March 13, 2008
Clinton Plays the Race Card Again (Dick Morris)
The persistent flirtation by Clinton operatives, spokesmen and allies with the race issue, as epitomized by Geraldine Ferraro's statements this week, are not coincidental, but reflect a determination to inject racial bias into the current election.
Knowing that she appeals to a downscale electorate, who are no strangers to racism, Hillary is trying to use the race card to win. Her other hope is likely to entice Obama into playing what he calls "the angry black man" role so as to turn voters off. It is a disgusting approach to the election and the Clintons deserve to be called on it.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 20 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Dick;
It is not often that I agree with you but in this case I do. For what it is worth, I was a huge Bill and Hill supporter during their presidency. I was actually supportive of her going into the primary until Bill opened his mouth just before South Carolina. Now over the last few weeks, I am sorry that I ever did. The comments by her supporters and allies have turned me off to the Clintons and the sooner she bows out the better. Obama ran a beautiful campaign and beat her at every turn. She thought that this was suppose to be a crowning instead of a race and the result are showing. During February, she lost 11 contest in a row. If the shoe had been on the other foot, Obama probaly would have ended his campaign, but being that this is a Clinton, she fights on knowing that she can't win. By endorsing McCain over Obama, that was the last straw. She must go.
Comment by Mike Coleman — March 13, 2008 @ 10:30 am
Please read my response to John Feehery above.
Comment by Connie Manes — March 13, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Knock it off Dick, your newfound love for Obama is unseemly. Does Odinga really mean that much to you?
http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN447825.html
Comment by Igor R. — March 13, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Don’t let Ferraro be a diversion
Though I can’t believe Geraldine Ferraro, a self made woman, is supporting the sociopathic parasite MRS Clinton, I don’t believe she is racist: her history refutes this charge.
I believe she is saying that a white man would not have a chance against the first woman to run for president at least in the Democratic Party. Look at Joe Biden, John Edwards and the field of white men left by the wayside by the emergence of a incompetent woman and a gifted man who is African American. And of course, she could have stated it more eloquently but as an isolated statement, not as part of the Clinton race smear, the statement holds up and is not racist. I think the word lucky should have not been used but his timing is perfect.
She also said she was given the second slot on the ticket because she was a woman But that didn’t mean she wasn’t qualified. I think Barack Obama is the most exceptional candidate to emerge from the Democratic Party in the last two centuries. He is bright, creative, a quick study who shows exemplary judgment and organizational skills.
Let’s not heap abuse on Ferraro who has owned her clumsy statement and let’s instead question Hillary’s credentials which should begin with ‘Once upon a time”.
— Posted by james d granata
Comment by james d granata — March 13, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
I say Hillary got this far because of her own career but mainly because of who she is, Bill Clinton's wife. She also has a great deal of help by the right wing machine pushing the IDEA of her running for Pres since way back in 2000. They thought she'd do in it 2004 –
Comment by Connie Manes — March 13, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
What's really interesting is how Obama goes to a church where the minister is a race baiter and white basher, claims America got what it deserved on 9/11, and gets away with it. In fact, that minister is now working for the Obama campaign. Can you imagine if a white candidate had the equivalent of a KKK member associated with his campaign? Geraldine Ferraro was right and got thrown under the bus for it.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — March 13, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
This is looking more like a fencing match…Where one opponent has the rules down, OBAMA, and the other has taken boxing lessons, Clinton.
She stabs[she is playing the old game] and he parries.
Fencing is finesse. The new politics can be that and not the KNOCK OUT PUNCH, especially in our own party.
This is the first time in over 40 yrs that I have ever heard a candidate endorse an opponent from the other party, As Clinton DID in ENDORSING McCAIN.
As a woman , I am ashamed of the clinton conduct and do not believe for a moment that it is not calculated…They have done this kind of thing since Arkansas.
Comment by Docb — March 13, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
RR;
What about McCain's supporter John Hagee? What about his other suppoeter that stated that America was founded to destroy Islam? Don't go there as you are seriously unarmed.
Comment by Mike Coleman — March 13, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Is John Hagee working for John McCain's campaign? I don't believe so. Is John Hagee John McCain's minister? No. Uneducated simple minds always bring in points that are irrelevant.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — March 13, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Any substance aside, is anyone else sick to death of hearing little Dicky whine about the Clintons? He sounds like the grown woman on Montel Williams expounding on how horrible her life has been since she got bullied in third grade. Get over it Dick.
Comment by bking — March 13, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
I'm with Mr. Rosencrans, we need a new crusade against Islam, and we patriotic American's (GOP) have been ordained to do just that.
Obama's minister was trained in a mandrassa as was reported on Fox tonight. He spews hatred towards Irish people and really, deep down, hates Jesus. We conservatives can spot these sinful characteristics miles away.
We need more clear thinking conservatives like Robert.
Mr. Rosencrans, did you serve our country?
