Barack “Hypocrite” Obama and Fake Racism
Barack Obama’s team is constantly using race against Hillary Clinton and anyone who dares to associate with or even worse, to support her. Whenever someone says something, Obama’s supporters, advisers and campaign staff try to twist it in a way that suggests that the person who criticized him is a racist. It happens time and again, and I’ve had it with it.
When Bill Clinton calls something a fairy tale, it’s suddenly racism. Listen: there’s nothing racist about that, and Obama’s supporters should stop demanding special treatment. Criticizing Obama doesn’t equal racism. Opposing Obama has nothing to do with his color, it has something to do with his lack of experience, his dovish foreign policy views, and / or his vagueness.
Luckily I’m not the only one who’s disgusted with the race baiting: even liberal democrats are now warning Obama to stop pretending that the Clintons are racists. My God: Bill Clinton is also called “the first black President.” That’s for a reason. And it’s not because he despises blacks.
But, as Brendan Loy points out, Obama doesn’t say anything when his supporters, aides and advisers act as if the Clintons are racists. Not even when they have to interpret what someone says in an extremely creative manner in order to make even somewhat smell like racism.
There’s no racism going on and Hillary Clinton is right when she says that the Obama campaign is “purposefully distorting” whatever she, Bill and others on her side have said about Obama. Here’s the video of Hillary Clinton setting the record straight on “Meet the Press.”
Here’s what Brendan, a Democrat, wrote about Obama:
At a conference call with reporters this morning, somebody asked Barack Obama about the Clintons’ recent controversial remarks and Hillary Clinton’s response to the kerfuffle. Thus, Obama had a golden opportunity to make clear that he does not believe the Clintons’ remarks were racist or racially insensitive — and he chose not to do so. Instead, he said a bunch of other stuff that I have no problem with, but failed to do the one thing he needs to do, which is to unambiguously disassociate himself from this race-baiting nonsense.
And then:
And it doesn’t look like it’s going to. Indeed, his spokesman told the New York Times, “People were offended at her words, and she can explain them however she’d like.” In other words, we’re not going to bail her out; if people want to vote against her on the basis of this self-evidently ridiculous nonsense, more power to them. As a political decision, I understand that, but it’s very much politics-as-usual. Obama had a chance to take the high road here (while still attacking Clinton on substance), and he has clearly made a strategic decision not to do so. He is, it turns out, perfectly willing to let this racial stew fester, so long as he thinks it will work to his advantage — even though the controversy is totally baseless, and he knows it. That suggests to me that, as president, he would let any racial controversy fester if he deems it politically advantageous. After all, if he won’t distance himself from allegations as obviously insubstantial as these…
Anyway, this whole thing makes me genuinely sad. I thought maybe Obama was different. I guess not. I’m back to being thoroughly undecided. Congrats, senator, you’ve just lost a supporter.
As I’ve almost constantly said it: Obama isn’t different, isn’t less negative than any of the other candidates. He’s only more hypocritical about it.
I hope this strategy blows up in his face. I truly detest strategies like this: when the PC police tries to silence all opposition by pretending that the opposition is acting in an insulting manner.
“This is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen…” That’s not even almost racist. My God. That’s enormous. And Tim Russert should know better than to let this foster.
What’s interesting, by the way, is that if Obama et al. keep this up, they’re actually going to divide the Democratic Party: between African-Americans and white, blue-collar voters who don’t have a lot of patience with race baiting.
And this is disgusting:
Plus: Obama camp sends flurry of emails to reporters in response to Clinton’s MTP interview, including this statement on race controversy: “People were offended at her words and she can explain them however she’d like. However, I think that Congressman Clyburn and other leaders across the country would take great offense at the suggestion that their response was somehow engineered by this campaign.” Read full memo here.
Yes, the Obama campaign is purposefully feeding this controversy. It’s all in politics, but the more they do this, the more impatient I will get with them and the more I’ll criticize him and his merry bunch of race baiters.
They and African-American voters can get as angry as they want, but there’s no racism going on here, and if they want to be taken seriously I suggest they stop pretending there is.
UPDATE: O look another Obama apologist at work. Are these people working for the ACLU or what?
I couldn’t find your [deleted] point. I just wasted my two minutes on your nonsense. Stupid dutch!!
