Politico: “Clinton attacks Obama” (Updated)
Guest post by DRJ]
Here’s how the Politico describes Hillary Clinton’s attack on Barack Obama today on NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert:
“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today that the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was “deliberately distorting” remarks she had made about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King.
“This is, you know, a, a — an unfortunate story line that the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully,” she said. “They’ve been putting out talking points. They’ve been making this — they’ve been telling people, in a very selective way, what the facts are.”
Clinton burst out laughing when moderator Tim Russert reiterated her phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” and asked if it still exists. “Oh, I don’t know,” she said. “I haven’t paid much attention to it for about 10 years. I really don’t have any idea. … I’m just too busy to worry about that.”
On the King remarks, a controversy blew up after Clinton told Fox News: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.”
Some liberal critics have charged in blogs and interviews that the comments diminished King’s contribution.
“Clearly, we know from media reports that the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this,” she said. “It is such an unfair and unwarranted attempt to, you know, misinterpret and mischaracterize what I’ve said.”
It’s interesting that the article specifically mentioned Hillary Clinton’s laugh. Even this New York Times’ article has described her laugh as an attempt “to shame her inquisitors by chuckling at them (or their queries).”
The Politico article also highlighted Clinton’s “assertiveness”:
“Clinton was extremely assertive, at several points talking over Russert as he tried to finish a question.
“Tim, let me — let me stop you right there,” she said at one point. “No, wait a minute. … You did not give the entire quote.”
“Tim, I can’t let you get away with that mischaracterization and those snippets,” she said later.
Russert opened the show by reading to her from the front page of The State, South Carolina’s largest newspaper, which reported Saturday: “Sharp criticism of Barack Obama and other comments about Martin Luther King Jr. — all from people associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — have generated resentment among some black S.C. voters.” Russert read a bit more, then asked what all the fuss was about.
“Beats me, because there’s not one shred of truth in what you’ve just read,” she said, adding that King “is one of the people that I admire most in the world.”
Fending off complaints from black leaders is not what the Clinton campaign wants to be doing as it heads into the South Carolina primary.
UPDATE – Here’s more from the Russert interview:
“MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, “Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it’s worked”–let me finish–“you can see on the ground. I’m saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don’t destroy Iraq. It’s working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete.”
SEN. CLINTON: Tim, I’m going to go back to what the whole point of the surge was, and the testimony that we heard last fall. The point of the surge was to push the Iraqi government to make these tough choices. Now, if we put in 30,000 of our finest young men and women, who are going to go after the bad guys and quell violence in certain parts of Iraq, there’s no doubt that can be done. The partnerships that have been created by the tribal sheiks in Anbar province and elsewhere gave us an extra advantage. But that doesn’t in any way undermine the basic reality. The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.”
Finally, further down, this amusing exchange on Clinton’s vote on the Iraq war:
“CLINTON: Fourth, it is absolutely unfair to say that the vote as Chuck Hagel, who was one of the architects of the resolution, has said, was a vote for war. It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so.
MR. RUSSERT: The title of the act was The Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution.“
Burst out laughing…in lieu of actually answering the question!Proof (4721a6) — 1/13/2008 @ 2:14 pm
Dam, if this is not going to go down in history as the “affirmative action election”. Be careful not to denigrate in any way the lady because it’s sexist and the gentleman because it’s racist.nk (dda711) — 1/13/2008 @ 2:19 pm
It looks that way.DRJ (517d26) — 1/13/2008 @ 2:25 pm
Was Hillary wagging her finger at Tim? Did she point out the specific media pieces which acknowledged the Obama campaign’s involvement?
It sounds like Hillary started going negative while taking for granted the support of the black community. She screwed up.daleyrocks (906622) — 1/13/2008 @ 2:47 pm
Here’s the truth.
Not that it means anything to you people.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:05 pm
#5 The “truth.”
When did the truth ever matter to a Democrat?
Particularly, when did the truth ever matter to the Clintons?
