Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Are Clinton's Racists and Divisive? It Appears So.
Hillary Clinton and her campaign are either racist or they sure are acting like it.
Since the campaign began, Barack Obama has had to contend with lies being told about his religion through emails, telling folks he was a Muslim and reminding folks that his middle name is Hussein.
During the campaign, talk shows and news stations have supposedly ‘mistakenly’ reported Barack name as being Osama instead of Obama. Most recently Chris Matthews was discussing the Obama campaign while a picture of Osama Bin Laden was being shown to the right of Chris. They later apologized.
The Clinton campaign has also attacked him personally, alluding to his race and beliefs. Her surrogates went after the idea of whether he was “black enough”. Later, her husband Bill Clinton called the Obama campaign a “fairy tale”.
During the Democratic debate last Tuesday on CNN, Hillary treated Barack Obama with kid gloves, even to the point of saying she was proud to have been there with him, except when discussing his Universal Health Care plan; which by the way, she now claims he doesn’t have.
Not two days later, Hillary is attacking Obama for some fliers his campaign sent out discussing her views on NAFTA. Hillary ended up acting like a mother by saying, “Shame on you Barack Obama, Shame on you.” Mind you, these fliers have been out there for days, even weeks, according to Obama’ team. Why did she wait till after the debate to question him?
Today we hear Clinton’s surrogates are questioning Obama’s commitment to U.S. – Israel relations.
Also today we hear where aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton e-mailed a photo to the DrudgeReport.com calling attention to the African roots of Obama. The photo, was taken in 2006, it shows Obama dressed as a Somali Elder (looking like a Muslim), during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya where his father was from.
After Obama’s campaign calls her on such a, "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear, Hillary’s campaign put out a statement saying, “Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely. This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry. We will not be distracted.”
Do American’s really want this kind of leader, one that will smear a candidate in anyway possible, in order to win the nomination?
Comments (48)
The Hillary Campaign by using that photo and not immediately distancing itself, is proof of Rascism amongst other horrid things.
Since the campaigns legitimate task is to drive down Obama support they clearly saw the photo as a way to achieving that goal.
So you now know how the view that photo.
End of story.
February 25, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
samantha power, rwanda, & the clinton administration's non-response.
February 25, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this post based upon flimsy, imaginary, and highly questionable evidence? It appears so.
Should this be a "recommended" reader post? It appears not.
Is Connie Mains unaware that you don't use an apostrophe to indicate a plural? It appears so.
February 25, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer to your question ("Is this post based upon flimsy, imaginary, and highly questionable evidence?") is not: "It appears so", but a resounding YES!! For example, Mains is still peddling the "fairytale" lie ("Later, her husband Bill Clinton called the Obama campaign a 'fairy tale'") -- you know, the lie he let/sent his wife out onto the campaign trail to propagate! For this reason alone, Mains's piece is easily dismissed as nothing more than an ill-informed and biased rant from the Hillary-can-do-no-right, Barack-can-do-no-wrong camp.
February 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If 90% of women were voting for Clinton then she would be the "woman" candidate period. If 90% of the black vote is going to Obama that makes anyone noticing he is black a racist. Get it? And god help you if you say anything bad about his policy or personality..... because you cannot oppose him without being a racist right? Calling Clinton a racist is absolutely way way beyond the bounds of logic or decency but you just think you got away with it and are waiting for the amen choir to rise in support. I personally think you are an idiot and an a**hole, .... but I just read your one post so what do I know.
February 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which post was that, because it definitely wasn't this one. What you addressed had nothing in common with what was posted.
February 25, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Connie hearts her some Drudge.
Really, hasn't Obama gotten burned before by taking a Drudge too seriously before confirming.
Oh wait, probably no one called him on it.
February 25, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find your insinuations offensive. I like Obama well enough, but his supporters are increasingly offensive. Your slander of the Clinton campaign is a case in point. Grow up, little person. Stop screaming RACE each time you don't like something.
February 25, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with all you've said. The Obama campaign's reflexive playing of the high dudgeon race card became tiresome some time ago. If they're still trying to get by on that gambit when the general election comes, say hello to President McCain.
