which is why, Senator Clinton, you chose to cozy up to the well right of center inside the beltway religious group known as "The Family"?
Senator Clinton?
(crickets, I'm sure.....)
We know, we know, that fucking cunt needs to sit her ass down and let a man run this country. We get it.
Meanwhile Obama has been lying his ass off. I just love the little myth about his mother and father falling in love over Selma, AL when he was born four years before that incident.
LMAO!
http://taylormarsh.com/
So, was she responding to a question about what she would have done if Wright was her pastor, or was she bringing it up out of the blue?
Hit publish too early.
So, was she responding to a question about what she would have done if Wright was her pastor, or was she bringing it up out of the blue?
Because this sounds to me like she was responding to a question that the press won't let go; not "playing a card" or "bringing Wright back up" in some diabolical scheme to smear Obama.
I also find it a little upsetting that immediately after writing a post regarding Clinton and misogyny, you write this tch-tch letter that sounds like a father scolding his teenage daughter.
Paul the Spud | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 5:14 pm | #
Hillary deserves a scolding here, and she would if she was a man. I've scolded Obama in similar tones.
As to whether she was responding or brought it up -- so far, she's responded to questions with a "I don't want to get into that." There's no reason she couldn't do so here.
She was responding to a direct question that for once asked her what she would have done as opposed to asking what she thinks that she should have done. When they tried to press her into talking about him she declined to answer. It has been more than a week and the MSM still leads with her response to the one Wright question and none of the substantive issues brought up at the speech or the following Q+A.
"she would have done as opposed to asking what she thinks that she should have done"
sorry that third she should be a he.
Video of her remarks is here.
Jeff Fecke | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 5:17 pm | #
Yes, there is no reason she couldn't have simply said "I don't want to get into that." But that still doesn't mean she brought the topic up to undermine the Obama campaign, which completely contradicts the thrust of this post's accusation.
Hillary deserves a scolding here, and she would if she was a man. I've scolded Obama in similar tones.
If you have, I don't remember it. And if she didn't reignite this controversy, why does she deserve a scolding?
I don't particularly like her response, but it's misleading to suggest that she brought Wright back up, since she was responding to a question in an extensive interview.
Jeff, I agree with other commenters. It is unfair to characterize this item with a big bold title at the top declaring that "Clinton Tries to Reignite the Wright Controversy."
It is by no means clear that this is the case.
You may think she was wrong to say anything, but in response to a direct question, I don't know that it's a bad answer, necessarily a lie or politically stupid. My local newspaper carried two letters to the editor this morning from folks saying the same thing - that they wouldn't go to a church where that kind of rhetoric was used.
So while I am personally sympathetic to Obama on this one, I'm not sure this is a misstep on her part.
The rest of the press conference is here, for anyone interested:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004316/
I liked the way she answers questions, and her sense of humor is pretty dry.
Hi All: I think I get what you are trying to say, but there is much more to the Wright situation and to Obama's speech. So much so, that it won't really go away. I would like to see it go away, but it won't -- at least NOT just because we want it to.
I think Hillary's going down that road again is childish, but then, both Obama and Hillary have made off-hand comments that came out childish... It doesn't excuse either of them, but, humans are humans....
With respect to the Wright situation being behind us because of Obama's speech, I don't agree at all.
His speech was not the act of courage, but the act of a very astute politician and speaker WHO HAD NO CHOICE but to do a speech something like that.
Little sound bites denying or explaining his pastor's behavior and speeches would never have been enough. However, Obama was smart enough to bury the renunciation and his flip-flopping in a much longer speech so that we might not notice it as much or so that we would be impressed by the other parts of the speech and, thus, on balance, it would be good.
Quite frankly, I found it pretty condescending and close to scare-mongering. Show me the data on whites fearing blacks just because they are black MORE than they fear other people, like other whites. I don't see the data, and without the data, it boils down to fear-mongering, among other things.
In fact, some of Obama's statements in the race speech were not much different than his fear-mongering in the February 22 Austin Debate by saying "we have seen hate crimes skyrocket [because of the immigration debate]..." which was, of course, not backed by data or footnoted.
I would like to hold both Hillary and Obama to a higher standard, but neither really reaches that higher standard. Unless one of them does, then whatever gaffes or other adolescent things emerge from their mouths is, IMHO, pretty much exemplary of the day-to-day imperfections of both of these campaigns.
And, as far as "re-igniting" goes, we haven't seen the end of that -- Hillary's off-handed comment is tame compared to what the Republicans are going to do with the unfortunate Wright ramifications.
The "dirtiest" thing that is happening in this campaign is the conduct of the DNC by disenfranchising Michigan and Florida primary voters, and trying to get us all to believe that Democrat caucus results were actually more valid than the Michigan and Florida primaries... uh, really? Prove it. Show me the argument.
Right now you can look at the data from states that had both primaries and caucuses, and Hillary either won the states or came very close, but was defeated in the same states' caucuses. Exactly how does that prove that caucus results came closer to the principle of one-person, one-vote than the primaries in Michigan and Florida?
I'm an Obama supporter (though not a Clinton non-supporter - she'd be a fine president) and I have to agree that Jeff made a mistake in this post. She's a politician, and it's her job to contrast herself with Obama, not be his apologist. Though certainly designed to advance her political interests, her answer was measured and not notably cynical; Obama has certainly made plenty of equivalent remarks. I see nothing of substance to criticize here.
And sometimes you need a scolding, Jeff. This post is off the mark and unfair.
I think Hillary's going down that road again is childish
It's childish to answer a question?
For future reference: if you want anyone to take your comments re: Hillary vs. Obama seriously, don't link to Taylor Marsh.
Hi zuzu: I was in the process of writing my response while everyone was discussing the question of whether Hillary was actually responding to a question or offering such a comment...
So, if we are clear now that she was responding to a question, then it sort of takes away her "childishness" and puts it on the person who asked the question -- However, I don't think she is completely absolved of taking a "lower road" by responding to the question at all.
So, I will take back my erroneous claim of "childishness" and just go with "less than higher road."