The truth is the Clintons are getting sliced and diced at their own game of “parsing.”Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:16 pm
Ah… the obfuscated truth from David’s link
Hmmm…just what party did those ahem “conservative” senators belong to, eh? Would anyone under, say, 40 know? Not that David would like people to know the full truth, but here is the breakdown of the vote by party: (yes/no)
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 164-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)
And let’s add, since TNR Welintz, like Hillary, seems to want to pretend that Republican Civil Rights history ends with Lincoln —Darleen (187edc) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:29 pm
The vote was a vote to give the president the authority to act if and when he chose. it was stupid to sign it, but still, it was not a declaration of war. It was assumed he would make good faith efforts etc.etc. He didn’t.
The Clintons are screwing up though.blah (d5c037) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:33 pm
Well as we all know Darleen, The Sainted Ronald Reagn corrected those Republican errors by inviting the Southern Democrats onto the Welcome Wagon.
You remember the “Southern Strategy” don’t you?
Of course you don’t.
When did the truth ever matter to you anyway?David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:34 pm
Well as we all know Darleen, The Sainted Ronald Reagn corrected those Republican errors by inviting the Southern Democrats onto the Welcome Wagon.
Yeah, Darleen, how dare Reagan steal them off the Democrat plantation? The big poacher. And he never proposed a federal subsidy for KY Jelly, either.nk (dda711) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:39 pm
Could you amplify on what you mean by “you people”?DRJ (517d26) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:40 pm
Is that cliched enough for y’all.
I know you want me to fuck you, nk — but I’m not that desperate.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:43 pm
Dear DRJ. This won’t end well, but you already know that.
Here are the terms you are looking for: “reactive projection” and “throwaway snark.” Oscar Wilde put it very relevantly to this situation: better to be infamous than not famous at all.
Put on your helmets, friends. Time for more pooh tossing.Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:43 pm
As I said. Here we go again. Predictable and unpleasantly tiresome. Sooner or later, a sensibility limit will be reached by Patterico, I suspect. Until then: sigh.Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:45 pm
Goodness, David, don’t get a hernia what with all that moving of the goalposts and whatnot.
BTW, I’m always humored by Leftist Trootherism.Darleen (187edc) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:46 pm
Your link states that Hillary’s point was it takes actions to make words matter. Similarly, it takes a President who can get things done to turn the idealist’s hope into action. That’s also the way I initially understood her comments … but it’s nevertheless tempting to see a racial overtone in the cumulative total of the Clinton campaign’s recent statements. In other words, the rhetoric is subtle and suspect.
By the way, I wonder if Hillary thinks Nixon was a great President because his actions pulled the troops out of Vietnam, thereby turning the idealists’ hopes to end the War into reality?DRJ (517d26) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:51 pm
I have never met you, DRJ, but I surely do respect your approach to the “high road.” Truly.Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:52 pm
We’re all friends here, Eric Blair, and I feel like I know you.DRJ (517d26) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:54 pm
David is that kid at his classmate’s birthday party — you know the one — that sulks, won’t participate in games, loudly proclaims the food “icky” and “gross”, heckles the hired magician, makes fart noises when everyone is singing ‘happy birthday’ — then goes home to mommy and says everyone hates him because they are all just jealous of how wonderful he is.
Never ever his own fault.Darleen (187edc) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:55 pm
I’m not the one who brought up KY, dear.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:58 pm
Reading comp problems, too, David?Darleen (187edc) — 1/13/2008 @ 3:59 pm
Republicans are always “tempted” in this fashion.
There are many rational reasosn for not favoring Hillary Clinton. But there’s no way to deal with them in a context such as that which has been provided by the MSM.
No Darleen. I was a hit at parties where I performed a killer Rodgers and Hart medley climaxed by this winner from The Boys From Syracuse :
“There was an old zany who lived in a tub;
He had so many fleabites
He didn’t know where to rub.
He kept looking for an honest man
Said “I’m gonna find him if I can”
If i could meet Diogenes today,
This is what i’d say:
Find a man who’s honest!