As for the offensiveness of the supporters, they seem intent on alienating what should be a natural constituency. Curious, that.
February 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There may be supporters of Obama that are offensive, divisive and alienating. However, nothing is preventing what should be, as you describe it, a natural constituency more than Hillary Clinton herself. According to her, all of Barack Obama's supporters are soft-headed, doe-eyed idealists with a bad case of infatuation.
No doubt there are jerks in both crowds (or any crowd), but the candidates are responsible for setting the tone and Clinton has apparently decided that pulling out a win is more important at this point than party unity.
February 26, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
When did Clinton say that? I've nexused that quote and I can't find it anywhere.
February 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I await your calls on the Clinton camp to stop calling every HRC criticism "sexist."
Not holding my breath, of course.
February 26, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben sweetie~ I guess I just thought it was funny that someone would attack racism and divisiveness by being racist and divisive but hey... it's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black .... It appears so! Are you just the etiquette police with no opinion? What exactly are YOU saying about Connie's accusation that Clinton is telling lies about his religion, telling folks he is a Muslim, and reminding us his middle name is Hussein? The charge that Clinton attacked him personally on his race and beliefs? This shit is way over the top and you are defending it exactly why?? What is YOUR middle name??
February 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Hillary Clinton racist? No.
Is she divisive?
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.
I'm not sure what Hillary hopes to accomplish with these tactics. Even if she somehow wins the nomination (a long shot), she will have pissed off at least half of the Democratic base doing it.
And even if she is the most forgiving ever after she accepts defeat, the Clinton's image has been tarnished by this whole campaign.
What did she say after the debate? "Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people..."
I hope so too, Hillary.
February 25, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is the problem with "reminding" voters that Obama's middle name is Hussein? Is Obama not proud of his middle name?
The screaming that follows anytime someone mentions this suggests the Obama campaign has a serious "head in the sand" issue here. This will become common knowledge sooner or later. Would you prefer to wait until the general election to see whether Obama's middle name turns voters off?
February 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think issue is bringing it up in a way that intends to play on people's prejudices. However, I am personally not aware of an example where this has specifically been done by the Clinton campaign. Then again, if they were to do something along these lines it would most assuredly be done subversively rather than overtly. To be clear, I know of no evidence that the Clinton campaign has done this.
Unfortunately, I won't really be surprised if we see this sort of tactic in the general election.
February 26, 2008 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Judging by how much everyone around here is terrified of Obama's middle name, seems to me all McCain needs to do to win is refer to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama every time he opens his mouth between now and November. If his own supporters are freaking out over this, how long before the Republicans catch on, if they haven't caught on already?
But Hillary, now there's a candidate with high negatives...
February 25, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're going to sling the racism charge, perhaps show some evidence that HRC or her campaign are dispensing race-based propaganda.
Islam is a religion, not a race. The Somali head scarf in which Obama is pictured in today's propaganda is similar to ones worn by Muslims of many races in many countries.
To even give credence to the Osama/Obama slips puts one in the same class as those who think a name would be indicative of one's character, abilities, or positions, whether it's Obama or Hussein. And for the record, "Barack" is an Arabic word for "Blessed". The Arabic language existed long before the Muslim religion. I, for one, don't consider Obama particularly "blessed," nor would I draw any conclusions about him based on his name.
Please, from an Obama supporter, dispense with the racist nonsense. It's this fringe of supporters that make the rest of us Obama supporters look stupid.
February 25, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely stated. Thank you.
February 25, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a sad day when Democrats start using Drudge as a trustworthy source for news. Please don't tell me that Hillary leaked info to them or that Obama advertises on his site, both are irrelevant. We need to get a grip.
There are people on both sides of the election who are upset and are threatening to either stay home, write-in their candidate or vote for McCain. This cannot be discounted.
As an AA who has experienced racism and sexism firsthand, it pains me deeply to see those terms being thrown around so freely for political gain. The destructive nature of our dialogue is getting so close to the line that it could once again cost us an election that we should win.
