should use this opportunity not to call Johnson & Clinton jerks, but to turn it into a criticism of Clinton's cynical positioning on Social Security:
1. Clinton supporter Robert Johnson served on Bush's CSSS. He's an ardent supporter of privatization, claiming that Social Security hurts black Americans because they die at a younger age than other Americans. Here's the opening to Johnson's comments on Social Security at the last meeting of the CSSS:
All of you saw the film Titanic. And if you imagine, for those of you who didn't see the film Titanic, some of you may have lived on the Titanic. But anyway, here is the situation. We are all on the Titanic as it relates to Social Security, and clearly this is -- and we will have people tell us this is the safest ship afloat, tremendous leadership at the helm, no danger to us, but out there lurking is an iceberg, and let me tell you what that iceburg is. That iceburg is the fact that based on the fact that between now and the next 50 years, the number of workers available to support Social Security benefits will drop from 3.4:1 to 2:1. The resulting cost of maintaining the current benefits in Social Security will increase 69 percent. In other words, we are heading for a disaster.
(it's really worth reading the rest of it... check out the minutes at csss.gov)
2. Clinton repeatedly attacks Obama on Social Security for even suggesting that there is a potential issue in the next decade or so and proposing possible measures to deal with it. Instead, she proposes a bipartisan commission, just like Bush's CSSS, to figure out what we should do to maintain Social Security in the future. Clinton agrees that Social Security faces long-term problems, but claims debate about Social Security remedies in the primary results in Republican talking points (from the Philly debate):
Well, Tim, I don't. I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges which, I agree, are ones that we're going to have to address. We would have a bipartisan commission. In the context of that, I think all of these would be considered.
So when somebody asks me, would something like this be considered? Well, anything can be considered when we get to a bipartisan commission, but personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.
...
I think for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap. We're playing on the Republican field, and I don't intend to do that.
3. Obama will debate Republicans today in favor of Social Security as it stands, and will also address long-term problems:
It is common sense that we are going to have to do something about it. That is not a Republican talking point. And if we don't deal with it now, it will get harder to deal with later.
So what I've said -- and I know some others on this stage have said -- is that among the options that are available, the best one is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, potentially exempting folks in the middle -- middle-class folks -- but making sure that the wealthy are paying more of their fair share, a little bit more.
Now, it is important, if we are going to lead this country, to be clear to the American people about what our intentions are. And this is part of the politics that we have been playing, which is to try to muddle though, give convoluted answers. Ultimately, we then don't have a mandate and we can't bring about change, in part because we're afraid to give Republicans talking points. I am not fearful, just as Joe isn't, to have a debate about this with Rudy Giuliani because we've got the facts on our side. But we've got to be clear about those facts and not pretend that those facts don't exist.
...
So why is it that Obama's worse on Social Security than Clinton? Clinton won't do anything about it until the budget's balanced, and even then she'd cloak any changes w/ a bipartisan commission rather than argue directly for what's best for the country. Now she's campaigning personally with one of the most prominent backers of Social Security privatization, and actually defending stupid comments he makes on her campaign website (http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5166).
So what's with Krugman's stance here? Is accidentally slipping and saying 'crisis' once before correcting yourself w/ 'actuarial gap' somehow worse than avoiding the issue, proposing to let Republicans help on crafting a solution years later, and chilling w/ the prominent black supporter of Social Security privatization?
good job obama, you are playing right into the hands of the right wing by accusing clinton of "racism".
This is a lie.
Quotation marks have a very specific meaning in the English language. They mean that the person said the exact word, and in the context you describe.
Barack Obama never accused Clinton of "racism".
It's obvious that HRC's team desperately wants Barack and his campaign to argue that they are victims of racism, as she believes this will cut into Obama's share of the white vote. Trafficking in lies in order to support Clinton's narrative has to be challenged.
actually, if you read what i posted, you would see that i am blaming the media for this "kerfluffle" and saying that in my opinion obama's response, which has been to let it fester rather than stating unequivocally that hillary clinton is not a racist, shows his lack of experience with the right wing noise machine, aka the mainstream media.
but i am only speaking of obama as an individual, not as a representative of his race. so i don't really know what you are trying to say other than that anybody who criticizes obama for anything is blaming all blacks.
It's obvious that HRC's team desperately wants Barack and his campaign to argue that they are victims of racism, as she believes this will cut into Obama's share of the white vote.
DivGuy has it.
That addresses Reality Man's point. He wrote, "At this point, why not just try to get Shelby Steele to endorse Clinton? It's not like Johnson has that much pull with the black community anyway."
The Clinton campaign has their eyes on the prize. White voters, not black ones.
As Josh Marshall put it, either Clinton's campaign has a series of unconnected, unlucky instances of campaign surrogates trying to draw Obama into a race debate, or it's part of a strategy. A Red State diary and a Jesse Jackson, Jr. comment don't rise to that level.
Also, let us note that this is all completely stupid, and that if candidates and the media talked about how they'd actually govern, all of us would be a lot better off.
Uh-oh. Dalton-boy is questioning Robert Johnson's authenticity as a black man. You see, when a negro gets too much money, he's no longer authentic. Now Obama may have a seven-figure Chicago mansion, but that's OK, he's still authentically black even though he is a descendant of slave-owners in Kenya, rather than slaves in America, but Johnson? Nope. He's an Uncle Tom because he doesn't like the estate tax.
MattY is questioning Robert Johnson's authenticity as a black man.