The "dirtiest" thing that is happening in this campaign is the conduct of the DNC by disenfranchising Michigan and Florida primary voters, and trying to get us all to believe that Democrat caucus results were actually more valid than the Michigan and Florida primaries... uh, really? Prove it. Show me the argument.
This is just pure, unadulterated bullshit. No one in Florida or Michigan was disenfranchised by the DNC--we did it to ourselves by breaking the rules, and we were warned that it would happen. In fact, when Michigan made noises about doing it back in 2004, the DNC Chair warned that state that they would lose their delegates, no questions asked. That Chair was Terry McAuliffe, who now argues that Michigan and Florida should be counted. So fuck that argument--it's bullshit, no matter how you look at it.
it's bullshit, no matter how you look at it
Really? Because I just read that the Republican-controlled Florida legislature moved up the primary in spite of the wishes of the Democratic minority.
Which, if accurate, means that the argument "we did it to ourselves by breaking the rules" wouldn't be totally correct.
Hi Incertus: So, that is your argument? -- "pure, unadulterated bullshit" and "fuck that argument"?
Would you like to explain how caucus results this time around are any more valid than the primaries in Michigan and Florida? And, while you are at it, could you explain how the voters of Michigan and Florida are responsible for what their state party leaders did? I just kind of wonder about the voters' level of "informed consent" on that.
And, if the voters DID actually have informed consent, why are they complaining so loudly, and why did they show up at the polls so overwhelmingly?
Just saying some argument is bullshit, doesn't mean it is bullshit.
It's childish to answer a question?
Childish is not the word I would have used. It's inflammatory and borders on derogatory. However, if Clinton had been planning on staying away from that controversy, then she certainly could have avoided the question by saying "it's irrelevant" or "it takes the campaign in a direction that I'm uncomfortable with," and she'd have gotten great plaudits for it in the left blogosphere, and well deserved.
she'd have gotten great plaudits for it in the left blogosphere,
ha ha ha! that's a joke, right?
Really? Because I just read that the Republican-controlled Florida legislature moved up the primary in spite of the wishes of the Democratic minority.
It's not quite that simple. The Florida Dems are trying to have it both ways on this, saying it was passed over their objections while simultaneously voting for its passage.
More importantly, if the Florida Dems had been all that concerned about it, they could have made alternate plans way back when the penalties were announced--a caucus, or something similar--but they didn't They figured that the process would probably be over by now and the winner would seat the delegation. It blew up in their faces. Sucks to be us.
And, if the voters DID actually have informed consent, why are they complaining so loudly, and why did they show up at the polls so overwhelmingly?
Because there was a property tax cut amendment on the ballot as well. People didn't show up for the primary--they showed up for that vote and voted in the primary as an afterthought.
Incertus, in this interview, Clinton repeatedly refuses to say that Obama should not have attended Wright's church. Slippery? Maybe. But she has to refuse THREE TIMES after giving her answer about herself before they even let it go. And that's the next day in ANOTHER interview.
More importantly, if the Florida Dems had been all that concerned about it, they could have made alternate plans way back when the penalties were announced--a caucus, or something similar--but they didn't
Hmm.
"For a year now, the Florida Democratic Party has tried to comply with the Delegate Selection Rules of the Democratic National Committee.
We researched every potential alternative process - from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections - but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida.
We made a detailed case to the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, but we were denied.
Our Democratic legislators in Tallahassee tried to set the Florida primary on Feb. 5, instead of Jan. 29, but of course, their proposed amendment to House Bill 537 was greeted with laughter and derision from the Republicans who control the state government."
she has to refuse THREE TIMES after giving her answer about herself before they even let it go
It's "as far as I know" all over again.
Melissa,
The final vote on the change was unanimous. Yes, their attempt to amend the bill went down to defeat, but they didn't have to vote for the measure. It would at least have made their appeal stronger.
And the only stuff I heard about alternatives came in recent weeks as the state party scrambled to fix the earlier fuckup.
she has to refuse THREE TIMES after giving her answer about herself before they even let it go
Exactly. And it still has nothing to do with an underhanded attempt to smear the Obama campaign.
Exactly. Hound her until you get a soundbite you can use against her.
Quick question: If Hillary is such a strong feminist leader...
why does she support the bill that allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control, and allows police to not guard abortion clinics as a matter of "conscience"?
Could it be the right-wing sex-segregated cult she belongs to?
Exactly. And it still has nothing to do with an underhanded attempt to smear the Obama campaign.
Paul the Spud | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 6:15 pm | #
Exactly. Hound her until you get a soundbite you can use against her.
Astraea
I agree completely.
Could it be the right-wing sex-segregated cult she belongs to?
And what in the world does that have to do with his post?
And what in the world does that have to do with his post?
According to Clinton, one is free to choose one's religion. And so Clinton's ties to The Family become something she chose.
Also in response to this:
We know, we know, that fucking cunt needs to sit her ass down and let a man run this country. We get it.
As if any doubt about Clinton is rank misogyny. But how committed to women's rights is she if she chooses to allow police to refuse to guard abortion clinics?
According to Clinton, one is free to choose one's religion. And so Clinton's ties to The Family become something she chose.
Exactly. And whatever she chose is the subject for another debate. But, again, what does that have to do with this post?
"You choose what church you want to attend.":
Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.
Again, Grendel, what does that have to do with this post? I'm really sick of this debate tactic. Any time people support Clinton, it then becomes vital to sling as much mud upon her as possible while ignoring the topic at hand.
...she'd have gotten great plaudits for it in the left blogosphere, and well deserved.
Clinton could cure cancer, AIDS, and male pattern baldness and most of the left blogosphere would claim it was nothing more than publicity stunt.
You know, a candidate who doesn't want to pander to racists might say that it's none of our business, that it's not a topic we should be discussing.
Anyone calling Jeremiah Wright's comments "hate speech" is actively promoting the ignorant racist meme the rightwing media would love to run with but that the rest of us should have the sense to know is bullshit.
Clinton could cure cancer, AIDS, and male pattern baldness and most of the left blogosphere would claim it was nothing more than publicity stunt.
I guess I'm less cynical than most then, but I'd certainly have credited her, even though I lean Obama in this race.
Again, Grendel, what does that have to do with this post?