February 25, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOu know what Obama's supporters look stupid , the fact that everyone is calling Hilary a racist..For God's sake, they've had their office in Harlem, way before she was running, in the middle of hundreds, or thousands of African Americans..And the African Americans were loving it, walking side by side with him, chatting, smiling, giving opinions, shaking his hand proudly, and now all this nonsense..
February 25, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmmm... aside from the obvious Non sequitur (having an office in harlem in no way disproves "racism")
Perhaps if you didn't blend Hillary w/ Bill "they've had their office in Harlem, way before she was running" gives way to "walking side by side with him... shaking his hand proudly"
So - which is it, a Freudian Slip or the first true instance of "Billary" that I've ever encountered?
February 25, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Play the race card in New Hampshire and S.C., get an office in Harlem and your deflector shield gets activated. I once thought the shield was having Black friends.
February 25, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious?
I wonder if shaking a jew's hand got any Nazis off at Nuremburg.
You Hillary folks have such high standards.
February 25, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
They must love Hilary so much that Obama got zero votes in Harlem? Funny that...NOT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/bloomberg-fraud-behind_n_87564.html
February 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, bullshit. They aren't racist, they just don't give a crap about anything but 'winning,' no matter what it does to anyone or anything else.
February 25, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure the Clintons aren't racist, but they are clearly not above playing the race card politically. I'm skeptical of the whole "fairy tale" thing, partly because it seemed to me that the outrage there was so misplaced--people should have been upset that Bill was distorting Obama's record of being opposed to the illegal, imperialist invasion of Iraq in the first place. But the Clintons have obviously tried to use racism to their advantage during this campaign. Time and again, Hillary's campaign staffers and Bill himself tried to paint Obama as "the black candidate" in order to marginalize him after he won South Carolina. The fact that this was a major talking point for her campaign is established and beyond dispute, and it doesn't speak well of her ethics (I know, I know, politics are a dirty game, but for God's sake let's leave race-baiting to Jesse Helms and co in the Republican party).
That the Clinton campaign sent out the photo of Obama in traditional Somali clothing has not been fully established, but personally their denials haven't been categorical enough to firmly convince me otherwise either.
February 25, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Divisive? Yes.
Racist? Maybe. Do they pander to racists? Yup. Are many Hillary supporters liberal racists who can't stomach the idea of Obama being president? I believe so.
Does anyone think the split personality Hillary is showing off this past week looks presidential? I guess anything could look presidential after George W.
I wonder what the line in Vegas is for her shedding tears again before March 4th?
February 25, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be happy to argue with you on the issues and facts, but you haven't presented any.
February 25, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence of her pandering to racists?
-Playing on stereotypes like the Hussein Muslim emails, the Hussein Obama Bob Kerry event, the drug use crap
- Attempting to marginalize Obama by tying him to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton
- Painting MLK as needing Johnson to help him. Johnson was a racist- thats well known. He did what he was forced to do. Nothing was given to African Americans in the Civil Rights Era- everything gained was fought for.
Is it over the top racism? No. Subtle pandering to baby-boomers that tend to go her way? I think so. If you don't believe me go take a gander at AARP's forums. I was blown away by the conversations going on over there.
I don't think polls accurately reflect the number of Americans who are influenced by race.
Abe Lincoln? The same Abe Lincoln who told racist jokes? The same Abe Lincoln who did not give a damn what happened to African-Americans? You mean his party? The same Republican party that pulled all troops from the South and allowed a wave of violence and oppression akin to slavery to overflow the South? The same Republicans that scape-goated African-Americans as being the cause of all the problems along with the Democratic Party? Both parties have horrible records. Freedom did not begin for many African-Americans until 30 years ago, if then.
I agree that racism and bigotry has no place in the modern Democratic Party. It is too bad that not all Dems agree on that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are rabid bigots. I'm just saying it has become obvious that they have no limits to what they'd do to win. Too bad they didn't have that Rovian inclination during Bill's time in office or maybe he would have vetoed some more stuff rather than being a republican rubber stamp.
I would agree with any assertion that the perceived bigotry is in the eye of the beholder, with the exception of the muslim attacks. But I think that's entirely their angle, putting things out there that could easily be ammunition for people with more homogenous cultural tastes.
