Red on Red
In the Blue camp continues. Huffpo on the Obama memo:
Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary.
The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama’s South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.
The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press.
But irrespective of the memo, the image of the Clinton campaign sowing racial discord did bubble to the surface following a series of comments made this past week.
So, Clintons as PC victims or Clintons as cynical race card players? Erstwhile Clinton black camp looking for an out once they sensed blood in the water, warming up to previously insufficiently American black Obama? Obama camp as cynical race card players?
My big question is, does this mean if Obama gets elected no one can ever use the words “fairy tale” again, or any other words that might suggest he doesn’t know what he’s doing or what he’s talking about or that he might be full of it, because that might be perceived as racially insensitive? That’s a pretty serious issue, regardless of Obama’s politics, if political speech is going to be curtailed about something as important as the performance in office of the president of the United States, because someone’s feelings might get hurt. I’m guessing anything remotely resembling any of the delightful remarks about Chimpy’s appearance, intelligence, preparedness for office and performance in the last seven years would pretty much be out.
Here, via Huffpo, is the memo:
Subject: MUST READ: Key S.C. figure takes issue with Clintons
SHUCK AND JIVE
Clinton Supporter Andrew Cuomo, Referring To Obama, Said “You Can’t Shuck And Jive At A Press Conference. All Those Moves You Can Make With The Press Don’t Work When You’re In Someone’s Living Room.” Clinton-supporting New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the thing that’s great about New Hampshire is that you have to go out and meet people rather than “shuck and jive” through press conferences there. Cuomo said of New Hampshire on an
Albany radio station: “It’s not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can’t buy your way into it. You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.” [Newsday, 1/11/08]MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON
Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising “False Hope” Said That While MLK Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One Who Got Legislation Passed: “It Took A President To Get It Done.” Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and “false hope” in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox’s Major Garrett that while Martin Luther
King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed. Hillary was asked about Obama’s rejoinder that there’s something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes as false, and that it doesn’t jibe with the careers of figures like John F. Kennedy and King. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Clinton said. “It took a president to get it done.” [Politico, 1/7/08; Video]Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton introducer: “If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his work and got the republicans to pass all those measures.” [HRC, Dover, NH,
1/7/08] AUDIO ATTACHEDNELSON MANDELA
Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. “I have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years. [...] I go to Nelson Mandela’s birthday party every year and we’re still very close. [...] But if you said to me, ‘You’ve got one last job for your country but it’s hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I’ll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would pick Hillary.’” [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]
DRUG USE
Clinton’s NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said It Would “Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter.” Clinton’s Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen’s Comments And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He “Deeply Regret[s] The Comments.” The Democratic presidential race took on a decidedly nasty and personal turn, with the New Hampshire co-chair for Clinton, raising the
youthful drug use of Obama. Shaheen said Obama’s having been so open — as opposed to then-Gov. George W. Bush, who refused to detail his past drug use during his 2000 presidential campaign — will “open the door to further queries on the matter. It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’” Shaheen said. “There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.” By the end of the day, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer had issued a statement asserting that “these comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.” And Shaheen himself issued a statement: “I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way.” [ABC News, 12/12/07]Mark Penn, In Trying To Defend His Campaign Over Bill Shaheen’s Obama Drug Use Comments, Used The Word “Cocaine,” Drawing A Rebuke From Edwards Adviser Joe Trippi. Mark Penn, defending the Clinton campaign in light of Bill Shaheen’s comments about Obama’s drug use, repeatedly referenced Obama’s cocaine use. Edwards adviser Joe Trippi accused Penn of dropping the word “cocaine” deliberately. Mark Penn said “Well, I think we have made clear
that the — the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising. And I think that has been made clear. I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator.” Joe Trippie responded and said “I think he just did it again. He just did it again. … This guy’s been filibustering on this. He just said cocaine again.”
[Politico, 12/13/07; Video]FAIRY TALE
Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A “Fairy Tale” And Said “It’s An Insult… As An African-American” And That His Tone And Words Are “Very Depressing.” Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton over his insulting comments of Obama, where he called him a “fairy tale” and said “I could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn’t
take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It’s time that they regroup. Figure out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It’s an insult. And I will tell you,
as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing. … I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United States senator.” [Politico, 1/8/08]Amaya Smith
South Carolina Press Secretary
Obama for America
Here’s Hill on MSNBC yesterday.
Josh Marshall at TPM scratches his head.
Andrew Sullivan at Times Online says Obama has avoided any direct racial appeals, and thinks despite the marginally indirect ones, he’s a post-black candidate.
Meanwhile, from the other side of the ledger,
Kristol at NYT: The Democrats’ Fairy Tale
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 6:45 am on Monday, January 14, 2008
13 Responses to “Red on Red”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:56 am
…made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.