“You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” Clinton's response demands of honest progressives that we look at The Family, in the exact same way we should look at the religious extremist ties of every rightwing fucktard who's promoted the ignorant, racist meme that acknowledging the Wrong that America has done is "hate speech."
Grendel, whatever you think about Clinton's church, that doesn't change the fact that she did not intentionally bring up this subject to smear Obama.
Anyone calling Jeremiah Wright's comments "hate speech" is actively promoting the ignorant racist meme
Evidently you don't give a shit about this, Grendel, but Wright did say some misogynist things, too.
Some of us with vaginas might consider that "hate speech," even though it doesn't fit conveniently into your "ZOMG DIXIECRATZZZ!!!11!" meme.
You don't find it offensive to have people including Senator Clinton referring to Rev. Wright, a pastor for the UCC, which is demonstrably less bigoted than just about any other church in this country, as a bigot? Equating anger at the injustice that has been done in this country's name with the kind of mindless hatred spewed by the likes of Hagee and Parsley?
So the question was unwarranted, it could have been used as an excuse to bring up Hagee and Parsley- there are any number of answers to the question that would not have been out of line. "Hate speech" was not one of those answers.
Jennifer I suppose a link to dailykos would be more supportable? LMAO! Whatever. I don't care if you or anyone else take my comment seriously. Obama makes up whoppers. To scold Hillary for answering a question is nothing compared to the whoppers, the myth, the legend Obama has created. Selma Alabama? Still laughing.
"a candidate who doesn't want to pander to racists might say that it's none of our business, that it's not a topic we should be discussing."
When she has been saying any variation on that for the past week she just gets the same question thrown back at her. She finally answers the first one that asked her about her and not what she thinks he should do. When asked Again about what he should do she rightly brings up only her own feelings on a private matter of faith. I know plenty of people who avoid pastors they dislike, some even remain a part of the congregation but just avoid the pastor. Having seen the entire sermon in context, it isn't so bad but I still would have had reservations about the delivery.
Someone wishing to decry misogyny could reframe the debate. Just as someone wishing to improve the discussion all around could have brought Hagee and Parsley into the discussion.
Clinton was referring withing the rightwing media frame, which is and has been completely racist from the beginning.
Equating anger at the injustice that has been done in this country's name with the kind of mindless hatred spewed by the likes of Hagee and Parsley?
Wow, where did she do that? If you mean her "hate speech" comment, here's the context:
“You know, I spoke out against Don Imus, saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving.”
Where in that comment did she say Wright was a bigot? Now, before you jump on me for being a racist bigot, I'd like to point out the primary parallel between Wright's comments and Imus' is their misogynist comments.
Clinton was referring withing the rightwing media frame, which is and has been completely racist from the beginning.
I'm turning into a fucking parrot here. That's fine if that's your opinion Grendel, but you're taking a post about Clinton's supposed political tactics and using it as yet another chance to label Clinton as a racist. Talk about reframing the debate...
Here's why it was a bad answer:
Because it gives the press and the Republicans (same thing, ha ha) permission to go into her current pastor's history and dig up every vaguely non-Democratic thing he or she has ever said and use it for who-knows-how-many "Gotcha" moments.
I'd like to point out the primary parallel between Wright's comments and Imus' is their misogynist comments.
Not in the media narrative. The media hasn't said word one about Wright and misogyny, and said very little about Imus. Both were notable to most people as examples of racism.
It doesn't matter which candidate you support, furthering bigoted rightwing memes is something any progressive should decry when anyone does it.
But it's ever so much better to accuse progressives who have long been concerned with womens' issues of being misogynist because they disapprove of racism. Because only a deeply misogynist person would be concerned with the anti-choice policies promoted by Clinton's church, of course.
Both were notable to most people as examples of racism.
Jeff Fecke | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 7:32 pm | #
Yeah. And I'm trying to point out that hey, maybe there's something else going on, too.
FWIW, this being my $0.02 and all, I saw Imus' comments as that happy blend of sexistracist, not "just" racist. So, please. Stop perpetuating the meme that there was no misogyny in Wright's anti-HRC invective.
Because only a deeply misogynist person would be concerned with the anti-choice policies promoted by Clinton's church, of course.
Yep, that's what everyone here is saying, Grendel. Christ.
accuse progressives who have long been concerned with womens' issues of being misogynist because they disapprove of racism.
I'm not sure who you're even addressing, at this point. Clinton? Wright? Any of the commentors here? If you go back and look at the comments again, you'll notice that people who are accusing Wright of being misogynist are doing so because he said misogynist shit, not because he disapproves of racism.
http://taylormarsh.com/
Color me surprised.
Do you know what I find highly amusing about this site? You all can parse the slighest misogyny that comes up and yet racism has to be blatant and ridiculously undeniable for you to call it as such when it comes to Senator Clinton. It's like you have a blind side, and only when its neon glare and falshing will you admit when Sen. Clinton does wrong.
It's like you have a blind side, and only when its neon glare and falshing will you admit when Sen. Clinton does wrong.
I'm more than happy to admit when Clinton does something wrong, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this post. If the post is discussing her church affiliation or debating her choice of words, I'll speak up if I have trouble with anything. Christ, what the hell is wrong with trying to stay on topic?
thirst for knowledge | 03.25.08 - 7:48 pm | #
If you go to the search box and enter "obama" and "racism," you'll find an abundance of posts examining and decrying the racism against Obama thus far. Sorry, but your oppression Olympics claim doesn't fly here.
Evidently you don't give a shit about this, Grendel, but Wright did say some misogynist things, too.
Y'know, from the beginning I've said that the personal attacks on Clinton are the only comments of Wright's that anyone has any reason to complain about. The reporter's question could have served as an opportunity to shift the discussion in that direction. It could have served as an opportunity to discuss the insane homophobic religious nuts McCain chooses to associate with.
Instead we get furthering the bigoted rightwing meme that has been running from day one WRT this story.
And yes, it does SERIOUSLY piss me off to have people, including Senator Clinton, who associate with deeply homophobic religious nuts whining about a representative of one of the few churches in this country that isn't "God hates fags" 24/7. Maybe if the discussion were shifted to the few comments Wright made which were out of line it would be different, but those few comments have been entirely shifted from the media discussion, including Senator Clinton's response. Because religious leaders making misogynist comments is no more "newsworthy" or "shocking" that it is when they make homophobic comments.