Wrap him up for me
Find a man who’s stolid-solid
Hook that fish if he’s in the sea
Hunt him! Trail him!
Catch him! Nail him!
If he is free
Have you got your stick?
Have you got your lantern?
Can you do the trick
And produce him, please!
Catch that fellow!
Ring that bell,
I quote these lyrics at length not simply because I love them but because they’re apt.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 4:03 pm
Wow, I was more offended by Clinton during the MTP interview than the initial comments made by both Clintons…granted, neither comment sat well with me and the body language they offered was, well, plain ugly at best, but today…she really doesn’t get it. And why on earth would she preclude her 2002 vote with language “disarm or be disarmed” and then years later say that her vote was for diplomacy? I don’t know about you, but where I’m from “disarm or be disarmed” sounds like fighting words to me.sandy (d9f1dc) — 1/13/2008 @ 4:05 pm
No Darleen. I was a hit at parties
Yes, David, I’m sure you were.
You can have a your milk and cookies now.Darleen (187edc) — 1/13/2008 @ 4:07 pm
It’s just that I had a civil exchange with the gentleman yesterday, and I had hopes. At least we are back to musical theater again. It could be worse.
DRJ, you don’t get good behavior if you don’t model it. At least that is one approach (and a positive one). I need to be more like that, myself.
Darleen, I don’t mean to stir the pot, but what you wrote reminded me of a joke. Here it is:
A fellow goes to a psychiatrist for therapy. The therapist decides to show the fellow a Rorschach inkblot series.
“What does this inkblot remind you of?” asked the psychiatrist.
“Sex,” replied the fellow.
“And this inkblot?” asked the psychiatrist, showing another card.
“Sex again,” replied the fellow, without any surprise.
This process was repeated, for inkblot after inkblot, card after card, for half an hour.
Finally, the psychiatrist put down the cards. “Do you find it odd,” he asked, “that all of these inkblots remind you of sex?”
The fellow shrugged. “Don’t look at me, Doc. You’re the one with the dirty pictures.”
A cautionary tale for everyone, maybe. Darleen, I appreciate your practicality—experienced parenthood, right?
DRJ is actually correct, if you give people here a chance. At least, they have acted that way toward me, and I certainly don’t agree with everything I read here.
Anyway….a nice place to “hang out” and learn a few things.Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/13/2008 @ 4:11 pm
Sen. Clinton’s creative reinterpretation of what a vote for the AUMF meant is one of the reasons I am not willing to vote for her in the primary.
Her argument is that she was basically supporting the *threat* to use force without assenting to the actual use of force should the threat not be successful. Either that’s true, in which case I question her competence to do much of anything (for it is unwise to make a threat unless one is willing to back it up with action); or it’s not true, in which case she’s trying to have it both ways and pretend that nobody will notice.
Besides which: it was stunningly obvious *to me*, at the time that vote took place, that the Bush administration would take it as an authorization to use military force. That’s what the plain language of the statute said, and there wasn’t any doubt in my mind that the Bush administration intended to go to war whether the UN authorized it or not.
She’s not fooling anyone who was paying attention.aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/13/2008 @ 4:13 pm
David, I Googled the Southern Strategy…
Some interesting reading….
There are many people who challenge the opinion that the Southern Strategy was responsible for large GOP political gains in the South. Several facts appear to support this challenge, such as:
Democrat Jimmy Carter’s victory in every Southern state except for Virginia and Oklahoma in the 1976 Presidential election, years after the emergence of the Southern Strategy.
The first Southern state to give the GOP control of both its governorship and its legislature was Georgia. It did not do this until 1998, long after the original architects of the Southern Strategy had left the GOP. However, it should be noted that the Southern Strategy was directed chiefly at electing presidential candidates. Southern Democrats at the state level were much more conservative than the likes of George McGovern, Michael Dukakis or John Kerry. (One of the originators of the Southern Strategy, Kevin Phillips, had even become openly supportive of Democratic political candidates by then.)
Georgia did not see its first post-Reconstruction GOP governor until 2002.
Until 2005, Louisiana had been represented since Reconstruction by two Democratic Senators.
