MyDD :: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as racist.

Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as racist.

by TomP, Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:53:06 PM EST

I saw a diary yesterday on Daily Kos that claimed that Clinton's critique of Obama as "elitist" was really a way of calling him an "uppity black man."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/14/ 193829/461

Arrogance and Elitism =Uppity where I came from.
by YellerDog [Subscribe]
Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:15:33 PM PDT
Oh now I get it.

Arrogance and elitists are fashionable code words. Growing up in the segregated South the word they used was Uppity which was usually followed by the N....word and applied to any black man who had the temerity to speak from authority. MLK, for instance, was uppity. MLK spoke truth with authority and power. Truth, power, and authority are dangerous notions especially in the head of an uppity black man.

I commented in it and opined that it was bs:

The argument articulated in this diary is such a reach. Not every critcism of Obama can be twisted into a racial attack.

It looks as if Barack Obama agrees with me. Come around after the fold.

An older man, taking the mic for the first question, claimed Clinton's attacks were trying to cast Obama as an "uppity" Black man.

"This isn't political whatsoever, myself being obviously a white person, this term is the way it's being used against you isn't far from `uppity,'" the man began.

Barack Obama correctly rejected that depiction.

Obama disagreed and said it was not about race, but chalked it up to politics. "I don't think there are racial overtones going on to the attacks right now. I think it's politics. This is what we do politically, when we start getting behind in races, then we start going on the attack."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/04/15/893729.aspx

I agree with Obama. The elitism charge, whether right or not, is at bottom a class-based critique in a political campaign in which Obama has had difficulties in obtaining white working class and rural voters. It's politics.

I know my position is a distinct minority on Daily Kos and MyDD. I see Obama and Clinton both as centrists and each with pluses and minuses as general election candidates. I think either one could win, but I also think that either one will have an uphill battle against McCain.

I supported John Edwards and consider myself to be to the left of (or more progressive than) both Obama and Clinton. On the issues, there is not a lot of difference between Obama and Clinton. A little on universal health care, a slight difference on foreign policy tendencies, but very slight. Both are moderate, mainstream Democrats, notwithstanding the rhetoric from both sides.

Finally, in my most egregious dissent from the Daily Kos and MyDD orthodoxies, I think both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are decent and good people.

I don't hate either and either one, while not progressive enough for me, would be far, far better than McCain.

No matter how much you favor your candidate now and dislike the other one and his or her supporters, Democrats need to unite behind whoever is nominated. Clinton will support Obama if Obama is nominated. Obama will support Clinton if she is nominated. We need a unified party to defeat McCain. So after the Convention, we need to work together for whoever is nominated. What's going on now is politics.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 79 Comments :: Post a Comment

Tips for (2.00 / 27)

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, two good Democrats.

by TomP on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:53:37 PM EST

Good diary. n/t (2.00 / 8)

by McNasty on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:56:50 PM EST

way too little way too late (2.00 / 2)

While welcome, this would have been even greater, months ago.

by bluemoon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:58:52 PM EST

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 1)

but but but I thought Obama plays the race card every chance he gets??

Damn! This does not fit my narrative.

by smoothmedia on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:58:52 PM EST

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 0)

This is the first time he hasn't.

He should have done this months ago, but now the damage has been done.

Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.

by switching sides on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:27:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well said. (2.00 / 12)

So pleased Obama clarified that it isn't about race. Some of his supporters are determined to turn everything Hillary says and does into some sort of sinister exercise in race-baiting. Those people annoy the living hell out of me.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:01:30 PM EST

Re: Well said. (2.00 / 4)

I agree they can be annoying, but so can the Hillary supporters in regard to sexism. In this election I think Obamas race and Clintons sex cancel each other out.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton

by venician on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said. (2.00 / 4)

That's bang on.

by smoothmedia on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said. (2.00 / 5)

Yes, the -isms have definitely gotten out of hand.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Both -isms are true (2.00 / 1)

I think both candidates have run into vast prejudices. Of course they can't say it. If either one of them actually made that accusation, they would create a huge firestorm.

by nwgates on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Both -isms are true (2.00 / 1)

Of course they have. But a lot of their supporters have a tendency to see -isms where there aren't any.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:17:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe (2.00 / 0)

But I think that most of the time it's true.