Sigh.
Pizza Diavola | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 7:54 pm | #
me, but the hate speech designation of Rev Wright would lead one to think that ya'll still don't get it. Rev. Wright said among other things, that Clinton has no clue what its like to be a black man. There was also something about the Monica lewinsky case. And thats it. That's all that can be said to refer to Sen Clinton. So please explain to me why exactly does she conflate this incident with DON IMUS? Whose rhetoric is seen in the context of racixm for most people? Exactly.
I'm not calling oppresion olympics. I'm calling a spade a spade.
I don't know how many of you have actually watched the video of the good reverands sermon but I couldn't find a fucking thing anti-American in it. He was telling the truth all the way. That the white fuckers that have run this country into the ground don't like it, tough shit is all I can say.
They seem to have a rather short memory don't they. Just how many people have they murdered to make America safe for big business? How many died in Central america alone all for the sake of Chiquita fucking bananas? And if you don't know just ask John Negroponte. That fucker knows for damn sure. Hell they even buried a lot of them in the grounds of the American embassy in Guatemala, Ambassador John fucking Negroponte.
From one of those the good reverand pointed out as having suffered genocide for over 200 fucking years! 
she'd have gotten great plaudits for it in the left blogosphere,
ha ha ha! that's a joke, right?
Seriously, my sides are splitting over that one.
Okay, I get it. I'm overly optimistic. But I'd certainly have credited her on it, and I like to think that others would have as well.
So I'm the only one bothered by the fact that Obama has gotten exponentially more shit over Jeremia Wright than he ever did over Donnie McClurkin? From the media to the opposition campaigns everybody is up in arms over Wright's comments (and not over the few things he said that are deserving of denunciation), yet nobody in the media or the opposition campaigns made any demands about McClurkin.
Fuck, man. Even if Clinton just had to take the opportunity to bash Obama she could have done so from withing a progressive framework rather than furthering the racist bullshit the media has been running with.
And yes, it does SERIOUSLY piss me off to have people, including Senator Clinton, who associate with deeply homophobic religious nuts
The worst was when she invited that ex-gay gospel singer who calls gays "sick" and "disordered" to campaign with her in South Carolina.
Oh, wait...
As for the Florida/Michigan mess, let's say the situation was reversed, with Obama trailing in the delegate count but having won Michigan and Florida. Please raise your hand if you believe his campaign would throw in the towel and say, "Well, them's the breaks." Raise your other hand if you believe his supporters would leave him in droves if he chose to work within the system to get those states' votes and delegates counted.
Not in the media narrative. The media hasn't said word one about Wright and misogyny, and said very little about Imus. Both were notable to most people as examples of racism.
Well, the media didn't say anything about it, so it must not be there!
What the fuck's happened with you lately, Jeff?
Please raise your hand if you believe his campaign would throw in the towel and say, "Well, them's the breaks."
Re: Clinton dropping out, the irony is that the more misogynist attacks (as in the post below) are used against her, the harder it is going to be for her to drop out with dignity and without looking like she caved under the pressure of misogyny and to the will of its purveyors.
The people who want her to drop out would be wise to STFU instead of going after her full-throttle, because she is, of course, keenly aware of the weight she is carrying as the first viable female candidate, and if she appears to have given up without a fight, that's got problems all its own.
Everyone who's going on about how she wants to ZOMG DESTROY THE PARTY!!!11! don't seem to understand that, while there may be "good reasons" for her to drop out, there are also "good reasons" for her to stay and fight until the bitter end, which are separate from winning the nomination.
During the whole Edwards-Donohue fiasco, when I eventually had to resign for personal security reasons, I got some of the nastiest emails I've ever gotten from progressives who told me I'd let down "the Left" by caving in to Donohue, O'Reilly, et. al.
And I was some dumbass nobody. Imagine the pressure Hillary is under to not appear to cave to misogynist attacks or look "weak" by quitting if she doesn't have to.
And, btw, Obama would be under the exact same pressures if the situation were reversed; that's the burden of "going first." And, yes, I would defend his right to stay in to the bitter end, too -- because I've felt that shit firsthand, and it is incredibly complicated and difficult to be in that position.
She. Was. Asked. How anyone dares to attempt to hold her accountable for our despicable press corps is beyond me. In fact, though I haven't been scouring the news looking for Clinton hate, I'm guessing she's been asked many, many times. And considering that there was not just misogyny, but she was personally attacked, and that such attack was not just accepted but repeated by the Obama campaign, I think she was being downright kind.
From the video I saw of Clinton talking about Wright, she was consulting notes as she read. These were planned remarks. With her catching flack for Bosnia story, she understandably wants Wright back in the news. These weren't off hand comments. And frankly, I'm not surprised.
The worst was when she invited that ex-gay gospel singer who calls gays "sick" and "disordered" to campaign with her in South Carolina.
Oh, wait...
As already mentioned, that's yet another issue Clinton could have raised to respond to the question from within a progressive framework. It would have been a negative against Obama while having the advantage of not promoting racist bullshit.
But y'know, whatever. Never mind moving the discussion to point out things that actually are harmful when there's a scary black preacher around.
I guess since I don't give a shit about misogyny I should be cheering Clinton for allowing her church's anti-choice policies to effect her lawmaking.
She was citing an answer she had already given. If there had been a friggin words' difference between the statements, people would be on her for that. I don't want to hear how "it was planned." She could have bought and released those sermons at any time, and she didn't.
As for the Florida/Michigan mess, let's say the situation was reversed, with Obama trailing in the delegate count but having won Michigan and Florida. Please raise your hand if you believe his campaign would throw in the towel and say, "Well, them's the breaks." Raise your other hand if you believe his supporters would leave him in droves if he chose to work within the system to get those states' votes and delegates counted.
When I talk about the Florida mess--I leave Michigan alone because I don't live there and don't know the circumstances--I'm coming at it from the POV of an Edwards supporter, so Obama v. Clinton doesn't matter to me in this deal. I'd be surprised if Obama wouldn't be trying the same thing if the situation were reversed, because that's politics.
