racism from the clinton campaign?

[x togepi x]

It certainly looked like racial condescension to me, however, when Hillary dismissed Martin Luther King by saying that Dr. King's "dream" only became real thanks to Lyndon Johnson (http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2008/01/07/hillary-clinton-and-an-attack/). That's not only wrong, it's offensive. To get a sense of how hurtful this statement could be, imagine the reaction if Obama had said that "Susan B. Anthony was a good talker but it took Woodrow Wilson to pass the Nineteenth Amendment."
Some would argue that this distorted reading of history is to be expected from a candidate who includes her time with the Rose Law Firm as part of her "thirty five years" of "making change," while dismissing Obama's years of community organizing as "inexperience." What she seems to be saying is that black people didn't change this country -- their white patrons did. If this is all unintentional miscommunication, as some will argue, then she should apologize immediately.
But remember: This all came after Clinton supporter Bob Kerrey's Muslim-baiting comments about Obama (http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/16614/bob-kerrey-apologizes-to-obama-over-raising-muslim-issue/). If it happens once, it might be an accident. But when it keeps happening it's deeply troubling.

source=http://www.alternet.org/story/73651/



what are the implications of her comments on king? Was it a mistake for her to imply that it takes white people to bring about civil rights and if so, why hasn't she (to my knowledge) apologized?

a thought: in politics, we often see code talking, where someone says one thing but it's meant to be construed to be a secret agenda. an obvious example is when anti-abortionists bring up Dred Scott's supreme court case as an example of when the court was completely wrong on an important issue to signal a stronger commitment to the anti-abortion movement without making it blatantly obvious. her statements could be inferred as code stating that it takes a white president to do what the black community dreamed up.

[mattybobviously]

Regardless of her intentions, it was a stupid thing to say for it, and I'm hoping the voters and caucus go-ers will make her pay for it.

[x togepi x]

i can think of how she can have misspoke that, but I know that if I ever say anything inadvertently racist, i apologize the hell out of it, and i'm not even running for office. they're acting like it didn't happen.

[saysmydoctor]

She is a stupid cunt with shit intentions.

[x togepi x]

ugh. i'm going to pretend you didn't call a united states senator a "stupid cunt".

[im_wide_awake]

ugh. i'm going to pretend you didn't call a united states senator a "stupid cunt".


yeh really
i might actually vote for her

[saysmydoctor]

Fine, I'll call her something more appropriate. A useless congresswoman who doesn't bring anything to the table except the same faulty 'Hillarycare' she thought up during the Clinton administration.

[x togepi x]

i'm just saying words like cunt were created by men and are systematically used to keep women out of positions in power by associating women with rampant sexuality (which is considered bad). you might not like that one woman, Clinton, but to say cunt is basically just saying you hate all women.

it'd be like saying "i'm not going to vote for that ****** Obama"

[TxRepresent]

Yeah something I do not understand about Hilary is how she always brings up how she set up a health care plan during her husbands administration. But if I remember my public policy class correctly, it was a complete failure, and both sides of the spectrum hated it. Idk random thought.

[x togepi x]

she brings it up because reforming the healthcare system is something a lot of people do and she wants to show that she's on the forefront of that movement, even if her plan didn't go anywhere, it looks like she's ahead of everyone else on this issue.

[Nevuk]

One of the professors here has been writing a blog on the topic, it goes a bit further than this. She tried to repair these relations by using the founder of BET as an endorser, who has been criticized frequently for being racist himself. Granted, this is a bizarre approach, but its fairly certain that the founder of the BET is hardly the most desirable person to agree with you on race relations. This is an interesting, highly biased read on the subject where he got his material from: http://whataboutourdaughters.blogspot.com/2008/01/am-i-going-to-have-to-get-obama-t-shirt.html

And her statement in full is more rather than less racist:
I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done,” she said, in response to a question about how her dismissive attitude toward Obama’s “false hopes” would have applied to the civil rights movement. “That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it and actually got it accomplished.

[andrew4045]

i'm just saying words like cunt were created by men and are systematically used to keep women out of positions in power by associating women with rampant sexuality (which is considered bad). you might not like that one woman, Clinton, but to say cunt is basically just saying you hate all women.

it'd be like saying "i'm not going to vote for that ****** Obama"

not even close you tree hugging feminist cunt.

