May 4, 2008
The Media-Created Big Lie (Lanny Davis)
(Mr. Davis is a longtime friend and supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and a fundraiser for her presidential campaign.)
It's bad enough that the charge of playing the race card against Sen. Hillary and former President Bill Clinton is utterly and demonstrably false.
But so many African-Americans have come to believe this bogus charge that Sen. Clinton's favorable opinions in the black community have dropped significantly and many are telling reporters they won't support Sen. Clinton in the general election if she wins the nomination.
The false perception that Sen. and President Clinton interjected race into the campaign for political purposes is a direct result of distorted reporting by most of the media covering the race. Let's look at the facts behind the four incidents that, in a space of one to two months, led to converting the Big Lie into a perceived truth by so many Democrats, black and white alike:
1. The drug issue. In December 2007, Sen. Clinton's New Hampshire campaign chairman told a reporter he was worried about the Republican hate machine misusing Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) statement in his first book that he had experimented with drugs as a youth. The campaign official immediately realized his error, apologized, and voluntarily resigned his position. Sen. Clinton immediately apologized personally to Sen. Obama.
Yet the media widely reported that the Clinton campaign was behind this statement as part of a deliberate effort to "play the race card." There was never then, and is still not now, a shred of fact or evidence to support that charge. Yet many African-Americans believed it.
2. President Clinton's ‘fairy tale’ phrase. Shortly thereafter, just before the Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary, the media repeatedly reported in print and on TV that President Clinton had described the Obama campaign as a "fairy tale." But this was another lie.
The "fairy tale" phrase, in fact, was used by President Clinton only to describe Sen. Obama's characterization of his consistent opposition to the 2002 Iraq war vote and the conduct of the war, in contrast to Sen. Clinton's record. The actual facts of his record, President Clinton believed, were not consistent with Obama’s own characterizations — for example, Sen. Obama's answer in 2004, "I don't know," when he was asked whether he would have voted against the resolution had he actually been a U.S. senator; or his statement in the summer of 2004 that there was "not much difference" between his "position" on the Iraq war and President Bush's. (In fact, since Sen. Obama arrived in the Senate in January 2005, he and Sen. Clinton voted the same on 84 to 85 votes regarding the war, the only exception being when Sen. Obama supported the president's promotion of a general and Sen. Clinton opposed it. Few anti-war, pro-Obama Democrats even today are aware of these undisputable facts.)
But when African-Americans heard the media state in print and on TV again and again that President Clinton had called the Obama campaign or narrative a "fairy tale," they erroneously believed that to be true. And they were naturally offended because they thought President Clinton had disrespected the possibility of an African-American being elected president.
3. President Clinton's reference to the Rev. Jesse Jackson. On the morning of the South Carolina primary (not after, as was widely misunderstood), President Clinton said that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had won the South Carolina primary in 1988. That was a fact. Everyone knew that the Rev. Jackson had won the South Carolina primary and in other Deep South states largely because of substantial support from African-American voters, who constituted a large percentage of all primary voters.
Was President Clinton, a supportive husband and shrewd politician, trying to minimize in advance the adverse political impact of the anticipated substantial victory by Sen. Obama that night? Of course. Some can legitimately criticize President Clinton's judgment concerning the timing of this comment. I wouldn't be surprised if, in retrospect, President Clinton himself would agree with that criticism. But it is a huge — and unfair — leap from questioning his judgment in defense of his wife to accusing President Clinton of intentionally playing the race card.
4. Dr. King and LBJ. The most egregious distortion feeding the Big Lie was the criticism of Sen. Clinton's factual statement, also in the days leading up to South Carolina primary, crediting President Lyndon Johnson for the enactment of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act in the aftermath of Dr. Martin Luther King's inspiring "I Have a Dream” speech and the Kennedy assassination. In reaction to that statement, the media did their anti-Clinton distortion thing again. They found African-American officials who, already buying into false perception of the Clinton campaign exploiting race, wrongly accused Sen. Clinton of disrespecting Dr. King by way of her statement.
The irony is that by repeating the bogus "race card" accusation against Sen. and President Clinton, African-American leaders, egged on by the media’s misreporting, arguably themselves had unwittingly interjected race into the campaign well before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue.
An even more malignant manifestation of the Big Lie is the increasingly frequent suggestion that any criticism of Sen. Obama must be, by definition, really about his race. An example occurred just this past Saturday in a New York Times op-ed piece. The writer (whose background or bias is not disclosed) declares that "the Clintons pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments," and cites as examples that Sen. Clinton had "chastised [Sen. Obama's] characterization of white working-class voters as being highfalutin" (the latter being the writer's word, not Sen. Clinton's) and had "chided him for not agreeing to a street-fight-style debate" (the writer's term for Sen. Clinton's suggestion of a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with no moderator (!)).
But these examples have nothing to do with race. Does it not at least seem to be reverse racism to suggest that any criticisms of Sen. Obama having nothing to do with his race necessarily must be about his race?
In the last few weeks, one senior African-American congressional leader told newspapers that there are some in the black community who believe that Sen. Clinton is motivated to "so weaken Sen. Obama that he loses to Sen. [John] McCain [R-Ariz.] in 2008 … thus allowing her to run again in 2012."
This is sad — and not only because this belief is utterly baseless. Worse, it is unfair to Sen. Clinton and her husband for African-Americans to forget or discount their 40-year history of fighting for civil rights, affirmative action and economic justice.
In the final analysis, I have confidence that most African-Americans, who themselves have been the historical victims of lies and stereotypes, will see through the distortions of the media and appreciate the true facts. When they do, they will once gain remember the record of both Sen. and President Clinton and enthusiastically support Sen. Clinton if and when she is the Democratic candidate.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 80 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
Clintons did what they could to remind voters in every state that Obama is a black candidate and to attribute his early victories to large percentage of blacks in SC, IL, and other states, MLK statements, and to paint him as unelectable "fairy tale" to white voters by digging for his past drug use, Rev.Wright, etc. Nothing wrong with that. With Obama carrying huge black vote in primaries, that's the most logical way to energize white Democratic voters and to partially suppress black turnout to propel Hillary to nomination. It's not clear why Clintons must apologize for any of it. Besides, if Hillary is nominated, she & Bill will visit a few dozen black churches and pledge how she'd fight for black community if elected. Translation: more black cabinet members like Joycelyn Elders, economic "stimulus" packages for large cities with black populations (cash rewards for putting Hillary in office), and other freebies at taxpayers' expense.
