Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Clinton does not denounce or reject racist supporters
Adelfa Callejo, Welcome To The Spotlight
27 Feb 2008 08:24 pm
From
New York Daily News reporter Michael McAuliffe's pool report. He was
with Sen. Clinton today for a round of satellite interviews.
She was asked by KTVT in Dallas about a Latina backer who
said that black politicians never do anything for Hispanics. Her name
is Adelfa Callejo. Apparently she’s 84.
[The question: "She recently told us that African-Americans never
help Hispanics when they gain power and influence and that she would
never vote for Sen. Obama, and now quoting here she said 'Obama’s
problem is that he happens to be black.' How do you react to those
comments?"]
The newscaster quoted her saying “Obama’s problem is that he happens to be black.”
Clinton: “Well obviously I want us judged on our merits. I believe strongly that the fact that we have an Aftrican Ameircan and a woman running for the Democratic nomination is historical and I’m very very proud of that . I want people thought to look beyond, look beyond race and gender, look at our records, look what we stand for, look what we’ve done and I think that;s what most voters are looking for.”
Q (paraphrase) Is this something you reject and denounce?
“People have every reason to express their opinions. I just don’t agree with that. I think that we should be looking at the individuals who are running.”
Q - Do you still want her support, though?
Clinton laughed and said, “You know This is a free country. People get to express their opinions. A lot of folks have said really unpleasant things about me over the course of this campaign. You can’ take any of that as anything other than an individual opinion.”
“I would urge all of my supporters and Sen. Obama’s supporters to stay focused on the two of us,. Don’t vote on race don’t vote on gender, vote on the qualifications each of us present for the presidency."
Q- But you criticized Obama for not rejecting the support form Farrakhan,
“I don’t see any comparison at all with what you’re referring to and
I don’t know the facts of what you’re telling me over the TV. So I’m
just going to repeat that I want people to judge us on the merits.”
- this taken from Marc Ambinder's blog
Comments (37)
I hope this story, if true, gains traction. Pure hypocrisy.
February 27, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it isn't true.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/latino_hillary_supporter_obama.php
Idiot.
February 28, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, from what you posted, it sounds like it's completely true. It's just that she has now (after confirming things) renounced and rejected that supporter. Good for her for following through, and also for not leaping before she looked.
February 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
No no, its not just hypocrisy, its "hillpocrisy" (I've decided since she is constantly saying hypocritical things, we may as well coin a term to represent the phenomenon)
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27523616
February 28, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me, TM, that you just hope the story is true.
February 27, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me, you have no idea what I hope. You actually think that I would hope that a prospective candidate for the office of President would support racism? Tell that little bird in your ear to stop smoking crack.
February 27, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me you hope the story isn't.
February 27, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like it is true. I guess loki redux is a racist by virtue of his refusal to reject and denounce Hillary's non-rejection of racist supporters.
February 27, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject your effort to paint loki as a racist for failing to reject HRC's failing to reject a racist's support.
Such efforts leave me feeling dejected.
February 27, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject and denounce your rejection of my rejection of loki's refusing a rejection.
This is politics at its best!
February 27, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
[head explodes]
:D
February 28, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post. I was just about to write this one up.
February 27, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is simply no comparison between this Hispanic women and Louis Farrakhan and in attempting to make one you trivialize a serious issue. Farrakhan is the leader of an organization of est. 40 to 50 thousand and he is clearly and demonstrably an antisemitic. He regularly speaks to crowds of 20 or 30 thousands. His organization produces news letters and phamplets that are distributed across the US. All this with an undertone of antisemitism with occasion blatant antisemitic outburst that spreads and incites antisemitism in his listeners. Its not just that his antisemitic message scapegoats and slanders the Jews of today, he teaches a history which scapegoats Jews for Negro oppression in the past.
I understand why Obama attempted to nuance this issue, Farrakhan has a large following, his organization has done some good work in the black community. While I wish Obama had rejected the man in total I'm satisfied with his denounciations. Its sad to see Obama supporters in an excess of zeal trivializing this issue. I can only assume its because they have not taken the time to do any serious research into who Farrakhan is and what he has said and written about the Jewish people.
February 28, 2008 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is trivializing Farrakhan. Is Farrakhan equivalent to Pat Buchanan? If not, Clinton herself fails the test you propose.
Your mistake is that you seem to think Farrakhan is being compared to this woman. What is being compared is the standard that Hillary Clinton actually has for herself and the standard that she pretended to have during the debate.
February 28, 2008 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simply comparing this lone supporter with Farrakhan trivializes the issue. I'm sure one could find hundreds of supporters of both candidates who express views that are racist in many varying degrees. This blindness to overriding issues that are bigger then the campaign is what disgusts me about some Obama supporters. Fortunately the man himself is not so shallow.
