Clintons Fight to Keep Control of Plantation and Kitchen
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/...ion_and_kitchen
Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Posts
Comments
Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Posts
Comments
11 comments:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/14/cli...bama/index.html
"I've got before me a list of 80 attacks on Hillary that are quite personal by Sen. Obama and his campaign going back six months that I've had pulled," he said, speaking to CNN contributor Roland Martin on WVON-AM's "The Roland S. Martin Show" based in Chicago, Illinois.
Could Race Destroy the Democrats?
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1703310,00.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
Obama campaign: Clinton should renounce remarks
The drug war continues: In a statement, Barack Obama spokesman Bill Burton says he finds it "troubling" that neither Hillary Clinton nor her campaign "is willing to condemn" Bob Johnson for suggesting -- although he denies doing so -- that Barack Obama was using drugs while the Clintons were working for civil rights. Burton calls Johnson's explanation of his remarks "tortured."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
From: The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
And Her Point Is?
Matt Yglesias tries to figure out why Clinton is attacking Obama on Iraq. Because it’s his strength - and attacking someone’s core strength directly is a classic campaign tactic. Well, classic if you take the advice of this guy .
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/14/cli...bama/index.html
"I've got before me a list of 80 attacks on Hillary that are quite personal by Sen. Obama and his campaign going back six months that I've had pulled," he said, speaking to CNN contributor Roland Martin on WVON-AM's "The Roland S. Martin Show" based in Chicago, Illinois.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=270073
Since her loss in Iowa, Senator Hillary Clinton has been an outspoken critic of the caucus system, saying that the limited time allotted for voting disenfranchises too many workers who are on the job during those hours.
It seems in Nevada Clinton has had a change of heart.
Last week the powerful, 60,000 member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 chose to endorse Senator Barack Obama after "fierce lobbying" from the three frontrunners. Two days later, the Nevada State Education Association – with ties to the Clinton campaign in its leadership – filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to shutdown nine casino caucus at-large sites created to allow both union and non-union shift workers to vote during the workday. (On any given day, it would be difficult for these workers to participate without these caucus sites. It will be even more difficult during the busy Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend.) According to the Washington Post, the system was created last March with input from the presidential campaigns and – as meeting minutes reveal – "several of the parties to the suit were there and approved of the process."
Karen Finney, Director of Communications at the Democratic National Committee, said to me, "The state party submitted their delegate selection plan last May and it was available for public comment…. They also had a thorough review process in the state and informed the campaigns months ago about their plans. A key goal is to ensure the broadest participation by eligible voters. The state party has worked hard to increase the number of caucus locations throughout the state, there are some 520 public locations statewide, and there are more caucus locations than there were polling locations in 2006. The at-large [casino] precincts are 9 percent of those locations [and] are open to all shift- workers within a 2.5 mile radius."
This is the first time in the 2008 presidential race that the Latino vote will play a significant role in an electoral outcome, and nearly 40 percent of the Culinary union's membership is Latino. Estimates put the votes at the casino sites at more than 10 percent of the statewide total. According to the Los Angeles Times, at a union rally Obama spoke out against the lawsuit which would "disenfranchise the hard-working folks on the Strip.... You don't win an election . . . by trying to keep people out. You're supposed to try to bring them in." He also said of the lawsuit's timing, "Ever since I got the support of Local 226, the lawyers decided to get involved. The rules were OK when the other campaigns thought they would win the Culinary endorsement."
Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote, agreed that the timing and impact of the lawsuit are problematic. He told me, "The time to discuss the fairness of caucus sites is long past – you simply don't want to reduce the number of places to vote or do a last-minute change if you want people to participate. Caucus turnout already promises to be distressingly low for representative outcomes."
Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who does voting rights cases (he's also chair of Montgomery County for Obama and running to serve as a Delegate), told me that the case is without merit: "The Equal Protection claim in this case is silly and would be thrown out even if it hadn't been raised in the eleventh hour in a transparently political way. The claim boils down to the argument that it discriminates against teachers and other professionals to set up polling places in casinos for people who work there since these employees then get an unfair advantage in access to the polls. On this curious theory, of course, it would violate Equal Protection for some people to live two miles away from a polling place while others live on the same block. The irony is that most polling places are in public schools [where Nevada State Education Association members work]! Setting up polling stations in workplaces where there are tens of thousands of voters who would otherwise be unlikely to vote is perfectly rational. It's also a public policy that progressives should celebrate and duplicate, not try to thwart."
D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of Culinary Local 226, also felt that the Democratic Party should speak out strongly to defend the caucus sites. As he said to the New York Times, "I never thought we'd have people in the Democratic Party try to disenfranchise women, people of color and large numbers of working people in this state. I am sure every single elected official in Nevada will renounce it, and so will the Clinton campaign."
But no such luck.
Asked about the lawsuit on Meet The Press Clinton said, "The courts and the state party will have to work it out."
"Not for us to decide," Rory Reid, Clinton's Nevada state chairman, told the Las Vegas Sun. "We just want the process to be fair."
And Clinton campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said in a statement to the Times: "We hope the courts and the state party resolve this matter. We will respect their decision and focus our efforts on running a strong campaign."
Until this moment, part of "running a strong campaign" included speaking out on behalf of workers who were unable to make their voices heard at the polls. But now, as a lawsuit threatens to disenfranchise thousands of workers who will be unable to get away from their jobs to vote in their home districts, Clinton and her campaign remain conspicuously silent. This is especially disappointing because the Senator has been a proponent of comprehensive electoral reform in the past, cosponsoring good legislation that would improve voter protections and access, and make Election Day a holiday – all presumably to make more voices heard in our electoral process.
But now it seems Clinton only wants those voices to be heard if they will help her win. A campaign and its candidate who once took pride in the ability to "stay on message" has delivered a message to Nevadans that is loud and clear: winning is more important to them than our shared democratic values.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2
008/01/14/badmouthing-barack/index.ht
ml?ref=opinion
Badmouthing Barack
By Chris Suellentrop
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Race
Subject: MUST READ: Key S.C. figure takes issue with Clintons
SHUCK AND JIVE
Clinton Supporter Andrew Cuomo, Referring To Obama, Said "You Can't Shuck
And Jive At A Press Conference. All Those Moves You Can Make With The Press
Don't Work When You're In Someone's Living Room." Clinton-supporting New
York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the thing that's great about New
Hampshire is that you have to go out and meet people rather than "shuck and
jive" through press conferences there. Cuomo said of New Hampshire on an
Albany radio station: "It's not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can't buy
your way into it. You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those
moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living
room." [Newsday, 1/11/08]
MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON
Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising "False Hope" Said That While MLK
Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One
Who Got Legislation Passed: "It Took A President To Get It Done." Clinton
rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in
Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther
King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the
one who got the legislation passed. Hillary was asked about Obama's
rejoinder that there's something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes
as false, and that it doesn't jibe with the careers of figures like John F.
Kennedy and King. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to
get it done." [Politico, 1/7/08; Video]
Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton
introducer: "If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the
other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of
hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his
work and got the republicans to pass all those measures." [HRC, Dover, NH,
1/7/08] AUDIO ATTACHED
NELSON MANDELA
Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. "I
have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the
last hundred years. [...] I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year
and we're still very close. [...] But if you said to me, 'You've got one last
job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life
and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one
other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never
blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would
pick Hillary.'" [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]
DRUG USE
Clinton's NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said
It Would "Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter." Clinton's
Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen's Comments
And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He "Deeply Regret[s] The
Comments." The Democratic presidential race took on a decidedly nasty and
personal turn, with the New Hampshire co-chair for Clinton, raising the
youthful drug use of Obama. Shaheen said Obama's having been so open -- as
opposed to then-Gov. George W. Bush, who refused to detail his past drug use
during his 2000 presidential campaign -- will "open the door to further
queries on the matter. It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give
drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so
many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome." By the
end of the day, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer had issued a
statement asserting that "these comments were not authorized or condoned by
the campaign in any way." And Shaheen himself issued a statement: "I deeply
regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the
campaign in any way." [ABC News, 12/12/07]
Mark Penn, In Trying To Defend His Campaign Over Bill Shaheen's Obama Drug
Use Comments, Used The Word "Cocaine," Drawing A Rebuke From Edwards Adviser
Joe Trippi. Mark Penn, defending the Clinton campaign in light of Bill
Shaheen's comments about Obama's drug use, repeatedly referenced Obama's
cocaine use. Edwards adviser Joe Trippi accused Penn of dropping the word
"cocaine" deliberately. Mark Penn said "Well, I think we have made clear
that the -- the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the
campaign was in any way raising. And I think that has been made clear. I
think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator." Joe Trippie
responded and said "I think he just did it again. He just did it again. ...