Comment by Misha F — May 4, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Hillary and Bill took the black vote for granted, and as far as the media lying, Hillary injected race into the campaign after Iowa. When she saw that white voters were voting for a black man, she wanted to 'remind' people that he was black. Bill knows that damage they have done and he also knows she cannot win without the black vote but all we hear about is what can he do to win the white vote. Bill, Hillary, and the republican controlled media have fallen in love with race all of a sudden and are hoping that the rest of the country jumps on their bandwagon, but it's not happening. She is trying to change her tune but too little, much late.So people like Misha and you Lanny are going to be disappointed. We have seen through her and Mcinsanes gas tax holiday and so have all the economic experts. But, much more importantly, so have the superdelegates. He carries blacks because he's black. She carries whites because she's white. He just happens to be the better candidate that's why he is carrying the majority of both. Do the math. the real math, not her math.
Comment by yvonne — May 4, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Lanny, you have lost your mind if you think African American voters are going to support Hillary after proclaiming in cigar smoked filled rooms'He can't win'. Do you reslly think you have a leg to stand on witht hat comment. It's too late to see how the black vote can be recaptured for her. She should have thought about that before she tried to make him the 'black only' candidate.
Comment by yvonne — May 4, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
Lol!!!!!!!!
HRC: Lanny, the negroes are angry at us, please fix this!!
Lanny: Yes maam, I will post on the Hill Blog!
Lanny you've completely lost your credibility.
African Americans are incensed at the Clintons and the only way they can begin to repair the damage is by vigorously campaigning for Obama in the fall. The Clinton brand and legacy has been severely damaged and I hope you relay this message to your Clinton masters:
If she steals this nomination, African Americans will not vote for her, not even Obama will help undo this fact. Therefore, she will lose PA, OH, VA, and MI. The superdels know this and that is why her pleas are argument is not winning them over.
If Obama loses in the fall, the Clintons will be blamed for using Rovian tactics and race baiting to weaken him. Sidney Blumenthal and others like you are hard at work using right wing media outlets to discredit Obama.
She will NOT win in 2012, Obama will run again and still African Americans will not vote for her.
I hope IND and NC voters see the light Tuesday and close this race out, then we can all be spared of your BS spin.
Comment by Theard — May 4, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
When you belong to a political party whose foundations and beliefs are semantical equality which thrives by identifying potential victims to take advantage of, you can hardly complain when those alleged victims, who are really not victims at all, fight back against not becoming a victim, even though there are not victims, only suckers who have been lead to believe they are victims. In short, they are dopes, and you can't blame them for acting like anything but duped dopes.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 4, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
'In December 2007, Sen. Clinton's New Hampshire campaign chairman told a reporter he was worried about the Republican hate machine misusing Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) statement in his first book that he had experimented with drugs as a youth.'
He was worried about the REPUBLICAN hate machine using it so he brought it up and let the CLINTON hate machine use it. GO AWAY.
Comment by james d granata — May 4, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
" President Clinton's reference to the Rev. Jesse Jackson. On the morning of the South Carolina primary (not after, as was widely misunderstood), President Clinton said that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had won the South Carolina primary in 1988."
Check out the jon steward video ' the tide is turning' on you tube and see Clinton smirk 'jesse jackson won South Carolina in 1984 and 88″ and see how it was said. Lanny, lanny we are not all Clinton supporters: we actually check what was said. Nothing was misunderstood.
Comment by james d granata — May 4, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Well, you have now done it. You all have taken it from an election process to a hate fest. Way to go! I find it astounding that you whine about the reputation Bush has given us worldwide whilst you fight like little girls on the playground. This is exactly why I could never be a democrat. Bush did not hurt America. You're immaturity did.
Comment by OldSarg — May 4, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
If the Afrain-Americans wants to set their race back 100 years and ruin OBAMA CAREER!! I think he and his pastor did that already so don't hang this on the Clintons or the democratic party. We really knew nothing about Obama. Now the chickens have come to roost in his own house and church. I know this is not what American is about and I am glad we know about Obama. His life is not the fairy tale he wanted the people to think and his book "Audacity of Hope" from one of Rev Wright sermon. He loved his pastor who had been a father figure to him. He beleives very much as he does or he would have left the church. He would not want his children growing in the same teachings.
Sorry Obama supporters get over it. Go clean your own closet and don't throw the first stone. This has come to roost in your house not mine.
Comment by Ann Chamberlain — May 4, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
The Obama-bots will forever claim that any criticism of Obama is racism. Meanwhile the blacks are voting for him at 90%. Now, who is really being racist?
Comment by Igor R. — May 4, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
Lanny is willfully drowning in both the Clinton kool aide, and the Clinton past (which is
history). When Lanny now speaks
or writes, Lanny flacks. Embarrassing, actually.
Comment by Rita1 — May 4, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
so many African-Americans have come to believe this bogus charge . . .Let's look at the facts
Lanny thinks that African-Americans are basically misinformed and don't know where their interests properly lie, and he's here to educate them.
Comment by Don Bacon — May 4, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Yvonne - Blacks would vote 90% for Dems no matter what, they will not support McCain, not stupid to vote for Nader and large numbers need Government help. They are not concerned of his association with Rev. Wright, probably because they understand the "context" in which our friendly Reverend talks. Carrying white vote for Obama would be more difficult than carrying black vote for Hillary in general election. That's why it's a legitimate question that shall be asked of super delegates.
Comment by Misha F — May 4, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
OK Lanny, we won't believe our lying eyes and ears; nudge, nudge, wink, wink
Comment by Lester — May 5, 2008 @ 12:45 am
Many black americans including myself suspect that Hillary would rather throw the election to John Mccain if she doesn't win this time.
She is using Karl Rove tactics and appearing all smile on Fox network. If she wins, Fox news is going to grind her up and spit her out. Hillary, you are dancing with the Devil!
Please run this video
This is the transcript of former Mayor, Ed Rendell, who is Governor of Pennsylvania and the states most influential supporter of Presidential hopeful, Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking to a packed audience at Tindley Temple United Methodist Church on April 14, 1997 at rally: "A Solution Too Heal The Racial Divide." The then mayor was the principal organizer of the rally that brought together diverse religious, political, and civic Philadelphia leaders, with Nation of Islam leader, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan as the keynote speaker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA
Comment by culpeperson — May 5, 2008 @ 2:05 am
The Democratic race for nomination is very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates. Nevertheless.. Indiana ,Idaho and West Virginia are still to come.
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Obama in office?!
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy…
Clinton Supporters too …. !
It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?!
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy…
REALLY easy to identify the superdelegates and reach out to them! It includes a list of names, addresses, and affiliations of superdelegates from each state including your state
Comment by Jack — May 5, 2008 @ 5:02 am
'The Media Created Big Lie' and their biggest fib is that MRS Clinton has the experience, intellect, management skills and temperament to run anything let alone be the POTUS. comparing her to less than stellar presidents will still not make her acceptable for she is a creation of Hype, Hubby and Hyperbole.