February 28, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just FYI, you might have missed a huge thread on whether or not people can be relatively evil or if evil is just evil. I think I understand the point you're getting at, and if I understand you right, I agree with your premise. While I think this Clinton surrogates remarks are reprehensible, in a matter of scale, Farrakhan has said more vile things to more people, and is thus more vile. But just so you know, there are people floating around who won't understand the nuance you're getting at and they're going to tell you that you're wrong and an anti-semitic hate monger like Farrakhan is no different than known mass-murderers like Stalin and Mussolini.
I just thought you should be warned...
February 28, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The women is irrelevant. The question was stupid. Its based on the premise that one should treat this women the same as Farrakhan or be a hypocrite which rests on the premise that there is at least some small equivalency between her and Farrakhan. I would not expect Obama to treat every supporter of his who made some mild racist remark the same way he has often acted in denouncing Farrakhan. To do so would trivialize the issue of Farrakhan's antisemitism, his leadership role and his effort to disseminate his antisemitic views. You simply cannot compare Farrakhan with some lone supporter.
February 28, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it rests on the premise of expecting Hillary to live up to her grandstanding bullshit about denouncing, rejecting, renouncing, roundhousing, uppercutting and dropping a neutron bomb on racism.
This on particular woman's comments aside, Hillary also lied about her speech in front of the Independence party, so the hypocrisy charge was rock solid before this even came up.
She opened herself up for this, get over it.
February 28, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Clinton's possible hypocrisy with her reference to the independence party and Pat Buchanan if a separate issue. May be true may be false. I haven't looked into it sufficiently to form an opinion. You're welcome to believe it, I'm not interested in arguing it, because the issue of Farrakhan is bigger then the campaign. You keep trying to weasel out by bringing up these side issues. What next? We get a quote from an Obama supporter who says women aren't fit to be president therefore he will never vote for Clinton and ask Obama to reject him. Then grab a Clinton supporter who says he will never vote for a Negro for Clinton to reject. Go back and forth vetting supporters until the issue of Farrakhan is lost in a sea of irrelevancies and trivialities. This issue transcends the campaign but unfortunately your nose only is as long as your support for your candidate and you can't see beyond it. Pathetic.
February 28, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat, others, you miss an important part of the story: Obama's minister.
February 28, 2008 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which means what?
February 28, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of racist comments, does anyone believe for 1 minute that either Hillary or McCain do not know what the people who are warming up the crowds for their events are going to say? I mean every part of their campaign is scripted, leaving nothing to chance.
That said, I find it hard to believe that neither Hillary (Bob BET's "something in the neighboorhood" remark) and the McCain repug radio host guy (repeatedly using Obama's middle name) was not known by the candidates.
Please....they just don't let anybody get up on stage before them and say just anything without it being vetted.
We expect this kind of crap from the GOP. Hillary has a lot of nerve comparing Obama to GWB. Her campaign smacks of Rove hypocracy.
February 28, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mageduley,
Obviously Obama's campaign didn't read Michelle's stump speech closely or they might not have had the "first time proud" comment. So no, candidates do not know all details of their campaigns, not even close.
And yes, she "rejected and denounced" the remarks now.
February 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you think everything in America is hunky-dory, Michelle Obama's comment was easily understood. I knew exactly what she was talking about. The state of political affairs in this country is deplorable.
But why acknowledge this when you can try and use it to tear down any possibility of improving the country in order to desperately shore up the last vestiges of the Clinton myth?
February 28, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The untrue part was the title - that she "does not denounce or reject racist supporters".
I agree with you entirely she did exactly the right thing in checking the quote's accuracy before jumping in.
Perhap's Obama supporters wish his campaign had also looked before leaping when condemning Clinton over the Drudge report?
February 28, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still haven't heard a single definitive, unequivocal statement from anyone on the Titani... errrr.... Team Clinton that this didn't come from them.
I've heard a lot of "I certainly don't think so..."
And a fair bit of "We're all good democrats here..."
And I heard Hillary say that she didn't support it and had no personal knowledge of it (which I believe on both counts). I guess the part that troubles me (and I'm sure others on the Obama side of this) is that we've heard so much over the last 5 days or so about the "Kitchen Sink," and I don't think that notion came from outside Hillary's inner circle. Anytime you have campaign officials prominently announcing that "the gloves are coming off" or they're going to "throw everything but the kitchen sink" at another candidate, it is a tacit admission to folks further away from the trunk of the tree that "anything goes." That's what these expressions mean. What some Vice Junior Assistant Deputy Campaign Manager's intern decides in the kitchen sink is really up to them, while the candidate has plausible deniability. Again, I'm not saying I think Hillary wants it to be this way, gave the green light to Bob Johnson or Bob Kerrey or Bill or any of the other gaffe-makers in her campaign. But nothing we see coming out of the Clinton Camp between last Thursday night and the end of this campaign can't be dismissed as part of any one individual's interpretation of this simple question: What's in YOUR kitchen sink?