This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said cocaine again."
[Politico, 12/13/07; Video]
FAIRY TALE
Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A "Fairy Tale"
And Said "It's An Insult... As An African-American" And That His Tone And
Words Are "Very Depressing." Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton over his
insulting comments of Obama, where he called him a "fairy tale" and said "I
could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn't
take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It's time that they regroup. Figure
out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds
like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that
many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy
tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you,
as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing.
... I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United
States senator." [Politico, 1/8/08]
Amaya Smith
South Carolina Press Secretary
Obama for America
Ah, so Hillary saying things is OK, but if Obama makes a list of all those things Hillary said/implied, that is not okay?
Seems backward racist logic to me
I'm a black woman. This is my dream
The two Democrat candidates have gone through fire to get this far; now they deserve to go further
Patricia Williams
Sunday January 13, 2008
The Observer
The political history of the United States has been crafted by its greatest orators. From Thomas Jefferson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton, the most influential Presidents have anchored their appeal in the democracy of the eloquently spoken word. As the election of November 2008 draws closer, we usher out George W Bush, the most spectacularly dismal exception to that rule. Of course, there are many attributes other than oratory I'll be looking for in candidates running for highest office: he or she must not think war is a 'cakewalk', must be alarmed about global warming, must not think torture is a handy little tool. Nevertheless, I will be listening hard for any future President's ability to string words into unmuddied, coherent thought. I'll be listening for ideas that have been worked through sufficiently to have a beginning, a middle and an end. I'm looking for intelligence. Someone who has real ideas, something more than missiles wrapped in folksy homilies.
Too many people see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's appeal as rooted in 'identity politics'. It is the cheap political equation of the moment. He's supposed to walk away with the black vote, she's supposed to have women all sewn up. But the diversity of their constituencies and the complexity of their platforms have defied simplistic expectations.
There's a cliché in the American civil rights community: if you're a member of a stigmatised group, you have to be twice as good as everyone else to accomplish half as much. Clinton and Obama have been tested by fire; neither rose to this level of national importance because anyone gave them a pass.
Hillary Clinton was among the first generation of women to attend law school in any numbers. She's about four years older than me and the barriers were enormous back then. Her first political work, as a student advocate for women's rights and minority admissions, opened the door a little wider for people like me. When I arrived at law school, there was still much moaning that women were 'taking over', even though we constituted 8 per cent of law students.
Today, women make up 50 per cent of most law school classes. It took enormous fortitude to succeed in that atmosphere. Indeed, Hillary has stood up to and overcome an onslaught. As Senator Clinton campaigned in Iowa, it was to the snarky drone of shock jock Rush Limbaugh babbling about how no one wants to watch a middle-aged woman grow old. Her detailed and thoughtful ideas for a universal healthcare system have been derided as the dangerous, communist ravings of a radical feminist. The New York Times's Maureen Dowd called Clinton a 'dominatrix ... control freak' who 'whips' her opponents into line.