[Justin_stacy]

Where she really fucked up here is that she allowed Obama to play the race card, which prior to this point he had had little success with.

Really I don’t think her intent was to belittle the involvement of black’s in the civil rights movement, but more to point out that it took Johnson to technically get the laws passed. I think she got mixed up in the point she was making and rambled off course too much. Under normal circumstances this would have been ignore but since race is such a divisive and profitable issue this became newsworthy, though not to the extent had she been Republican or male.

[saysmydoctor]

Ahahaha

[x togepi x]

Where she really fucked up here is that she allowed Obama to play the race card, which prior to this point he had had little success with.

Really I don’t think her intent was to belittle the involvement of black’s in the civil rights movement, but more to point out that it took Johnson to technically get the laws passed. I think she got mixed up in the point she was making and rambled off course too much. Under normal circumstances this would have been ignore but since race is such a divisive and profitable issue this became newsworthy, though not to the extent had she been Republican or male.

ugh. how is it "playing the race card" when a minority points out how something can be racist?

[saysmydoctor]

Can Clinton pull the vagina card?

[senatorlamb]

Some say the Clinton strategy is to force talk of race this way Obama is made into a "black candidate" in the minds of white voters, and also to cause a "race card" backlash. Up until now he has been transcending race.

[saysmydoctor]

A lamb sighting.

[Justin_stacy]

ugh. how is it "playing the race card" when a minority points out how something can be racist?

Anyone can find “racism” if motivated.

What this comment did was allow Obama to use race to divide the two. Something he’d tried before but failed at.

[Justin_stacy]

Can Clinton pull the vagina card?
some say that won her new hampshire.

[saysmydoctor]

The crying thing? What a fucking scam.

[x togepi x]

Anyone can find “racism” if motivated.

What this comment did was allow Obama to use race to divide the two. Something he’d tried before but failed at.

it's easy to ignore racism when you're white too. what's the point?

it's stupid to say that obama is playing the race card just because he points out that this message is offensive. in many people's eyes, that's going to hurt him anyway since people are going to claim he's trying to use his race to get elected.

[asmolitor]

to play devil's advocate, on the surface it makes sense solely on the premise that dr. king didn't have any legislative powers. but, that's incredibly understating the importance of the whole civil rights movement.

who the hell is in charge of public relations for her? considering her main opposition is black, don't you think she would grilled for 8 hours a day on how to talk about racially-inclined subjects?

[Justin_stacy]

The crying thing? What a fucking scam.

calculated, yes, but did it work?

[Justin_stacy]

it's easy to ignore racism when you're white too. what's the point?

it's stupid to say that obama is playing the race card just because he points out that this message is offensive. in many people's eyes, that's going to hurt him anyway since people are going to claim he's trying to use his race to get elected.

Race baiting me......comical. But nice.

There’s nothing stupid in pointing out the real objective behind a politically calculated move. What’s stupid is pretending that the objective doesn’t exist, when everyone knows it does.

[x togepi x]

Race baiting? Really.......what’s the point?

There’s nothing stupid in pointing out the real objective behind a politically calculated move. What’s stupid is pretending that the objective doesn’t exist, when everyone knows it does.

what's the difference between "race baiting"/playing the race card and calling out a real instance of racism in your eyes then? like, how can Obama do one without doing the other?

I would say that someone like MLK could have been president had he not existed in a more racist society. saying it required LBJ to get his agenda passed could be interpreted as saying the black community can't do anything for themselves. it's strengthening the white person while weakening the black one. she could have picked a different example of idealism needing realism to get its agenda done but she specifically chose this racial one. how is obama "playing the race card" when he's taking her to ask for her own choice of words?

[wesgemm08]

What she said wasn't racist, she just didn't state the comment in politically correct language

[Love As Arson]

Personally, I was offended by the comment, because it downplays the civil rights movement role in achieving change. It isn't as though the benevolent American government, all of a sudden, came to its senses; rather, it was forced to institute change by that movement. As for playing the race card, that is a charge that is generally used whenever a genuine discussion about race occurs.

[Rock]

As for playing the race card, that is a charge that is generally used whenever a genuine discussion about race occurs.
If that were true, there would be no such thing as "playing the race card."