February 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't heard anything from Obama's camp unequivocally denying that anyone from their campaign sent it to Drudge pretending to be from Clinton, as a way to make her look bad. Very suspicious!
February 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone make that accusation? Your comment is the first I'm hearing of that possibility.
February 28, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you actually know what Bob Kerrey said? And exactly what did Bill Clinton say that was so "racist'? That Jesse Jackson won S. Carolina by a wide margin? He did. The only other democrat to win by the second widest margin was Bill Clinton. So exactly how is pointing out that Jesse Jackson won by a wide margin comparable to Barack Obama "racist?"
How were Bob Kerrey's remarks made in an interview, where he describes what he said in a conversation with Barack Obama, "racist?" He told Barack Obama that he should not be afraid to use his middle name, in fact that he could capitalize on it in some cases, and from that you extract "racism." And how is the name "Hussein" racist?
Do you ever research or check facts and sources?
February 28, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oi. Bill Clinton's remark was duuuuuuuuumb.
Why? Ask yourself this: Why did he even make the Jesse Jackson comparison? The message is clear: This black upstart will not succeed, either. Just because the message is cryptic doesn't mean it isn't there. The same thing goes for Hussein Hussein Hussein. It doesn't matter that the "but that's his name" defense sounds plausible, we know damn well what they're doing.
I swear, for as naive as we're all supposed to be you're not making a very good case for your own clarity of vision.
February 28, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is ridiculous. Why would the Clinton campaign want to undermine any black supporters? The point he was making was Jackson's phenomenal margin in winning S.C. (The second highest was Clinton) Jackson and Obama were nearly equal in their wins.
This notion that the Clintons want to piss off black voters to gain white and hispanic voters is damned stupid - first of all it's counter- intuitive and secondly it wouldn't work.
February 28, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
She should have stolen Edwards response to a similar question. He said that if anyone was voting for him because of the race or gender of his oponent then he did not want their vote. It would have generated good news coverage for he campaign. She is just not that good of a politician
February 28, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know the powers that be at TPM have also gleefully sought to draw a bizarre analogy between Minister Farrakhan, an admitted hater of the Jews with a following in the thousands, and some two-bit latino leader from Dallas who nobody outside of Dallas (save for some folks in Fort Worth perhaps) has ever heard of. Ridiculous at the threshhold, but bordering on slander now that HRC has renounced and rejected the comment from. . .what's her name?
February 28, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Farrakhan does not equal nameless, faceless Clinton surrogate. It's a bizarre analogy. I'm with you there 100%.
You might wanna hire someone for continuity though...
Just yesterday, there was somebody floating around the comments section who drew the bizarre analogy between hate-speech by an admitted anti-semite with a following in the thousands and two of the worst repressive dictators and mass murderers of the 20th century...
Who was that?
Oh, yeah. It was YOU!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/in-defense-of-louis-farrakhan.php#comment-2619456
Remember that comment?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/in-defense-of-louis-farrakhan.php#comment-2620081
Oh, and this one where you repeated the statement you would come to contradict when it didn't fit your goals:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/in-defense-of-louis-farrakhan.php#comment-2620426
I'd hate to lose track of that. Especially if was a supporter of someone whose talking points include the assertion that one candidate is "all talk and pretty speeches" and the other is all about "action". Action > Words.
Let's simplify (where, in this case, ">" equals both worse and more impactful): Hate speech to thousands > divisive "punditry" by an anonymous campaign surrogate. Mass Murder > Angry, Illogical Rhetoric.
Maybe you should hire me for continuity. I'm thinking and paying attention. And I won't charge you what Mark Penn is charging Hillary. I promise.
February 28, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, snap!
Looks like you rescued that from going over the event horizon and into the memory hole. Nice job.
February 28, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton cannot be expected to be as familiar with a relative nonentity compared to Farrakhan, whom we are all familiar with thanks to the racists trotting him out every few years to scare the white folk.
They are not good analogies....and yet, Clinton did verify the accuracy of the statement and denounced it. Hmmm, seems like responsible behavior to me. Actually verifying that something was said before leaping -- I wouldn't want someone who would have leapt without checking the truth of it. That's more or less how we got into Iraq.
February 28, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
what are you talking about? she was asked to denounce and reject the statements, not the support of that woman. by the way, she is a well known hispanic activist in the hispanic community. she's also a known racist. she may not have existed as long as farrakahn, but her comments should not be tolerated by a person who is supposed to be the standardbearer of american values
February 29, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment