By: Ben Smith
Jan 11, 2008 03:04 PM EST
Updated: January 11, 2008 06:41 PM EST
<...>
“To say that there is a pattern of racist comments coming out of the Hillary campaign is ridiculous,” said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. “All of the world knows the commitment of President Clinton and Sen. Clinton to civil rights issues — and not only the commitment in terms of words but in terms of deeds.”
Referring to the King quote, Sheila Jackson Lee, another Clinton supporter, said Clinton was trying to contrast King and Obama, not to diminish King: "It really is a question of focusing on the suggestion that you can inspire without deeds — what is well-known to the child who studies Dr. King in school is that yes, he spoke, but he also moved people to action."
But other black Clinton supporters found themselves wincing at the Clintons’ words, if not questioning their intent.
A Harlem-based consultant to the Clinton campaign, Bill Lynch, called the former president’s comments “a mistake” and said his own phone had been ringing with friends around the country voicing their concern.
“I’ve been concerned about some of those comments — and that there might be a backlash,” he said.
<...>
Now, though, some of those old patterns are reasserting themselves.
The series of comments Clinton critics’ cite began in mid-December, when the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign, Bill Shaheen, speculated about whether Obama had ever dealt drugs. In the final days of the New Hampshire campaign, however, the discomfort of some black observers intensified as Bill Clinton dismissed the contrast between Obama’s judgment on the war and Clinton’s as a “fairy tale” and spoke dismissively of his short time in the Senate. And the candidate herself, in an interview with Fox News, stressed the role of President Lyndon Johnson, over Martin Luther King Jr., in the civil rights movement.
“I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done,” she said, in response to a question about how her dismissive attitude toward Obama’s “false hopes” would have applied to the civil rights movement. “That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it and actually got it accomplished.”
more01.11.08 -- 5:44PM
By Josh Marshall
It is remarkable, or perhaps it's not so remarkable, how rapidly this punching match over race has escalated between the Clinton and Obama camps. Even calling it that is perhaps controversial in itself.
I'm discussing this with you because it's quickly become a complicated editorial issue for us to deal with.
It's genuinely unclear to me how much one side or the other is consciously pushing this, how much it's escalated based in part on misunderstandings, or whether, in a somewhat related fashion, hyping journalistic accounts has given the engagement a life of its own.
Some of the statements recently attributed to the Clintons have seemed at best awkward in how they're discussing race and the civil rights movement, others have struck me as unobjectionable statements interpreted in a tendentious fashion.
You can see in our news section we've picked up the story just out from The Guardian which quotes some unidentified "Clinton advisor" saying: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."
Now, as I said, I have a bit of a hard time knowing what's going on here. If this is really the word the Clinton campaign wants its surrogates putting out, they're really much stupider than I could have imagined. On the other hand, 'advisor' is a notoriously slippery phrase that can mean almost anything. Campaigns have hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who in one fashion or another 'advise' them. A lot of those people aren't under any kind of real control. And if a reporter talks to enough of them one of them is bound to say something stupid. On the other hand, you have to rely on the journalist and the news outlet not to send you down the wrong path or give you the sense that this is a Clinton insider rather than just someone spouting off.
more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