Arkansas has two Democratic Senators, a Democratic governor, three out of four of their U.S. representatives are Democrats, every statewide office is held by a Democrat, and their state legislature is Democratic.
Tennessee and North Carolina have a majority Democratic delegation in the U.S. House of representatives.
Mississippi has a house delegation that is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
In addition, it has been claimed that the move to the Republican Party on the part of southern whites had more to do with whites voting for their economic interests than racism. Clay Risen wrote in a review of The End of Southern Exceptionalism, a scholarly work by Richard Johnston and Byron Shafer, “In the postwar era… the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the Republican Party.”
Just thought you might like some information….and maybe some realization that most WHITEYS are not racist Republicans…that many decisions on voting are not made because of, inspite of, or due to race….
And, please, stop with the sexual comments….you are better than that….reff (99666d) — 1/13/2008 @ 4:13 pm
David E. #22,
At this stage in the political process, what conservatives/Republicans like me think Hillary intended doesn’t matter. The point is that blacks and black leaders think she’s using Obama’s race to gain voters.DRJ (517d26) — 1/13/2008 @ 4:45 pm
david ehrenstein is making me laugh, and that would be at him, not with him.assistant devil's advocate (df1fe8) — 1/13/2008 @ 4:49 pm
No, Dave. You’re the one who tossed out:
Rampantly egotistical and utterly ridiculous, all in just a few words.
Reason # 1,127,663 why David should never be taken seriously.Pablo (99243e) — 1/13/2008 @ 4:59 pm
Obama is using his race to gain voters and Hillary is trying to counter that strategy… Obama holds the high ground and Hillary isn’t real deft at character assasination anyway; tending as she does towards the bludgeoning approach.
Back when Bill was in office, the Clinton’s could play the race card and blacks would back them on it.
Now it just makes Hillary look like a bumbler and a fool.
What used to be a nearly unanimous Clinton constituency has been broken apart. Many blacks are clearly choosing to vote for Obama due to his race.
Are they racist? Sexist? My guess is the answer for some black voters would be yes; all other issues being essentially equal they’d rather vote for the black male over the white female.
The rest of the black voters probably would prefer an issue based campaign minus the pandering. It’s insulting for one..
To sum it up, Hillary is beating herself here. She could do better by ignoring the “black vote” and concentrate on taking an issue based campaign to ALL people and stop trying to talk “black” and otherwise stop trying to out black a black guy.SteveG (4e16fc) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:16 pm
“And, please, stop with the sexual comments….you are better than that….”
No, I’m sorry to say, he isn’t. When David gets on these fugue states, it’s best to ignore him. When discussing movies, he can be a nice fellow and he is polite in person but once off on these wild rants, it’s best to avoid him.Mike K (86bddb) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:18 pm
With a shot of Scotch please, Mommy!David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:20 pm
It’s ok, it already described itself as a “Mandingo”.
Man: Male human.
Dingo: Canis lupus dingo, is a type of wild dog, probably descended from the Indian Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes). It is commonly described as an Australian wild dog.
The wild bitch genes have predominated in its case.nk (dda711) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:21 pm
Now you’re making a rational argument,aphrael. That won’t get you very far in here.
Clinton’s, let’s call it “creative interpretation” of her vote is really the best she can do at this point. As she and everyone else surely knew it was a vote for the war. Logically it would be better to say “I was worng.” but no politician has ever admitted fault of any kind.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:25 pm
If you buy that one I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’m sure you’d love to acquire.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:27 pm
Didn’t John Edwards admit his Iraq war vote was wrong?DRJ (517d26) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:28 pm
I stand corrected. Thanks DRG. Another reminder of why Edwards is an admirable man — who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting near the Presidency.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:34 pm
I beg to differ.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:36 pm
I always get a kick out of Democrats who like to flog that Republican “Southern Strategy” but ignore that Jimmy Carter was careful to pay lip service to segregationists in his campaign for Governor and made veiled appeals to them in attacks on his opponent.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:40 pm
The claim that the Authorization of the Use Of Military Force Act (AUMF) was not a declaration of war is simply incorrect. Those who believe that it was and is not a war declaration are ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, and the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. government. There is no prescription as to the wording of a war declaration in the Constitution, but if the legislature approves the use of force by the executive against a foreign threat, then war it is.j.pickens (53ee7a) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:45 pm
David, #36….once again, for someone like you who can only see RACE, it has to be only about race..
