I am beyond fed up with the notion that Hillary ran a racist campaign

[dsc]

We have heard endless tales of how Hillary sunk to every depth imaginable to win the primary. But here is just one example of an argument she easily could have used, but didn't. Hispanic votes counted vastly less than black ones in Texas. It wasn't even a contest. Yet, to my knowledge, this argument wasn't made a single time by any Clinton surrogate on any network or in any paper. Not once.

Here are my links to back this up.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/TX-D.phtml

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/s1188/map.pdf.

The first has the delegate and vote counts, the second a map of state senate districts.

To take one example. Senate district 27 cast 86,973 votes for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. That district had 3 delegates which means it took 28,991 votes to get one delegate in that district. That district is 80% Hispanic.

http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/fyiwebdocs/HTML/senate/dist27/r1.htm

State Senate district 13 cast 121,208 votes for either Clinton or Obama and got 7 delegates. That is 17,316 votes per delegate.

http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/fyiwebdocs/HTML/senate/dist13/r1.htm

District 13 is overwhelmingly black. While I will admit to picking a rather egregious example, there are others that are close to as bad. A race bating campaign would have pointed this out. The Clinton campaign didn't.

I didn't post this to blame Obama, he didn't draw the Senate districts, nor did he craft rules which ignored turnout in the primary. I post this to point out what a real race bating campaign would have done. Clinton didn't. No surrogate of her did. Go ahead, search the net, you won't find stories of them bring this up. A vote in district 27 was worth around 2/3 as much as one in district 13. Given the racial make up of those districts, a real race bating campaign would have shouted this from the rafters. Clinton didn't.

[PM7nj]

1. It's over.

Nothing said at this point is going to change anything.

[dsc]

2. then stop your side from lying about both her and her supporters

I am fixing to check the thread that pushed me over the edge. You had better have a similar comment in it.

[PM7nj]

5. I better?

Excuse me. I haven't commented on EVERY thread here and I usually don't say anything in the flamebait threads.

[hokies4ever]

133. Don't worry. Sometimes people just skip their meds.

Don't let their hate bring you down.

[ProSense]

7. Hillary's campaign engaged in

race baiting. That's a fact.

Another fact: The race is over.

[dsc]

9. then post it here too

and yes, I checked, as usual no post from you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6332103&mesg_id=6332103

[ProSense]

15. Why? n/t

[hokies4ever]

135. Hillary is done, finished, kaput

[Vattel]

46. Beyond dumb.

Bill's fairy tale remark was race-baiting? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

[ProSense]

52. What this:

“I think that they played the race card on me," Clinton said. "We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along."

[Vattel]

86. Is that false?

They Obama campaign did use race against the Clintons in South Carolina, and the memo did suggest that they planned to do so. Maybe that's why Obama apologized and told his people to knock it off.

[ProSense]

93. Oh, the selective memory that claims Hillary didn't run a race baiting campaign, but Obama did.

This is why Hillary lost: Enough people saw through Hillary's tactics, despite your denial.

[Vattel]

101. I don't believe

that Obama ran a race-baiting campaign. I don't doubt him when he claims (to paraphrase) that some of his campaign people got out of line in terms of using race against the Clintons and Obama himself put a stop to it.

[ProSense]

114. Your time frames are off, but why didn't Hillary put a stop to her campaign's use of race.

Why was she still making divisive statements well into May?

[Vattel]

132. I don't believe that she was trying to use race against Obama

[guruoo]

158. Better think about this, PS: Hillary will be campaigning for Obama, so now when you bash Hillary

you will be bashing Obama by association.

[cui bono]

214. I do not believe that the memo said any such thing.

The memo was a list of how the Clinton's had used race in some fashion, NOT about the Obama camp plotting to use it.

Obama told his people to get rid of the memo - the memo that was NOT about what the Obama campaign (NEVER) planned to do - because he is a classy guy.

[LisaM]

225. Or pretended to tell them to knock it off

You'll notice that it continued.

[polmaven]

89. Um,

the truth. You've heard of that.

[ProSense]

97. Yes,

Truth: Hillary lost, and it's time for Obama vs. McCain.

True?

[polmaven]

141. Yes, true..

And I have not said anything else. It is also long past time to stop the smears against Senator Clinton. The OP is pointing out that it still goes on. To what end?

[McCamy Taylor]

No, Prosense, you had more fun than most with divisive politics but it ends now.

United we stand, divided we fall. We are one Democratic Party now.

[ProSense]

74. What a joke! n/t

[defendandprotect]

115. No we're not . . . not as long as the DLC still exists in the party . . . !!! ??? !!!

[Emit]

157. Prosense did?

McCamy, Prosense is a decent poster who does not rely on hyperbole, or divisive politics. She can string meaningful excerpts and links to form cohesive arguments far better than most -- present company included. Prosense is a valuable and respected member of DU so I, for one, take great exception to your personal attack.

[emilyg]

170. Not buying your so called facts.

[cliffordu]

54. Bitter, much??

[dsc]

58. no simply tired of having people tell me to shut up

on the grounds that a subject isn't worth discussing but never saying a damn word to the other side.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

142. Well said - wanting "unity" after Obama's David ran a slime and smear lie campaign is a bit much - i

indeed the current "NO VP for Hill" because "they have no place to go" is such an insult that it appears more folks are hardening their opposition to helping Obama - with some actually going for McCain so as to be in a party that doesn't swiftboat and lie about accomplished women.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PM7nj]

11. Sorry I didn't get to that one.

:eyes:

[wndycty]

8. she is not racist but she...

Exploited racism, pandered to racists and tried to benefit from any perceived divides between blacks, Mexicans and Jews. You might not like hearing that but its the truth.

[dsc]

12. put up or shut up

unlike you, I supplied data and links. Typical Obama supporter not one fact in your post.

[wndycty]

36. Damn. . ."typical Obama supporter" sounds like a call out to me. . .LOL

“There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me,” Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.

http://elections.jta.org/2008/06/06/390/stirring-the-jewish-pot/

“The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.”

—Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/01/12/clinton-pollster-latinos-too-racist-to-vote-for-obama/

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm

[dsc]

43. I simply don't believe Andrews

He lied in his race against both McGreevey for governor and Lautenburg for Senator. Unless he names names or produces some other evidence, he is non credible in my mind.

The rolling stone quote is provided with no context and no sourcing.

I will give you the inartful expression of Hillary's point in the third one. She should have left white out of it. It is the poor and lower middle classes she has done better with and she should have left it at that.

[Vattel]

55. leaving "white" out

would have made her remark inaccurate. Hard-working black Americans mostly supported Obama.

[dsc]

63. she overwhelmingly, even with blacks included, won the poor vote

it isn't even a contest. Had only poor and lower middle class voters voted in our primary she would have won in a walk.

[PM7nj]

66. Do you have a link or any stats to back that up?

I find that hard to believe.

[dsc]

99. I was partially right

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/06/2008-dem-primary-race-and-age-were-big.asp

This isn't by numbers but by states.

They split under 15k but she did better 15-30k with him winning 30k -50k. Thus I probably would be correct is it were under 30k but might well be wrong if under 15k.

[PM7nj]

102. Thanks.

[rebel with a cause]

181. What about Hispanic Americans, Indian Americans, Jewish Americans

and the list goes on. This country has made it a Black and White issue, when there are many others represented in our population. There was no need for the white in her comment.

[LisaM]

228. Black people supported Obama, period

There was absolutely no point in breaking down that demographic because it was monolithic. I personally think it's fantastic that the black community is mobilized, voting in larger numbers, and excited about the campaign. It's about time and they deserve this moment. But as a demographic group this time around, there is no dissection to be made.

[PM7nj]

I know Andrews personally.

While I think the only reason he told that to the papers was to keep himself relevant and in the news, I highly doubt he would outright makes something like that up.

[dsc]

68. yea he is such a beacon of honesty

He has been telling New Jerseians he is a true blue liberal while he has been voting like a Ginrich clone since 1994. I am sure he only lies about his record, and Lautenburg's record, and McGreevey's record, I'm sure he doesn't lie about anything else. Just sure of it.

[PM7nj]

73. Have you every met him or had a conversation with him?

And there is no such thing as a "New Jerseian"

[dsc]

81. fine, I can't spell, try denizen of New Jersey

I haven't met Bush either, I know he is a liar too.

[Emit]

57. Here's an example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5592032

[cliffordu]

60. What are you going to do with yourself when you can't blame all your

problems on Obama??

What happens after Wed??

[me b zola]

191. Ahem...

This article, in it's entirety, is well worth the read. The graphic that was included in the Oregonian clearly spelled out what took so many words to say:

~snip~

Clinton, knowing the Race Chasm can fortify her firewall, has subsequently intensified her efforts to put race front and center in the campaign, most recently attacking Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor who has delivered fiery speeches indicting white racism. She is so determined to raise race issues in advance of these Race Chasm contests that she gave an in-person interview to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review specifically to criticize Wright. For reference, the Tribune-Review is a conservative newspaper in western Pennsylvania owned by the same Richard Mellon Scaife who funded the anti-Clinton witch hunts of the ’90s.

Clearly, each primary and caucus contest has its own unique politics, and race is not the only factor moving votes. Despite the oversimplified punditry that comes with presidential campaigns, demographic groups—white, black or any other—do not vote as monoliths. That said, a phenomenon as stark as the Race Chasm over 33 elections is obviously affecting the campaign—particularly considering the regional and red-blue diversity of each state cluster on the graph.

“When the black population is really small, racial polarization is small enough that Obama can win, and when the black population is large, any polarization is drowned out by the overwhelming size of the Democratic black vote,” says Schaller, who recently authored the book Whistling Past Dixie analyzing demographic voting trends. “But in the middle range, polarization is sizeable enough that black voters cannot overcome it, and these are the states where she wins.”


http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3597/the_clinton_firewall

This was clearly a tactic to divide, to use some voters racism, back wards views of race, to garner votes. How any progressive Democrat could debate this fact is troubling.

[Skip Intro]

109. Nothing wrong with looking back at how we got here.

[PM7nj]

111. Yes there is. It serves no purpose other than to keep us divided. nt

[Skip Intro]

119. bush apologists over attacking Iraq made the same argument -

how we got here isn't relevant, where we go from here is what matters

bs

I've argued several bush apologists down on that very point

makes no sense in that scenario, nor in this one

truth is the only reality

[PM7nj]

128. Do you want John McCain to win in November?

Seems so.

[Skip Intro]

143. That is your opinioin. I see no fault with speaking the truth. I see something scary

with efforts to divert attention from the truth.

[PM7nj]

146. Some people don't want to deal with the TRUTH that the primaries are over.

[Skip Intro]

148. And some people, for some reason, don't want to discuss what happened during those primaries.

Even in the context, and limitations, of specific actions and efforts.

Within the context of this thread, which disputes many of the claims, attacks, against the Clintons as being racists or acting as racists, the discussion seems to me to be perfectly relevant, almost mandatory.

Again, we have nothing to fear from honesty and truth.

[PM7nj]

151. The problem is...

...most people don't think you are actually telling the truth, so these threads just turn into a flame war. They serve absolutely no purpose. No ones mind is going to be changed. No matter how much we discuss the past, my mind is not going to be changed and either is yours. We all have our opinion of what happened. Now is time to put all that behind and focus on beating McCain and the republicans. Hopefully by Wednesday the people that continue to keep stirring shit up will be TS'd and we can finally move forward.

[Skip Intro]

167. Well...

I don't see the truth as a problem.

And with all due respect, I don't think you can presume to speak for "most people."

Not sure of the new boundaries that will rule come Wed, but I do know that it won't be required to profess support of Obama. And that any bs attacks, on him or Hillary, will not be permitted. However, it is Monday, and surely an honest reflection of what has happened in the last 16 months shouldn't be seen as flamebait.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. bulemic or anorexic? Can't tell which you are.

If thee be fed up, is this your daily purge?

it is SOOO penn-man-like to select the data you wish to use to promote your position. deliberately ignoring all contrary evidence. Muslim, madrassas, drug dealer, anti-american, and so much more, as far as I know. Nice try, but really, try a taste of reality first, before you try to edit history.

[dsc]

6. of course you don't have a single solitary answer

to my link filled post. Incidently, as usual, not a single link in a typical Obama filled post.

[mcctatas]

16. People percieve things differently....

I think Bills comment in South Carolina was tone-deaf at best and slightly racist at worst. If you are going to let people "lying" about your candidate bother you, you might want to go into a medically induced coma until January....

[FrenchieCat]

10. it is obvious that you wouldn't know what racism or race baiting was

it if hit up upside your head.


Pitting Browns against Blacks:

“The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” —Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/01/12/clinton-pollster-latinos-too-racist-to-vote-for-obama

Sergio Bendixen, a Clinton pollster and Hispanic expert, publicly articulated and Hillary agreed that this was an "historical Fact".

Clinton at Root of Racist Stereotyping - Hispanics vs Blackswashingtonpost.com — Where did this come from? "Hispanics traditionally do not like Blacks." Since when? This is a racist, divisive falsehood that the Clinton Campaign has created and nurtured as a 'historical statement' in an attempt to pit the political arena against Obama. First mentioned by a Hillary pollster and then affirmed by Clinton herself. There is no proof.
http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_at_Root_of_Racist_Stereotyping_Hispanics_vs_Blacks

A few weeks ago, Sergio Bendixen, a Clinton pollster and Hispanic expert, publicly articulated what campaign officials appear to have been whispering for months. In an interview with Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker, Bendixen explained that "the Hispanic voter - and I want to say this very carefully - has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

The spin worked. For the last several weeks, it's been on the airwaves (Tucker Carlson, "Hardball," NPR), generally tossed off as if it were conventional wisdom. And it has shown up in sources as far afield as Agence France-Presse and the London Daily Telegraph, which wrote about a "voting bloc traditionally reluctant to support black candidates."

The spin also helped shape the analysis of the Jan. 19 Nevada caucus, in which Clinton won the support of Hispanic voters by a margin of better than 2 to 1. Forget the possibility that Nevada's Hispanic voters may have actually preferred Clinton or, at the very least, had a fondness for her husband; pundits embraced the idea that Hispanic voters simply didn't like the fact that her opponent was black.

But was Bendixen's blanket statement true?

Far from it, and the evidence is overwhelming enough to make you wonder why in the world the Clinton campaign would want to portray Hispanic voters as too unrelentingly racist to vote for Barack Obama.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=713782

[dsc]

21. I can't find the original source in either case

quotes out of context, don't particluarly impress me.

[TahitiNut]

131. Amen, mon cousin.

:hi: :pals:

[FrenchieCat]

155. Ma Cousine! LOL!

:headbang:

[TahitiNut]

161. (merde)

I just KNEW I'd get the wrong form of 'my' - durn gender stuff - and the trailing 'e'. You can tell that the only French I know is from visiting and traveling. Silly me, I took German in school. Then I did most of my travels to French-speaking places. France, Tahiti, Quebec. Oi!

My German was nearly useless. German people always seemed to want to speak English and when they couldn't my German was horrible.

Merci! :hug:

[mainman232]

13. it doesnt matter if she ran a racist campaign

She accepted and courted the racist vote

[Doctor_J]

14. "He's not a Muslim...as far as I know"

"My base - the white people - blah, blah, blah"

It's over. It didn't work. Please give it a rest.

[dsc]

28. She was asked the Muslim question

not once (when she said no) not twice (when she said no again) but three seperate times in the interview and clearly was getting confused as to what Kroft was trying to ask. At that point she said he was Christian as far as she knew (not that he wasn't Muslim as far as she knew) and since being a Christian is something that only the adherent can truely know that is a more than reasonable statement.

[polmaven]

107. Not to mention that

she is not his wife or his mother, so she can base her answer only on what he has said. I believe that part of that statement was to say that she "takes him at his word". How would she know otherwise?

[MethuenProgressive]

42. The full quote in context shows she was defending Obama.

She said he wasn't three times, and tried to move on.

[Vattel]

70. here it is:

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

Gee, looks like she really wanted to suggest that he might be a Muslim (sarcasm)

[polmaven]

117. Mmmmmm!

THERE IS NOTHING TO BASE THAT ON as far as I know!

That is a FAR cry from "he's not a Muslim, as far as I know".

There is nothing that she knows of on which to base that!

Thank you Vattel! That is GREAT!

[Vattel]

136. it's a standard smear technique

change the quote just a little to distort the meaning. Like when Gore's true comment that he helped to create the internet got changed to the claim that he invented the internet

[MethuenProgressive]

17. Obama already apologized for pushing the "she's a racist" story.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MethuenProgressive/551

RUSSERT: In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward.

RUSSERT: Do you believe this is a deliberate attempt to marginalize you as the black candidate?

OBAMA: No.

[ProSense]

24. Lie

Fact: Hillary's race baiting campaign.

Another fact: The race is over. Obama won.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. What rule does that violate? She said your post was a lie, attacking the post, not you.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

40. More distortions. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

44. Only a trueblue HillHater would call DU rules a "distortion"

[ProSense]

49. Are you capable of anything but distortions? n/t

[Forkboy]

53. You should start a thread about that.

[JVS]

198. Only a true troll could post DU rules and have the post get deleted.

Or was there something else in the post.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

48. By the same rules, there are several rule violations in this thread.

But I'll be gobsmacked. I thank you for the pointer. I did not know that calling a post a lie was against the rules.

[polmaven]

125. The post wrote itself?

:shrug: How does one call a post a lie without calling the poster a liar?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. Because people didn't use *one particular* attack doesn't mean they didn't use any.

Also, it's dangerous to complain about rules that you have no chance of changing after you've agreed to them and after the votes have been cast.

I don't believe the Clintons are racist, but I think your premise is flawed.

[dailykoff]

201. Believe me, they used it.

NPR dwelt repeatedly on this very point for the couple of weeks before and after the Texas race which means the Clinton campaign was burning up their fax machine.

[CreekDog]

19. define what you mean by "racist campaign"

that would help me figure out if i agree with you or not.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Oh dear, can't we just get along and move together to defeat McCain?

Christ, we are making the Republicans so happy with this infighting, doncha think?

I, for one, will take your word for it that Hillary Clinton did not support race baiting, but neither of us can be sure of what some of the staff in both campaigns were up to, right?

Look, I've got lots of problems with the media, the surrogates, the blabbermouths, and the pundits, but the primary is over and we need to unite at least through November.

[sampsonblk]

22. Black people aren't stupid. Clinton's campaign was disgusting

Her suggestion that Obama has a "problem" with white working class voters is racist campaigning. Her campaign's suggestion that he will lose because whites won't vote for him is also racist campaigning.

Just because she didn't choose the line of attack you mentioned does not mean the things she did do were okay. They were not.

[Captain Hilts]

59. Um, white working class voters in PA, WV, NY, etc. didn't vote for him in large percentages.

I hope they do in November.

But, she was just stating a fact.

[sampsonblk]

121. ...her statement helped create and contribute to that fact

That trick is as old as the day is long.

[onetwo]

192. White Working class voters may have preferred Clinton over Obama...

...but that certainly doesn't mean that these voters have a "problem" with Obama. Clinton may have been their #1 pick, but that doesn't mean that Obama can't take position in a McCain matchup. Sort of like how people may prefer a Bentley (Clinton) to a BMW (Obama), but prefer the BMW to a Hyundai (McCain). We're already seeing Clinton's significant Hispanic support move over to Obama in droves (2-1 support now for Obama over McCain).

The fact of the matter is that Obama has won states comprised almost exclusively of white working class voters (I guess Montana would be another state that fits this profile?); there was absolutely no justification for drawing lines in the sand based upon race and socioeconomic status.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Again she claimed the excuse that this was an Historical fact.

and she did this over and over again.

Muslim Email - When asked, she couldn't disavowed whether it came from her campaign.
African Garb photo - Drudge clearly said where it came from. Never really denied.
Selling drug comments - Bill Johnson, big Clinton supporter and lapdog.
Not a Muslim, as far as I know - Hillary Clinton on 60 minutes.

New Hampshire: Martin Luther King gave good speeches, but it took LBJ to actually get it done - An historical fact, she said (what was her point in saying this a week before MLK's Bday?)

Nevada: Hispanics don't vote for Blacks - An historical fact, she said.

South Carolina: Bill Clinton.....Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too, twice (historical Fact so its ok to say)--So did you, Bill.

Out of the blue: Geraldine Ferraro... Obama is lucky to be Black, or else he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did (a Myth).

Pennsylvania on.....: Obama has a problem with "White Working Class"- Again she stated that this was a "fact" that she was only quoting.


Add the media, and Rev. Wright loop-D-Loop...and you end up with one hell of a racist campaign.

Sure Hillary wasn't the sole pepertrator, but she never ever discouraged it. She could have said and done things to soften the blow.....but didn't, as it was not to her advantage to do so.

[jgraz]

84. Don't forget Stephanie Tubbs-Jones' performance on the "Muslim Garb Photo"

She went on MSNBC (and, I'm assuming other networks) to call it his "Native Costume" and "the clothing of his homeland". Disgusting.

[Vattel]

108. oh God where do I begin with this silly list n/t

[blue sky at night]

23. you know there comes a time....

when you just have to let it go.....it's that time.

[Forkboy]

25. I'm sure this thread will result in something productive.

[mcctatas]

27. Maybe mass scale...

spontaneous combustion? :nuke:

;)

[dsc]

31. did you comment in this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6332103&mesg_id=6332103

Somehow I doubt it.

[Forkboy]

50. Somehow, I doubt that proves a damn thing.

If you're trying to infer that I never say anything in negative threads about Hillary it's easily disproven. I did earlier today, and I've both commented and alerted on numerous threads critical of Hillary.

Get off the cross and have a cream soda or something.

[jgraz]

85. I rec'd it. Does that count?

[MethuenProgressive]

26. Only fools and puppets are still pushing the "she's a racist" lie.

Why bother listening to them?

[SwampG8r]

38. Only fools and puppets are still pushing the "she's won the popular vote" lie.

Why bother listening to them?

[FrenchieCat]

29. Here.....

Hillary downrating MLK's accomplishment 1 week before his Birthday by stating that it took LBJ (a President) to make Civil right Legislation an actual reality.

Was Hillary portraying herself as similar to LBJ (a White man and President) as she was quoted as saying "I get things done".....and LBJ as who got things done, while characterizing Obama as simply have a speech preaching false hope, with a clear comparison to speechmaker preacher MLK.

The problem with Hillary on this is that both she and Obama are senators. She was never a President, and Obama was never a preacher. So why the comparisons and the parallels? Why even bring up LBJ and his role? What was the point to be made by Hillary on this? obviously she felt it important to make this statement...by why? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4014875&mesg_id=4014875

Hillary simply excused it as being "an Historical fact"....same reason she gave for the Hispanic comment.

[dsc]

35. give me a break

It is a historical fact. No Johnson no civil rights. Kennedy was President for not one, not two, but three years and there wasn't a damn thing done for civil rights. Johnson was President for about a year and it was passed. It is totally, utterly, and completely absurd to say that acknowledging that fact is racist. Oh, and the comparison, it was of an experienced Senator who became President and knew how the Senate worked (that is what Johnson was you do know, right).

[dorktv]

153. that is not quite true. The Supreme Court was able to get a bit more done

after Kennedy came into office.

However the idea that MLK Jr. is being degraded by pointing out that LBJ (who came from Texas with its history of bigotry) was willing to lose a chunk of the Democratic Party by signing it away in the name of true justice and equality degrades both MLK Jr. and LBJ-two men who stood tall against the worst that America had to offer to bring out the best that America has to offer.

[FrenchieCat]

156. So what was the point? What purpose did her statement serve?

No one has ever answered what it was that she was promoting....4 days ahead of MLK's birthday.

Do you know?

Politicians don't just say things out of the blue just to hear themselves talk.

[dorktv]

177. I always took it to mean that soaring rhetoric is good but so is using up your political

capital to get something done that will do what that rhetoric says.

[FrenchieCat]

182. So you agree with how Hillary was framing it then?

She was basically saying that all MLK had were rethorics and speeches.

Which is so fucked up....cause he was so much more than that.

And hence there's your problem.

That a few days before his birthday, MLK would be reduced to words and not deeds. Guess that sitting in a fucking Jail cell is just what? Being abused and having dogs seeked on you is just what? Drawing up strategic plans on marches and organizing them, is just what? Meeting and negotiating with white Businesses and politicians and church groups and political organizations was just what? Rethoric? BULLSHIT!

That's part of the reason that the Black community took offense.

Guess some folks just don't have a freaking clue.

[dorktv]

231. Yes, apparently being willing to destory your party's chances for decades to come

for equality under the law is worthless. Apparently realising that possibly politics should be set aside for what is right is also worthless.

Being a symbol can help but if it never translates into results, what use is it?

LBJ knew what he was doing: he was hurting the party (which he needed for things like the Great Society), his chances for re-election. He did it anyway. He overcame the bigotry that he was raised with to push through Congress one of the best bills of the modern era.

But since he never had to sit in jail, never had dogs sicced on him, obviously what he did was worthless.

[David Zephyr]

221. He's only out to stir up trouble and to sow dissension now that Obama is the nominee.

Save your breath. He's not worth it.

[MethuenProgressive]

39. You link to some DU HillHate post to "prove" your point?

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

65. my post from January 9th...when I was warning folks of what was up?

that's DU hillhate?

riiiiight. :crazy:

[lumpy]

206. Yes

x

[McCamy Taylor]

172. Frenchie Cat enough splitter games. That post was written 3 days before the

the Race Memo becomes public. Oddly enough you are here at DU promoting its major talking point--that Hillary Clinton was comparing Obama to MLK Jr and herself to LBJ---even though Ben Smith at Politico had corrected his error almost immediately after posting it and revised Clinton's statement to show that she was comparing Obama to the less experienced JFK and herself to the less glamorous and beloved but more experience LBJ (the documentation and links are in several of my journals which you have read and commented upon so I will not bother to link them). Media Matters and others had pointed out the fact that the "Obama is MLK " reading was a misquote and distortion at least three times.

And reviewing your journal, look what you posted a few days later:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/149

OBAMA Supporters only --May I have your attention, Please?
Posted by FrenchieCat in General Discussion: Primaries
Sat Jan 12th 2008, 03:38 AM

I have been thinking about what has transpired in the last few days, and I have been reading garbage all around the internet in reference to what Clinton and Co. have been doing, and here's what I am concluding....

We may need to stop responding to this race issue that the Clinton have baited us into raising and let it sit at this time (as Clyburn advises). Put all of the assholes on ignore that are being confrontational, and let's just squash it. Newbies, stay chilled, because if you are really for Obama, then you should want to relax and simply promote our candidate. Policy issues are never off the table, so go at it.

Here's why. this is a comment I received as an email from someone that I very much respect:

"Obama has refused to inject race into this election. Why? because a black candidate talking about race doesn't go very far and that isn't who he is.

snip

PS. I would appreciate if Clinton Supporters and those who are interested in keeping this going would simply not bother to respond. I'm not really asking for your opinion,and I will not respond to any bait at this time. Thank you!

But you know what funny thing was happening on Saturday January 12? The Huffington Post was ignoring the pleading of the Obama Campaign and it was publishing the infamous Race Memo that was written by Amaya Smith which very clearly spelled out how interested some people in the Obama camp (though not the candidate himself) were in propelling race as an issue and painting the Clinton's as racists. So, your call for people at DU to put other people who wanted to discuss race on ignore on Jan 12 could be read by some as an attempt to shut down discussion at DU at a time when a story that might hurt your candidate was breaking.

It is time that we stop with the stupid political games and back stabbing and lies and machinations that make everyone here look like a Karl Rove wannabe and get together behind Barack Obama in a way that we can be proud of. That means celebrating his accomplishments and his strengths and pointing out the many true problems this country faces under the Republicans. Anyone who is badmouthing another Democrat at this point is no friend of the Democratic Party.

[FrenchieCat]

189. The memo? You mean the list that was being kept of the race shit

coming out of the Hillary camp as it was being played.

I'd want someone to keep a list too, if my opponent and co. was trying to play me by having surrogates saying racists and nasty things about me.

You damn right there was a memo that kept the fucking score of who said what racist thing and when.

was someone supposed to ignore the dog whistles, and scamper back under the bed scared?

Or are Black people just hyper sensitive and just plain stupid? Not to be taking seriously?

Guess that's why most Black folks never supported the war, hey. We are just that stupid and sensitive and blind to facts. Whatever!

(edited to add....Why do you bother with the MLK Avitar? Is that supposed to make you appear more progressive? More just? More fair? cause it appears that Black folks just like to start up trouble, hey? Want to find racism and exploit it to win an election. :sarcasm: )

[FrenchieCat]

190. And no...I try to get people to stop talking about race, because I knew that

it would not help Obama get elected, ever. And once I saw the boards going crazy, I knew that what Hillary wanted had happened; Obama had been turned into the "black" candidate....just like she wanted. IT would be easier for her to run against a Black candidate than one who transcended race.

There would be no reason to want race to be a factor in this election on Obama's part. There would be no reason to want it because no matter how many votes gained, everyone knows that the Black community is only 12% of the population....and one can't win elections that way. Ask Jesse Jackson, he'll tell you. and so would Bill Clinton.

[JVS]

200. Hillary and Bill used history for repeated ham-fisted allegories because the allegory lets them...

bring up things they'd prefer not to say openly.

Jessie Jackson
MLK
RFK
These figures were chosen for a reason.

To demonstrate how allegory works to atack an opponent, let's talk about her campaign's bunker mentality in the final stretch of the race when it had become clear that she was the loser.

What imagery am I invoking?

[Vattel]

33. There's not a shred of real evidence

(that I've seen) that Clinton tried to use race to win. It's all just mind-reading shit. "Clinton said such-and-such, which is true, but what she (or Bill) really meant (or wanted to suggest, or was trying to accomplish) was blah-blah-blah." Everybody knows that the charges of racism and race-baiting are all based on speculation: attempts to discern hidden, dark motives in claims that are, in themselves, completely innocuous. But I guess people are confident about their mind-reading abilities. I do not share their confidence.

[IndianaJones]

34. in the same sense as Obama running a homophobic campaign. nt.

[cboy4]

45. ........

:thumbsup:

[FredScuttle]

47. Funny then how it didn't seem to bother her last year

or early January, for that matter.

By the next month, poor pitiful Hillary was already grasping at any straw available to salvage her imploding campaign.

It's over.

[dsc]

51. The Texas Primary was in March

you know the month after the month you say she was grasping at straws.

[FredScuttle]

69. Come out of the Phillipine jungle...the war's over

n/t

[dsc]

83. typical

caught not being accurate, can't back yourself up, and now "it doesn't matter"

[FredScuttle]

100. I was completely accurate

and you are spinning your wheels.

It's over.

[David Zephyr]

226. It's not over with him.

And he keeps spinning the wheels.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Huge stick. Enormous pot of shit. Hard work stirring. nt.

[dsc]

64. again, did you comment here?

Somehow I doubt it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6332103&mesg_id=6332103

[Forkboy]

76. Boy, that thread really got your goat.

Did you alert on it? Or are you just throwing a tantrum and using that as an excuse for your own behavior?

[dsc]

79. why should I alert, it isn't against the rules

what my point is, is that either this topic is fit for discussion or it isn't. Since appearently only my side of the issue bothers you, I know what the answer actually is.

[jgraz]

92. Well, your side has the added baggage of being complete bullshit.

Just sayin...

[Forkboy]

94. No, you THINK you know the answer, because you're angry and not all with it at the moment.

If you believe it's against the rules then you SHOULD alert. Are the mods magic and all seeing? Isn't that a better course of action that the one you've undertaken here by throwing that thread at anyone who comments in THIS thread?

How do you know who alerts on what? How do you know what threads I've alerted on and haven't alerted on? I've been alerting on a ton of anti-Hillary threads lately. The mods know it. Whether you do or not is your own business, but you make yourself look like an angry martyr by assuming no one else sticks up for Hillary but you.

I've never seen you defend Obama, and I'm just going to assume you've never alerted on any threads about him (seeing as though guesswork is all the rage), so I know only one side of this primary bothers you, and I know (despite any evidence) what the answer actually is.

:eyes:

[dsc]

103. It isn't against the rules

it would be nonsense to say it is. No where do I claim it to be against the rules. My sole problem is with one side of the converstation (that accusing Hillary of being racist) getting a free pass from you while the other side (defending her) gets jumped on. It will be against the rules on Wednesday but this isn't Wednesday last I checked.

[Forkboy]

106. Again, how do you know what I've given a "free pass" to and what I haven't?

[cboy4]

110. You've been alerting on a "ton" of anti-Hillary threads?

Now that's rich.

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

113. Yes, I have.

Maybe you should start a thread about all those times you've defended Obama. Maybe THAT one won't get locked.

Oh wait, when your flamebait gets locked it's not because it's flamebait, it's just all those people alerting on it. :hi:

[cboy4]

137. Yup....all of you people swarm my threads and start

attacking me.

That alone, in the minds of the moderators, transforms them into flamebait.

But that's the consequence of being so heavily outnumbered.

Fortunately, I'm a big boy and am not intimidated by bullying.

Incidentally, don't count on me starting a thread defending Obama any time soon -- unless it's the one praising him for finally apologizing for McClurkin.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Forkboy]

154. Like the Repubs, someone else is always to blame for your behavior.

You do them proud. :patriot:

And I wasn't expecting you to defend Obama anytime soon. But it's kind of hypocritical to act like someone doesn't defend Hillary enough when you admit to not defending Obama.

That, too, makes the Repubs proud. :patriot:

[cboy4]

159. I'm far from a Republican, but if it makes you feel better

to accuse me, you go for it.

[Forkboy]

164. I suspect you are far from one, but your tactic of blaming others is just like them.

If that bothers you, don't do it.

Did it make you feel better to act like I haven't defended Hillary, and to jump on me in the thread about her speech when I said it was excellent?

[cboy4]

166. Well you've been very aggressive toward me since I

criticized some loud mouth of not donating to DU.

I said nothing about you, yet you responded as though I was implicating you.

I'm more than willing to reestablish what I thought was a good relationship with you if you calm down a little.

[Forkboy]

169. cboy, I have been very calm this whole primary.

OK, I had one bad day...but that didn't involve you.

You, on the other hand, are going from thread to thread attacking Obama supporters left and right, starting obnoxious threads, etc. Please, don't project your anger onto me. You haven't been calm at all. I am very calm about all of this, and in fact quite happy that we can now focus on McCain, even though I would have preferred we were doing it with someone other than Obama.

I have jumped on pretty much anyone I see using the donate tactic as some kind of replacement for an actual position. Many, many people are flat broke, and 5 bucks may seem inconsequential to some, but to others it's crucial (for instance, I have 7 dollars at the moment). When people bring it up like that they aren't trying to help DU, they're trying to use it a bludgeon to win an argument. Poverty sucks, and it's something we should try to keep in mind here. I have a star thanks to the kindness of someone else, so yes, by extension you're implicating anyone that isn't donating. Just to win an online debate. And I think even you know that's not cool, and not the attitude I expect you really support.

I'm not sure we've ever had a good relationship here, but I do know you care about the right things and I've been glad to see you comment on many of the things of you do. But you haven't been that cboy here in GD-P lately. You've let anger and your desire to stick up for what you consider to be an underdog guide you, a heady mix that seems to have gotten the better of you.

I've never considered you my enemy, and don't plan on starting anytime soon. I like you as a DUer and value your opinions on a wide range of topics. Despite our differences in style I've never seen us on opposite sides.

[cboy4]

171. Forkboy, you confuse what you consider "I am very calm

about all of this," with what's known as passive aggression.

You get in your digs in sort of a clever way, with lots of emoticons, and then argue that you're calm.

I saw one comment you made today alone when you attacked someone's family because they aren't going to support Obama.

So, you're far from the angel you claim to be.

I just really need to point that out.

But I'm all finished hopefully fighting with you because I also think we agree about most of the issues.

On a side note, it sucks about your financial situation, and I've never intended to mock that.

If you took it that way, I apologize.

[Forkboy]

178. Well, I wasn't trying to paint myself as an angel.

Just saying I'm pretty calm, which I am. I'm not the nicest guy in the world and I'm not trying to pretend otherwise. I enjoy playing hardball. The family comment was overboard though, I do agree. I can take it too far, and that was one instance (of many over the years, I'm sure).

No need to apologize for the donate thing to me, though I appreciate it. I knew if you thought about a different side to it you'd understand, and you have. That's good enough for me.

As for us being done fighting...are you crazy? Didn't Bonds just get charged with like 8000 counts of something?

:yoiks:

Kidding, kidding.... :toast:

[cboy4]

180. LOL. You know what's funny is even though the Giants are

below .500, I'm less stressed out with Barry not on the team.

Go figure.

:toast:

[Forkboy]

184. There was talk on the radio here that the Sox might look into Bonds to replace Ortiz.

It didn't go over too well, so I suspect it was just talk, and nothing from the team itself. Guilty or not, because of his situation it just brings too much baggage for a team to have to deal with.

And I'll tell you, when the Sox and Pats sucked I actually enjoyed them more than I do now. There's something nice about having a team go out there and just play with no expectations. I appreciated the game for the game, not for the potential of championships. A lot of that innocent fun is missing now.

[cboy4]

185. Oh my gosh, do you know how much crap I'd give you if

he went to the Sox?!11!

And it looks like you'll have another awful year of being "unhappy" with the Sox and Pats.

You're silly. lol

[Forkboy]

187. LOL

I actually think the Pats will have a letdown and only win 14 games or so. ;)

Honestly though, when we had Tony "Happy Feet" Eason and were 1-15 and 2-14 it was some of the most fun I've ever had as a sports fan. It does sound silly, but it's true. Just seeing them lose in so many original ways was a treat. You wouldn't think there even WAS that many ways to lose, but they found all of them, even the obscure ways. And naturally, in the final game against the Colts to see who got the first round pick the Pats won 6-3. :banghead:

[cboy4]

193. Yea, 14 games with a little help of the 49ers' first round draft

pick that you guys got.

Mr. Pitt reminds me of this every chance he gets. :banghead:

[1Hippiechick]

215. Here we go with "you people" again...

[Warren Stupidity]

82. Didn't even notice.

But now that you pointed it out: yes I did. Same response. Keep up the good work. McCain et al thank you.

[JimGinPA]

67. Many "Hard Working Whites" Agree With You...

Oh, and do just the slightest bit of research and you'll find that Democratic districts are weighted by prior voter turnout, not by race.

[JimGinPA]

72. Glitch - Post Not Recorded In My DU

[jgraz]

71. .

:boring:

[McCamy Taylor]

75. You are correct. She did not run a racist campaign. Relax. It's time for the GE. After Nov. books

will be written about what really happened this campaign, and it will all sort itself out, but for the next five months everyone needs to keep their eyes on the prize.

[cbayer]

77. While I don't disagree with your premise,

I don't see how this is helpful.

"Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward."
Hillary Clinton

And yes, I posted on that other thread that so angered you. It angered me, too.