Hm! Really? Can you point out the exact part of MattY's blog post where he does so?
MattY is questioning Johnson's authenticity as a supporter of Democrats, actually.
But if you can provide any textual evidence for your claims, go ahead.
Any black person who supports the Clintons is an Uncle Tom. Full stop. You know it and we know it.
Just because Bill has screwed many women of color behind Hillary's back doesn't make him "the first black President".
Clinton on the radio this morning trying to defend Hillary from Johnson's comments and also covering just about all of the remarks circulating around this week: http://i.timeinc.net/TIME/2007/thepage/Clinton_011308.mp3
Money quote: "The only overtly racist act in this campaign was Obama's campaign calling Hillary 'D-Punjab'"
Somehow I don't think that'll help much.
The debate on who is making racial attacks and who is the victim of racial attacks is over. Clinton won.
Obama's campaign should never have accused Hillary or Bill Clinton or Mario Cuomo of racially tinged, racially disrespectful, or racially divisive comments.
There may be a secret code book kept among blacks seeking victim hood listing all the 'code words' and 'dog whistles' that they find offensive. And while this secret code book may be deciphered by Harvard educated deconstructualist, language to be useful must be shared by all of us. Hillary, Bill and Mario were all using ordinary everyday language that they along with ordinary Americans use every day of the week.
So unless you were looking to be offended there was nothing offensive about any of their comments.
And given the fact that most Americans credit liberals like Hillary, Bill and Mario for the hard work of opening the doors of opportunity for blacks, women and other minorities, this whole thing looks to the ordinary American like Barack Obama thinks Hillary Clinton has turned a fire hose on him just because she won't step to the curb and let him pass through the door ahead of her.
This issue is a big loser to Obama. He probably should fire those on his staff responsible for the smears, starting with Jackson, and then try to move on.
I might believe that Bill and Hillary would be capable of some nasty stuff in a campaign, but I would never believe that either of them would continence any sort of racism whatsoever. Anyone who believes something like that doesn't know a whole lot about their history and how Bill governed as president.
I agree with english teacher that all of this seems ginned up by the media and only serves to play into Republican hands.
And ChuckE, you should realize that no one "sends" a billionaire out to do anything. Billionaires tend to say and do whatever the hell they want.
At this point I'm leaning toward Obama in the upcoming primary in my state, but these kind of crazy conspiracy-theory type attacks on the Clintons really make me pull for Hillary.
"I agree with english teacher that all of this seems ginned up by the media and only serves to play into Republican hands"
That may be their effect, but I doubt it's the intent.
The intent is to sell papers. It works, too.
Well what do you want the press to do ... report on the detailed differences between Obama's & Clinton's Social Security plans? Booooring!
Ken,
You've posted a couple times around here that Jessie Jackson Jr. should be "fired" for his part in smears by the Obama campaign. I don't get it. He's not employed by the campaign; he's a House Rep of Illinois. And he wasn't in trouble for commenting on the racist-or-not-racist remarks by Clinton supporters, he was in trouble for questioning Hillary's emotional moment in light of her lack of public emotion during Katrina. I think that was a stupid thing to say, but Jackson Jr.'s not been involved as far as I know in piling on Clinton for things people in her campaign have said.
It's almost as if you're misinterpreting current events to try to caricature Obama as overreactive like Jackson/Sharpton/other-less-than-consistently-reasonable black leaders.
It's almost as if you're misinterpreting current events to try to caricature Obama as overreactive like Jackson/Sharpton/other-less-than-consistently-reasonable black leaders.
The press, and the "Jackson/Sharpton/other-less-than-consistently-reasonable black leaders" are screaming "racism!" where there doesn't seem to be any (i.e. "fairy tale") or making other veiled charges of racism (JJ Jr.s "Katrina" remark).
While not actually participating, Obama is standing back & enjoying the benefits and, when given an opening to say "Oh c'mon, this is bogus!" pointedly passed it up.
It's the same "smear via proxies" game Obama supporters say the Clintons play, and that in fact every politician since Demosthenes has used.
Obama can play this way if he wants to, but he loses his claim to be "a uniter, not a divider" (or however it is he likes to put it) and his claim to be a new-era post-Sharpton non-race-baiting black politician. And once he lets himself be seen as the same-old-same-old in style, the fight switches to substance, where Obama's a lightweight.
Ken and Ralph Phelan nail it. The usual thin-skinned act by Jackson is backfiring.
The obvious, non-racial point Hillary seemed to be making WRT LBJ and MKL is that lofty rhetoric gets you only so far; at some point, you need an effective politician to institutionalize real change. In LBJ's case, a long career in the Senate made him effective in working with Congress to enact big changes as President: The Civil Rights Act, Medicare, expanding third world immigration, escalating the Vietnam War, etc. Granted, neither Obama nor Hillary has had a long U.S. Senate career, but Hillary could argue she has at least served more than a full term and has been a reasonably effective Senator. She could also argue (whether or not it's accurate) that her experience as First Lady gives her an additional insight into being President.
The usual thin-skinned act by Jackson is backfiring.
It works a lot better when aimed at evil Republicans or "greedy corporations" than when aimed at a fellow Democrat. And taking umbrage at "fairy tale" is ridiculously transparent given that it has no racist content whatsoever.
They're overplaying their hand as the "race card" is loses its power.
Comments closed January 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
More importantly, the Bobcats are still terrible despite the unlikely emergence of Gerald Wallace.
Posted by right | January 13, 2008 11:29 PM