But me, personally, I'd still be pushing for them not to count, because I want the whole nominating system to be blown up and remade, and I think a good way to have that happen would be for two major states to be told "tough shit--you don't get seated." I think you might see a full-scale revolt in the nominating process if that happens--say about a 30% chance. Because the days of Iowa and New Hampshire dominating the early discourse need to end.
From the video I saw of Clinton talking about Wright
The exchange referenced in this post was not broadcast; what you saw was video of her discussing these remarks after the fact.
How dare she answer a direct question with a direct answer! Shame on her! She's clearly trying to reignite a controversy that we've all long forgotten about and couldn't care less about.
And how dare she exaggerate her experience in Bosnia! Exaggeration is a priviledge exclusively reserved for Obama!
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3...3/25/15919/
4101
How dare she bring up Bosnia at all? Obama's never been to Bosnia! Clearly, this she's in cahoots with the Republicans to smear Obama. Shame on her!
The exchange referenced in this post was not broadcast; what you saw was video of her discussing these remarks after the fact.
Fair enough. Still, instead of backing away from this, she delved deeper into it. She could have moved on, but she didn't. If that's how she wants to run her campaign, that's fine. But let's not pretend she didn't decide to delve into this.
oops. sorry i didn't close the italics.
“You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”
Um. Some family members you choose. Like husbands. And even after they say and do stuff you don't approve of, sometimes you stay with them anyway.
Is Hillary really trying to bring this stuff up? Is this the game plan? To go out in a blaze of glory?
Like husbands. And even after they say and do stuff you don't approve of, sometimes you stay with them anyway.
OK, now that is really out of line.
Never mind moving the discussion to point out things that actually are harmful when there's a scary black preacher around.
I'd be a lot more inclined to believe that the source of your outrage was a genuine frustration that progressive ideals were being ignored if your argument wasn't predicated on constantly implying that I am a Dixiecrat and a delicate white orchid falling into a heap with the vapors at the thought of a "scary black preacher." That's some weak-ass shit, brootha.
Like husbands. And even after they say and do stuff you don't approve of, sometimes you stay with them anyway.
OK, now that is really out of line.
Grendel72 | 03.25.08 - 9:37 pm | #
How? Isn't this the new plan? Aren't we now placing judgment on people's personal relationships? I, for one, think it's a mistake, but I'm not the one running Hillary's campaign, obviously.
"And, let's face it, there doesn't seem to be much else to hit Obama with."
that and supporting infanticide
that and supporting infanticide
LJ | 03.25.08 - 9:50 pm | #
That's right. We're killing babies. It's our favoritest thing in the world to do. Well, that, and burning the flag, conspiring with the enemy, and hording your tax dollars to pay for Christ's re-crucifixion should he ever show up again.
Now, go make a tape out of that, you moron.
Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?
Reid: Easy.
Q: How is that?
Reid: It will be done.
Q: It just will?
Reid: Yep.
Q: Magically?
Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
(Dana Goldstein continues): "Cryptic. But as I wrote yesterday, the tide is truly changing -- power players such as Reid and Nancy Pelosi are now willing to say on the record that they believe primary campaigning should end after the remaining states have voted and pledged delegates have been allotted. That means things are looking dismal for the Clinton camp, since extending the race indefinitely into a superdelegate fight is their only practical strategy."
How? Isn't this the new plan?
It's fucking tacky, and it's none of our business. We're supposed to be better than the fucking rightwing assholes who made fun of a teenaged Chelsea Clinton.
Melissa: Look at the second comment in this very discussion thread. Anyone who isn't entirely on board with Clinton is accused of misogyny with no reason, and no matter how often they have spoken out against actual misogyny.
Pointing out the misogyny of some of Rev. Wright's comments requires shifting the focus from the racist Hullabaloo the mainstream media has chosen to focus on. This is a discussion that has in fact taken place on this very board in a thread by that noted misogynist Jeff Fecke.
I can't explain this any more clearly: I understand people supporting Clinton, I understand why a lot of women are personally invested in the campaign. I try to take that into account, but some of the excuse making for the Clinton campaign really bothers me coming from people who are progressives, who should all be on the same page.
Furthering the racist rightwing media meme that Jeremiah Wright is some kind of extremist fanatic who hates America and white people is not something I think any progressive should be making excuses for.
It's not about which candidate anyone prefers, it's about whether we're going to change things for the better or just win at any cost. I'd be glad to have the media tearing Obama a new asshole if they were discussing Donnie McClurkin rather than Jeremiah Wright. I'd be glad to have the media giving the candidates who have ties to rightwing religious extremists the same kind of scrutiny they're giving Obama over Wright. I'd be glad to have the media focusing on those comments Wright made that actually were uncalled for and nasty rather than ginning up the racist bullshit like they are.
But we're discussing the media story that actually exists, and when given an opportunity to shift the focus Senator Clinton chose to further the ignorant bullshit the media has been running with all along.
we did it to ourselves by breaking the rules,
Incertus | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 5:56 pm | #
Really? So we're all members of the MI and FL state legislatures now?
I'm not calling oppresion olympics. I'm calling a spade a spade.
thirst for knowledge | 03.25.08 - 8:03 pm | #
Your first comment in this thread talked about how so-called progressives overreact to misogyny but can't recognize racism unless it's a glaring neon sign. If you honestly didn't mean to say that progressives can't recognize one without ignoring the other, my apologies. However, the way your comment was framed didn't come across that way and seemed to pit anti-misogynists against anti-racists; hence my use of "oppression Olympics."
'cause I don't remember "shall we disenfranchise ourselves by breaking party rules" being on the ballot here in florida, I'm pretty sure our republican Legislature & governor buried that in the text of a bill designed to restore the paper trail at the voting booth.
So please explain to me why exactly does she conflate this incident with DON IMUS? Whose rhetoric is seen in the context of racixm for most people?
Look, at this point, I have no idea what you're talking about. First you said that all the people on this site can't see racism unless it's bloody obvious. I responded that if you looked through this site, you'd find otherwise. And now you've moved away from that point entirely and are arguing about whose rhetoric is more racist?