Well, as a white male raised in an African American household, it is not about race for me…
I vote where my money is….and since Democrats want to take it from me to give it to someone else, I’ll vote for anyone but them….
And, thanks for getting away from the sexual comments for a few posts….reff (99666d) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:55 pm
I read your article. You write very well and your arguments are compelling, but I’m curious if your opposition to Barack Obama is primarily based on the way he has dealt with gay issues.DRJ (517d26) — 1/13/2008 @ 5:56 pm
Ooh, Patterico, you missed this item from K Lopez at the Corner.
Only 10 months ago, Hillary said the VRWC was REAL!
Why does this woman think she can produce out-and-out lies without negative consequences?
She wants to be LBJ, but she’s looking more and more like Nixon.Jim C. (a79dbc) — 1/13/2008 @ 6:00 pm
I would say how he deals with gays is indicativeof wider failings. The “Gospel Tour” was naked pandering — pure and ssimple. It was an extremely whorey way of giving himself black “cred.”
Hunh? Were you a servant to a black family or soemthing?David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 6:14 pm
No, my parents were absent, and I spent 80-90% of my days and nights in the home of family friends. They “raised” three of us, and I consider them more my parents than my biologicals could have ever been….and I am thankful every day that for them, it was not about race…
They both passed recently, and are sorely missed….reff (99666d) — 1/13/2008 @ 6:26 pm
A black family “raising” a white family?David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/13/2008 @ 6:28 pm
You must forgive DE, as it is now appearant that he has both a long, and short-term memory problem.
On a previous thread, I corrected him over his accusation of “Reagan’s Southern Strategy”. He even was gracious enough to acknowledge that the strategy originated within the Nixon campaign (in ’72, if not ’68).
Not only does he suffer from BDS, but obviously has RGS (Reagan Deraingement Syndrome) too.
David, your schtick is getting very tired.Another Drew (d61b2e) — 1/13/2008 @ 6:31 pm
Please grow up!
I think reff is from Louisiana and that wouldn’t surprise me in Louisiana or East Texas. My East Texas’ cousins were basically raised by a black family because their “real” parents had problems with alcohol.DRJ (517d26) — 1/13/2008 @ 6:33 pm
David, why are you surprised….and, by the way, this occurred in New Orleans, in the late 60’s/early 70’s, at the beginnings of intergration in the public schools here….
And, amazingly, we all survived…and are better people for it…
Many people, of all races, are not racist, and many more don’t look at everything throught the looking glass of race….reff (99666d) — 1/13/2008 @ 6:36 pm
DRJ, re: #43. That is the truest observation ever made, and globally applicable to the person involved; the Litmus Test writ large. Trust me on that one.Eric Blair (ef2392) — 1/13/2008 @ 7:33 pm
this will back fire on Hill and Billl.makes since to me since the main issues remain the econonmy . poor mr or mrs next president and iraq.. .the new efforts and focus on surge and money will not work . sunni or latterrawdawgbuffalo (3071eb) — 1/13/2008 @ 10:39 pm
Oh GAWD I’m so concerned about issues from 1964!
They are for sure at the very top of my list of important things. Like gansta disappearances and brittinies tit size as well!
Ya knowing the last time Hilliary got to cum would be interesting, and even more so if Bill, (as in husband), was involved! Or does she depend on a BOB, (battery operated boyfriend), for such.
Now that is headline worthy!TC (1cf350) — 1/14/2008 @ 3:41 am
My life is not schtick. Yours is apprently devoted to buzzwords like “Derangement Syndrome.”