February 25, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Connie - The apostrophe indicates a possessive. Plural nouns (Americans, Clintons) are not possessive and do not require an appostrophe.
February 26, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And "apostrophe" is spelled with two p's, not three.
I think we call that "instant karma.: ;-)
(Oh, btw, I've been burned by instant grammar-nazi karma too, so this is all in good fun, and I have to admit poor speling and gramur anoy me.)
February 26, 2008 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Connie - The apostrophe indicates a possessive.
Except, of course, in the case of "its", as opposed to "it's."
Don't even get me started on that one ;-)
February 26, 2008 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
“Playing on stereotypes like the Hussein Muslim emails” doesn’t fall in the class of racism, and we’re going to need to remember this to combat it in the fall. Obama’s father and grandfather were Muslims. It’s not a slam to point it out. It’s part of what defines Obama and should be seen as a strength, not a weakness. HRC knows this and has not sought to make it a dividing issue for Dems. The Muslim card is what Repubs will use to invoke the fear of terrorism and we need to be ready for that attack. I don’t buy that Bob Kerrey was playing a terrorism card in speaking of Obama’s background.
“the drug use crap” is also not racist, When did any race have the market cornered on teen drug use? Yes, I think Penn tossed out a feeler on the cocaine use history and it didn’t play. I don’t think you can make a case that HRC has sought traction on the issue since Penn was lambasted for the way he addressed it weeks ago.
“Attempting to marginalize Obama by tying him to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.” I don’t know what to make of this. Of all the missteps by the Clinton campaign and the allegations of racism far out of proportion with the seed incident, this one is the most curious, and the one I can’t rationalize as having anything other than a racially coded message. I don’t think it was intended to denigrate based on race as much as it was meant to compare Obama to other candidates whose campaigns were more heavily aimed at African Americans than Obama's. My previous statement about HRC being an unflagging proponent of racial equality stands, and it applies equally to WJC. I have a really hard time seeing this as racist and more as a really ill-conceived way to frame the race in HRC's favor.
“Painting MLK as needing Johnson to help him. Johnson was a racist- thats well known. He did what he was forced to do. Nothing was given to African Americans in the Civil Rights Era- everything gained was fought for.”
First, there is no reason to doubt HRC’s reverence for MLK. And it’s silly to conclude that making a historical statement about LBJ’s role in enacting civil rights legislation either diminishes MLK’s legacy or supports a charge of using race as a campaign tactic. It was a bogus charge at the outset and was magnified beyond proportion by the media echo chamber.
I can’t say with any certainty that the HRC campaign has never considered trying to leverage race, but I think the Clintons deserve the benefit of the doubt. It’s simply not a part of a campaign plan against Obama and, in my opinion, will misfire very badly if the Repubs take an overt approach to exploit lingering racism among a minority of Republican voters.
February 26, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true, there isn't actually any evidence that she has been pushing the racist rhetoric. Though the media has. Bill is the only one who has been caught trying to pull the race card, and unless anyone finds proof that she urged him to do it I will give her the benefit of the doubt on that.
February 26, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, as a democrat ,if Hillary gets the nomination, I'll be voting for McCain in the fall.
February 26, 2008 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a Democrat and I'm no fan of Hillary myself. If she does end up with the nomination I'm not sure that I could vote for her in good conscience, most of which has to do with her record on Iraq.
However, it'll be a cold day in hell before I'll vote for John McCain. I'd be curious to know why you think he's preferable to Clinton.
February 26, 2008 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well then you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? I don't much care for Clinton (and I'm not all that thrilled with Obama, either), but the differences in voting records and positions between the two are negligible - and certainly vastly superior Maverick McCain.
Vote for Nader, write in Snoopy, or don't bother to vote at all, if you find Clinton so abhorrent, but if you claim to be a Democrat and presumably an Obama supporter, and you'd vote for McCain out of spite, then you're voting against your own interests.
Though, since Obama looks to be the chosen one, it's a moot point anyway.
February 26, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because this is all about you, isn't it?
February 26, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they're being racist and divisive.