If you read the comments thread and saw my comment about Imus, you'd have seen that I said it was that curious blend of sexist AND racist, rather than solely racist (what joy it is to be a woman of color). Sheesh.
So I'm the only one bothered by the fact that Obama has gotten exponentially more shit over Jeremia Wright than he ever did over Donnie McClurkin?
No, you're not. Since it has nothing to do with the post at hand, however . . .
How? Isn't this the new plan?
It's fucking tacky, and it's none of our business. We're supposed to be better than the fucking rightwing assholes who made fun of a teenaged Chelsea Clinton.
Yes. It is tacky to make judgments about the personal lives of others. I wish some presidential candidates would remember that fact.
Pizza Diavola | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 10:30 pm | #
Ok, let me see if I can clean up my argument. I have no problems with misogyny being pointed out on this site. In fact, what this sit has done is open up my understanding in how deeply it is embedded in the society. However, my beef is that from what I have seen, the underhandedness that the Clinton's engage in is not pointed out until it becomes a glaring neon sign. You may see the Dom Imus flap as a blend of sexism and racism. By no means was that the frame followed in the media. That frame was racism. Pulling in the racist comments of Don Imus into this debate over Rev. Wright, which Sen. Clinton called "hate speech",is conflation. Rev. Wright pointed out that the US had shitty foreign policy and a racist society. That ain't hate speech. Conflating Don Imus' expliciting racist speech with Rev Wright is fucking bullshit. And Sen. Clinton, I'm sure, knows this.
What I am trying to say is that just as how you recognize the subtlety of the misogyny, I wish you would see the subtletly of the racism, even when it is coming from your candidate.
I think I'm with Paul the spud on this one: *sigh*
thirstforknowledge, it wouldn't have hurt you to read PD's (Pizza D, I think it was you) comment about Imus' comments being both racist and misogynist. Senator Obama has failed to speak out against misogynist hate spech, and considering some of it was directed at Sen. Clinton personally I am sure she took that for what it clearly was - an insult. Simply because the media "frames" something one way doesn't make it so, in fact, it makes speaking out against the hatred towards women even more important. PD isn't ignoring racism, she's calling out sexism. We can care about both at the same time, in fact, we have to.
Pizza Diavola | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 11:36 pm | #
*Shrugs* Someone put it this way and I'm beginning to think it has merit. Racism and sexism are like triggers to an allergy, and after prolonged exposure, the sufferers thereof are sensitive to it. WOC of colour get the double-whammy. MOC and WW get the separate allergies. And then there are blind spots for both.
Sorry. But I've gotta go with Jeff on this one.
pocochina | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 11:42 pm | #
I did read it. ANd what I am saying is that she may have caught that, but thats not how the incident was framed It was framed as racism. NOT sexism. So when sen Clinton conflates Rev. Wright with Don Imus, thats how it will be seen as racism. And she has to know that.
We can care about both at the same time, in fact, we have to.
Ironically, this is what I want to see happen. From my point of view, Sen. Clinton is given a pass of various racially interesting statements, while Obama is nailed for every misogynist statement. Obama SHOULD be nailed. So should Clinton.
the underhandedness that the Clinton's engage in is not pointed out until it becomes a glaring neon sign.
If you think that's true, I suggest that you do a search through the blog, this time for "Clinton racism." You will find plenty of posts chewing out Clinton's campaign for engaging in race-baiting.
By no means was that the frame followed in the media.
Oh, all hail the bloody media. What part of "this is my $0.02" did you miss? I'm speaking about my personal interpretation of the Imus incident.
Pulling in the racist comments of Don Imus into this debate over Rev. Wright, which Sen. Clinton called "hate speech",is conflation.
I didn't pull in the racistsexist comments of Imus into this debate for no good reason. If you read the post, you'll see that Jeff is quoting the NYT Caucus blog. Grendel72 argued that HRC was calling Wright's sermons "hate speech," and I pasted in the full quote from the NYT Caucus blog article to provide the context in which she said "hate speech." If you want to argue that HRC was racist for talking about Imus' racistsexist comments when she was asked about Wright, because that implies she thinks Imus and Wright are on the same level, feel free. I can't, nor would I want, to stop you from thinking however you like. However, I'm (a) not conflating them; (b) not pulling in quotes randomly to derail the thread.
I wish you would see the subtletly of the racism, even when it is coming from your candidate.
thirst for knowlege | 03.25.08 - 11:21 pm | #
You can wish all you like, but frankly, I don't see how saying
Where in that comment did she say Wright was a bigot? Now, before you jump on me for being a racist bigot, I'd like to point out the primary parallel between Wright's comments and Imus' is their misogynist comments.
which is the only comment I made about HRC's opinion on Wright, makes me racist. Or makes her racist. Unless pointing out that HRC didn't flat out call Wright a bigot makes us racist in some way.
Racism and sexism are like triggers to an allergy, and after prolonged exposure, the sufferers thereof are sensitive to it.
Wow. Are you seriously claiming that I'm overreacting and oversensitive?
Excuse me, I need to retire to my fainting couch. I do believe that I have the vapors.
I did read it. ANd what I am saying is that she may have caught that, but thats not how the incident was framed It was framed as racism. NOT sexism.
Gawd fabbid we should challenge the frames.
Gawd fabbid we should challenge the frames.
zuzu | Homepage | 03.26.08 - 12:01 am | #
All hail our mainstream media overlords, long may they reign.
Pizza Diavola | Homepage | 03.26.08 - 12:00 am | #
*Blink*
No, I am NOT saying you are oversensitive.
I AM using a metaphor that works for me to explain how I see the disconnect between us. And good for you challenging the frame. She, however, is quite well aware of the media frame and is playing to it. And thus, I critique it.
Am I the only one that wishes Hillary would speak about gender issues in the same way Barack spoke about race and class issues? She's had plenty of opportunities to show the same kind of leadership. I, for one, wish she would have taken one.
And thus, I critique it.
thirst for knowlege | 03.26.08 - 12:34 am | #
Fair enough.
I apologize for my "overreacting" comment - it was rude and uncalled for.