[Stop Cornyn]

78. Texas isn't the only state that awarded delegates (in part) based upon general election turn out

among Democrats from the district in past elections.

Most caucuses work this way (Iowa's included).

If it so happens that some districts which had lesser general election turn out in statewide general elections also happened to have a higher Latino population, that is not racist.

Districts with younger voters also had lower general election turn out among Democrats in the past and, consequently, also had fewer delegates assigned to those districts. That's not discriminatory based on age.

Districts with more Republican voters also had lower general election turn out among Democrats in the past and, consequently, also had fewer delegates assigned to those districts. That's not discriminatory either.

A race baiting campaign would not have pointed this out -- only an idiot who doesn't know how caucuses work would do so.

[dsc]

88. Before you call me an idiot

try reading, this refered to the primary, not the caucus. That would be the primary where the people went and voted before the caucus later in the evening. The thread and the link, were crystal clear as to that.

[Stop Cornyn]

96. Which state's primary are you offering as a model where delegates were NOT assigned district-by-

district based on past results?

[defendandprotect]

80. BTW, HRC lost the "popular vote" . . . !!!!

[dsc]

90. I didn't say she did

though I think it is at least debatable at this point. But in Texas she did win the popular vote.

[defendandprotect]

120. Oh, I was adding that to the "facts" . . . debatable . . . ????

It was shirley "debatable" when HRC was claiming all along to have won the popular vote --
which, of course, has nothing to do with winning the nomination ---

It was, however, a Bush kind of tactic --- i.e.,
if you lose the electoral, claim the popular -
if you lose the popular, claim the electoral --

And Obama won in many other states . . . what's the point?

[dsc]

134. you claimed, by implication, I said she won the popular vote

I never said she did that is my point.

[defendandprotect]

208. Again -- I wasn't address YOU when I made the comment on the FACT that HRC lost the popular vote--!!

[Lord Helmet]

87. ya she race baited big time

[apocalypsehow]

91. The problem is, she did.

And you boosters lapped it up like cream and asked for more.

[jgraz]

95. Would that be "hard-working white" cream?

[KittyWampus]

118. that would be cream that must be rejected AND denounced.

[jgraz]

124. and possibly assassinated in June.

[JVS]

203. you're being redundant. You only need to say hard-working cream.

That it would be white is obvious.

[MethuenProgressive]

98. Obama apologized for Swiftboating the Clintons on race, but only after being caught.

Obama apologized for Swiftboating the Clintons on race, but only after being caught redhanded.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MethuenProgressive/551

[PM7nj]

104. Will you be staying with us after Wednesday?

[Skip Intro]

112. Will honesty be welcome after Wed?

[PM7nj]

116. Yes. Flamebait and divisive posts will not.

That is exactly what this post is.

[Skip Intro]

123. where does it deviate from the truth?

[PM7nj]

126. It's not the truth. It's his opinion.

[Skip Intro]

147. And that is your opinion.

He seems to have some measure of fact to back up his opinion.

Worth examining in any instance.

[ProSense]

105. Don't misuse the word swiftboating. That's a distortion of what happened

Fact: Hillary's race baiting campaign.


Why do you keep posting this distortion?

[Vattel]

129. silliest damn post I've ever seen

even includes Bill's "fairy tale" remark as an example of race-baiting. Pathetic.

[ProSense]

145. You know what's silly:

claiming that a memo written after and listing statements by Hillary's campaign, including the "fairy tale" comment, is race baiting, but that the actual comments themselves were not.

Silly is denial.




edited extra word.

[Vattel]

149. so you are on record

that Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark was race-baiting. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

[ProSense]

150. You have no case. Her campaign was divisive.

Look at the mockery her supporters made of the RBC meeting. All the venom they were spewing, from Ayers to Rezko, came from Hillary's campaign talking points.

[Skip Intro]

163. That phrase was used to brand Bill a racist, or at least someone who was race-baiting.

We all saw it.

Maybe only some of us remember it.

[Swamp Rat]

205. Support Obama or eat a granite cookie.

[David Zephyr]

222. LOL!

Granite cookie.

[Duder]

122. I also got fed up with her campaign

And after Texas there was Pennsylvania...

In the aftermath of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary — a race in which Senator Hillary Clinton had a 20-point lead only a few months ago — the racism and hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign was laid bare for all a nation to scorn.

Desperate and willing to do anything to win, the Clintons resorted to a naked form of racism aimed directly at white working-class voters in the rural portions of the state. Their message: Barack Obama cannot win because he’s black.

...

“We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man,” Moore observed. “Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.” -Michael Moore

Hillary Clinton’s Disgraceful Campaign: Racism and Hypocrisy

http://www.blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=4470

By Geoffrey Dunn

[FrenchieCat]

127. Answer me this.....

Why was Hillary Clinton so adamant in Obama having to renounce and denounce Luis Farrakahn just for having a pastor that knew him, when she didn't insist for the same from Ed Rendell? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

Why was that? :shrug:

[dsc]

130. It wasn't just a pastor who knew him

it was a pastor who gave him an award. Oh, and Rendell, should be forced to denounce him as well.

[hokies4ever]

138. Yet Hillary and Rendell sat by silently while they smeared Obama

trying their hardest to link him to Farrakhan with tenuous associations at best. Here's an article you ought to read to educate yourself on this issue:
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/Farrakhan.html

[Lord Helmet]

139. the Clinton camp campaigned dirty, that's the truth

and she lost. I don't know why some people try to pretend otherwise like we didn't see it or something.

[FrenchieCat]

144. And we won't forget Ed Rendell's Historical facts .......

Pa. Gov. Ed Rendell: Some White Voters ‘Not Ready’ to Elect Black Candidate
by Associated Press
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/12/pa-gov-ed-rendell-some-white-voters-not-ready-to-elect-black-candidate/

Now wasn't that special?

No, just ANOTHER Historical fact! So many historical facts used in this campaign, makes one head hurt! :eyes:

[JVS]

207. So why didn't Clinton mention this to her surrogate Rendell that he should denounce Farrakhan too?

[rhett o rick]

140. What do you hope to accomplish by keeping this all stirred up? And please don't' give me the

childish, "I won't stop until he stops". Be the bigger person and let's get after McBush-brain.

[EFerrari]

152. Go look at her polling among black voters at Gallup. n/t

[jonestonesusa]

160. Good suggestion...to look at data on voter choices

but the last thing this racism-denial crowd wants to do is take the word of black voters. Ironic, isn't it?

[EFerrari]

162. Yep.

[LowerManhattanite]

165. I see the usual squalling griefer babies are here...

...wailing and throwing their rattles across the room like mad to burn off that energy before Wednesday's nap-time.