We’ll keep this comment up just to give you an indication of the quality of some of Obama’s supporters. They suddenly remind of me Paulites.
light up those cigars, boys, there’s no racists here. somebody should call Rove and tell him what this no good, lazy, basketball-playing shuckster is doing to defile the good pure white women of America.
Leaving it up for a reason: Obama supporters = Paulites?
This article was useless – this is a shining example as to why no one should listen to the dutch.
Edit by MvdG: and this is why I won’t delete this. Let them make a fool out of themselves.
The more we advance in the election cycle, the more trolls seem to find their way onto the blog. At this rate comments will have to be disabled by July.
As to the subject at hand, I don’t like the idea of the Obama camp playing the race card much the same way I dislike the Clinton camp playing the gender card. Which isn’t to say it isn’t justified sometimes; a Clinton aid talking about voting for Obama so he could be your "hip, black friend" was inappropriate, and the media hysteria because a woman said something in a shaky voice was wrong as well, but in general I think both things are used way out of proportion. I also tend to feel that such strategies tend to backfire, so people who employ them will end up getting their just desserts.
I’m curious though, do you have any links to people in the Obama camp explicitly playing the race card? Not supporters mind you, I’ve seen that myself, but I have yet to hear of Obama aids doing it.
Lynx, did you read the last paragraphs?
This has got to be the biggest bunch of nonsense I’ve ever read.
Try actually living in the country who has been wrangling with this race issue for hundreds of years and then maybe you’d understand what the heck you are talking about. You couldn’t fathom the complexity and the sensitivity of the issue.
Furthermore, while this may be ‘disgusting’ behavior to you, Mrs. Clinton is the first of the major Democrats to go digustingly negative when her campaign trumped up his already admitted drug use when he was in college and shining new, unnecessary light on it. Hillary’s campaign is as dirty as anyone’s.
Edited by MvdG.This is the last eloquent comment – except one personal insult – from a Barack Obama supporter we’ll leave up. \From now on these type of comments will be deleted.
Yes Michael, I read it. But what I read is that the Obama camp is explicitly denying playing the race card, or that the controversy originates within the campaign. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be better for them to dismiss the idea of the Clinton camp acting racist if they don’t agree, but I was asking for evidence that the Obama camp was the originator of the controversy. They could be, I won’t deny that without evidence of my own, it’s just that though I’ve seen people grumbling about racism, I’ve yet to see any Obama aids suggest that themselves.
One example is the anonymous email attacking Obama’s church.
A very biased post from PJMedia starts with this BS:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/obamas_creepy_raceobsessed_chu.php
While FactCheck debunks the slimy attack:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html
I wonder if the Obama email has any Clinton proxy fingerprints on this smear?
LYnx; and when they ask Obama about it during a conference call he refuses to calm everyone down.
Very sad.
If he’s such a ‘uniter’ he would use the opportunity to bring people together. Instead he purposefully – and his campaign – let it linger. And yes Lynx, some of those doing this stuff are close to Obama.
There’s no way to deny that he’s accepting it himself and that some close followers and feeding it.
I know you’re normally very strongly against this kind of tactic, don’t let that attitude change just because you tend to like Obama. Even when you like someone you can call him or her out on a tactic you don’t agree with.
Rudi: you can "wonder" whatever you want. My freaking God: perhaps you should find the fingerprints first then accuse anyone of being involved. As it is, you should remain silent and stop accusing someone of overt racism.
O, and there’s nothing racist about that e-mail. It’s nasty perhaps, but not racist. Seemingly some Americans have a hard time understanding what racism actually is. And the part about race-baiting well, that’s exactly what Obama and his crew are doing, isn’t it?
Michael, why don’t you just wear a Clinton for President t-shirt… I found your post shrill and unsubstantiated – essentially a bunch of whining about how poorly your candidate of choice is being treated by the media. Repeated assertions that it must be the work of the Obama campaign doesn’t make it so…
This incident reminds us in the US, what we already know, that you would have to be sub-mental to believe that change starts in Washington. HRC arguing this point(and using LBJ?!?!) as the point of reference is not racist, but it is ignorant, sloppy oratory and offensive to some Americans. You argument would be more compelling if it appeared the you understood the history surrounding the civil rights movement. You would also understand why so many found her comments offensive.