Pizza Diavola | Homepage | 03.26.08 - 12:40 am | #
That's cool. 
Are any of you going to mention that this was an editorial board interview with the right wing paper in Pittsburgh and the person sitting immediately to HRC's right was none other than Richard Mellon Scaife?
Are you really trying to pretend that she walked into that room and wasn't prepared to get her Bosnia fiasco off the front pages?
She had successfully pushed past addressing the Wright issue whenever she was asked about it since it broke (and commendably so), yet suddenly when the current news cycle is hammering her like a Daily Show expose, she feels the need to clear the air address and expand on it?
Am I the only one that wishes Hillary would speak about gender issues in the same way Barack spoke about race and class issues? She's had plenty of opportunities to show the same kind of leadership. I, for one, wish she would have taken one.
She has, but she immediately got accused of playing the gender card.
She's had plenty of opportunities to show the same kind of leadership. I, for one, wish she would have taken one.
slag | Homepage | 03.26.08 - 12:37 am | #
Some examples: her speech at the U.N. World Conference on Women ("women's rights are human rights"), working for salary parity (the Paycheck Fairness Act), speaking and working for access to contraception and family planning, worked Patty Murray to make EC available against the FDA's objections, etc.
Are any of you going to mention that this was an editorial board interview with the right wing paper in Pittsburgh and the person sitting immediately to HRC's right was none other than Richard Mellon Scaife?
The interview was to get the paper's endorsement. Is she supposed to just cede potential endorsements to her opponent just because Scaife owns the paper?
And I don't think she was too confident of getting *help* from Scaife, frankly.
My point is that, much like going on FOX News, you know where the questions are headed/coming from.
It was a calculated decision for her to unleash this.
Look, I'm not saying this is a topic that she should necessarily protect Obama on, but it certainly is a course change for her to get into it, and she seemed to do so enthusiastically.
Am I the only one that wishes Hillary would speak about gender issues in the same way Barack spoke about race and class issues? She's had plenty of opportunities to show the same kind of leadership. I, for one, wish she would have taken one.
It's not so much that I wish she could speak so personally about gender issues. I wish we would listen when she calls out MSNBC on their misogyny, rather than being branded petulant (distinct, of course, from Petulant) and selfish. Explicitly, though, because of sexism she doesn't have the same social ability to be taken seriously when she does so. She has, however, shown leadership on critical issues for women, as PD pointed out above.
Mr. Furious, this:
suddenly when the current news cycle is hammering her like a Daily Show expose, she feels the need to clear the air address and expand on it? is not sudden. In fact, it is not distinct from any other day in her fucking life. There's no such thing as a day where there aren't dozens of fact-lite, vicious attacks on her, pounced on by mainstream and lefty media alike.
What was she going to do, skip the interview? Would the story have been then that she ran scared from Scaife?
There's no such thing as a day where there aren't dozens of fact-lite, vicious attacks on her, pounced on by mainstream and lefty media alike.
Please. Stop with the "woe is Hillary" stuff. If she was any other candidate this race would have been called for Obama a long time ago—by the media AND the party. The very fact that she is still alive in this race to be picked on belies your argument.
She stepped in the biggest unforced error/self-inflicted mess of the primary thusfar, and this was an attempt to move the spotlight back onto Obama.
pocochina | Homepage | 03.26.08 - 1:20 am | #
This time, it wasn't fact-lite. She said she was under sniper fire in Bosnia and they found tapes showing that she was lying. And she repeated this lie with details more than once. Unfortunately, this one she stepped right into and she is now rightly being called out for it.
And Obama lied about being brave about taking an anti-war stance because he delivered a speech in 2002 "in the midst of a high-stakes Senate race" that he didn't even declare for until 2003.
You want to trade gotchas, we can do this all day. As for Jeff's post, it's dishonest and twists the facts.
If she was any other candidate this race would have been called for Obama a long time ago—by the media AND the party.
This? Is bullshit. No other candidate would be expected to drop out when they've got a double-digit lead going into the next big primary.
"My point is that, much like going on FOX News, you know where the questions are headed/coming from."
Unlike, say, MSNBC with its 24/7 Matthews/Olbermess/Abrams fairness to Clinton? Or CNN - which had to edit down the Chelsea Clinton clip to sooooooo short of a length just to make sure we couldn't see the applause she received at the end?
Forget friendly. Which MSM outlet is giving Clinton a fair shake these days?
If she was any other candidate this race would have been called for Obama a long time ago—by the media AND the party.
If this was any other campaign season the smears would be a heck of a lot less subtle. I'm getting a feeling that as the American system becomes a never-ending election cycle, the American public and its obsessives are becomeing selective amnesiacs about what happens during a campaign. Let alone the fact that they seem to forget that it is perfectly legimate for someone who has the number of delegates that she has behind her to take the whole thing to the convention to let the delegates decide it. I, for one, DO NOT want this contest decided by a whiny political class and the content-lite media that it inspires. Buck up folks, this is democracy. If your current overlords can send out the army to try to make it happen in foreign lands, you can put up with the bumpy bits for awhile.
What was she going to do, skip the interview? Would the story have been then that she ran scared from Scaife?
???
This is one weird question!
When FauxNews offered to host debates for the Democratic candidates, what did they do??????
That's right, they politely told FauxNews to shove it.
Scaife is the heart of the anti-Clinton wingnut right wing conspiracy and she knows that!
You don't think going there, to do an interview with a notoriously right wing rag that isn't worth shit even in the Pittsburgh market isn't the slightest bit strange???????
If this had happened during an interview with the ed. board at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that would be one thing, but she chose to do an interview with the ed. board of the most anti-Clinton paper there is. You don't think she knew there were going to be questions not worth answering?????
??????????
The logical thing for her to do was ignore the rag altogether. No one reads that except people who won't vote for the Dem. in November anyway.
She was trolling and she knew it. She may as well have done a big splashy interview with the Washington Times, aka Moony Central!
Scaife also owns a local paper in Pittsburgh, which is different than avoiding Fox.
And I seem to recall progressives making a stink when she threatened to boycott MSNBC's debate because Dan Shuster called her daughter a whore. So I'm not real inclined to credit liberal-dude huffing about what media outlets to avoid, thanks.