Sad.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 7:03 am
Except they do — you included.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 7:05 am
Fabulous and fascinating as usual David!!!!111!1!daleyrocks (906622) — 1/14/2008 @ 9:02 am
There is a new book that David should read but he won’t.MIke K (86bddb) — 1/14/2008 @ 9:16 am
Wow, a psychic – right here on patterico.com! Let’s test him. Why don’t we ask him–oh, I dunno–to guess all our real names or something. Yeah, that’s a good test.
Now on to more serious matters:
Was sorry to read of the recent passing of your “foster” parents. You must miss them terribly.
My East Texas’ cousins were basically raised by a black family because their “real” parents had problems with alcohol.
Comment by DRJ — 1/13/2008 @ 6:33 pm
Have heard so many stories like that of children raised by family friends, or similar, because the real parents weren’t around for whatever reason. What wonderful people these are, to step in and give so much to other children. They make a permanent difference in the world.no one you know (1f5ddb) — 1/14/2008 @ 9:40 am
“What do Katrina victims waiting for federal disaster relief, millionaire rappers buying vintage champagne, Ivy League professors waiting for taxis, and ghetto hustlers trying to find steady work have in common?”
They’re all going to be played by Will Smith in the movie.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 9:50 am
Just one more thread turned into a mud wallow for David. It’s getting routine.nk (dda711) — 1/14/2008 @ 9:57 am
Sad, but not unexpected. There have been several suggestions on how to avoid it. Some people enjoy the snarking and vulgarity, though. Still, there will be a limit reached at some point. Until then, the Weather Report is the same: scattered rudeness and vulgarity, with a 100% chance of victim-mania. And none of it matters; it’s a game.Eric Blair (ef2392) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:08 am
What’s this “victim-mania” that you’re blathering about?
Mike K links to Amazon about new book on “the race card” and declares in advance that I won’t read it. Apprently he can read my mind and knows everything I’m going to do.
“George” meanwhile squeaks the inevitable “Sad.”
Apparently it’s impossible to discuss racism in any way shape or form in here.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:13 am
David…you put this…
Not long after you wrote this about me, in response to something I wrote:
Many people, of all races, are not racist, and many more don’t look at everything throught the looking glass of race….”
Except they do — you included.
Interesting, you complain that others “read your mind” and you do that to me…
It is the reason we can’t have a discussion on racism: the reason being you are the racist here.reff (bff229) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:21 am
I knew that was coming. What took you so long?
Just yesterday you were saying “it’s not but race.” But of course it is.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:23 am
NOYK….thanks for the kind words….to both myself and DRJ….they are special people…as are the many that do, and have done, the same thing for so many…reff (bff229) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:23 am
David Ehrenstein linked to a column from that paragon of believable journalism, The New Republic.
He wrote: Here’s the truth. Not that it means anything to you people.
(“You people?” Shock! Horror! That’s a racist thing to say, Dave. Ask Ross Perot.)
From the link:
Here’s an example of LBJ’s “sincere conviction about racial equality.” From Bruce Bartlett, author of Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past on why Johnson supported the CRA in 1957:
But Johnson couldn’t have been any worse than the Republicans on this issue, could he? Well, who was the person pushing for civil rights legislation the hardest? This might be an indication:
That was from the State of the Union address. No, not from January 1961 — from January 1957. The President was Eisenhower.
LBJ was dragged kicking and screaming into support for civil rights legislation. He only got on the horse when he realized he would be dragged behind it otherwise.L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:28 am
Eric and nk,
At the risk of making the attention hound (not to be confused with David Ehrenstein, though they post under the same name) happier, I for one would like to see that limit reached sooner rather than later.
Am somewhat more than tired of the attempted threadjackings as well as the vulgarity; they make this site all about one person instead of about all the posters and commenters. Mocking and laughing at the attention hound, without reacting to the substance of the attempted threadjack, seem to stop the attempted hijacks in their tracks while allowing the original conversation to continue.
BTW was really, truly impressed with Eric handled himself yesterday, basically addressing a snarking, nasty attention hound as if he were David Ehrenstein. nk’s reaction was totally understandable BTW, given the repeated vulgarity and nastiness which has been directed, personally, at him.