Not that there's any consistency to prejudice of this sort. There was quite the kerfuffle when someone asked her how she was doing after her loss in Iowa and a tremble shook her voice. If Clinton-haters have got their jollies from painting her as steely and remote, in the mere mist of an eye she became too soft, wavering, choked up, broken down. Headlines implied that Clinton had lost it. Yet look at the video: she speaks of her plans for the country with eloquent emotion and great composure, her voice soft but strong. There were no tears. There was nothing undignified about it.
Meanwhile, Obama walks a fine line of both being 'not black enough' and pandering to 'special interests'. The accusation that he is 'inexperienced' is a cipher for deeper cultural anxieties about race.
Senator Obama is a presidential candidate of profound decency and great eloquence. He was president of the Harvard Law Review, a position that requires not just the highest grades, but also the unanimous acclaim of a band of viciously competitive students and a famously divided faculty.
American identity is best defined as the experience of the willing diaspora, the break by choice that is the heart of the immigrant myth. It is that narrative from which most African-Americans have been exiled. Hence it is precisely his place in that narrative that makes Obama so attractive, so intriguing and yet so strange. Obama's late father migrated from Kenya to the US; his mother was from Kansas. He's managed to fuse the immigrant myth of rapid upward mobility, until then almost exclusively white and European, on to the figure of a black man. Yet there are many for whom his appeal rests not on what he is - smart, full of fresh vision - but on what they imagine he isn't. He's not a whiner. He doesn't hate white people. He doesn't wear his hair like Al Sharpton.
Senator Joseph Biden, like Bush another exemplar of crude oratorical inelegance, expressed it as follows: 'I mean, you got the first sort of mainstream African-American who's articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man.' Such faint, condescending praise.
In the coming months, I expect to see much confusion as the importance of gender, the visibility of race and the commitment to pretend none of it matters is sorted out. The American public is reeling with images of Hillary, our first viable female candidate for President, floating on the endorsements of a raft of black religious leaders, and Obama, our first viable black candidate for President, flanked by a pride of Oprah-watching, white 'soccer moms'. Add a sprinkling of Bill Clinton, popularly caricatured as our 'first black President'. Fold in Michelle Obama, popularly caricatured as an outspoken career woman who doesn't like to stay home and bake cookies any more than Hillary. Turn the pressure cooker to high.
As the right's Rovean spinmeisters kick into action, wrapping both Obama and Clinton in sticky webs of hybridised stereotypes, she will be cast as too 'mannish', he too 'boyish'. She'll be too familiar, he too foreign.
Yet I pray that we Americans can resist the vicious, vacuous, mudslinging mire of malapropisms from which the Bush presidency loped to power. This is an extraordinary moment in American history: we have our first serious black and female presidential candidates and they are, indeed, twice as good as their nearest contenders. I hope that the two of them, in whatever order, will become running mates by November. They must not fall prey to those who would love to see them played against each other in the scramble to be top dog.
· Patricia Williams is a professor of law at Columbia University and a regular columnist for the Nation
What I find disgusting is that it is a Democrat who is injecting race and in the worst possible context into these primaries. I expect that from the GOP but not from a candidate from the party which professes to be the hope for the future and the champion of the ones they now are smearing.. They are opening the door and telling the GOP don't hesitate ... use it. Come on ahead out all you bigots where ever you are.
They are making it fair game to use that surreptitiously and hatefully with one of their own... or do they think blacks are fair game unless they stay in the back of the bus where "they belong" ? They welcome their support and claim a divine right to it unless an "uppity" black decides to step out of his place. That is obscene!
How would they and their supporters react if the gender card was being used against them as they are using the race card ? This campaign is as bad as anything Bush/Rove ever concocted.
They are destroying Obama's chances before the GOP even gets a chance to lay a glove on him.
That is reprehensible and I believe will only add one more arrow of gigantic proportions to the quiver just waiting to slaughter Clinton in the general.
If it takes that to win in the Clintons' opinion... god help us all she doesn't even deserve to hold public office let alone be the first woman to hold the office as President of the United States.
She isn't worthy.
Post a Comment