[Love As Arson]

If that were true, there would be no such thing as "playing the race card."
That phrase has essentially become meaningless. When minorities bring up issues that are pertinent to their community, and how it may have to deal with the racism that pervades our society, certain individuals say they are playing the race card. It is a means to obscure the issue.

[Rock]

That phrase has essentially become meaningless. When minorities bring up issues that are pertinent to their community, and how it may have to deal with the racism that pervades our society, certain individuals say they are playing the race card. It is a means to obscure the issue.
There's always another side to the coin. Minorities will also sometimes purposely inject the issue of race into an issue in which race originally played no part in order to obscure the issue. Both examples are unfortunate.

[x togepi x]

If that were true, there would be no such thing as "playing the race card."

then i pose you this question: what is the difference between playing the race card and a calling out racism? like, how can a minority member point out discrimination without falling into the evil bad "race card" category.

it just be easy to answer this question if there's such a huge difference.


there's always another side to the coin. Minorities will also sometimes purposely inject the issue of race into an issue in which race originally played no part in order to obscure the issue. Both examples are unfortunate.

did hillary not specifically choose MLK, a racial figure, to prove her point? how can Obama be the one who's blamed for injecting race when Hillary framed the issue?


This is as petty as the Obama not putting his hand in the right place while they played the national anthem. It's a non issue. Hilary Clinton is not a racist.

it's not really a nonissue if her campaign is trying to point out specific differences in race. as i said before, you could easy come up with an example to prove her point that doesn't involve people of different races. example: john lennon was a visionary who preached for peace, but it takes politicians to actually end wars. as the article i quoted points out: if one had said that susan b. anthony was good at speaking but it took men to pass the votes to get the 19th amendment, wouldn't feminists be flipping out?

[Justin_stacy]

what's the difference between "race baiting"/playing the race card and calling out a real instance of racism in your eyes then? like, how can Obama do one without doing the other?

I would say that someone like MLK could have been president had he not existed in a more racist society. saying it required LBJ to get his agenda passed could be interpreted as saying the black community can't do anything for themselves. it's strengthening the white person while weakening the black one. she could have picked a different example of idealism needing realism to get its agenda done but she specifically chose this racial one. how is obama "playing the race card" when he's taking her to ask for her own choice of words?

Had the perception of racism and race not been turned into such a profitable political tool, I’d be more then willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But one can not just excuse his actions solely based on the color of his skin. Obama has been trying for some time to inject race into the front runner’s DNC race, up to this point he’s been less then successful. At the same time he’s also ignored other comments by candidates that can be just as easily described as “racially insensitive” by those with such motivation, when there’s been nothing to gain politically. Given that he is a very coached candidate, with a strong, yet undeserved, sense of entitlement, I think one has to go with the most obvious conclusion here, which is it was a calculated political move to turn Hilary’s misinterpreted remarks into a divisive race issue. This is why many black leaders have called Obama out for his actions and stood by Hilary, regardless of the candidate’s races. Charles Rangel, who is no slouch to the issue of race, in particular had a steaming response to Obama.

Personally I could careless that Obama is Black. I care about the motivation behind his actions, and what he is essentially attempting to do. Could it have been genuine? Of course it could have, I am merely given my interpretation of his campaign's actions based on what I've seen. Unlike you, his race plays no central theme with me, and to the same point in grants him no blind free pass either.

[wesgemm08]

I think the fact that every single line any of the democrats running for president say needs to be sugar-coated and 100% politically correct is ridiculous

[senatorlamb]

Had the perception of racism and race not been turned into such a profitable political tool, I’d be more then willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But one can not just excuse his actions solely based on the color of his skin. Obama has been trying for some time to inject race into the front runner’s DNC race, up to this point he’s been less then successful. At the same time he’s also ignored other comments by candidates that can be just as easily described as “racially insensitive” by those with such motivation, when there’s been nothing to gain politically. Given that he is a very coached candidate, with a strong, yet undeserved, sense of entitlement, I think one has to go with the most obvious conclusion here, which is it was a calculated political move to turn Hilary’s misinterpreted remarks into a divisive race issue. This is why many black leaders have called Obama out for his actions and stood by Hilary, regardless of the candidate’s races. Charles Rangel, who is no slouch to the issue of race, in particular had a steaming response to Obama.

