<p>OMG, A Lord of the Rings reference! rotflol</p>
<p>Dross, I alwas stood in awe of eloquence, now you got me even further with your ability to reach out to the geek in me.</p>
<p>You had me at hello.</p>
<p>funny…</p>
<p>Drossy, Obama used a machine gun by attempting to frame Hillary’s comment about LBJ and the Civil Rights Act as racist, downplaying and demeaning the contributions of MLK. Well, doing so got him lots of AA support but it also framed him as the “black candidate” whereas previously he hadn’t been so framed. It was he that did it to himself, not Hillary.</p>
<p>PH: I’m going to give you the courtesy of assuming that you’ve merely misread me instead of deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I did not say:
and I defy you to find any place where I did so. I said that Obama played the race card with respect to Clinton’s quote speaking of LBJ in the context of the Civil Rights Act, not because Obama spoke of MLK. It was a cute little maneuver on his part and it backfired with ugly consequences.</p>
<p>The mention of Alan Keyes brings to mind something that’s been rolling around in my mind for a couple of days: I think Obama’s political career was done a disservice by facing such a weak whackjob, someone most Republicans giggled at, as opposition for his run for the Senate. With a tougher opponent, he’d probably be a better campaigner and better prepared for prime time.</p>
<p>I thought it was a cute little maneuver on Bill Clinton’s part today when he compared a potential Obama victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s SC win back in 94 or whenever. Talk about framing him as the 'black candidate."</p>
<p>Demographically, Bill Clinton is exactly correct. It means a pitcher of warm spit. Obama pushed the genie out of the bottle and race has been almost all the media has been talking about for the last week. </p>
<p>Obama’s win in Iowa was impressive and meant something. He’s managed to throw that away.</p>
<p>Obama just had a HUGE victory in SC, where he got 25% of the white vote in a three way contest! What does Iowa have to do with anything?</p>
<p>Obama proved in Iowa, NH and Nevada, and SC that he is winning votes from blacks, whites , and a huge following of young voters from all races and genders.</p>
<p>I guess Hillary better watch out. She is the white female candidate. While her marginal win in NH was marginal, I guess she just threw it away in SC.</p>
<p>"PH: I’m going to give you the courtesy of assuming that you’ve merely misread me instead of deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I did not say:“One guy here claims he played the “race card” simply because the man talked about MLK,”</p>
<p>TheDad, I’m going to extend equal courtesy to you in assuming that you’ve failed to see that it was Drosselmeier who said that, not me. Go back and reread, and I’m sure you’ll see that I said nothing of the sort. I encourage you to go back and reread my post (#139), which clearly outlines all that I’ve had to say concerning Hillary Clinton’s comment about MLK, LBJ, and The Civil Rights Act. At no time have I subscribed to the notion that her statement had racist intent. But I also think its unfair to accuse Obama of using the race card, when it was never he who leveled the charge of racism against her. Certain of his supporters (NOT ALL), and SOME members of the AfAm community took exception to her statement, and it was they who leveled the charge of racism against Senator Clinton. </p>
<p>But I do agree with Dross that Obama is being weighed under an egregious double standard. There have indeed been people on this very forum who felt that Obama’s very mention of Dr. King was “playing the race card”. It would indeed seem that anyone can invoke the name of MLK BUT the black guy. Instead, he has to pretend that race is not now, and never has been a issue in American social and political discourse. He has to walk a razor’s edge and smile, smile, smile, even while his feet are being cut to ribbons.</p>
<p>Oh, Bill went much further this afternoon, expressly comparing Obama’s likely win to the showing of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. (The truth is, it is actually closer to his own in 1992.</p>
<p>There’s a difference between racism and race-baiting. I choose to assume Bill and Hill’s comments represent the latter. Mark Penn knows what he is doing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t read the entire thread, but perhaps someone has shown this. Where did Obama attempt “to frame Hillary’s comment about LBJ and the Civil Rights Act as racist, downplaying and demeaning the contributions of MLK.”?</p>
<p>I see where he called the comments ill-advised (which they certainly were, given the firestorm that erupted after them), but I do not see where he claimed what you are claiming of the man.</p>
<p>Please show this to me.</p>
<p>Yes indeed, Ole’ Bill is a shrewd political operator. He would have you to believe that the only way Obama was going to win South Carolina is because all the black folks were going to vote for him—this despite the fact that Obama DOES NOT have the black vote locked up. Plenty of blacks are still in Bill and Hill’s hip pocket. Plenty of blacks disbelieve that Obama has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected President, and believe that their vote would be better spent on Wife-Of-Bill (the “first Black President”). One of my cousins recently told me that he planned to vote for Hillary Clinton, because he felt she was the Democrat with the best chance of retaking the White House, and he is in no way alone in that sentiment. Witness even here on CC that both Drosselmeier and I (both of us, black) are on record as supporting candidates other than Obama. Al Sharpton himself said that Senator Obama had best not take the black vote as a given. Johnson, the former President of BET, stood with the Clintons and berated Obama over his supporters’ response to the Hillary’s LBJ/Civil Rights Act comment. Yet, the Clinton campaign would still have you believe that South Carolina blacks are drones who will automatically vote for “the black candidate”, a suggestion that is as insulting on its face as the claim that whites will automatically vote for the white candidate. As it turns out, a sizable number of whites in SC also voted for Obama. Yes, Obama won SC, but to say that it’s only because blacks voted for him is a nasty and simplistic manipulation of the facts.</p>