But so what? Saying so doesn't help.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, BHO wins by fact, coolness (as in "keeping his cool"), pride, and humor. As in, "Yes, my middle name is Hussein. It's a wonderful name. It's a diminutive of 'Hassan' and means 'good' or 'handsome.' The name has been carried by some staunch allies of the U.S., such as King Hussein of Jordan, who also concluded a peace treaty with Israel. I am not only proud of my name, I am proud of the thousands of patriotic American Muslims who carry it, even if they do not share my Christian faith. We must always remember that the strength of America is in the diversity of the people who come together to form this unique and amazing society."
February 26, 2008 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to upchuck if I hear one more time about "conscience" over Hillary's Iraq "record" (her vote, ignoring her speech).
Dudes, we're going to get smacked so badly on security this November if we don't get it together. We're running against a Vietnam vet/POW with 26 years in the House/Senate, his Surge has (by the press' standards) worked, and he'll be presumably against a guy who said "Hussein was absolutely no threat to us or his neighbors" and whose wife got caught with a painfully stupid soundbite off her stump speech.
Americans vote pocket book and security, not necessarily in that order. All else is just talk.
February 26, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a waste of time.
It's irresponsible to divert the primary conversation into a he-said- she-said wasteland.
Discussions like this just dumb down the whole process. It's like a trap set by those who would prefer not to discuss the candidates' stands on the important issues. If a candidate is playing dirty, that attitude will come across without any help from groupies.
Anybody who wants change will not spend much time obsessing over this nonsense.
February 26, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said I'd vote for McCain. If it is found to be true that Hillary's campaign did indeed (which they deny NOW) put that picture out there -- I will not vote for Hillary - IF she should win the nomination.
So far, McCain has run a political campaign -- he's not been a personal attack machine that Hillary's team seems to be. At least he stays on issues.
February 26, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to take seriously a blog entry that misuses the apostrophe. What you wanted to say is that the "Clintons are racist", not that a singular Clinton possesses something. My suggestion is that you learn English grammer before you post a blog entry.
February 26, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Article from the Atlantic:
Perhaps the ultimate example of hard-won experience is the relationship that developed last year, brokered by an outside ally, between the Clinton campaign and a man who was once a sworn enemy: Matt Drudge, the Internet pioneer. (News of the Monica Lewinsky scandal first broke on the Drudge Report.) In a Democratic primary, news that the Clinton campaign is funneling information to Drudge is potentially explosive—few figures inspire more liberal wrath than Drudge. (When I confronted the mole, she confirmed the connection to Drudge, but first asked for anonymity.) Still, Drudge has proved a useful tool for the campaign in framing media coverage. When it became clear that Obama had raised more first-quarter money for the primary race than Clinton had, the Clinton campaign minimized the damage by preemptively leaking its own numbers to Drudge. “Clinton Blows the Field Away” was the headline on an exclusive Drudge story claiming she had raised $36 million. Only later, with much less fanfare, did it become clear that only $19 million would count toward the Democratic primary.
The Clinton campaign has also used Drudge to go on offense. In one example, an aide confirmed that the campaign sent Drudge a link to a story in which Michelle Obama seemed to take a swipe at Hillary Clinton over Bill’s infidelity. The story was presented—from Clinton to Drudge to the public—in a manner that was badly out of context, with a link to an exclusive videotape of Michelle Obama’s comment. But it nevertheless dominated the news cycle for 24 hours.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clinton-obama/2
NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/politics/22drudge.html?pagewanted=print
February 26, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think the clintons play the racecard like everything else....with surgical skill that has come from years of campaigning. they make a subtle gesture that makes a huge statement at times. i think this is one of those times.
as far as being racists, we have to leave that to the bush/cheney team etal.
connie i'm sorry about your apostrophe....but it's (did i use that correctly?) no catastrophe!
bob-o
February 26, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Matt Drudge works for the Clinton Campaign?
Josh Marshall, crusading for Obama has taken a backseat to credibility on your blog.
February 26, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't about Obama failing to man up at the State of the Black Union event in Louisiana after that state voted for Obama.
It's about Matt Drudge, linking a photo from several other conservative hate sites that said they'd contact him with the photo, claiming it was instead Hillary's campaign that sent it.
So glad you've cleared all that up for us.
February 26, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment