Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

History is a bitch: Why the Clintons need pay attention to the company they keep.

Hillary Clinton has made much lately of what she would do when faced with a racist... and that we can choose the people we have in our lives outside of family.

For many years, the Clintons had a strong association with J. William Fulbright.   Who is this figure?  Well, you may know him as the guy who was against the Vietnam war among other things.  He also denounced the John Birch Society and angered many conservative.

Pretty interesting man, right?

Let's continue.  He also supported racial segregation.  Or as pointed out in this Wiki entry on him:

For most of his life and public service, Fulbright was a supporter of racial segregation. He signed The Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court's historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. He subsequently joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as voting against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Now, it's true that very late in his career, he softened on this issue.  On the other hand, very late in life many atheists, with death upon them, turn to God.  Or said another way, George Wallace recanted his segregationalist stands near the end of his career.

Did you forgive George Wallace?

Is Fulbright a hateful individual?  How to deal with the bad and the good?  How indeed.  Reminds you of a certain Reverend Wright, doesn't it?

And Fulbright maintained a long relationship with the Clintons.  They chose him -- they weren't related to him.  In fact, continuing from the Wiki article:

On October 21, 2002,
in a speech at the dedication of the Fulbright Sculpture at the
University of Arkansas, Bill Clinton said, "I admired him. I liked him.
On the occasions when we disagreed, I loved arguing with him. I never
loved getting in an argument with anybody as much in my entire life as
I loved fighting with Bill Fulbright".

This is almost in the same tone as the speech given by Obama.  

So why is it that Hillary Clinton tries to make an issue of this on the news about Obama?

She is counting that this country doesn't know much about history.   Or it may just be that she is aptly described by the title of a book that Fulbright wrote.




Comments (62)

Using the B-word unless you're that crazy right-winger at McCain's infamous campaign stop that had its substance overshadowed by her vocabulary, or Tina Fey, it's not really working for you. I might agree with the Samantha Powers' "monster" tag or see Fey's point, but it's really a bit overpowering to whatever your message was.

Amber,

My initial response to you was at face value -- but, due to other's reactions here, I think I now see what you may have imagined reading.

I suggest you re-read the title again.

Perhaps you will find the post worthwhile after all.

Clearthinker,

I am with you. This you are using is a very common expression and figure of speech. What other wordings would express the sense meant here?

Elliontness suggested one that would work here, but one that ups the offensive-ante(to my ears and eyes, that is.)

Well, you could have said: "History is the pits," but we have to check if that is dog-appropriate...

Someone blogged yesterday about Hillary exagerating even further when she said: "I say millions of words in a day." Could we let her use a figure of speech? (Pretty please!)

It is in the eye of the beholder, indeed. Sometimes we might want to look at things directly and get rid of the microscope!

(Too bad that sometimes we misspeak, misspell or missread... ;-)

Yes, "History" is too close to "Hillary" and I had to look twice at the screen.

Jon Stewart used it pretty well when referring to the Leahy (Sorry if I spelled it wrong)-Cheney tiff a while back.

avatar

William Jefferson Clinton was a Fulbright scholar.

Fulbright was a Senator from AK, as well.

avatar

Hey Brightboy.....I'd say that was an AR not an AK

Amber,

With all due respect (see Bill Maher last week), policing language at that level will only raise your blood pressure.

Saying " is a bitch" is fairly common usage.

As in "Karma is a bitch." As in "Love is a bitch." As in "Death is a bitch."

I reserve my right to use language creatively. It's too bad the word overshadowed my post for you, but that's life.

And sometimes: "Life's a bitch."

avatar

That's "creative" all right. Your "language" is sort of like Karl Rove's "math" -- there's a point where you don't get to have your own version and make any sense at all.

You got me there - were you making a recursive point? Because I lost the point you were trying to make.

Unless that was the point you were making.

avatar

I first read the title as "Hillary is a bitch: [etc.]" I don't blame you for being confused.

I think you should have gone with

History is a MutherFuc*er

More oomph.

avatar

Opening with "Hillary is a bitch" pretty much negates everything that comes after. Ugh, ugh, ugh and shame on you.

Really? And here I wrote:

HISTORY is a bitch.

Hmmm.... I hope the next president adds "reading comprehension" to the agenda of "No Internet reader left behind."

Damn. You beat me to it. I was going to go for something more contemporary:

SHAME ON YOU ANTSINPANTS! YOU SHOULD HAVE READ BEFORE POSTING! MEET ME IN THE COMMENT SECTION!!!

ugh.

avatar

Is that really what your title said originally? If so, I retract my comments, both of them.

Well, as you know, people here complain that you can't edit a post once it's up. So that is the proof I offer to what it said originally.

Although I note that you seem to be of the frame of mind, even in your retraction, of "guilty until proven innocent." This idea, of course, is not associated with the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps people are projecting their true feelings on the title. Just a thought.

Ah... DF... my one reader. ;-)

This time, my friend, you are ahead of me. I just wrote a bit of a meditation on that in a new blog.

I'm hoping at some point that someone here will comment on
Fulbright!

Yeah, hasn't been one "Nurse Ratched" or "How do we beat the bitch" comment this campaign. Impressive how above board everyone's behaved. Almost makes me want to cry, if there are no cameras around.

I see. More guilt by association? Of the *other* party? (Isn't "beat the bitch" from the GOP?)

Well, at least you brought us back to the topic here and I thank you for that!

How about "association through mass repetition". Advertising works. "Things go better with..." Meatloaf? Chardonnay? Dental floss?

Is it sexism to compare a woman to another woman or must we compare a woman to a man to avoid this charge?

Try comparing whomever based on objective, rational criteria. Is that so much to ask?

That's "History" not "Hillary" in the post title (I misread it at first glance too) and the basic point of the post is a good one.

Funny, every time my eyes scrolled over the title, I saw "Hillary" instead of "History" as well. What was that study on how the eyes and brain process symbols and patterns? Anyway, crafting a good title does seem to take some practice.

This is a fine example and there are still others. Of course, the truly disappointing fact is that Clinton is right alongside Sean Hannity et al. on this on. It's equally disappointing that many of her supporters are following suit simply because they want her to win. Consider how many of them have fervently spent the last decade and change fighting these same people and these tactics. Apparently it is not the tactic they object to, but rather whether or not they find themselves on the business end.

I can appreciate the point you'd like to make, CT, but this is a pretty inapt comparison. Fulbright had a distinguished pubic career and was on the progressive side of many issues. Read a bit more about him and I think you'd agree he doesn't deserve to be used as a tool for guilt-by-association with the Clintons.

A lot more context than Wikipedia provides, here.

A couple of key quotes:

On domestic issues Fulbright remained moderate; on civil rights he was orthodox from a Southern point of view, yet without a trace of bigotry.

snip

Fulbright, although personally a moderate on matters of race, believed in the 1950s that he needed to move to the right on race issues to protect his political future in Arkansas.

I see. So as long as you say it's to protect your political future, you should vote for war in Iraq on false pretenses?

How do you feel about Nixon? He used the instruments of government against his own citizens. And yet he was probably the best foreign policy president we had in 100 years.

It's amazing to me that so many want to see the world in black and white (no pun intended). The point I am making is that Fulbright was all over the map -- some good, some bad. The Clintons latched onto the good, for whatever reasons.

Now: see how that applies to Wright and Obama.


I don't think Fulbright was all over the map. Nor do I think Wright is all over the map. As I have come to understand Wright's background, the infinite-loop Fox clips are quite the exception to his ministry. But your point is taken, that some guilt by association could apply to the Clintons as well. I just think comparing Fulbright and Wright is apples and oranges with respect to the greater context. But in future, the comparison will probably stand up, in that neither Wright nor Fulbright will be remembered as bigots.

Ironically, I didn't catch the significance of that second quote I posted, implying the preference for political expedience over principles, when I copied/pasted it. It is telling about WJC, I have to admit.

The winky does make a difference. I think we all tend to be a little quick to the draw, whether it's because we're a bit over-stressed by this contest or just feeling fervent in support of our chosen candidates. For me, I always look at who is posting (checking back in the index for the byline, since the infamous "By-" often tells us nothing). Frankly, I would have been extremely surprised to see a post title "Hillary's a Bitch..." from ClearThinker. I guess it's possible you'd toss out something as a way of generating discussion, but I just wouldn't assume you'd make a rather careless statement like that.

I don't know what's more troubling... that people are only responding to titles of posts without reading the content, or that they're drawing assumptions that make no sense coming from particular bloggers.

Sheesh, now you got me cross-replying on threads... sigh. Comment intended for the Freudian discussion...

Yes, sometimes posting on TPM can be a ....

Wait a minute. I think I better choose my words carefully here.

Hah!

Frankly, I would have been extremely surprised to see a post title "Hillary's a Bitch..." from ClearThinker.

Interesting. In this interpretation, then, the reader's response may be simply what they expect to see from me! Hence, you and DF had no issues with the title while others....

By the way, go to the other blog as I had some fun with you on one of your comments here. I think it's good clean fun, so no winky required.

For those wondering about the "other blog", there is a discussion on why people saw "History is a bitch" as "Hillary is a bitch" at

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/a-freudian-experiment-in-this.php

Nice to equate a guy who recanted his earlier beliefs with one who's not apologetic.

Nice to equate being a follower/devotee of someone vs. associating with someone.

Wallace did apologize to blacks, and did appoint a large number of blacks in his last administration and became a born-again Christian. That doesn't make his earlier comments and actions okay - it makes him better later as a person.

Clinton interned for Fulbright after his Junior in High School. Fulbright was of course a powerful figure in Clinton's Arkansas, and did a lot of noble things in relation to the United Nations, standing up against the Vietnam War, etc. But nowhere have I heard of Clinton supporting Fulbright's views on race, apologizing for them, saying he didn't hear them, etc. And worse, your aspersion is after the fact of the 90's - a great increase in black empowerment in government including the upper levels of his administration, investment in the middle class, home ownership, and other trappings of stability and permanence. The 90's from 1993 on was a great decade of decrease in black poverty and in black (and white) crime. While I don't think Clinton himself ever used the term "first black President", his friendship with Vernon Jordan and Maya Angelou and his office move to Harlem after his Presidency provided important visuals for black acceptance at the highest level.

So please appreciate non-subtle differences in dissimilar situations.

While I don't think Clinton himself ever used the term "first black President", his friendship with Vernon Jordan and Maya Angelou and his office move to Harlem after his Presidency provided important visuals for black acceptance at the highest level.

I see. Some of his best friends are black, is it?

Again, you are making my point for me. Fulbright had widely diverging opinions, some progressive, some reactionary and some reflecting his time.

Again, if you read my full post, you will see Clinton talking about taking the measure of Fulbright just as Obama did of Wright.

Who, by the way, served the country honorably and apparently had a positive impact on his poor urban community. Again, many facets to a personality.

And Obama chose to associate with the positive elements.

Just as the Clintons *chose* to associate with Fulbright.

So you quote Clinton saying he loved to argue with Fulbright, and that's the same as Obama not hearing Wright's controversial statements?

People can have friendships in opposites. Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt became friends. Most people weren't asking Obama to disassociate from Rev. Wright - they were asking "what's up with this Farrakahan man-of-the-year stuff, these post-9/11 God-damn-America comments, these 'ain't-got-time-for-lynching comments?" Obama, supposedly the most prepared on on-message dude in the universe, seemed stumped by such an obvious question. So now it's Hillary's fault I suppose.

H was not stumped by those questions. He answered them in his speach and on other occasions both before and since. To paraphrase, no ears are so deaf as those who know what it is in their best interst not to hear. Sen Obama said that this was a complecated issue and that none of us are perfect. He urged us not to judge by the worst 5 min out of thousands of hours of speaking. That is what Clinton did for Fulbright, Obama did for Wright, and most of us have done for friends and family who are good people even thought they hold an obnoxious opinion or two.

I am an atheist but my christian friends and family overlook my apstasy as I overlook their magical thinking, and I h=even overlook some racist opinions among my family and friends.

How about pointing out a day when Rev. Wright wasn't running over with invective. Okay, AIDS day wasn't so strong. What else?

And no, to answer your stupid comment, his friends and his actions and his opinions over many many years are positive towards the black community, with nothing to show that he's insincere or has either a hidden or obvious racist streak. In short, he's a very positive post-racial figure. But everybody knows Rovian tactics these days, so attacking and smearing people on their strengths has become soup-de-jour.

That's really something coming from the local Rev. Wright of sexism.

If someone running for President takes me as a hero and their surrogate father and spiritual guide, first they've got serious problems and second, they'd be well-advised to consider the political ramifications - something Rev. Wright advised Obama years ago. I'm not mainstream. The office of President is.

Third, I had figured that you being a Wright fan appreciated that everything I said was correct even though at times my presentation came out a bit over-the-top.

You know what's funny? I'm an atheist, so pastors in general can take a flying you-know-what for all I care. What I'm a fan of is honesty and critical thinking and, from what I've seen, Wright has that on you in spades. I don't know how you ever ended up with the impression that I think the things you say are correct. For the record, I think you spin like a top and make not a bit of sense. The Wright reference is that I think your constant harangue on sexism is as 1960s as Wright's on racism is. That clear now?

Presumably you can imagine how little I care what your malformed opinion is, but in case you're subtlety challenged, less than zilch.

No, I can see pretty clearly that all you care about is seeing sexism everywhere you look.

Ha

Actually, if you think about it, Fulbright is much worse than Wright: Wright was expressing opinions (guaranteed under the Bill of Rights) while Fulbright was trying to enact his segregationalist views into law.

Thanks for reminding me to make this crystal clear.

Clearthinker you make a good point hear.

Some Sally (I can't remember her last name) was talking about this yesterday morning in MSNBC with the host Andrea (I can't remember her last name.) I wish I had a video link...

Sally was saying how, Clinton had associated himself well with Jesse Jackson who has himself made some anti-semite comments, and never renounced, rejected...

She also brought up an interesting point that could be examinded further:

I we play in a loop a video clip of, and only of, Bill Clinton wavering his finger in the air while saying: "I didn't have... with the woman," followed by him perjuring himself, a shot of the blue dress and some other choicest cuts, what shall we make of Bill Clinton himself?

What about one of, and only of, Hillary's misspeaking re Bosnia and the NAFTA-pushing meetings found in her White House schedule?

In regard to the many misreadings of your title (Hillary accidentally substituted for History), you may be interested in Hendrik Hetzberg's piece in The New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/02/25/080225taco_talk_hertzberg

When the NY Times published a headline that said "Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama's Life," many read it to say "Drugs Played Big Part in Obama's Life."

As a culture, we may be conditioning ourselves to read for the most controversial, slanderous thing possible.

Of course, the big question:

Is that the reading that New York Time intended?

It is a strange title.

As for "History is a Bitch: Why the Clintons need pay attention to the company they keep.

I wouldn't have written an article critical of the Clintons with the word bitch in the title, but that's just me.

"Judge the Clintons by the Company they Keep"


avatar

Hillary is not a bitch!

avatar

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Clearthinker - The bigger problem I have with Hillary's attack on Obama for not leaving his Church is that there is an even better analogy that she is blinded to in her zeal to win the nomination at all costs:

Obama has pointed out, and the historical record supports the view, that there is much more to Dr. Wright than the tape loop of his most incendiary remarks would indicate -- a 35 year career helping and ministering to his community, many many sermons having no political content at all, a Marine veteran, and so on -- and that weighing that against the tape loop, and the fact that Dr. wright was close to retiring, he stayed with the congregation.


Hillary was faced with a similar choice just under 10 years ago. When she found out that Bill had been lying to her, that he had in fact been fellated several times by young White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, and that his claims of innocence on this were lies, and that her defense of him as being the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy was now subject to ridicule -- when she was publicly humiliated by him over and over again -- she chose to stay with the man, because there was much more to him that the 5 - 10 hours of infidelity (and I am being very conservative in that assessment, from all accounts) and the weeks of lying about it, and that she was able to forgive and find enough to love and respect to not destroy her marriage over it.

That she fails to see the parallel in this is mind boggling, except I do think she understands and sees the parallel, but ignores it because her sense of political expediency and political imperitive dictates that she debase herself by interjecting herself into the Wright controversy in this way. I think its either a tin ear for what the electorate really wants, a lack of self-reflection on her own life, or, on some level, the most craven political attack I have ever seen.

avatar

Your sense of balance is underwhelming.

Their mind is too busy being boggled.

avatar

“In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects.”

“When public men indulge themselves in abuse, when they deny others a fair trial, when they resort to innuendo and insinuation, to libel, scandal, and suspicion, then our democratic society is outraged, and democracy is baffled.”

“The junior senator from Wisconsin, by his reckless charges, has so preyed upon the fears and hatreds and prejudices of the American people that he has started a prairie fire which neither he nor anyone else may be able to control.”

There has been a strong tradition in this country that it is not the function of the military to educate the public on political issues.”

We must learn to welcome and not to fear the voices of dissent

I think we Americans tend to put too high a price on unanimity, as if there were something dangerous and illegitimate about honest differences of opinion honestly expressed by honest men.”

The citizen who criticizes his country is paying it an implied tribute

Quotes....from the man you disparage here. As you can see Sen. Fulbright would have upheld Rev. Wrights ability to say what he feels. He was an American.

in spite of our first interaction, clearthinker, you have class and i give you a great deal of credit for shining your light on this subject with this post.

i've found what i need to present an alternative view to your energy post, too. expect a response at some point, when i finally have time..

i hope more people pick up on this Fulbright connection. it's definitely a long and publicly known relationship. what disappoints me is that HRC attacked Obama, when she had the opportunity to make an inspiring, unifying speech about race as well, bring up this association with Fulbright and the famous disagreements the Clintons had with him, and ultimately defend Obama while reaffirming the truth inherent in Obama's words: that we all know and love racists (commies, socialists, anarchists, libertarians, anti-americans, and even republicans), even though we disagree with them.

recommended

vpopvli: I hope you post as a spiffy new blog... I will look forward to reading it...

... and adding salient points if I can.

By the way, I agree with you: HRC always seems to miss the good opportunities. She was able to take the high road from Day One (of the campaign) and really controlled everything about it. Under such a scenario, Obama would have been struggling to set a tone and, more importantly, establish name recognition.

Instead, she has consistently handed him opportunities because she is locked into old thinking.

Which is another reason why I hope she is not the party's nominee -- we need new thinking.

avatar

It's not the economy stupid, it's the African-American vote.

The Clintons are the best friends the African American has ever had!

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


October 6-10

Book Cover

October 13-17

Book Cover

October 20-24

Book Cover

November 17-21>

Book Cover

December 1-5

Book Cover





Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address