<p>What scared the bejesus out of Billary was the realization that Obama had garnered a hugely unexpected level of broad appeal. Six months ago, the media had all but coronated Hillary the Democratic nominee for President, saying she was unbeatable. But, Iowa proved that Obama was NOT the “Black Candidate” in the vein of Al or Jesse, that he had the ability to appeal to a sizable number of white voters as well, and that perception simply could not be allowed to stand. Whatever else you make think of Barrack Obama, he is NOT a stupid man. He would not intentionally do anything that would result in squandering the good will that he had worked so hard to cultivate. But really, there’s no way that Obama could have avoided the “race card” charge. Posters on these forums have accused Oprah Winfry of racism simply because she endorses Obama :eek:! If he campaigns in black churches (something Bill, Hill and every other white Democrat has done since the beginning of time), he is being racially divisive. If he accepts endorsement from Black organizations and is photographed with prominent blacks, he is “playing the race card”—this despite the fact that white Democrats have always sought endorsement from these same sources in the absence of any such charge. I submit to you that there is NO WAY Obama was going to escape the charge of being racially divisive, because, as Drosselmeier has pointed out, he is being subjected to a terrible double standard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hah. Yeah, Bullet. The truth be known, I am something of a geek myself, in my own, unique, open-minded (and modest), quirky little way. Hard to believe? Yes. But its true. <ggggg></ggggg></p>
<p>The media is currently having a love fest with Obama, too. I wouldn’t book reservations for inaugural on that basis either.</p>
<p>
Good grief. It’s not nasty & simplistic manipulation, it’s demographic fact: Obama got 80 percent of the AA vote which in turn was half the electorate. </p>
<p>Obama campaigning in black churches, etc., isn’t divisive. Playing the “race victim” card in response to Clinton’s remark about LBJ is. Dross: I’m sure you can Google it…even PH admits that this is what happened.
Charges which the Obama campaign were happy to use for their own tactical purposes to win South Carolina until they realized that the genie was out of the bottle. Up until that point, Obama was a multicultural candidate in what had been a mostly colorblind race. Obama would have done better to have won South Carolina far more narrowly but without the “racist” word being thrown around.</p>
<p>^^I take this to mean you have no evidence that Obama said the comments were racist or anything of the sort. I think you are blaming the man for playing the “race card” when in fact he did no such thing. This is playing the “race card” against him.</p>
<p>Obama did not play “the ‘race victim’ card in response to Clinton’s remark about LBJ…” He had no obligation, moral or otherwise, to correct the mistakes of Hillary Clinton. According to my googling the incident, when asked about the statements he did exactly what he should have done, said they were “ill-advised” and that she had apparently offended some people - which is exactly the case. He did not claim HE was offended, but that it seems she had done so. He then criticized her for blaming him for her error, and telling alleged falsehoods about his general record. That is normal American politics, and no race card was played here at all, except by those who are blaming the man for what he did not do.</p>
<p>Obama played no race card. Yet he is being blamed for playing it. I think some people are just so eager to have the black guy trounced they betray themselves.</p>
<p>The problem for Hillary is that white voters don’t like her. She hasn’t won a majority of white voters in any state. She lost the white vote in three out of four states. In South Carolina, almost 65% of white voters voted against her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course Bill Clinton began to play these little “race cards” BEFORE these results came out. It was certainly nasty and manipulative. He was using race to dismiss Obama’s projected victory in SC. Bill Clinton, a white guy, was the only politician here who played the race card in the slimy way you are accusing Obama of doing. Yet you accuse Obama and even berate the man for saying things he just did not say.</p>
<p>Most typical.</p>
<p>Hillary lost both the white vote and the women vote in South Carolina.</p>
<p>“The media is currently having a love fest with Obama, too. I wouldn’t book reservations for inaugural on that basis either.”</p>
<p>It’s because he will be easier to beat than Hillary. I am sure it is very carefully constructed by all involved.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, why aren’t you supporting Obama? Who are you supporting?</p>
<p>Hillary lost among elderly voters in South Carolina.</p>
<p>Yup, but she is banking on the huge elderly vote in Florida. Oh wait, she pledged not to campaign in Florida. Or did she? ;)</p>