Comment by james d granata — May 5, 2008 @ 7:20 am
As for a Gas Tax Holiday, John McCain or Hillary will not be President this summer so how can John McCain or Hillary really Implement this idea into FACT.. they can't! It is a gimmick that they cannot produce on… That is so sad, and another example of Politicians trying to fool people for a vote on an idea or Gift they can't deliver on or produce! Barack will not make a Phony Promise!
As for the obliteration of Iran remark, we should recall what Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill wrote in position 8 after World War II in The Atlantic Charter, both who knew and were familiar with the horrors of war….
Position "Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments."
Frankllin D. Roosevelt
Winston S. Churchill
Less we forget the Issues that really matter!
Comment by Angellight — May 5, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Who cares about the black vote? They hardly vote in elections anyway. The only reason whites are supporting Obama is because it's politically correct to vote for the black guy. Yet these same people would never vote for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Why? Because neither Jackson nor Sharpton are the black houseboy who would pander to whites like Obama is doing.
Comment by John Simmons — May 5, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Lanny,
Your grovelling apologia for HRC and Bill is so mealy-mouthed and smarmy it makes one want to turn quickly away and metaphorically wash one's hands. This severly-flawed couple is what the leading stars and dominant force of the center-right wing coalition of the Democratic Party in truth have come to? There has been no growth. HRC and Bill continue to wallow in the same kind of trickery we saw as they entered the White House; and through the next 8-years. Lany, you should be ashamed.
The racist ploy has worked again. TV news is filled with pictures of potential voters, who are not doing well economically, spitting out that "My family will never vote for a black man" sentence. The Clintons have managed to displace issues like jobs, education, housing, and rising food prices with race, the single, overarching issue for whites in the US. Whites don't seem to mind some pain, as long as they can be assured that blacks feel even more, as pandering politicians wink and promise to keep it that way. Wite voter rarely seem able to jump the hurdle and face the fact that by punishing blacks they hurt themselves, too.
So, with the "tax stimulus" and the "gas tax holiday" we see another example of too many potential voters still sucking shit through a straw and being told it's a milkshake; and buying the lie.
Comment by barbara day — May 5, 2008 @ 10:11 am
The Pastard ended Obama's chances in the general election. The Obama miracle story is moving from a cult to a political cult classic about how not to run radicals and call them Messiahs.
Comment by Igor R. — May 5, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
A Political Perspective from Abroad
5th May 2008
In a time of universal deceit,
according to George Orwell, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. Most of us tell lies; we tell lies naturally. In fact, we all embellish the facts occasionally or omit critical minutiae in the narrative, to serve our own purpose. That is of course unless you happen to be a politician and as you probably know by now, politicians don’t lie, but merely inadvertently misspeak. Perhaps, now that we have had the prerequisite quota of political misspeak and vigilantly crafted diatribe, which is purposely scripted to bamboozle an impressionable electorate, we can get to the business of debating the real issues and making an informed evaluation of the candidates and their relevant political ideologies.
Senator Clinton’s curriculum vitae has been comprehensively debated and analyzed and in this respect she can justifiably claim to have greater political experience than that of Senator Obama. In contrast, Senator Obama and his activists are claiming to match her experience and offer as testament, his short term tenure as an Illinois Senator and as a local political activist, to prove that he is more qualified and more experienced to run for the White House. The facts of the matter are that he is neither more qualified, nor more experienced.
It is not always what we know about a person which is important but in some circumstances it is perhaps, what we don’t know about the person or what is concealed to hide some dark secret or adverse trait in their character. In this respect we must ask ourselves a few questions; who is Senator Obama, what does he believe in and what does he represent? To date Senator Obama has been packaged and presented like a pop idol, with well rehearsed one liners and catchy ‘change’ jingles, but in reality, what does this all mean? Do we know anything at all about this one man band, without a single hit to his name? He speaks of ‘changing how things are done in Washington’. What specifically is he advocating to change in the Washington political landscape, what are the mechanics of these changes and how will these changes manifest themselves? Who are these learned speech writers and philosophical mentors counseling Senator Obama on this new political crusade? What the electorate needs to know is; who is this new evangelist and what does he represent in factual terms? What part will Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend and close Obama friend, play in his thought process when confronted with moral dilemmas or political issues of racism or domestic policies effecting the white and black American population? What part will William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist and lifetime Obama friend, who is accredited with being his political architect and for launching his political career from his home in 1995, play in influencing his development of economic or foreign policies, dealing with homeland security or combating global terrorism? What political ideology do these two men share today, that could influence White House decisions tomorrow, if Obama is elected president? What part will Tony Rezko, Obama friend and indicted business man who is facing federal corruption charges, play in his thinking complexity on issues relating to corruption in businesses and in politics, if Obama is elected to office? In fact, Senator Obama’s high profile friendships and encounters with such unfavourable individuals begs further questions, which are; what other associates of dubious character has Senator Obama encountered on his political odyssey and what allegiance is due to them? What damaging influences have these undesirable close advisers, friends and associates inflicted on the subliminal mind of Obama? It may be already too late for Senator Obama to submit satisfactory explanations on his past or current associations with these individuals, but these issues will not disappear and can potentially cause mortal damage to his political aspirations and to the party he represents. As the old saying goes; ‘show me your friends and I will tell you who you are’. By omitting to deal comprehensively with these issues and denouncing these affiliations, he demonstrates an astonishing distrust for the people to whom he seeks to serve and a lack of respect for the American voters’ intelligence.
If all of this is not sufficient hot water for Senator Obama to find himself in, he must also redress his staggering arrogance and complacency about job losses in ‘‘these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations’’. The question I pose is; does this not sound very similar to the vitriol of the non patriotic Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Senator Obama, who appears to be bankrupt of any sensitivity to the plight and misery of ‘out of work blue collar workers’, will need to convince these same voters that he is, in fact, sympathetic to their ruinous circumstances and that he didn’t intend to describe them in such ill chosen terms. Above all else, he will need to convince them that they should now vote for him and make him their President. When analyzing Obama’s blue collar workers’ soliloquy, it is apparent from the text that this is not an off the cuff political paraphrase, but is a meticulously constructed coherent political statement, designed to attack the deprived sectors of the less fortunate American population in order to impress his targeted middle and upper class electorate.
All of these issues need to be urgently assessed by the Democratic Party members and by the Super delegates in the context of their political impact, before dispatching a potentially damaged and suspect nominee into contest with the respected Senator John McCain. There is no doubt, that when the battle lines are drawn, the Republican Party machine, together with the force of the media, will swing into overdrive on these issues and bury Senator Obama’s reputation and with it the hopes of a Democratic President.