And lest the childish victimhood wails begin, yet again, am fully aware that David is an intelligent man with a lot to say. I wish HE would show up on this site more often as opposed to the attention hound. Am not interested in speaking to him personally just now (he has shown just a little too much interest in me of late, more than once singling me out among others who have the same opinion, asking repeatedly for my name etc.) but am interested in hearing all the honest opinions of everyone on this site, including David’s. (No, that does not include statements which are not opinions, just attention grabs.) Just not interested in someone screaming: EVERYONE TALK ABOUT MEEEEEE! every day. And neither is anyone else, I warrant.
This site isn’t called “Attention Hound Threadjacks.” I wish David Ehrenstein would keep that in mind.
/soapbox offno one you know (1f5ddb) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:30 am
See, folks. When the names go in quotations, when the Common Ehrensteinian Contradiction becomes apparent—no one can possibly understand the man, but he does understand everyone else—well, it is time for the rollercoaster to get nasty. Again.
David, please. You view everything through the lens of race and sexuality. I don’t base that on your apparent telepathy, but on your frequent posts on the subject.
But I fall into the same trap as everyone else. This is just a silly game to Mr. Ehrenstein. Others may want to play, but I do not. It always ends up with curse words and personal insults.
All of us have better things to do than to play the same game, all over again. It comes back to the “wrestling with a pig” model.Eric Blair (ef2392) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:34 am
NOYK….thanks for the kind words….to both myself and DRJ…they are special people…as are the many that do, and have done, the same thing for so many…
Comment by reff — 1/14/2008 @ 10:23 am
You’re right. And you’re welcome. 🙂no one you know (1f5ddb) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:34 am
The problem is that it “will not be ignored”. It will intrude on conversation between human beings by using its snout to throw its feces at either one or the other or both.nk (dda711) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:36 am
NOYK, very nice post. Thank you. As you say, time to get back to the topic at hand. “Threadjacking” is a great term.Eric Blair (ef2392) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:36 am
Oink! Oink!David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:37 am
^ Racista.Taco Bell Chihuahua (1b54e9) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:51 am
Always a pleasure to see a post from you, TBC. How do you feel about Hillary versus Obama? Are Hillary supporters racist, and Obama supporters sexist?
Your canine wisdom can help unravel this Gordian Knot of politics!Eric Blair (ef2392) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:55 am
Is this what it gets down to?
To read the MSM one would swear that all women were goign to vote for Hillary and all African-Americans were going to vote for Obama. Closer inspection reveals this not to be the case. Voters support one or the other — or neither — for a variety of different reasons. But the narratives the media cosntruct for us can only countenance one and one alone.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:06 am
Ah….you did know I was setting up a joke answer from TBC, I hope?Eric Blair (ef2392) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:12 am
No, David, it’s not about race for me, as I said before…but for you it is, race, and only race, which makes you the racist, because you put it on everyone else, and then complain when it’s put on you…
I’d love to have the discussion, but you can’t have one….reff (bff229) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:42 am
We have now entered fugue state.David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:57 am
Hillary Clinton y Barack Obama quisieran que los hispanos fueran los nuevos trabajadores de la plantación del Partido Democrático. ¡Sí patrón!Taco Bell Chihuahua (1b54e9) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:08 pm
As I expected, TBC, your response is trenchant and spot on.
Like me quote the Youth of America, in response:
Tru dat. Dubl tru!Eric Blair (ef2392) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:23 pm
Just for you, “George”David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:37 pm
I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard from reading David Ehrenstein’s moronic arguments or accusations. Thanks man.G (722480) — 1/14/2008 @ 1:44 pm
Now, David, I have very seldom been rude to you. There is no reason for you to carry your rudeness to this blog as you have in the past on other blogs. Or simply save your “I gotta be me” meme for your own blog.
But the one thing I have learned above all things in my dealings with you is never, ever to click on one of your links. You just aren’t very trustworthy about that sort of thing. Especially for those of us who do not work at home.