And will be interpreted as such if there is political advantage in it at all. It’s unfortunate that Obama made the choice to go down this road, because he was, at last, a black candidate who seemed to be able to run on the issues without regard to race. That’s over now, and he’ll lose the trust of a lot of white voters.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:58 am
[...] –Jules Crittenden: My big question is, does this mean if Obama gets elected no one can ever use the words “fairy tale” again, or any other words that might suggest he doesn’t know what he’s doing or what he’s talking about or that he might be full of it, because that might be perceived as racially insensitive? That’s a pretty serious issue, regardless of Obama’s politics, if political speech is going to be curtailed about something as important as the performance in office of the president of the United States, because someone’s feelings might get hurt. I’m guessing anything remotely resembling any of the delightful remarks about Chimpy’s appearance, intelligence, preparedness for office and performance in the last seven years would pretty much be out. [...]
January 14th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
1. The contest is strarting to get a nasty racial overtone to it.
The New York Times today Adam Nagourney says: “the fierce weekend battle exposing sentiments that have been there all along, in a must-read snapshot of the campaign: “race and to a lesser extent gender have burst into the forefront of the Democratic presidential contest, thrusting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton into the middle of a sharp-edged social and political debate that transcends their candidacies.”
2. The Clintons care about nobody and nothing other than themselves. If Hillary falls behind they will be willing to start a race war.
3. Obama is not a man who has transcended race. He is obsessed by it. Check his choice of churches. Read Bruce Brawer’s very sharp analysis of Obama’s memoirs (PJM 2007-12-04):
“While occasionally gesturing toward an ideal of colorblindness a la Dr. King, in his heart of hearts he’s anything but colorblind, fervently endorsing black solidarity while repeatedly expressing distrust of, and even contempt for, whites.”
4. If Hillary wins the nomination but leaves African-Americans with the impression that she did it by mobilizing white racism, the nomination may be dust in her hands, because they will stay home in November.
The key word there is impression. It does not have to be true, it just has to be believed to be true.
5. If Hillary falls behind, the odds are that she will play the race and gender cards. It will split and destroy the Democrat Party.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I want a mulligan on the first 2 grafs:
1. The contest is starting to get a nasty racial overtone to it.
The New York Times today Adam Nagourney says: “race and to a lesser extent gender have burst into the forefront of the Democratic presidential contest, thrusting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton into the middle of a sharp-edged social and political debate that transcends their candidacies.”
January 14th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden picks up the theme. Understandably, being on the opposite side of the political spectrum from [...]
January 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Ah, the Democrats. All inclusive. A big umbrella where everyone is welcome. They’ll raise taxes to take care of everyone regardless of race, religion, or gender–and all the rest of that menu of special interests. They are loving humanitarians one and all.
And they are so full of it that the least little pressure applied to their “principles” disgorges the malice they feel towards actual people. The contradictions are coming home to roost.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
If Hillary falls behind, the odds are that she will play the race and gender cards. It will split and destroy the Democrat Party.
Sounds like win/win for republicans.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Purple: A consummation devoutly to be wished. Pass the popcorn.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
And they are so full of it that the least little pressure applied to their “principles” disgorges the malice they feel towards actual people. The contradictions are coming home to roost.
Tis so, tis so.
It’s funny how the true hand always bubbles up despite best efforts to conceal.
January 26th, 2008 at 8:57 am
[...] Universities have long stifled free speech, using the specter of offensiveness to squelch undesireable opinions and individuals. This case at Brandeis seems a little ridiculous. But as we’ve seen lately, the lexicon of what is considered hate speech is dramatically expanding. Mitt Romney learned that “tar baby,” used to describe a sticky issue in an utterly non-racial context, not even about a person, is hate speech. Bill Clinton, “fairy tale,” used in an utterly non-racial context in political discussion … hate speech. [...]
January 31st, 2008 at 9:05 am
[...] Assorted nitwits called that bold-faced comment racism, apparently unaware of the close ties and mutual stumping of Obama and Patrick. I suppose this latest development makes the abovementioned Hillary backers racists, too. As we’ve seen, one of the potential hazards of a black candidacy or presidency, thanks to kneejerk PC attacks of that kind, is the threat that legitimate political discussion will be stifled. [...]
February 7th, 2008 at 9:05 am
[...] serious and legitimate questions about the qualifications and experience of his opponent, and is accused of racism. OK, that was pretty funny. Not only does the Democratic leadership in Congress ignore the mandate [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 8:28 am
[...] That he doesn’t want to be a part of. Very odd. Apparently McKinnon is a highly principled politico. Not clear exactly what principles are at play here, though. If he disagrees with him on fundamental issues, why is he uncomfortable campaigning against him in a free, fair, open election? I hope this isn’t a sign people will be shy about discussing the pressing political issues of the day out of fear about what others might say. [...]