Now is the time to elect a credible Democratic contender for the presidential contest and that person is Senator Hillary Clinton.
John Shortall
Comment by John Shortall — May 5, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Lanny,
You should have pointed this out a long time ago. Everyone I have spoken to has realized for quite some time that the Obama campaign and the media were race baiting from day one. Because of this disgusting type of behavior from the Obama people, the media and the AA community to to resort to race baiting, the American people wil NOT elect Snobama the next President. He has been the one dividing this party, not the Clintons. I am so sick of the Obama supporters crying racism everytime their candidate takes a little criticisim. Grow up and get over it Obamabots. I for one am sick of it and I am tired of the threats from the AA community that they will riot if Obama loses. NEWSBREAK! The nominiation is NOT Obama's until he wins it and they BOTH need the SD's for the nomination.
McCain gets 40% of the democrats vote, should Obama win. How about that fact???
Comment by Robin — May 5, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
LANNY, you are delusional –just like your candidte…and her husband.
Barbara day is 'spot on'!!
Comment by Docb — May 5, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
John Shortall, if you needed to see a particular neurosurgeon and somebody informed you that (a) she used to date a serial killer (b) three of her former husbands died under mysterious circumstances (d) two apartments and two houses she used to live in caught fire under mysterious circumstances, you'd at least consider this information and weigh it carefully against her qualifications. You'd ask yourself if she is the only one you could see, and you wouldn't call your concerns "guilt by association", and would only chose her if she was a unique specialist with irreplaceable skills.
America may or may not need a specialist to "save" her, but Obama is no specialist. There is not a particular reason to elect Obama based on his barely tolerable qualifications. Yet his past is full or absolutely weird associations and he is being sold like a bottle of expensive perfume. I think this perfume is covering up a terrible stench, and we are just not desperate enough to take a chance on this slick-meister.
Comment by Igor R. — May 5, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Mike the Editor, I just posted something here that disappeared. I don't want to double post, based on the earlier discussion, but if you could track it down that would be appreciated.
Comment by Igor R. — May 5, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
Robin-
Since your post make absolutely no sense and borders on the brink of lunacy,
I will respond in kind.
As an Obama supporter, I object to the term Obamabot, especially when I was the first one here who actually coined the term “talking point autobot” referring to some Repubs who recite the party platform in perfect unison without challenge. You must remember that most Obama supporters are elitist and highly educated; we are in fact total snobs that look down on regular folk.
Henceforth, I will patent the term “Talking autobots” and similar coined terms to keep it from the Repub vernacular.
Dear Hill Editors:
Please ban violators from posting or punish them by starting each subsequent post they submit with: “YES WE CAN!”
Comment by Theard — May 5, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Dear John Shorfall:
Paragraphs are a blogger's best friend and your long rambling post falls short. (pun intended.)
I doubt many posters here actually read your dissertation, but heck, welcome to the debate and I will attempt a response.
Clinton lost the nomination and the superdelegates will not overturn the will of the voters. If she loses in Indiana tom (she will lose NC), her fate is sealed. If she wins, she fights on till 6/3. Clinton is a polarizing figure that will galvanize a Republican base that is otherwise lukewarm to a McCain's nomination, so most Republicans are hoping that she wins.
Re: Rezko, Ayers and Wright.
I see that you are well versed on the Repub talking points. They’ve already tried to link Obama in two congressional races and both candidates lost.
Ayers- will have no effect, the association is tangential at best
Rezko- no effect
Wright-some effect but damage will be minimal if yet another closely watched congressional race taking place next week is won by the Dems.
There is no doubt that Repubs will continue to raise these issues in the general election, but will SHORTFALL as the electorate will be more concerned with the economy and the Iraq war.
Comment by Theard — May 5, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Theard, your surprising confidence in Obama's chances is like confidence in the survival of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Before Wright, he appealed to every lunatic with an active imagination who could mentally project his empty promises to be anything at all. Now it's down to the radical left wing and the "let's get a brother in the White House, who cares what he believes in" crowd.
Comment by Igor R. — May 5, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Oh yeah, and read this wonderful thesis by Michelle, that's surely the first lady we want, no doubt:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2305083/PrincetonEducated-Blacks-and-the-Black-Community
Comment by Igor R. — May 5, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Obama is just bad all around: a perspective from the left:
http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed0508
Comment by Igor R. — May 5, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
The story of Obama is a Greek tragedy?
http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3190/2/
Comment by Igor R. — May 5, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
Conspiracy theories in the black community:
http://rand.org/news/press.05/01.25.html
Comment by Igor R. — May 5, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Last post: "Indisputable facts". This post "demonstrably false". Wow, I'm convinced! That sounds like it has to be true!
I caucused twice for John Edwards.
I am so impressed with your in depth understanding about what "most African-Americans" are thinking.
Since I am white, I would not presume to suggest that I know what a majority of African Americans are thinking. Certainly President Clinton bringing up the fact (this is indisputable) that Jesse Jackson won S. Carolina, (large number of African-American voters) had nothing to do with race. Neither African-Americans, and Caucasian-Americans are stupid as a group.
I find it hard to imagine that the African -American or the Caucasian community would react positively to a situation in which the person with the most elected delegates is denied the nomination.
Have you thought at all about the younger people who are engaged in the process?. Are you really interested in blowing off these young voters, who are going democratic, now? These voters may NEVER come back.
My kids and I caucused for Edwards, twice. Our guy didn't make the cut.Obama, first place, Clinton second place. My 11 year old son, down with it. My 11 year old daughter, down with it My 4 year old boy, totally gets it. Get over it, and do the right thing for our children.
Oh, except Lanny doesn't respond to these comments, because he has already figured out what we think.
That can't be right, 'cause Senator Clinton wasn't go to listen to "elites", especially economists- oops, forgot that President Clinton has a master's in economics.
Are you even reading these, Lanny?
Comment by Doug King — May 5, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
It's amusing how main stream media blames Clintons for using racial strategy, yet they frequently proclaim that "Obama carries educated white and African-Americans" votes, period. They can't be implying that African-American voters are not educated, can they?
Comment by Misha F — May 6, 2008 @ 2:34 am
Mr. Davis,
You are expending whatever remaining political capital you have on weak, losing arguments.
What is left for you after this?
What do you owe the Clintons that you are willing do destroy your already vastly-reduced credibility for topics like these?
Is this going to be your legacy? What a shame.
Comment by disgusted — May 6, 2008 @ 5:11 am
Mr. Davis, This is what I believe to be true, and I feel Obama is the only one that come snorting and huffing straight out of the chute using his race to gain votes. His people using propaganda like "Only the old uneducated women support Hillary", or "You Racist Manic", and using things like "The only black people supporting Hillary are the poor and uneducated" this is what his supporters and team played in my state during our Primary and I feel it's been used in every state, until everyone is sick of hearing it.