When you open your mouth and say something that is patently absurd and offensive (to whomever and whether you meant it or not) then you shouldn’t look for your opponent to bail you out. I would let her wither on the vine – politics is a contact support. I didn’t see anyone coming to Obama’s rescue after his foreign policy gaffe re: Chavez et. al. Take your lumps, explain your position and move on – pointing fingers at your opponent and crying about how unfair it is makes you look childish. Shocker of shockers, your opponent wont rescue you from an ill-advised comment???
Michael – read the analysis of the church memo. Using lies to imply racism and race-baiting is truly ugly. My point is that like the McCain push-poll the Clinton’s aren’t condemning this attack. When BillyBoy was President he visited many black churches, some just as controversial(but not racist). It’s the level of hypocracy of the Clinton’s that is the problem.
From FactCheck:
The finger print comment should have included a snark warning.
Oh don’t get me wrong Michael, I find the tactic repugnant, no matter who does it. I was simply asking if there was evidence that the Obama camp instigated the allegations themselves, which would be worse still. I do indeed find it disappointing that Obama refused to call out the people accusing the Clinton camp of racism, especially with the whole ridiculous "fairy tale" flap. By not rising above the fray he puts himself under suspicion of instigating the whole affair (though again, I’ll wait for evidence of this) and hurts his image of positive campaigning.
I also suspect it won’t help his campaign one bit, since I feel people get really sick really fast of false outrage. If you’re complaining about comments like "hip black friend" or "castratos in the eunuch chorus" fine, but if you’re complaining that calling someones career a "fairy tale" is racist or someone being tough on you in a debate is sexist, then you’re likely to find people a lot more likely to roll their eyes than change their vote.
To state the obvious, one can “play the race card” without race-baiting. Indeed, it’s tough for a black candidate not to play the race card to some extent–Obama can’t turn the electorate color-blind, but he’s done a bang-up job so far of not going negative. In fact, that’s essentially been his entire primary strategy to date. Stay positive, offer fuzzy feel-good platitudes, and let all the other candidates do the tearing down amongst themselves to his benefit. After a decade of nasty bickering and partisan histrionics, it was a sound choice.
But the honeymoon is ending, and he’s going to end up in the mud, including on ethnic issues, whether he wants to be or not. In Nevada, for example, both candidates have to appeal to the Hispanic vote to carry the state in the caucuses, which is why we see the fight between the (largely white) teacher’s union and the (largely Hispanic) culinary workers union. And in South Carolina Clinton’s dillema is how to go negative on Obama without completely alienating the black vote, especially the black women’s vote.
It’s gonna get uglier.
I also don’t see how Obama’s campaign can avoid playing the "race card" completely when Hillary surrogates (I admit, not coming directly from her campaign) keep making comments like "shucking and jiving". Comments that would end a Republican politician’s career, I might add- but since they’re coming from Democrats there are many people who are willing to actually believe that there wasn’t any race baiting involved in those comments.
How do you expect Obama supporters to respond to that? Why should he get all the criticism for interjecting race, when most of it is coming from the other side? If there were a bunch of gender related comments coming from Obama supporters, wouldn’t it be expected that there’d be some response to that from the Hillary camp? Yet Obama is supposed to ignore it or else he’ll be accused of being the race baiter himself. I’m not an Obama supporter but objectively I can see that’s patently ridiculous.
And no, I’m not saying that Hillary and/or her supporters are racist (I don’t think anyone thinks that.) The question is, are some of her supporters purposely bringing up racial biases in order to try to use Obama’s race against him (by planting seeds of doubt, that the electorate will accept him.) The idea is you don’t have to be a racist yourself to use race against your opponent- you only have to believe that there is a block of racist voters you can exploit, or even convince your party’s voters to believe that there are enough racist voters in the other party that would stop a black man from being electable.
Pro-Obama admin says: INSTABAN
Oh, c’mon, Pro-Obama admin! You could at least take out the comment spam at #16 as well!
I think that because we have a woman and a black man running for office people are bound to be looking for the race or gender thing to come up. Let’s face it elections are always fraught with mud slinging and character decimation, we are just more sensitive to it this time because of who’s running the race.