Joe Spears
Comment by Joe Freedom — March 13, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Robert you are right, Obama does no wrong, and uses the race card every time anybody in the Hillary campaign say's black. It is ridiculous, it really is.
Comment by diane b — March 13, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
# 5 states "I say Hillary got this far because of her own career "
What career:Spouse ? Look up her record. Hillary's experience lies in lying.
She has lied about everything from the spelling of her name to her involvement in the Irish Peace Process. if she really had a record why all the lies?
Comment by james d granata — March 14, 2008 @ 8:04 am
RR and the other people who think that America can take on Islam. Those who worship Islam number 1.5 billion people from around the world and for the most part are broken into two sects - Shia & Sunni. On the other hand Christian are broken into many sects - Catholic, Baptsit, Methodist, etc. Now who among you are going to take on Islam. The Sunnis and Shias have been fighting for 1400 year and it took George Bush to unite them. So go ahead start something, myself, I'm going to sit back and watch. Also here is the breakdown;
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Comment by Mike Coleman — March 14, 2008 @ 10:58 am
I never said anything about anyone taking on anyone. Your lack of reading comprehension skills is coming to fruition again Mike.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — March 14, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
RR;
In you post #6 you railed about what Obama pastor said about 9/11 but you forgot or ignored what Falwell and Robertson said about 9/11. Since you forgot, I'll refresh your memory:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I&feature=related
Enjoy and don't thank me, you deserved it.
Comment by Mike Coleman — March 14, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Hmm. Here we are, in this proverbial horse race of a campaign, and the flashy tactical exacta ticket of religion AND race is purchased and laid on the table for the MSM to lay their grubby hands on. Wake up. No one wins with this one. This WILL truly divide us all.
I will bring up a few salient thoughts about the subject, since it hasn't run its minimum 48 hour news cycle yet; with the hope that it will only last that long. We must get back to the issues that affect this country and are at stake in this election. First off, get the facts straight. Rev. Wright is NOT a 'part of Obama's campaign'. I heard this same erroneous insinuation out of the mouth of Howard Wolfson, Clinton's Communications Director, just this morning. I think that this is a continuation of the subtle race-baiting tactics of the Clinton campaign, just ratcheted down a bit to a dog whistle tonal range. Obama distanced himself from the pastor in a televised debate, and denounced Farrakhan. Religion is not 'groupthink', or millions of Catholics wouldn't come home from mass, go to their respective nightstands and down birth control pills and don condoms. Or lob verbal hate-bombs at their gay neighbors and associates. Get a grip, here. The guy doesn't speak for Obama. I think maybe we have been so shocked at how lockstep the whack jobs of the religious right (recall Falwell, anyone? Lets blame 911 on the lesbians and fags?) believe everything their respective bellicose pastors espouse, that we are too hasty to ascribe guilt by association.
There is no cohesive, centralized reality. Each person's version of reality is distilled from their own slanted perspectives. The reverend, although I cannot condone his preachings, is a product of his age, and experiences. He's in his 70's, I think. That puts him squarely in the Civil Rights era, and a life of strife…just trying to get the basic rights that I never had to even question. I would like for people to step back from the emotional rhetoric for a moment. Separate out the emotion from the words, and print the words out on a page. A lot, not all, of his statements are not untrue, to an objective mind. I know that as a petite blond woman, I have no problem getting a cab on the first wave. I have NO relative perspective on what it is like to have cab after cab after cab pass me by as a black man. I'll bet Hillary has been called quite a few things, but the 'N' word isn't likely to be one of them. I could answer to almost each and every count, yet I think you get my point.
Religion should be back where our founding fathers intended. Remember the separation of church and state, anyone? I don't agree with anyone damning things from the pulpit, and don't think that politics has a place in ANY church; it's my opinion. Three hundred million of us have the right to express it. This avenue is a dead end.
It is the exacta-ticket of race and religion in this presidential horse race that WILL divide us all, and leave the tattered pieces on the dirty paddock grounds for the likes of John McCain to gleefully pick up and run with…
Comment by Kara — March 14, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Dick,
You are an idiot "has been." Trust me, you have zero audience.
Comment by Tom — March 14, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
Hillary has her 'henchmen' sitting in the shadows waiting to use every avenue to disenchant Obama and the voters, She is not transparent enough to suit me I will not vote for her under the circumstances that she does not allow the public to see her public records.
Comment by Violet — March 16, 2008 @ 10:51 am
You feeling like
you’re better than he is today?
You done wrote his epitaph too,
like the rest of the world?
Who give you the privilege?
God help him, what it’s done to him
when do you think is the time
to love somebody the most?
When he’s done good and made things
easy for everybody?
That ain’t the time at all
It’s when he’s at his lowest…
because the world’s whipped him so!
When you starts measuring somebody…
…measure him right.
You make sure that
you done taken into account…
…the hills and the valleys
he’s come through…
…to get to wherever he is
. ~ Lorraine Hansberry ~
God Bless America ~ “Change We Can Believe In”
Comment by Robin Benson — March 16, 2008 @ 6:03 pm