NBC is owned by General Electric, and they are the second largest corporation in the whole world. The Billionaires who own G. E. are backing Obama, because he voted just like they wanted him to vote as Senator of Illinois. The Chicago Senator voted for everything G. E. wanted and they have put a whole lot of money into getting him elected. G. E. does not care about Ayers, Wright, Soros, Farrahkan, Rezko, none of the dirty people Obama associates with. Making more money off of a candidate is all they do care about, they are no different than the Halliburton union of our President now. George Soros is another person who has thrown a big amount of money at Obama, and George Soros is a crazy Billionaire from Europe who works hard to abolish our Amendment Rights. He tries to have the Second Amendment abolished for years, and he has found a candidate who supports his way of thinking, and it's BHO. Soros is trying to have one money and one nation world wide, this is true, just like it says in Revelations. The New York Senator HRC voted against G.E. and they hate her. Most of our Big Media we listen to daily try to brain wash us into believing them, and they are owned by a handful of Billionaires who's only interest is making money, and more money. The Media in the United States has been picking our Presidents for years, they do this by using Communist ways and telling half truths or attacking candidates they are against. Many of the Big Media have no religion at all, they are Agnostic and I feel Satan is working through these empty vessels. I will be voting for McCain if the Super Delegates lose their minds and vote BHO as Democratic Nominee, because I will never vote for the person the Billionaires are backing. I will never vote for a Rockefeller or for a candidate a Rockefeller supports.
Obama is the only one who has played that tired old race card from day one, and the media, who are owned by the billionaires that hate the Clinton's play it too. All of the major news papers and magazines have called anyone racist names that have not supported Obama in the different states. If that isn't Obama playing on race than what is? Calling people names like Racist Maniac or Bigot along with other choice four letter words if you ask about his brother or his Muslim background and upbringing are playing the race card.
Stop picking on Mr. Davis, he tells the truth and I like him, and he is one of the few who is writing here that I like, with an exception to Igor and Karen. I like Igor and Karen here, but many of you do like the media I describe and Mike can't write a sentence without bringing up races, but I understand completely since he is from Chicago.
I have many important things to do today, and I can't believe I come here again and read your comments, because many of them make me sick and tired of the media based propaganda.
I could be wrong, but I read and I love to read and this is what I'm taking away from the things I read, and what do I know I'm just a mother and housewife, but I do like Mr. Davis. I wrote today to take up for him, and I don't mind being attacked once again, it's become normal to be attacked by his supporters and I know from experience what to expect from them. I was happy to hear our First Lady speak yesterday, because I like Laura Bush too, so I'm not a strict Democratic voter, I go both ways.
Comment by WE KNOW — May 6, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Lanny you are contradicting yourself:
First you state: "The false perception that Sen. and President Clinton interjected race into the campaign for political purposes is a direct result of distorted reporting by most of the media covering the race."
but later:
"Was President Clinton, a supportive husband and shrewd politician, trying to minimize in advance the adverse political impact of the anticipated substantial victory by Sen. Obama that night? Of course."
Comment by Phyllis — May 6, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Oh Lanny, there are many many more white Americans who believe what you characterize as a "Big Lie" to be accurate, and to suggest that African Americans are supporting Barack Obama because of it is
more of the same dismissive and belittling attitude that got Bill into trouble in the first place.
Support for Barack Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the Clintons' admirable record on civil rights, affirmative action, and economic justice.
Comment by Phyllis — May 6, 2008 @ 11:28 am
The damage that you do to your candidate by stating in your arrogant manner that "Barack Obama CANNOT win in November" on Larry King Live and other venues, is immeasurable.
The electorate knows full well that Obama can win in November, and will do it easily with the support of the Clinton machine.
Why do you persist in denigrating his chances — please tell us why he can't win? Is it because he is black and all these racist voters will reject him?
African-Americans want to know!
Comment by Phyllis — May 6, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Phyllis, could it be because Lanny's job is to improve Hillary's chances of being elected?
Comment by Igor R. — May 6, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Igor-Geez, u have been busy. No time to read a thesis now but I found this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26376#continueA
This is from Newt himself:
"The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.
This model has already been tested with disastrous results."
Comment by Theard — May 6, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Lanny;
So I'm suppose to forget that your friend Hillary and Bill didn't say what they did. I'm suppose to believe you instead of my lying ears. Boy, are you stupid!
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 6, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
The media did everything they could to make sure Obama lost, unfortunate for them, there is the internet. Everything the Media would not report about Hillary the internet did. That's why she has mostly older voters. Turn the page. Oh and John, who cares about the black vote? Bill and Hillary. The republicans know they won't get it.
Comment by Yvonne — May 6, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
In his unrelenting Pavlovian-dog defense of Hillary and Bill Clinton's scorched-earth campaign against Barack Obama, Lanny Davis has squandered whatever integrity and credibility he once had as a Democratic Party adviser and spokesman. For the willful maligning of Obama and the devastating damage to the Democratic Party that Davis, the Clintons, Terry McAullife, James Carville, et. al., ad nauseam, are guilty of, all of them should collectively hang their heads in shame and disgrace. It is sickening and appalling to watch Lanny Davis on CNN and FOX — and his appearing on FOX and gleefully teaming up with an unabashed Democratic-demonizer and Clinton-basher from the Monica Lewinsky-impeachment days, Sean Hannity, to trash Obama is all the more despicable — engaging in Orwellian double-talk about how much stronger Hillary Clinton is than Obama because she's won the major industrial states and won the disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida and she has the broadest possible support among the white working class.
He makes these transparently specious arguments and politically expedient assertions while smirking into the camera and rudely cutting off the Obama supporter who dares question the factual accuracy or intellectual honesty of Davis's claims.
In her blindly ambitious and arrogant quest to secure the nomination at all costs by ignoring the rules and alienating core constituencies of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is single-handedly tearing down the party of FDR, Truman, and JFK, and so dividing and crippling it, as to make the election of a weak John McCain to the Oval Office an almost virtual certainty in November. And if that sad reality should come to pass, because it was more important for Lady Macbeth-Hillary Clinton to deny Barack Obama the nomination than to defeat the REPUBLICAN opponent, the Democratic Party leadership should declare the Clintons, Lanny Davis, McAuliffe, Carville, et. al., ad nauseam, as pariahs and personae non grata and should forcefully expel them from the Democratic Party.
Comment by Chuck C. — May 6, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Theard, I've lost all respect for Newt since he drank the global warming Kool-Aid, but he is certainly a keen political observer. The trouble with historical analogies is that they are never precise enough to be predictive. I simply don't believe that Obama can win unless McCain runs around naked on stage and admits to having advanced alzheimer's .
Comment by Igor R. — May 6, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
In the immortal words of your 'god' Bill, if you are not ready to play, don't suit up and take the field. Lanny, you and others have been throwing up half truths and lies for so long you have forgotten what is like to be honest. Calling Bill Ayers a murderer was only the latest that I heard before I changed channels. If for no other reason than to take you off the media map, I support Obama all the way.
Comment by Linda — May 6, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Lanny,
Senator Clinton has been treated so unfairly by the media it is absurd.
The only reason why Obama won in NC was that 80 percent of the voters had voted before the Wright issue.
Please check CNN Schieders report.
Clinton is being treated by a racist? Almost all blacks are voting for the "african american". Who are the racists?
Comment by Alecki — May 7, 2008 @ 6:31 am
Lanny,
It's hard not to say something very mean-spirited to you. I've written and erased multiple messages. I've decided to not write those messages to you, or post them for others to read.
You're friend, and candidate, has lost. How hard is that to see? You're supposed to be a smart guy, right?
Comment by Jeff — May 7, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Mr. Davis is, not surprisingly, doing something he does so awfully well–and I do mean awfully: obfuscating. If the media were so maligned against the Clinton family to actually conspire to do as Mr. Davis accuses, to turn the black vote against Mrs. Clinton, then why did Mr. Davis wait until now, months later, to register hi "yeah but" indignation?
If this media conspiracy premise were true, no one would have been able to muzzle Mr. Davis (no one can muzzle him as it is when he's positing incredulous falsehoods dressed up with lawyerese-speak).
As is with many conspiracy accusations, Mr. Davis inadvertently aims the spotlight squarely back on himself–and his good friend Bill Clinton–by leveling accusations upon others of which they are guilty.
This crap may have worked in the '90s but, ironically, due to the tremendous litany of Clinton lies–both Bill's and Hillary's–the constituency has wised up to this doublespeak.
The bottom line is, due to her own unreigned mouth, Senator Clinton is untrustworthy by all polls, and anything she says is suspect. And that goes for anything her surrogates say as well, most especially lead cheerleader Mr. Davis.
Comment by Rob — May 7, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Mr. Davis,
You can spin what has or has not been said however you want. The facts are still the facts. The Clintons have said 1st its all about the voters, then when that didn't work "its all about who wins more states" then when that didn't work well lets talk the super delegates into stealing it for us. How is it that people keep talking about Hillary Clinton being more electable in the general campaign when she can't even win the nomination? You would think if she is soooo electable that part would be easy. I would sooner vote for a pile of s**t than another clinton. They will do or say anything to get back the power.
Comment by Jack — May 7, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Quitters never win, so the show must go on. Lanny must defend the honor of the one, the only, the true hope of the people: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Comment by Igor R. — May 7, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
I agree Mr. Davis. I think Obama is a fake and copy cat and the DEM party is crazy for not seeing that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6×1H08aFc&eurl=http://www.taylormarsh.com/index.php
He is just a repeat of GOV. of MA. and he hasn't been that good of GOV
Comment by Jen — May 7, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
I saw your performance last night on CNN. Horrible.
Just like this article, you refuse to see and tell the truth.
It is time for Hillary, and the campaign, to conceed and support Obama. He is the nominee. Period.
Comment by cam — May 7, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
URGENT!!!
Lanny: the only reason that Obama won last night was because he had 80 percent register and vote a month ago, before the Reverend Wright issue.
Comment by Alecki — May 7, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Important!
Lanny: the only reason that Obama won last night was because he had 80 percent register and vote a month ago, before the Reverend Wright issue.
Comment by Alecki — May 7, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Lanny:
The media has been so against Hillary it is discusting.
Senator Clinton has the most experience.
This has become about blacks and whites. It's a sad day in America.
For 90 percent of blacks to support Obama is saying so much.
Who are the real racist?
Comment by Alecki — May 7, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
What, Lanny,
No 10 "indisputable" facts about the Indiana or North Carolina primaries?
Comment by Doug King — May 7, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
I agree with Lanny 100 percent. Even though he left out the other attempts by the Obama campaign to paint the Clinton's as racist. I'll list the ones I remember.
1.)3a.m. ad- Obama supporter who was also a Harvard professor wrote an article saying that the 3 am ad was racist because it left a feeling that a black man was waiting outside the window to break in and harm the children. Also he claimed there were no black children in that ad.(which was false)
2.)Bill Clinton was speaking and said that Obama was telling voters that he didn't take money from oil companies. Bill went on to say that no one does because it had been illegal for a hundred years. Bill then said, "Next thing you know we'll hear, I didn't steal cars so vote for me!" MSNBC pushed the story on Morning Joe claiming that it was racist and I guess it didn't sit well with viewers so they stopped after the next hour of news.
3.) Geraldine Ferraro and Bob Johnson both said that Obama was benefiting from being black in this years election. Most objective people knew that to be true a week later but those same people claimed that the Clinton's made them say it even though Geraldine said that she had nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. Bob Johnson is a black man and still, he got slammed and the blame went on to Hillary.
4.) CNN's Amy Holmes(who is a black Republican) claimed that when Bill Clinton was talking about maybe a joint ticket and said that she would win the rural working class and the latino votes and Obama would win the urban and upscale votes that they would be unstoppable, that when Bill said "urban", "we all know what urban is code for" When has urban been code for anything other than living near of in a large metropolitan area??
There are probably more but these are the ones I can remember screaming at my television about.
Comment by Harley — May 8, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Mr. Davis, I have watched your appearance on CNN many times during this primary season and have been disappointed in the anger you have shown. I admired you so much during the Clinton presidency. You were always the voice of reasoning. You have now become what Hillary has become . . . obsessed with her winning the White House. You, like so many others from the Clinton-era believe Hillary has earned the right to the nomination. My belief has always been that in these United States the person who earns the right to the individual with the most delegates won by the voting process is the one who would and should win the nomination. Please consider what you say, how you say it, and the tone of your voice when speaking. It is only then that you can regain the respect I once had.
May God Bless You!
Comment by Billeedee — May 8, 2008 @ 11:14 am
You know, I can't get over the personal attacks and name calling that many of you revert to.
Lanny has written an article expressing his point of view - he's completely entitled to that (just as all of us are). There's no reason to be so livid and disgusting about it in your responses - whether you agree with him or not.
Let's keep this a civil discussion - especially since the person many of you are defending actually claims to have the moral highground and wants to introduce a new kind of politics. Unless of course that's just empty rhetoric.
A good way to start would be by calming down and discussing in a civil manner - and stop the personal attacks. This should be about the argument put forward, not about discrediting the person who raised the question.
