Letters to the Editor
-
@Xrandadu Hutman
You didn't provide examples of Clinton claiming Obama's campaign was sexist. However, I will reply. 1) Obama supported the idea that Clinton had denigrated Martin Luther King, when she hadn't (yes, "ill-advised" does count. It's saying that she said something wrong, offensive - supporting the lie). 2) Obama criticized Clinton's campaign for sending out the turban pictures, even though the campaign had denied it and Drudge, who had a history of both getting facts wrong and hating Clinton, didn't provide any evidence. His "probably not" simply added salt to the wound, since "probably not", indicates that he believes it is possible for the Clinton campaign to attack him in this way. It's as good as saying "yes, she could".3) His national co-chair (co-chairs presumably speak for the candidate) went public claiming that Clinton didn't care about Katrina victims because she hadn't cried for them, Obama was silent. 4) That same co-chair reportedly threatened black Congressmen with primary challenges, saying that they shouldn't be the ones who stop a black man from becoming president.
-
jebdlmm and others
I suggest you watch Jon Stewart to see his take on the race issue and who brought it up first:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147886&title=the-race-card
Seriously, you mention several examples, but not in one of them does Obama call anyone a racist. As for stating that someone or something is has no racial content to it whatsoever...that's not his job--that's the public's job, thank-you very much. In retrospect, I think the public, egged on by the media may have been overly harsh towards the Clintons during this campaign. But this let's blame the black guy for not stopping anybody from bringing up race ever in this campaign is ridiculous. Do you know who usually wins in this country when race gets brought up? I was a history major in college so I can give you a little clue about this: typically NOT the black guy.
So anyway.
sheesh. I don't mind your support of Hillary, but ceaselessly blaming Obama for bringing up race when he didn't: think about this: Race was not brought up in Iowa and who won Iowa? Oh, yes, Obama did. Race in regard to Bill Clinton's remarks didn't occur until after South Carolina and who had already won South Carolina by a large margin? Obama had.
If this is the only way you can think that anyone would vote for him...seriously do you know even one person who voted for Obama because they thought the Clintons are racists? I don't know of one person who thought or voted that way. And that includes a few black women I know in California who voted for Hillary, and three told me it was because "I'm a woman first."
Media noise. This whole race-baiting thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever....I mean...oops.
shalom.
-
@jebldmm
jebldmm: "You didn't provide examples of Clinton claiming Obama's campaign was sexist."
That's because I didn't write an article about it for the New Republic. I've seen people everywhere claim that Hillary Clinton has been treated badly and in a sexist manner. I think in many cases it was true. Media Matters for America, a site I read a few times a week, has documented repeated instances of the media using sexist language and dismissiveness toward Hillary Clinton. Perhaps in a few cases the response was too much (certainly some on Salon have taken it too far) but you won't find me claiming that the people complaining were surrogates for the Clinton campaign.
jebldmm: "However, I will reply. 1) Obama supported the idea that Clinton had denigrated Martin Luther King, when she hadn't (yes, "ill-advised" does count. It's saying that she said something wrong, offensive - supporting the lie)."
You're going to quibble over "ill-advised"? Ill-advised is hardly a criticism. All it means is that the statement was likely to offend some people, not that the statement itself was wrong. I have to agree, the statement WAS ill-advised, because no matter what Clinton meant by it, it is open for misinterpretation. That's what ill-advised means. It's like if a woman walks up to you, turns around, and says, "Do these jeans make my butt look fat?" You might have the best intentions when you answer, "Slightly," but that answer is ill-advised. Just say, "No, not at all!" Anything else is ill-advised. Trust me....I know this from experience.
jebldmm: "2) Obama criticized Clinton's campaign for sending out the turban pictures, even though the campaign had denied it and Drudge, who had a history of both getting facts wrong and hating Clinton, didn't provide any evidence."
Not true. Obama's campaign called on the Clinton campaign to either affirm or deny that they were behind the photos. The Clinton campaign declined to make a clear statement in response, but instead used the situation to go into attack mode. From that point, Obama's campaign was free to knock everybody involved as playing divisive politics. I think this is appopriate because the Drudge/Clinton connection was already established, and the game-playing of the Clinton campaign already fell into a pattern in which they (1) failed to deny involvement with Drudge and then (2) used the situation to make an attack on Obama's naivete. Once you start paying attention to the game-theory of these things you recognize what people are doing. Clinton's camp should have realized that these things could backfire and should have joined Obama's camp in repudiating Drudge's bullshit. Instead they tried to exploit it and it came back to haunt them a little bit. Well, duh. They should have seen that coming. Anyway, nobody is the winner. Obama now has to deal with Drudge plastering that stupid photo of him everywhere, leading to the New York Post and god knows who else printing it as a topical "story." Clinton's team loses too, because they look like the bad guys just because they were too busy trying to score political points to come out and call Drudge on his bullshit.
jebldmm: "His "probably not" simply added salt to the wound, since "probably not", indicates that he believes it is possible for the Clinton campaign to attack him in this way."
Do you realize how far we've come from the TNR story's actual thesis, which is that the Obama campaign led an organized, top-down, Rovian campaign to paint the other side as racist -- and now, to quibbling over what "probably" means? This whole thing is about whether the Obama campaign is the worst kind of race-baiters or not. It's not about whether Obama politely hedged, in a very nuanced manner, about Clinton's responsibility for a photograph, or about whether Obama's use of "ill-advised" is calculatedly damning or just innocuously precise.
jebldmm: "3) His national co-chair (co-chairs presumably speak for the candidate) went public claiming that Clinton didn't care about Katrina victims because she hadn't cried for them, Obama was silent."
On this much we agree. I do wonder what happened behind the scenes. I think Jackson was a loose cannon who was lashing out, and I think he was reeled in after that. Have you seen Jackson on the air since then? I haven't. When the South Carolina memo, it was widely reported that Obama was "disturbed" by its existence, and I think Obama probably also was unhappy with Jackson's performance, which is WAY off-message for the Obama campaign. I am willing to bet that Jackson was reeled in, but at the same time they didn't want to publically fire him because of the fallout that would occur from firing a Jackson. Just my own theory -- I have no evidence for it. But then again, neither does Wilentz have any evidence that Jackson's comments were part of the top-down message coming out of the Obama campaign.
jebldmm: "4) That same co-chair reportedly threatened black Congressmen with primary challenges, saying that they shouldn't be the ones who stop a black man from becoming president."
Yes, I read that. I take it you didn't read my point-by-point response to the article. I addressed this. I do think Jackson was playing a kind of hardball. I don't like it. One thing that I do want to point out is that I have seen women playing this kind of game with Clinton supporters -- suggesting that not voting for Clinton is a betrayal to women. What do you think of that? Do you consider that tactic as questionable as the Jackson tactic? I do -- I think both tactics are questionable. But I sure would like to hear it from the Clinton side, considering how many people I have witnessed making exactly that argument (that not voting for Clinton is an anti-feminist thing to do).