That “Tylenol-in-the-Enfamil” moment can't come quickly enough. LOL.

[emilyg]

173. Oh shaddup.

I've had enough of you and your nonsense.

[Writer]

168. Racial tension? If you want racial tension, check this out:

http://www.kren.com/Global/story.asp?S=8443679

[McCamy Taylor]

174. Now THAT is great theatre. Makes you wonder if the two guys set it up.

[Writer]

175. It's one of those moments when I sort of wave my hands and back off.

"I'm not touching this one..."

[McCamy Taylor]

176. But dsc, everyone needs to follow Clinton's lead. She has wisely let it slide. Shows maturity.

She is a team player. As Maggie Williams said "We are not going to be distracted." I see a whole lot of distraction everywhere. People jumping up and down saying "I was so right!" They are clinging to their egos, when this is way bigger than any one person's ego. This is about starving people and homeless vets and Iraqis who keep getting blown up and our environment that is going down the toilet.

We have a great nominee in Sen . Barack Obama. We have Congress and are going to keep Congress. The Republicans have the zombie candidate from hell. They just filed articles of impeachment against Bush and Scott McClellan is going to testify Friday.

We should be partying!

:applause: :toast: :applause:

[tammywammy]

179. Texas awards primary delegates based on the previous 2 election turnouts

[donheld]

183. I am beyond fed up

with you being beyond fed up with me being beyond fed up with you being fed up with me being beyond fed up with you being fed up with me being beyond fed up with you being beyond fed up with me being beyond fed up...

:crazy: o god I'm really getting quite dizzy :crazy:

[dkf]

186. How can you support Hillary when you KNOW what she did to Howard.

She had been planning to run for President for a long time, yet she gets Wesley Clark to run in '04 to deliberately mess up Howard Dean, when she didn't even want Clark to win! I don't know how you can say you support him, when you are advocating someone who deliberately sabotaged him out of selfishness.

[onetwo]

188. She didn't use it (if she even realized it) because it would have been DUMB and INEFFECTUAL.

And, most of all, POINTLESS. That argument wins her no votes, nor does it strip away any support for Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

195. No, it worked quite well, just not well enough.......

But it did its job, just not enough to save Hillary from losing.

[onetwo]

196. Really?

Could you link me to an example of how she exploited this issue? I'm honestly curious.

[dailykoff]

194. She did. I heard her dog whistling in a Jan 23 MTP interview and it was revolting.

And her campaign went downhill from there, no pun intended. :)

[JVS]

197. Too fucking bad because that's what she did.

[dailykoff]

199. I also heard the Hispanic-votes- count-less-in-Texas thing discussed on NPR

repeatedly, which means it was a Clinton talking point, because that's about all they ever discuss.

[JVS]

202. The day after the election I'd like to post a comprehensive treatment of HRC's race-baiting.

[dailykoff]

204. It will be a long list.

And you know what? I don't think we've seen the end of it. The convention is still two and half months away and you better believe Bill will be calling his superfriends hourly. :puke:

[madrchsod]

216. they do because of the texas rules....but...hillary did`t know that

they thought they would wrap up the primary before texas and they did`t know the the Hispanic districts "counted less" than the african american districts..

opps i guess they did`t do their homework on texas

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

218. and of course not a link in sight typical of Obama supporters

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

209. She ran a racist campaign.

But now she's irrelevant and it's a matter for the history books. So it really doesn't matter that you don't like it.

[smiley_glad_hands]

210. There were certainly racial undertones.

But its time to move on.

[reflection]

211. The one instance of race-baiting that was *not* used

by the Clinton campaign does not cancel out the other race baiting that *was* used.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

212. Your post is a logical fallacy. Argument by anecdote.

It's like saying that smoking can't possibly be deadly because your uncle smokes and he's never been sick a day in his life.

[karynnj]

213. They played the race card, but it was not a racist campaign

and yeah there's a difference.

[lojasmo]

217. All the good, hardworking white people....

They all voted for her.

[Buzz Clik]

227. How could ANYONE construe that as racist?

Well, maybe if you were a wuthless, lazy person of color.

:mad:

[David Zephyr]

220. You want to know what I'm "fed up with"? Your attacking the nominee of our party.

Your #2 post reveals everything when you say "your side".

I got news for you: It's OUR SIDE now.

Get with the god-damned program! Stop sowing dissension.

[Buzz Clik]

223. Where do you stand on the notion that Obama is a homophobe?

[TooRaLoo]

224. So am I

so stop bringin' it up.

[girl_interrupted]

229. What about Obama's "punjab politics" leveled at Hillary?

'Obama Campaign Labels Hillary a "Punjab" Over Her Investments' http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/6/15/0634/74618
"Obama apologizes over 'Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)' memo" http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/news/obama.php

I know quite a few people who were offended by his remark and regarded it as bigoted. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be, but that's the way it came out.

Ever primary result, whether it be CNN, MSNBC, CNN, etc. broke everything down by race, gender, etc. It was inescapable. Every single race! An African American Man and a Woman running and no one was going to mention the obvious? They were "firsts". Network anchors were quoting the black population of each state. They did the same with womens votes. Did people really believe neither race or gender would be mentioned? How?

How anyone can call the Clintons "racist" is beyond me. Not when the Clinton Administration & The Clinton Private Foundation gave millions for the restoration in Harlem, NY. Some of you should take a walk down there sometime and notice the change. Real estate has really gone up...big time. It's a nice change.

Besides that, the millions President Clinton has raised for AIDS research and medications in Africa. I know someone will say well..what about Rwanda...after what happened in Somalia, with our soldiers slaughtered and dragged through the streets, on a humanitarian mission, there is NO WAY, NO HOW, congress would have allowed our military to get involved in that part of world again. Even the UN wouldn't go there. The other night I was watching Maya Angelou on tv, still a Hillary supporter. Their friendship has lasted over 20 years. She read the poem she wrote for Hillary http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/20/usa.poetry Ask her, if she thinks the Clintons are racists.

When I hear the word "racist" I think of what bush allowed to happen during Katrina. Who could imagine a "president" going to birthday parties, vacationing, while his own countrymen died. Shades of 9/11...when it comes to "sitting" during a crisis...no one can beat bush. Condi Rice, also comes to mind, many of us here will not forget her shoe shopping, theather going "feel good trip to NY" while the south was drowning.


Primaries are times when a lot gets said and still candidates wind up in bed with each other. Remember GH Bush and Reagan and his "Vodoo Economics"? Bush wound up as Reagan's VP. LBJ and Kennedy were not the "best of friends". You can go on and on. It's all over now, time to unite and heal. but do I believe for one second, that the Clinton's are racists? Hell, no.

[jcinccal]

230. amen