That is my experience of America in general. Usually the people who complain about these grievances have valid reasons.

by nwgates on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:24:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe (2.00 / 2)

I'm talking about things like this, though -- people saying Hillary's criticisms of Obama's "bitter" remark are racist -- as if she's trying to paint him as an "uppity negro". That's obviously imagined. That's just people looking for an excuse to call Hillary a race-baiter. Even Obama said that wasn't what she was doing.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe (none / 0)

I actually agree. I don't think this "elitist" b.s. is racist, it's just lame and Republican. The Wright thing was dripping with racial overtones, and, whatever her intent, it was very unwise for Clinton to get involved with it.

by nwgates on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe (none / 0)

I agree with you that she should have stayed away from the Wright issue.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe (2.00 / 0)

True, many people do have valid complaints and those vastly outnumber the number of people with false complaints. However, I also believe it's true that there are people out there who constantly view themselves in the role of the victim, whether it's justified or not, it's a mindset that people fall into. These people often cry wolf a lot louder than most cry foul.

by Djo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:42:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said. (2.00 / 1)

I totally agree. In both camps, it's a minority of supporters, but they seem to be the loudest on both sides, which is causing real problems for uniting to stop McCain.

by Zoey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:12:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said. (2.00 / 7)

Agree, well said Tom.

I'm so sick of the primary season.

by NCDemAmy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree Tom (2.00 / 6)

Clinton isn't playing the race card. But I think she is playing the right-wing card.

This is the classic, Club for Growth-style attacks. This is what they tried to do to John Edwards. Oh he is a elitist! He has had a successful career and therefore he must not care about people! That's what they did to Edwards. Now they are trying to do it to Obama. We can't let it stand.

"Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around." --Thoreau

by Populista on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:03:32 PM EST

I don't think Hillary and McCain are allied... (none / 0)

but if they were the evidence would not be in shared strategies but in shared consultants.

I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.

by JDF on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:31:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree Tom (none / 0)

Please be more careful, you're sloshing your bad generalizations all over the place.

E.g. when you say that "Obama supporters think Hillary and McCain are aligned in some way - simply because both considered Obama's Cling-gate remarks inappropriate," that should be some Obama supporters think Hillary and McCain are aligned in some way (and my guess is that the number is small), and you can strike the whole second clause because several of those people have been saying that since before "Cling-gate" based on other things, such as Hillary's comments about the "CIC threshold."

Also, which Obama supporters have said he doesn't need Hillary supporters to win the general? I'm not claiming that nobody has said that, but I don't see much of it about, and it's been a while since I've seen any of it at all. Is this a significant, ongoing thing in your opinion? If so, tell us more about what you see. If not, why bring it up?

Lastly, let's go back to your first statement: "Obama has attacked Hillary (and Edwards) with righwing card." I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, but I don't know what you're talking about. Can you 'splain, please?

by kydoc on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:19:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

is it possible...? (none / 0)

that both of the following are true:

1. HRC's campaign has used surrogates to try to polarize voters in Pennsylvania (and other key places where they thought the strategy would work to HRC's advantage) along racial/ethnic/religious lines.
2. BO's campaign decided it would not be to the advantage of BO for the candidate to call-out the racial polarization.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:03:37 PM EST

Re: is it possible...? (2.00 / 5)

While it is possible, i don't think it is real.

I take Barack Obama at his word.

by TomP on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is it possible...? (2.00 / 1)

The "elitist" comments did not originate with Obama, thus he's not in a position to make "intention" arguments about them. He IS smart to diffuse them regardless, and to refuse to play victim.

by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: for several months, news articles and voters (none / 0)

Exactly how many billionaires were in the audience?

by interestedbystander on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay, Tom... (2.00 / 11)

...don't try to bring reason, judgment and nuance into this. Clearly uncalled for.

:-)

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:21:49 PM EST

Re: Okay, Tom... (2.00 / 8)

LOL!!!

It does take some of the fun out, doesn't it?
;-)

by TomP on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait a minute.. (2.00 / 0)

Whether or not Obama imagines that Clinton intends the "elitist" comments to be racist, or whether he is just smart enough not to play the annoying "victim" card, is beside the point.

The comments DO have heavily racist subtext, which other Clinton supporters have run with, and which function as a "dogwhistle" to true racists.

Check out the images of "Snobama" with his nose up, elsewhere captioned with things like "Uppity: it's a negro thing, you wouldn't understand" floating around Larry Johnson's site, for example.

To play ignorant with this stuff is beyond the pale.

by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:23:53 PM EST

Bullshit. (2.00 / 11)

Are you calling Barack Obama a liar?

Comments like yours are so silly.

I am so tired of "dog whistle" bs. Don;t you think people can see that Barack Obama has black skin?

I find your cmment to be quite stiupid. You can call me an elitist is you wish, but dumb is dumb and your comment is.

by TomP on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:38:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit. (none / 0)

You clearly didn't bother to go visit No Quarter.

Obama did not make the statements, so he's in no position to comment on their "intent," nor is "intent" the point. Their effect is the point, and Hillary knows it. Obama was just being gracious.

You seem to be impervious to nuance on this matter, and apparently have not seen or heard comments referring to Obama as "arrogant," "beyond his place," "haughty," "one of THOSE people" from Democrats. Well, lucky you. I have. Again, go visit No Quarter.

by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry. I just do not buy (2.00 / 4)

your argument. Nor do I need to visit "No Quarter." It's not my kind of place.

by TomP on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:22:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry. I just do not buy (1.00 / 1)

Of COURSE you don't buy it, and won't bother to check out the evidence. It's part of your privilege to be blind to any such thing, and not concern yourself with it. It's the same reason polls of white folks in Texas and Louisiana consistently say there's no anti-black racism down there.

by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry. I just do not buy (2.00 / 1)

Well, on your suggestion, I went to No Quarter... ummmm... wow.... not for the faint of heart, that's to be certain....

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is ridiculous (2.00 / 5)

a dog whistle for who? This would not have a positive effect on Clinton's campaign unless you believe a majority of democratic primary voters to be racist.

I am so sick of this bullshit.

by linc on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is ridiculous (2.00 / 1)

"This would not have a positive effect on Clinton's campaign unless you believe a majority of democratic primary voters to be racist."

I don't think what Clinton said will have a positive effect on her campaign, for precisely that reason.

It would only work on right-wingers and Dixiecrats. Speaking of, do please go visit No Quarter and treat yourself to the fine Democrats over there.

by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is ridiculous (none / 0)

You can't be serious - "is further proven by the DC establishment and elite supporting him". By this logic, any dem nominee is by definition elitist. Also, how is HRC not supported by the DC establishment - like, you know, an ex President and half his cabinet?

by interestedbystander on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:21:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is ridiculous (none / 0)

Excuse me, but the other half of Bill Clinton's cabinet is working for Obama as advisors.

by skohayes on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:28:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is ridiculous (none / 0)

Of course - so by this posters' logic they are both elitist, so why single out Obama?

by interestedbystander on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is ridiculous (none / 0)

I am not calling Obama an "elitist", and I have no control over what the other poster said.
I am merely correcting your idea that Obama isn't supported by the DC establishment.
He could not have gotten where he is today without that support.

by skohayes on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:27:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is ridiculous (none / 0)

"Obama was labeled Elitist long before the primaries began."

That is more, not less, evidence of racism, especially because Obama came from humble roots.

"exit polling indicates the working class supports Hillary - the wealthy support Obama"

This ratio is constantly lessening as Obama gains name-recognition. (Also, Obama has more than twice as many small, individual donations than Hillary does.) You seem to forget that Hillary came into the race with a MASSIVE advantage--everyone knew who she was, she was credited with her husband's accomplishments. Ask yourself where Hill would be now if her name were not "Clinton."

Now, as for slurs, take this example. When Hillary gets characterized as "shrill," "hysterical," "calculating," "overly-ambitious," etc., the ones doing the characterizing may not intend the remarks to be sexist, but if they catch on and travel, they will serve a sexist function.

If a Jewish candidate were running, and someone called him or her "stingy" or "greedy," the speaker may not have meant it to be an ethnic slur, but as it traveled, it would certainly function as one.

Now, how is the candidate who just finished paying off his college loans, and who shunned high-profile DC jobs after to college to work in the inner city, an "elitist" when the wealthy woman from an Ivy League family is somehow not? Implicit answer: "he's gotten beyond his place."

Edwards and Bill Clinton did not have more experience than Obama when they ran (and most certainly W didn't), but somehow Obama alone is painted as the "pretender."

"Elitist" is a classic right wing smear of all liberals (which makes it extra-gross when Hillary uses it). But it carries extra punch when aimed at a black guy (especially one who didn't rise by benefit of family or spousal recognition like W and Hill have). This is because "uppity negro" is a common slur against blacks--the idea that a black person who runs for a position of power is automatically "arrogant," "haughty," "shifty," a "con-artist" or "elitist"--the implication being that black people SHOULDN'T rise to power, and can't do so on their own merits.

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 6)

I don't mean to be overly critical, but it seems obvious that Obama would say this now that all the primaries with large portions of black voters are done. When those primaries were going on, he had no problem insisting that the Clintons' comments which were truly not racist were "unfortunate." He also had no problem of taking advantage of Hillary's seemingly racist remarks with a memo pushing the story.

So now that Hillary is pushing the story line of Obama being elitist, I simply am astonish that Obama supporters continually accuse Hillary of being a divider. What it reveals is that Obama and Hillary are not being judged by equal standards.

It is truly unfortunate that he did not propose this opinion early...it has already done the damage it was encouraged to do in the first place. Consequently, it doesn't make any sense rejecting the depiction now.

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:37:18 PM EST

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 1)

Pennsylvania has a large black population. North Carolina has a HUGE black population.

by Mostly on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:46:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 3)

That's not what I meant. I mean in comparison to the total state population. South Carolina and Mississippi have higher percentage of black voters than Pennsylvania or North Carolina.

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:49:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 2)

Obama did. Obama has always defended the Clintons against charges of racism.

I'm so tired of this. Some random home-schooled Kos Kid saying something that shocks your sensibilities does not equal 'attributable quote to Obama.'

Those who forget history are doomed to make frustrated others repeatedly repost it.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:37:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has not defended anyone (2.00 / 0)

from the being called a racist. His campaign has painted the clintons and others are racist.

"Barack did the Constitution just like he did Hillary. He was riding dirty."

by LatinoVoter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has not defended anyone (none / 0)

Whenever Obama has been asked a question like the one above, he has defended Clinton. Show me a quote from Obama or an important member of his campaign accusing Clinton of racism. And no, "part of the finance committee" does not mean "an important member."

Nothing like a one liner from which someone can judge your entire character.

by motbob on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:51:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (none / 0)

Obama defended Clinton for describing the House of Representatives as a "plantation," a remark for which she was harshly criticized.
(1996)

ABC News' David Wright, Andy Fies, and Sunlen Miller Report: Sen. Barack Obama told ABC News Monday there is nothing in Sen. Hillary Clinton's record that would give him any cause for concern about her in terms of racial politics. Asked how Obama interpreted two recent remarks by the Clintons that prompted an angry reaction from some in the Black community, Obama sought to damp down the racial dynamics of the controversy. . . . "I don't think it was in any way a racial comment," Obama told ABC News. "That's something that has played out in the press. That's not my view." (1/14/08)

Asked whether he believed that either Mrs. Clinton or former President Bill Clinton had shown racial insensitivity in recent days, Mr. Obama said: "I don't want to rehash that. I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues." (1/20/08)

Obama disagreed and said it was not about race, but chalked it up to politics. "I don't think there are racial overtones going on to the attacks right now. I think it's politics. This is what we do politically, when we start getting behind in races, then we start going on the attack." (4/15)

I've got pancakes to make and a toddler to dress. If you want to find a quote of Obama calling Clinton racist, feel free to post. Otherwise, I feel pretty good with this backup info.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:31:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (none / 0)

Its too late. Obama has been crying racism through his surrogates for the whole of the campaign. It's a despicable tactic, one worthy of a right winger.

Too late now.

Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.

by switching sides on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:31:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (none / 0)

See, here's a case where someone says:

"Everyone! X=Y"

And then someone else says: "No. Here's lots of proof that X does not = Y. In fact, X=Delicious Cupcakes That Everyone Would Enjoy."

And then the first person says: "I've believed the wrong stuff for so long, I refused to be swayed by your so-called proof."

"But they're Delicious Cupcakes! Even if you disagree, you can still eat them. Let's enjoy them together!" says the second person.

But it's too late. The first person is busy packing polluted river silt into his mouth, to prove some kind of point, I guess. And the cupcakes go enjoyed by only some people, while the other people get zanily upset over all the dirty yuckky river silt they've chosen to eat and blame Obama.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

pa not large (none / 0)

the AA population in PA is not large and NC is another small red state that will not help us in November.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:31:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 1)

Judging two people on equal standards does not equate to equal ribbings distributed to each candidate.

If one person continues to do something fantastically stupid (i.e. dirty republican campaign tricks) then they will be judged harsher for it...it just appears unequal to you because your democratic oppositon is not a moronic Benedict Arnold.

Also, using Obama supporters' comments as the data upon which you base your analysis and to conclude whether HRC is judged by the same standards as Obama seems illogical to me because it is like taking all the Pepsis out of a 7-11 and then concluding that based on your research 7-11 only sells Pepsi.
In order to make your theory meaningful you should probably use independent sources for collection of data and then test your hypothesis through analysis of that data.
Because I can easily say that by reading HRC supporters comments, it is obvious that he is judged on a different standard, and I would be right, but it doesn't mean anything.

Democrat for the democratic nominee

by KLRinLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 2)

My comment has little to do with judging people and more to do with judging comments. I hope that you believe that a racist remark from ANY ones mouth will be judged equally irregardless of how many times someone said it. A horrible remark is a horrible remark. If a child insults a child once, I'd hope that his insults receive as much discontent as the insults of a child who says them continuously. The insults are equally horrible. In summary, my references were more about what is said then who said it.

BTW, your seeming swipe at Hillary in your second paragraph is ironically not based on data at all. Therefore, the whole argument in your post falls apart.

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good diary (2.00 / 5)

Recced.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:53:20 PM EST

Rec'd (2.00 / 3)

Well said. I really don't think you are in the minority either here or at Kos. This has been and continues to be a hard fought battle and in the long run may actually turn out to be good for both the party and the nominee (I mean look at McSame. He keeps making gaffes and nobody is calling him out, but wouldn't you bet that both HRC and BHO have somebody on staff filing each little misstep away?).

Once the battle is over and we have a nominee, we will come together to win the war.

by UrbanRedneck on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:45:23 PM EST

Re: Rec'd (2.00 / 2)

Agree with all of this.

John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way

by bosdcla14 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As a law school graduate (none / 0)

I love your sig. line!

by UrbanRedneck on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 2)

Obama's comments were taken out of context and have become a tempest in a teapot. Happens altogether too much in politics. Obama has said something statesmanlike about Hillary's response and is helping to defuse the air.

As a former Edwards supporter, I'd be fine with supporting either Hillary or Barack, though I'd prefer Hillary's health care and Barack's organizational abilities, and have a problem with Hillary's sense of entitlement and Barack's lesser spine. As Edwards once said, McCain is Bush on steroids, which remains true. To that I add, McCain does NOT do his homework.

by CyberCitizen on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:07:13 PM EST

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 1)

Why do you think Obama has less spine? I see him as fighting back. Of course I am a supporter of his so I may not be objective in this.

by Grant Caesar Peters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:12:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with your post (2.00 / 2)

Except for the "lesser spine" thing. I think all evidence is pointing to just the opposite. As I think we're seeing in this primary, he doesn't do it in a flashy way, but he brings the heat.

by nwgates on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:21:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (none / 0)

So agree with your post, except like Grant and NW point out the "lesser spine" description.

While still a Hillary supporter, I have great admiration for Barack. He's a fighter of the first order - a Queensbury fighting rules gentleman who can take a punch and also give one back.

Of course, that compliment doesn't mean I don't think he's still a little too "green on the scene" to be the next president, but I'll back him 100% against McCain. McCain is far too gray to lead the way.

by RickWn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (none / 0)

the context of his remarks make them worse.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 2)

Kudos, nice/fair diary. I hope it doesn't get bumped out of the rec list . . . but I sense Aligre has a few partisan diaries coming.

by McTrollop on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:16:58 PM EST

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 2)

Great diary.

No racial overtones in Clinton's remarks, and it was good of Obama to correct the questioner.

Imagine if McCain had the good sense to correct the questioner who asked him how we beat "the bitch?"

by jdusek on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:20:54 AM EST

too late (none / 0)

Obama always lets someone else do his dirty work. This disclaimer of his is too little too late.

He must think people are really stupid if this fixes his race baiting problem.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:26:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (2.00 / 2)

I'm interested in supporting a candidate who listens to the voices of a diverse America.

According to a survey by DiversityInc, Clinton has the most diverse staff on her campaign: approximately 1/3 are white, 20% are black, 15% are Latinos and 25% are Asians.

Obama has 60% white, 35% black and and 5% Latinos. NO ASIANS!? That's a huge disappointment.

Senator Clinton also has the most women on her staff, when you break it down by gender. In her senior staff she has about fifty two percent women, forty eight percent men. Senator Obama's paid senior staff comes in at twenty percent women, and eighty percent men. Senator Obama has two women among his 12 senior staffers. (It had been three before one of his female staffers resigned after calling Senator Clinton "a monster' in an interview.) Senator Clinton has eight women out of 14 senior staffers.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/2008Ele ctionandRacism/RaceandRacism/race27.htm

by Swing Vote on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:01:33 AM EST

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (none / 0)

Oh dear lord, Obama has no Asians on his staff. Break out the sirens, people.

Honestly, candidates shouldn't go out of their way to hire diverse support staff. There are plenty of highly qualified minority workers. Politicians don't have to go out of their way to find them and put them in positions of power.

I'm reminded of a quote by my patron saint, Al Franken:

"Honoring another campaign commitment-to choose a Cabinet that 'looked like Amer-
ica'... [Franken describes Clinton's cabinet] ...Which doesn't look like America at all, but it's an exceptional model of diversity."

I think that the same quote applies here.

Nothing like a one liner from which someone can judge your entire character.

by motbob on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:47:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama rejects depiction of Clinton attacks as (none / 0)

Neither have any native Americans. What about Jewish people? Or Arabs? Or Persians? Or maybe they both just hired the best people they could find and this is the racial/gender breakdown?

by Grant Caesar Peters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No Asians? (none / 0)

Last time I looked - one of his major organizers in Hawaii was Asian. We forget Hawaii is a state I think.

Hmm - then there is his sister - who has been on the stump for him - she's Asian ( oh right - she is half Asian with a Chinese husband, just like Barack is half-white too).

Several of his strongest on the ground staffers are Asian - Chinese American, Japanese American, and a dedicated group of Filipinos - who are Asians too.

What's your next objection? No Native Americans? You'd be wrong there too...how about Latinos, Greeks, Turks...sigh

He has one of the most diverse grassroots organizations I've ever seen - with people from a wealth of demographic categories - not just "racial" or "ethnic" but cutting across class and religious lines as well.

Compare and contrast that with McCain.

Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity

by NeciVelez on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:41:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

People on the Dkos have gone totally nuts. (2.00 / 2)

I support Obama, voted for him and will vote for him if he clinches the nomination, but i got to say that folks over at the DKos have gone way beyond normal behavior into total frenzy and hysteria. I cannot get along with them and i have no idea what they are smoking over there.

I don't bother paying any attention to the diary section anymore because i know it is total garbage and full of nonsense.

by likelihood zero on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:12:26 AM EST

DKos not nuts (2.00 / 1)

Since I am a relative newcomer to both - I haven't found that people "over" there are any "nuttier" than people over here.

There are many substantive diaries there that don't even deal with this Hillary/Barack debate.

I have learned a lot there about many things - particularly downticket races I was unfamiliar with.

That is not to say that I haven't found things of interest here to read either. I like some of the discussions of polls and polling methodologies I've had here.

There is frenzy and hysteria on many sites - this fits not just MyDD and DKos but a host of others.

I just hope at some point all of this energy can be focused on John McCain.

That doesn't mean that people should ignore correcting things viewed as sexist or racist, which exisit within our own ranks. Part of a growth process.

Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity

by NeciVelez on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:51:54 AM EST

Re: DKos not nuts (2.00 / 1)

My experience is similar to NeciVelez's. I've been lurking at both mydd and dkos for a few months--starting with dkos, which is where I found out that mydd existed--and joined both a few weeks ago. I don't think people are, on average, any "nuttier" at one site or the other. Plenty of nuts both places, plenty of reasonable voices at both places. You just have to do some sifting. And (is this just me? I feel like I'm admitting a drug problem)in a way the nuts are more entertaining. Especially the nuts I don't agree with, because they give me an opportunity to feel superior. The nuts I do agree with just make me uncomfortable. Like, please stop using bad arguments and flamebait to defend positions I hold!

Anyway, at this point I see dkos as a good resource for non-primary stuff mostly, and also poll analysis, and mydd as a bit better for primary discussions because there is more of a dialog here between HRC and BHO supporters.

by kydoc on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm happily in the middle.... (2.00 / 2)

I like both candidates, but since JRE suspended, I'm saving time, money and trouble and watching from the sidelines.

However, I find myself being pulled towards the Clinton camp because she is definitely the more likable and tougher of the two, which will make a big difference in the GE. I wish I could add some in depth political analysis here, but I've always found liking a candidate is the first requirement towards electibility.

The rest is just details :)

by catchawave on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:54:54 AM EST

Re: I'm happily in the middle.... (none / 0)

I find Obama the more likable, and it appears to be the majority opinion according to a recent WaPo/ABC poll:

4. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of (NAME)?
Favorable Unfavorable
Clinton 44 54
Obama 56 39

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol itics/documents/postpoll_041408.html

by kydoc on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:35:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

too late (none / 0)

too little too late. Obama has used crying race as an integral part of his campaign strategy. I despise him for it and this remark of his doesn't fix the problem.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:24:31 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.