You always do the quotations business just before you get very bizarre and unreasonable. I hope that I am wrong about that, today.Eric Blair (ef2392) — 1/14/2008 @ 2:05 pm
Well you are. Not reason for you not to click on the link. It’s G-rated. (Not referring to “G” needless to say.)David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 2:11 pm
Trolls are just narcissists insisting – tho not arguing, that’s different – for more relative status for themselves. An honest discussion would reveal them to be mediocre, their greatest fear.
Please don’t feed them, guys, and always remember that with a troll, “it ain’t about what it’s about.”ras (fc54bb) — 1/14/2008 @ 2:15 pm
David, I know exactly who I am, and my belief in my personal identity is strong…
Much stronger than yours….
And, by the way, here in New Orleans each Mardi Gras, a large predominately African-American Krewe dresses themselves up in BLACK FACE and celebrates the season, and the farce of racial identity….
Maybe you could join them, but you would not be accepted by them….they try real hard not to see race in their worlds….reff (99666d) — 1/14/2008 @ 6:18 pm
John Lewis is on The News Hour ripping Obama a new one for this crap.
Well mothter pin a rose on you.
There have been numerous complaints that I’ve been makign this all about me. Why are you stoking this?David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/14/2008 @ 6:21 pm
There is an e-mail going around the Internet which claims that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. It refers to his early years spent in Indonesia (a Muslim country), and claims that Obama attended a medrassa (Islamic school) as well as a mosque. Further, the e-mail states that the Illinois senator took his senatorial oath on a Koran rather than a Bible. The subject of this e-mail came up in this week’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas. In response to a question, Obama stated unequivocally that he is a Christian and took the oath on a Bible. (Obama was born to a non-practicing Kenyan father and non-practicing-nominally Christian-American mother.
First of all, I take Senator Obama on his word that he is a Christian. The part about taking the oath on a Koran is in error since it was Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, who used a Koran for his oath in the House of Representatives. As for Obama, it appears that he may have had brief contact with an Islamic school or mosque while a child in Indonesia, but it has not been established by anyone that he underwent any prolonged Muslim training. Thus, I am concluding that this e-mail, wherever it came from is uncorroborated if not downright misleading.
Some observers have raised the question of how a President Obama would be received by Muslim peoples around the world; more specifically, if they might view him as an apostate-and thus, appropriate for assassination. I think that is a valid question.
Barack and Michelle Obama attend the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It is that church which causes me concern. Specificaly, the minister of that church, Dr Jeremiah Wright, is a controversial figure who has brought considerable embarrassment to Obama. There is no denying that this is an Afro-Centric church, one which, in its own literature, espouses a “Black Value System”. Minister Wright is a fiery speaker who talks of liberation theology. He has appeared on several talk shows, including Hannity and Colmes, where he has engaged in hot debate with Sean Hannity reciting a litany of grievances against American and Western Civilization.To call Dr Wright confrontational is an understatement.
In 2007, Wright added to his controversial reputation by giving an award to Louis Farrakhan on behalf of Trumpet Magazine, which he (Wright) publishes. (It should be noted that Obama has criticized his minister for giving the award to Farrakhan.)
Just last Sunday, Wright told his congregation that “Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton because her husband was good to us. That’s not true. He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.”
While I think that the Muslim issue will fade away, I look for the issue of Obama’s church and minister to grow-at least if he wins the Democratic nomination. Does Obama, in fact, belong to a church that believes in racial exclusion? I think at this point it would be appropriate for the mainstream media to begin asking Obama to explain his thoughts about Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ. (Of course, up to now, they are downplaying that angle lest the public at large become aware.) Does Obama subscribe to the philosophy of this Church and all of the words of Jeremiah Wright? Obama portrays himself as one who reaches across racial lines. The words of his own pastor contradict that image. If more Americans knew about Jeremiah Wright, they might hesitate before voting for Barack Obama.
gary fousefouse, gary c (d1488b) — 1/19/2008 @ 10:53 am