Personally I could careless that Obama is Black. I care about the motivation behind his actions, and what he is essentially attempting to do. Could it have been genuine? Of course it could have, I am merely given my interpretation of his campaign's actions based on what I've seen. Unlike you, his race plays no central theme with me, and to the same point in grants him no blind free pass either.

How has Obama tried to inject race into the campaign? Can we get some details or examples? Because quite frankly, while Clinton has been mentioning the historic nature of her candidacy as a woman, I hardly ever heard Obama talk about his skin color, so much so that people never even saw him as a black man, but a transcending figure. Show me where Obama has cried racism once in this campaign.

[x togepi x]

Had the perception of racism and race not been turned into such a profitable political tool, I’d be more then willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

i would contend that calling out racism is not all that profitable when you happen to be a minority because you get blamed for playing the race card. this is how minority concerns get ignored. how exactly can it be profitable as a political tool when minority concerns are still fairly ignored? that confuses me.

i totally agree that it's profitable when someone like me calls people on racism because i'm a white male. one can say i get no advantage from complaining about racism so i'm "more objective" or whatever, but if i were black my concerns get turned into me playing the race card and "using my skin color" as a way to get an advantage.

But one can not just excuse his actions solely based on the color of his skin. Obama has been trying for some time to inject race into the front runner’s DNC race, up to this point he’s been less then successful.

I'm not sure how you can claim Obama's been trying to inject race into the DNC race when the media's been doing it since day one. He's been framed as the possible first black president and we've heard all sorts of questions like "is America ready for a black president?", "can he do well in the south?", etc.

Furthermore, certain conservative commentators have been attacking Obama racially for the past year now. Just google obama and church and you'll see all sorts of conservatives attacking Obama's "black nationalist" church. We hear stories about how Obama was raised in a supposedly super Muslim-america hating school in his youth and so on. If anything, those people were the ones who injected race into the campaign.

I agree with the idea of your statement, race shouldn't be an issue, but our society hasn't progressed far enough for your claim to be valid. Even if Obama didn't say a word about his race, race would still be an issue.

At the same time he’s also ignored other comments by candidates that can be just as easily described as “racially insensitive” by those with such motivation, when there’s been nothing to gain politically.

I think this is a grave mistake he's making, but it's probably done out of expediency. He ignores the other candidates because they don't really have a chance. He can't really make an issue out of every single candidate because people would say he's just whining about race, he's got to pick and choose these battles and in this case, it make sense because it's coming from the other person in the party that has a chance to be president.

Given that he is a very coached candidate, with a strong, yet undeserved, sense of entitlement, I think one has to go with the most obvious conclusion here, which is it was a calculated political move to turn Hilary’s misinterpreted remarks into a divisive race issue. This is why many black leaders have called Obama out for his actions and stood by Hilary, regardless of the candidate’s races. Charles Rangel, who is no slouch to the issue of race, in particular had a steaming response to Obama.

it is a pity that race has to be used as a political tool in these debates, but it's a pity when a lot of things get used as tools. I'd chalk this up to the nature of adversarial politics than a flaw in Obama. I'd say everyone uses divisive issues to their advantage, and while i'm not saying that it makes it okay, I'm pointing out that it's a flaw in the system and not a candidate specific problem.

the problem here is, whether he's using a it as a tool is irrelevant as to whether the comments itself are racist, so maybe we should just put these questions aside and look at the bigger picture.

Personally I could careless that Obama is Black. I care about the motivation behind his actions, and what he is essentially attempting to do. Could it have been genuine? Of course it could have, I am merely given my interpretation of his campaign's actions based on what I've seen. Unlike you, his race plays no central theme with me, and to the same point in grants him no blind free pass either.

I think you're oversimplifying here. This isn't a binary issue. You can't really go "well, i don't care that he's black, therefore race isn't an issue to me." You're ignoring the fact that race is going to be an issue even if you choose to ignore it. We both can sit here and say we don't care about his race, and that's fine because we shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that Obama isn't going to come up against obstacles because of it.

We have the privilege of saying race isn't a central issue because we're in the privileged class, but if you're not in this class, it's going to be an issue because of institutional racism inherent in our power structures, daily discrimination like profiling, etc. We don't hit these problems because we're white, but everyone else do.

