<p>The scenario for Hillary should have gone: “I was a Goldwater girl through and through. Then I heard Dr. King, and my youth pastor, and I thought, “I really want to commit myself to equality for all, and for Civil Rights. And that’s incompatible with being a Goldwater Girl.” So I changed.”</p>
<p>But the scenario is actually. “I heard Dr. King and my youth pastor, and I thought it would be a great thing to commit myself to equality for all, and for Civil Rights. Then I went out and became a Goldwater Girl.”</p>
<p>Since the second is far closer to the truth as she tells it, she would have been much better off being silent (after all, had she been silent, no one would have held her accountable for what she did as a child). But she chose not to, and to play fast and loose with the facts. </p>
<p>I don’t think she is a racist. I think she is an experienced dissembler.</p>
<p>South Carolina By the Numbers (Washington Post)
"By Peter Baker
The Clinton camp would like to brush off the weekend primary in South Carolina as not really that representative because so many African Americans voted. That in essence was what former president Bill Clinton was saying when he dismissed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s victory over New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by comparing it to Jesse Jackson’s victories in South Carolina during his runs for the presidency in the 1980s.</p>
<p>But in fact, the numbers don’t bear that out. If half as many black voters turned out, Obama still would have beaten Clinton, albeit not by as large a margin. Let’s say, for instance, that African American voters represented just 20 percent of the total electorate in South Carolina instead of the 55 percent they did – closer to, say, their share of the New York Democratic electorate. Assuming each candidate won the same proportionate support within each racial group, then Obama still would have won the primary with 34.6 percent of the overall vote to 32.6 percent for Clinton and 32.4 percent for former North Carolina senator John Edwards.</p>
<p>This thing about Hillary’s statement about hearing Dr. King is the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard in a while. She stated that she was taken to hear Dr. King speak when she was 15. This is, apparently, true. Some of you think that she should have rejected her father’s views and refused to be a Goldwater girl when she was 15–remember, this was 1964. It’s just silly to claim that she is lying about anything in this scenario. Besides, I have no trouble whatsoever imagining a 15-year-old, in 1964, admiring both Dr. King and Mr. Goldwater. 15-year-olds do not necessarily have a well-thought-out, consistent position on the issues.
(By the way, I prefer Obama myself, but I don’t like baseless attacks, even on candidates I don’t like that much.)</p>
<p>I knew she was a Goldwater Girl in 1992. It’s never been a secret. It happens every day that people go to hear a speaker, feel inspired, and don’t instantly change their lives. A lot of people probably went to see “An Inconvenient Truth,” thought it was compelling, but drove their SUV to work the next morning like before instead of waiting for the bus. It’s nice when people immediately change course when they hear a persuasive new idea, but it’s not typical. I just can’t get too worked up about the hypocrisy of taking a few years to put your thoughts into action. That’s normal.</p>
<p>well, I enjoy ambiguity and wish to cultivate my embrace of it even further. This impractical practice prevents me from being a lawyer or a politician and pretty much everything where in the end you need to rule on matters one way or the other, in black or white. I am somewhat incapable of thinking along a straight line of facts anyway. But it’s clear to me that righteous thinking and the indignation of opinion provides the bladder force that splatters the cesspool of discord. I therefore would prefer Obama declare himself both black and white and let everyone split their brains with the frustration of being unable to pin down what he is and what that means.</p>
<p>(and i’d like to thank that french guy for blowing all those billions. at last I’ve found someone whose job I could perform much more successfully by sitting there doing nothing.)</p>
<p>No, that is not the issue at all, and that so many people cannot see the real issue or address it directly, despite being shown its principle, shows us why Hillary and Bill are such effective dissemblers. They are slipping between the truth, changing meaning by exploiting context. And when those who are able to see them point them out, they “defend” themselves by referring to the literal meaning of their statements absent their context. Bill Clinton did precisely this when he said in response to Obama’s SC victory that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina and ran a good campaign. Well, absent the statement’s context this is all quite true and therefore unassailable. But we are interested not merely in the literal truth of specific words, but also their meaning when placed in context. When we focus upon this, we see Bill Clinton was saying something far more sinister and contemptuous.</p>
<p>Hillary did precisely this with her MLK statement. Her words were literally true absent their context. When taken in context we see she has said something that is far from innocuous and indeed that shows contempt for her audience. Novak called her out for it, and he was right to do so. I am no fan of Novak-- not at all. I am, quite frankly, shocked that so few are able to see his point, as obvious as it is.</p>
<p>Gee, I was into SDS and related groups back around 1970. We all have our youthful indiscretions. I picked UW because it was one of the most radical political happening places around back in the day. Not for the football which at the time was a loser. Times sure have changed.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, replace Hillary with somebody you respect. Put them in Hillary’s position as it relates to Novak’s column. The person you respect as a 15 year old was a Goldwater girl or boy. This person admits this publicly in a book he/she wrote. In newspapers. On the internet. On television. It is not a secret. As an adult the person becomes an advocate for civil rights. Then this person you respect goes to Selma and says exactly what Hllary said.</p>
<p>What is the context now?</p>
<p>You state the way you see the context as a fact. No. It isn’t. I can see why Hillary haters think it’s so though.</p>
<p>The truth is that Bill Clinton’s primary win in South Carolina in 1992 was built on exactly the same elements as Obama’s - an overwhelming majority of the Black vote, coupled with substantial numbers of white voters.</p>
<p>We know why he chose to compare Obama with Jesse Jackson. What’s the big secret.</p>
<p>As for change - I have no problem with Hillary changing. I also don’t care what she thought as a child. I’m surprised that she felt so driven to dissemble about it.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Relative few people are politically aware enough to track these issues as closely as you are. Doing so requires some knowledge of history and the ability to reason through several apparently disconnected facts. Their inability or disinterest here is why they are more easily exploitable and why I think we have an obligation never to play loose with words as Hillary has done. Many don’t even know who Goldwater was, what he stood for, and the import of being affiliated with him in 1964. Honor would have us lead these people to enlightenment about the past, not take advantage of their ignorance. Were Hillary a true leader, she would have done quite precisely what mini points out several posts above. But she acted more like a dictator than a leader, exploiting the ignorant for personal gain. </p></li>
<li><p>The issue never was about her having been a Goldwater Girl. Once again, simply to show the principle of this issue I will associate it with a past that is well known and quite obviously pernicious. I do not claim Hillary’s circumstance here is as pernicious, but only that the structure of it is the same. Let us consider a Nazi Vet who, after WWII, flew Germany to live in another country. He settled in a region with a large German Jewish population. Some twenty years after the war he decided to run for local office, and he waged a fine campaign that worked vigorously for the Jewish vote. We have here a man who worked ardently for Hitler. But let us say at some point in his work for Hitler he heard a speech by a famous Jew. Years later, instead of explaining the circumstances of the speech, he avoids it so that he might appeal to Jews for their goodwill and votes. In a campaign speech he claims “I remember during the war having the great privilege of hearing Mister Famous Jew challenge us to stay awake for the Revolution that would make Germany a better place!”, and all the Jews cheered for him.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Surely there is a difference between the vet and Hillary. But there is no difference between the structure of their offense. Both worked for men who were expressly hostile to their audience’s interests. And yet both failed to reveal the truth that context would have afforded everyone. They both lied by omission. That is the issue, not what they did in the past, but what they did in the present regarding the past.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, your analogy doesn’t work for me. </p>
<p>But to go along…I dont think I could ever forgive the Nazi. Never. So, it wouldn’t matter to me what the Nazi said at a place like Selma. So it wouldn’t be what that person said at Selma that bothered me, that person’s existence would bother me. I could care less what that person said.
That person is gone for me.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t cloak my hatred for the Nazi in some opinion piece written by somebody who was also a Nazi.</p>
<p>I do believe her former affiliation with Goldwater is not as well known as you portray here, especially not within that audience. You see they would have to know, generally, who Goldwater was, when he was at his power, the historical issues that were at stake at the time, how Goldwater responded to them, how blacks perceived them, whether blacks of that time were at odds with Goldwater, and the side for which Hillary worked at that precise time she claims she heard MLK speak. They would have to know all of these things and be able to connect them. Few would be able to do this. I think those of us who are able to do it and who want something from those of us who are not, have an obligation not to exploit ignorance so that we may have our way. We in fact have an obligation to show those who are ignorance how we came to be what we are. In this way, we educate about the past in a way that is relevant, riveting, and that allows people to make informed decisions.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that someone I respected would ever take advantage of people as Hillary has done. That is because I think that person would have the people’s interest uppermost in mind. Still, people do make mistakes, especially in the heat of a moment. I would expect such a person to express horror, once her error came to light, and then admit that she had given a false impression of having identified back in 1964 with a message that in fact was hostile to the ideals she identified with.</p>
<p>simba,
In case you don’t get it, I have no candidate. Unlike you, I have no respect (or obsession) for Hillary or Team Clinton. So yes, I guess I know I won’t vote for her. Beyond that, I will wait and see. Yes, if she wins the Democratic nomination I will vote for a Republican. </p>
<p>I would probably vote for either Edwards or Obama on the Democratic side.
I could live with Romney or McCain over Hillary.</p>
<p>January 29, 2008
Obama Camp Humor On Clinton’s Florida ‘Win’</p>
<p>According to FOX News, with 15 percent of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton is leading in Florida with 52 percent of the vote to Barack Obama’s 29 percent and John Edwards’ 15 percent.</p>
<p>The response from Obama spokesman Bill Burton? An e-mail with the subject head “Breaking…” followed by this message:</p>
<pre><code>“Obama and Clinton tie for delegates in Florida. 0 for Obama, 0 for Clinton.”
</code></pre>