I've seen that tactic used by many Obama supporters - if you don't like the question/argument, don't bother responding to it - just discredit it or the person who dared to raise it. Classic Karl Rove tactic, and not exactly new politics.
Comment by Karen — May 8, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
This man, Lanny Davis, is driving a nail, no a wedge, into the heart of the Democratic Party. Every time I hear his commentary, I pray, "Forgive him, God, for he knows not what he is about to do".
His message elicits memories of why I became a Reagan Democrat.
I was a small business owner. I kept watching the Democrats fighting, allowing a sliver of mindshare to justify listening to Reagan's message. The more I listened, the more that sliver grew.
I was being drugged and duped, but I didn't care. I was so tired of the bickering and lack of principled leadership. I knew the Republican Party didn't REALLY care about the little guy, but Reagan was a masterful wordsmith. I listened more.
Then on that fateful day in November of 1980, I pulled the lever for Reagan. It was a horrible day, yet my party switch lasted for 4 more cycles, until 1992, when I voted for Ross Perot. It wasn't until 1996 that I finally voted for a Democratic President again, and then Bill almost lost me with that ML charade.
The Clintons cost us the Presidency in 2000 and in 2004 yet I made a vow after 2000 to never again vote Republican, for the rest of my life.
But I did not anticipate the lack of disciplined leadership in our Democratic Party.
The bickering, the rules that apply one week but not the next; the seeming lack of conviction to moral principles.
That is what the WHOLE Clinton side of the Democratic Party represents. With folks like Lanny Davis, James (he's a traitor!) Carville, Harold Ickes, and unfortunately, even Bill Clinton representing the Clinton brand of politics, it's no wonder I have so much trouble with the Democratic Party.
Were it not for Ross Perot, we wouldn't even know the name of Bill Clinton, let alone Hillary. We'd be hard pressed to remember who ran in '92 other than George HW Bush.
If Hillary keeps it up, our children, and 90% of black America will look back and all they'll remember is how they used to vote Democratic, but then John McCain got their vote as the Democrats continued their drive toward self-destruction.
Lanny Davis, Ickes, Wolfson, Carville, and the Clinton Brand they represent — they need to start their own party where the slash and burn politics of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh is tolerated as modus operandi.
Maybe they already have and I just don't recognize it. No wonder people don't vote.
Obama '08 & '12
Stop the drama, vote Obama
Comment by Andrew L. Des Moines — May 9, 2008 @ 7:43 am
Dear John Shorfall:
Paragraphs are a blogger's best friend and your long rambling post falls short. (pun intended.)
Thank you.
Comment by james d granata — May 9, 2008 @ 7:53 am
Lanny has written an article expressing his point of view - he's completely entitled to that (just as all of us are). There's no reason to be so livid and disgusting about it in your responses - whether you agree with him or not.
That would be your opinion, Karen, and you have a right to it. I disagree for it is almost impossible to discuss the mendacity of MRS Clinton and her suck ups with out resorting to the same lack of civility shown by MRS Clinton. I think this primary has gone way beyond civil and the level of vitriol in the comments reflect this. but then we don't all share your level of maturity.
Comment by james d granata — May 9, 2008 @ 8:11 am
Mr. Lanny Davis,
Myopia — falling pray to the "I can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome.
Drowning in a sea of slice-and-dice, heresay, innuendo, guilt by association accusations, capped by that tried and proven Clinton-brand of parsing to obfuscate — let's fool them about the meaning of the word "is"! You're all grabbing at straws while the campaign gasps for cash.
So the staff runs the numbers over and once again. Alas, to win, "we can get them to change the rules!"
Not this time, Lanny. Let's move on so we can save the party from a McCain victory.
It's over.
Wouldn't it make sense for her to quit spending the campaign into oblivion? Where is the voice of reason among her campaign advisors?
I'm with Chuck C., Rob and Jeff, et. al. It's over.
Comment by Andrew L. Des Moines — May 9, 2008 @ 9:02 am
To Lanny,
I listened to Lanny the night of the NC primary and I am so delighted to listen to an intelligent articulate man express his deep loyalty and commitment to Hillary Clinton. Many super delegates who owe their livelihoods to the Clinton defect are in my estimation disloyal and eager to please like a puppy. I find Lanny refreshing and given the comments he made to John King and David Gergen were not only loyal, but factual. As a volunteer for Hillary's campaign, I salute you Mr. Davis and I wish I knew you as I would be proud to call you friend.
Comment by Rose Hann — May 9, 2008 @ 11:24 am
A Clinton fan, Rose Hann writes: 'Many super delegates who owe their livelihoods to the Clinton defect are in my estimation disloyal and eager to please like a puppy.'
So the people who disagree with the Clintons are the puppies not Clinton's lying lap dog Lanny Davis. I can see why you are a Clinton supporter, madame, you would, it seems, want your friends to lie about and to you.
I having studied the Mrs Clinton miracle wrought in NY State and wonder what he has to laud her about. Surely not her accomplishments in the Senate? I did not watch his interaction with King and Gergen but I know what he has written here about the Media Lie is a lie.
Comment by james d granata — May 9, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Mr. Davis, my sincere apologies to you for what you had to endure at CNN on election night. I about spit when I saw the two panels of so-called experts that night. They were all in Obama's camp (Roland Martin's denials are right up there with Donna Brazile's). It was apalling. When all is said and done, is there any recourse we will have to enlighten those who are simply pleased as Kool-Aid punch that the bias happened to favor their own candidate? Isn't there ONE SINGLE OBAMA supporter who acknowledges the scandalous treatment of Hillary Clinton? This whole primary season seems like a big "fairytale" and I can't believe it's happening in my country. Thanks for all you have tried to say and do on behalf of a wonderful American; Hillary Clinton.
Comment by Anna — May 10, 2008 @ 3:02 am
What makes Hillary Clinton, a wonderful American? I am not an Obama supporter so I cannot speak for them yet I believe MRS Clinton is more the perpetrator than the recipient of scandalous behavior.
Hillary's playacting the victim obviously has worked for her audience who don't want to be confused with facts about that self serving sociopath. There are many books written about her and by her why not check them out?
Comment by james d granata — May 10, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Mr. Davis, This is really true and I am disappointed at the DEMOCRATS on the HILL. I will be supporting my local democrats where I live but I am not participating in this years presidential election. I feel that the DEM in Washington have allowed the media to choose the nominee. I noticed this first in 2004. I didn't get to vote on my candidate then but I always wondered why Kerry was on the front of the ticket and the stronger of the two was on the second half of the ticket. A Clinton/Obama ticket would be so wonderful for the Democrats but you have so many DEM'S IN WASHINGTON that are not even willing to think about the lower/middle class. We are not supporting Clinton because she is white or a women. We are supporting her because she is running with passion. Passion brings results. Obama is running on EGO and no experience. That will not get the job done. The ones voting for Obama that are well off do not see what the lower class sees. Neither do the Dem's on the Hill. They allowed the media to pick their candidate in 2004 and again this year. Why ask us to vote if your just going to put in there who you want anyway. There is a women in NY that is REP that is always writing hateful things about Sen. Clinton. You know why because she has a lot of REP women that are voting for her and that terrifies the REP party. They don't want Clinton. Thanks to them and the media they will get their prayers answered. Clinton can make a win in November happen and she will make results happen for us lower class on day one. I think its sick that they are making this a race thing. This election has been more hateful to the WOMEN then it has the race issue. But Clinton is a strong women and so she doesn't want to bring race up. I guess in November you will learn to stop allowing the media to paint the one they want and you might start listening to us. The blue collar voters will flock more towards McCain in November and it has nothing to do with RACE. We need the most help right now and we are voting on EXPERIENCE…….
Comment by Jen — May 10, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
I completely agree with Mr. Davis. If anything, there was reverse racism. Whites voted for the black candidate in very big numbers. Only 12% of African Americans voted for Hillary. So who are the racists? You were attacked if you were black and didn't vote for Obama. And if you voted for Hillary it was because you're a racist. What a sad day in America. If only Obama hadn't reached so far so soon. What a tragedy he has caused. America will suffer from this for 100 years. And we'll be stuck with four more years of a Republican President. Go Hillary in 2012! Maybe then Obama will accept VP gracefully as he should have in '08.
Comment by dishwithdi — May 11, 2008 @ 2:31 am
james d granata I see that you post all over the web and have been flagged repeatedly. So is this therapy for you? Do you have an anatomy problem that urges you on in the blogspots to make up for shortcomings in other areas? What a sad little man you are. What a giant Lanny Davis is. What a superb candidate Hillary Clinton was this time. I'm sure she will do even better next time. You will just continue to be an impotent bore.
Comment by dishwithdi — May 11, 2008 @ 2:42 am
Lanny, I think you are off your rocker. Many voters know Clintons past. Many voters know they've always used race to their benefit. I can't tell you how horrible the Clinton 'race 'baiting card has played throughout history. Buying their votes with a Church 'Pork Barrel' Grant, to help out the black or spanish community. Even the white female community. Well Lanny, it looks like your 'inside info' of your favored candidate is going knowhere fast. Ride along, look at your history with the Clinton's. Cox Report, Mena, CIA drug dealing, illigitimate child by Clinton, Stolen FBI Reports, campaign financing fraud. There's a circle of you guys that deserve what the Clintons deserve. I can hardly wait.
Comment by canadagirl — May 11, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Lanny I read your blog and see the logic you offer. I do still disagree with your position the Clinton campaign did not introduce race in an attempt to gain an advantage. Hillary Clinton has rightly attempted to use every issue which has come up to gain an advantage. Race, Rev. Wright, voting records and more. She has continued to suggest in West Virginia that white working class voters are chosing her. This is a continuation of the earlier division she has attempted to draw. She should be equally willing to accept any consequence of voters who disagree if she is will to seek advantage. I hope to see your zealous support of Obama as the nominee. You are a great advocate.
Comment by Kevin Evans — May 12, 2008 @ 10:13 am
URGENT
WashingtonPost The trail
Obama Adviser Tied to Hamas Meetings Resigns
By Glenn Kessler
An informal Middle East adviser to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign resigned Friday after a newspaper reported on his regular meetings with members of the Hamas militant group.
Rob Malley said he wanted to stop being a distraction for the campaign after facing attacks from the blogosphere for months for allegedly being anti-Israel, a charge he denies.
Malley is a former National Security Council aide to President Bill Clinton who is now with the International Crisis Group, a nonpartisan conflict-resolution think tank.
Malley's departure comes at a sensitive time for Obama, who appears to be nearing the Democratic nomination but has struggled to win the support of Jewish and pro-Israel voters. Hamas, which won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, refuses to recognize Israel and is dedicated to its destruction.
In reporting analytic reports he wrote for ICG, Malley would interview Hamas officials, as well as Israeli, American, European and other Palestinian officials.
The reports, which made clear he had met with Hamas, feature recommendations for key players in the peace process. Malley said he informed the State Department before he met with Hamas and then briefed State afterwards on what he had learned.
"To do my job, I have to meet with savory and unsavory people," he said.
But Malley said that after he fielded a call this morning from the Times of London, which asked about the Hamas meetings, he decided he had had enough. "This was a distraction for me; this was a distraction for them," he said Friday night. "It is absurd, but that is what this campaign is about."
Malley decribed himself as an informal adviser who disagrees with Obama "on many things" regarding the Middle East, but he knew a lot of people in the Illinois senator's campaign and so from "time to time would offer advice they were free to disregard."
"Mr. Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.
"He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."
Comment by Alecki — May 12, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Lanny,
The media has been unfair since the beginning of this primary.
They have bashed all the Clintons especially The Cafferty Files on CNN.
This is a daily bashing with cherry picked comments from Mr. Cafferty that are rude and nasty remarks.
He claims to be against Clinton and destroys her reputation daily.
Lanny, can't you help her with this.
It is really harmful to any candidate.
Thank you.
Comment by Alecki — May 12, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Why is it fair game for whites to talk about whites and blacks can talk about blacks and whites.
If a white talks about blacks or even about the word "white" she is a racist?
This is not a black and white race. This is about Americans.
And yes the African Americans are more racist than "whites" if 90 percent are voting color.
Comment by Alecki — May 12, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Lanny,
This is my final comment on the matter: Your time in the Clinton's pocket has not been in vain; you now lie as well as a rubber-backed rug.
On different note, add another 'spinning liar' to the Clintonista list of Davis, Ickes, Wolson, Carville, and Terry Mc… the name? Sidney Blumenthal. The New Yorker Magazine editors were long ago able to distinguish a journalist from a partisan political hack.
Comment by barbara day — May 12, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Lanny,
Thank you for injecting the voice of reason into all of this insanity.
The Clintons have a long record of standing up for all of us. Shame on the media! Shame on David Axelrod… He does seem to be the dem's version of Rove.
Comment by Marguerite Higa — May 18, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Lanny,
Although I disagree with much of what I hear you say, and am a staunch conservative, I do agree with your recent comments/suggestions re: the delegates from Michigan and Florida.
While arguably Obama may have received more votes had he actively campaigned in those states, your suggestion that the delegates be allotted based on the percentage of the vote between Clinton and Obama is a simple and fair solution to take this point of issue off the table and to allow the process to move forward.
Comment by Tony M — May 25, 2008 @ 11:03 am