To get to the point where race isn't going to be an issue, we have to start talking frankly about the problems surrounding race. If we don't, we just create a spiral of silence which allows racism to go ignored. This isn't "Hilary's a racist", because that's way too simple. It's that she said some things that have racist implications and she refuses to deconstruct her messages. In this case, she's using white privilege to her advantage because she can both say things with racial implications and claim to be above race. I don't necessarily think this is a conscious choice on her part, but I do think she should think about white privilege the same way i think Obama should think about male privilege before making statements that can get construed as sexist.

[Roboman]

This is as petty as the Obama not putting his hand in the right place while they played the national anthem. It's a non issue. Hilary Clinton is not a racist.

I dont know... http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

[Love As Arson]

There's always another side to the coin. Minorities will also sometimes purposely inject the issue of race into an issue in which race originally played no part in order to obscure the issue. Both examples are unfortunate.
In this case, it was a caucasian that injected race into the discussion. The problem, however, is that when the implications of race have to do with the institutions-those things which aren't necessarily as visible as a KKK rally-the phrase "playing the race card" is used.

[Rock]

then i pose you this question: what is the difference between playing the race card and a calling out racism? like, how can a minority member point out discrimination without falling into the evil bad "race card" category.
Intentions, of course. The problem there is that it can be hard to decipher a person's true intentions for making the charge that a comment was racially motivated, especially in the arena of politics. As far as how a minority member can point out discrimination without "playing the race card" is a tough question, and one that I don't have a good answer for. I know that if I were a minority candidate and someone made a comment similar to Hillary's and I thought it was racially motivated (which I, personally, don't think it was), I know I'd leave it to others than myself to question that candidate's intentions.

did hillary not specifically choose MLK, a racial figure, to prove her point? how can Obama be the one who's blamed for injecting race when Hillary framed the issue?
She did. I honestly don't think her point was racially motivated. It was a poor example given the fact that as a nation, we're so racially sensitive, and because Obama's black, but I don't view her as being racially insensitive and I could by the content of her remark that race wasn't intended to be a factor.

[Rock]

In this case, it was a caucasian that injected race into the discussion. The problem, however, is that when the implications of race have to do with the institutions-those things which aren't necessarily as visible as a KKK rally-the phrase "playing the race card" is used.
While civil rights is obviously an issue that concerns race, I don't view her using the civil rights movement to prove a point as having "injected race into the discussion."

[x togepi x]

i think most of what you just said is answered back in my last big post. read it and i'll clarify anything you want me to as it applies to what you just said.

[Love As Arson]

While civil rights is obviously an issue that concerns race, I don't view her using the civil rights movement to prove a point as having "injected race into the discussion."
She used a figure that was important to the African-American community to prove her point. As Togepi said, there are many figures that could've been used to demonstrate her argument, but she chose Martin Luther King prior to a primary where African-American votes play a significant role.

[Rock]

i think most of what you just said is answered back in my last big post. read it and i'll clarify anything you want me to as it applies to what you just said.
I'll have to take the time later to address individual points. I've already read it all, but I don't enough time currently to respond properly.

She used a figure that was important to the African-American community to prove her point. As Togepi said, there are many figures that could've been used to demonstrate her argument, but she chose Martin Luther King prior to a primary where African-American votes play a significant role.
That's true. I guess that's where an individual person's race, viewpoint, and perspective come into play. Those factors, along with others, certainly, would determine what a person who heard Hillary's remarks would interpret them to mean. Racism isn't much of an issue for me, as topegi pointed out, since I am white and middle-class. I do do my very best to look past a person's race in all situations. That, of course, is impossible. But regardless, it's more or less a non-issue for me, especially politically. That doesn't mean someone else isn't going to view Hillary's remarks as being racially insensitive or racially motivated, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I haven't experienced what some black people (or other minorities) in this country have experienced as far as racism goes, so obviously they are going to have a different appreciation for the civil rights movement than I have and their viewpoint and perspective will be affected as a result.

[x togepi x]

I'll have to take the time later to address individual points. I've already read it all, but I don't enough time currently to respond properly.
.

yeah that's why i said "i think it's all covered up there" because i kinda want to go take a nap.

[Rock]

yeah that's why i said "i think it's all covered up there" because i kinda want to go take a nap.
Haha, it's cool dude.