Scaife also owns a local paper in Pittsburgh, which is different than avoiding Fox.
!
A "paper" no one takes seriously.
Liss, my comment about Hillary still being allowed to continue her Quixotic run with what now looks to be a miniscule chance of a legitimate "win" is not bullshit—but I guess I deserve that. I shouldn't have called bullshit on pocochina either. I'm a little loose with the phrase.
I will grant you that there is a perverse twist to the media allowing her to linger in the race, because it's "fun" for them and good copy/sells papers, etc, but if you think anybody but Hillary would be allowed to continue at this point as a legitimate alternative to Obama, I think you're crazy.
The party would have forced anybody else out at this point.
That's an institutional advantage that to me, along with name recognition, that has far outweighed any handicap imposed by "nah nah" coverage by Chris Matthews.
Jeff, this post was dishonest crap. I know it fits nicely into your ongoing series about how grasping and icky Hillary Clinton is, but why are you twisting facts so you can say she tried to "reignite the controversy"? She was asked the question, directly, about what she would have done, not what her opponent should have done. She answered it. Should she have ignored it, in your view? If so, why?
And considering what Jeremiah Wright said about her, specifically, considering that he said her husband had done African Americans "like he did Monica," complete with hip thrusts, considering that he is Obama's pastor and the good senator has not said anything about that particular comment (at least that I know of, but I could be wrong), I think she was fucking circumspect. And for this, you call her "petty," "unpresidential," and "a loser" - even though her actual behavior is the precise opposite of these unlovely words. Why?
You are twisting events and applying motive when you have no basis to know what it may be, or even whether it exists. It is unkind and unfair to treat human beings in this way, but mostly it's stupid and intellectually lazy. You want to go after Clinton, go after Clinton. But let's do it with actual things that actually happened, instead of applying motive and innuendo with no factual basis for doing so, mmkay?
I have expected better from you, Jeff. But this is dishonest and deeply stupid pablum you just wrote, and maybe I shouldn't.
I agree with zuzu, Liss, CE, Pizza, and others, Jeff.
Pulling quotes out of context and intentionally mischaracterizing the context isn't cool, and it's certainly working more within the "right wing frame" than anything Clinton said.
She was asked the question, directly, about what she would have done, not what her opponent should have done. She answered it. Should she have ignored it, in your view? If so, why?
Because she had no need to bother with a right wing faux newspaper in the first place!
And now the Clinton campaign is passing around a smear piece from the American Spectator!
A "paper" no one takes seriously.
Somebody's buying it in Pittsburgh, because it's one of the two main papers there. You may dismiss it as a joke, but there's a reason that Presidential candidates go to fish frys and corn festivals and right-wing editorial boards: it's called campaigning.
So, oddjob, who exactly IS the surrogate in Hillary's new right-wing give-and-take?
And don't forget Bill Clinton went on the Rush Limbaugh Show the day before the Texas primary. IT should be noted that Rush had a guest-host that day, but still...
As for Scaife and his "paper," he is the guy who funded the Arkansas Project and his paper is the one that accused Hillary of murdering Vince Foster. Scaife is the Vito Corleone to Rush's Sonny.
The ability to hit Obama through a right-wing venue ahead of the PA primary came at the cost of some serious pride swallowing for Clinton. An endorsement from that Board means nothing. This was a conscious choice of megaphone for her.
So HRC has reason to hold a grudge against Scaife (who, by all accounts, is someone who never lets go of grudges himself). Why is it a bad thing that she can steel herself to get his paper's endorsement? To beard the lion in his den? That takes guts, imo.
For all I know, her off-the-record inducement to Scaife is along the lines of: "Come on -- you know you want the chance to target me when I go up against McCain. What's Obama to you? Taking me out now is too easy. Our enmity binds us deeper than that."
(Ok, so I read too many epic fantasies.)
Once again, I will assert that from an ideological perspective, I really could not care less whether Clinton or Obama wins the nomination. Their politics are so close to me, I cannot see any reason to get completely worked up over one more than other.
That said, the way this stuff about Clinton meeting with Scaife is being framed is just making me howl. When Obama asked McClurkin to campaign with him, it was cited as evidence of how brilliantly Obama could work with people of different political persuasions -- and cited as such by many of the same people who are now saying Clinton meeting with Scaife is evidence that she is a horrible person who will do anything to win.
It's just hilarious.
(Oddjob, I hope you know I'm excepting you, since I recall that your reaction to Obama-McClurkin was not to defend Obama on the basis that engaging with McClurkin was proof of his aisle-crossing ability.)
And don't forget Bill Clinton went on the Rush Limbaugh Show the day before the Texas primary. IT should be noted that Rush had a guest-host that day, but still...
Sorry, that one's been debunked. It was the kind of interview that radio hosts commonly buy from a PR/aggregator service and then record their own voices over the questions so that it appears as if the host is interviewing the subject.
Melissa, I'm not saying HRC has to boycott hostile media, but I also refuse to let her (or her supporters) play coy and pretend she was "just answering questions" and that this was just like any other editorial interview.
You got a link zuzu? I hadn't heard that. Makes sense...
And before somebody accuses me of spreading that Bill/Rush thing recklessly, it's actually based on the fact that I nearly drove off the road when I heard it myself at the time.
Not something I'm parroting from Daily Kos or Andrew Sullivan.
Why is it a bad thing that she can steel herself to get his paper's endorsement? To beard the lion in his den?
One might even say it demonstrates an ability to work with people she has reason to hate. To reach across personal grudges and ideological lines.
"...the way this stuff about Clinton meeting with Scaife is being framed is just making me howl. When Obama asked McClurkin to campaign with him, it was cited as evidence of how brilliantly Obama could work with people of different political persuasions -- and cited as such by many of the same people who are now saying Clinton meeting with Scaife is evidence that she is a horrible person who will do anything to win."
Word.
"One might even say it demonstrates an ability to work with people she has reason to hate. To reach across personal grudges and ideological lines."
Word squared. Just don't expect most of the lefty blogosphere to say so, because it doesn't fit into the "Clintons are TEH EVIL!!!11!!!" meme.
Commenting by HaloScan
