<p>Actually, it was Obama’s “people”. It was Obama’s national campaign co-chair who went on MSNBC the morning after the NH primary and accused Hillary Clinton of being a racist and not caring about the victims of Katrina. </p>
<p>It was Obama’s SC campaign, that distributed a talking points memo listing the ways the Clintons are “racists”. DNC member Donna Brazille faxed the memo to news outlests.</p>
<p>It was Obama’s SC campaign chair who said that Bill Clinton was a racist like Lee Atwater.</p>
<p>It was Obama who lifted language from Malcolm X speeches when campaigning in black churches, saying that white politicians like the Clintons were trying to “bamboozle” you.</p>
<p>Bill Clinton threw out the Jesse Jackson comparison that was absolutely a racist card. The Clinton campaign was very influential in making certain the media constantly repeated the same nonsense from the famous black Reverend. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial. Clinton herself kept saying that she was staying in the contest in the event that another major catastrophe (like the Reverend) would surface. It didn’t. :eek:</p>
<p>They got outmaneuvered, and out campaigned. They lost at their own game, even when they kept trying to change the rules!</p>
<p>The Clinton machine ran out of gas. It was passed by a newer more efficient improved model.</p>
<p>^^Agree about being outmaneuvered. The next move is Clinton’s. Either she concedes to Obama as the nominee or she doesn’t. Either she and her husband undermine his candidacy or they don’t. She proved herself to be an able tactician, but Obama was the better strategist.</p>
<p>I don’t think either Clinton is a racist. On the other hand, I definitely think that both of them made comments designed to label Obama as a black “niche” candidate, to suggest that whites wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) vote for him. Is it better to be a racist or a cynical politician?</p>
<p>Maybe it’s just me, but Bill didn’t seem particularly impressive (in a good way) during Hill’s campaign. Someone thought that his bypass may have affected his brain.</p>
<p>I’ve heard Obama use the terms, “hoodwicked” and “bamboozled” to describe things the Bush Administration has been doing to fool the American people, during a televised speech in front of a mainstream audience. I don’t know why you keep insisting that Obama was using these terms as some kind of "code speech, Idad. Malcome X didn’t invent these terms, and though he probably did use them on occasion, few if any black people associate them with the man. If Obama were trying to use them as some kind of secret code for black audiences, they wouldn’t have been very effective. Most blacks today know little about Malcome X (other than that he was a long ago radical Muslim), and have never heard a single speech made by him.</p>
<p>The terms were lifted directly from Spike Lee’s movie “Malcolm X”. </p>
<p>Obama is no fool. He knew exactly what he was doing. That’s why he trotted out the bamboozzled speech for black audiences lin South Carolina, the same week his campaign was distributing talking points memos to the media on the Clinton’s racism.</p>
<p>Your premise assumes that most black people have seen that movie, and would attach some kind of ominous meaning to the terms, “hoodwinked” and “bamboozled”. I personally have never seen the Spike Lee film, nor do I know a lot of black people who have. Some, yes. But so many as to make the use of the terms relevent in any significant way…? No. In what context did Malcolm X use the terms? In what context did Obama use the terrms? Site definitive references, please.</p>
<p>Also, if you could locate and post a link to said damning “talking point memo”, I would appreciate it.</p>
<p>Do your own research. A copy of the memo, from the Obama S.C. campaign was avaialable in the blogoshpere. Obama was shown the memo during one of the debates. He admitted his campaign had circulated it. Go look it up.</p>
<p>The Spike Lee quotes came from a scene where fictional Malcolm X was talking about white politicians “bamboozling” black people, “hoodwinking” black people, and doing the “okie doke” to black people. Do you seriously think Obama using all three terms, in the same speech, to a 100% black audience in South Carolina was a coincidence? Why did he start the riff asking if the audience knew what getting hoodwinked and bamboozled meant? At the end of the “riff”, Obama even said, “OK, I better stop now…I don’t want to get carried away.”</p>
<p>Anyway, you do your own research. I’ve already added up hoodwinked and bamboozled and Rev Wright and calling Bill Clinton a racist and reached my own conclusions.</p>
<p>“The Clinton machine ran out of gas. It was passed by a newer more efficient improved model.”</p>
<p>Maybe yes, maybe no. It could just be that Americans are getting sick of dynasties. We’re a democracy, not a monarchy. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton … What’s with that? And I think Americans sincerely want “change,” whatever that means to any given person. Obama represents change, not only because he talks about it all the time, but he’s young(-ish), bi-racial, and can speak the king’s English rather impressively. … McCain, despite his Iraq stance, represents change because he seems to be a pretty decent guy–something we’ve been sorely lacking for, oh, so many years. Hillary Clinton represented change primarily because of her gender, but unfortunately, she was a Clinton at a time when America seemed to want something different.
And 1sokkermom, you are correct. I haven’t yet heard Obama say “I am woman, hear me roar!”</p>
<p>Obama can change his tunes pretty fast, can’t he?</p>
<p>One day he says " I can not denounce the Church and Rev Wright any more than I can denounce my own people". Few weeks down the line - he resigns from the church and denounces Rev Wright.</p>
<p>He says he is against lobbyists but gets Rezko to pay for half his property.</p>
<p>Says he is proud of this country and doesn’t need to wear a lapel flag, then he turns around and wears it anyway! </p>
<p>Now about the Clintons. He thrashed them before, now he wants their support.</p>
<p>You make some interesting points, Pharmagal, though I don’t give any credence whatsoever to the lapel flag hoo-hah. Personally, I love my country but have never, ever in my life worn a flag pin. That’s just irrelevant. … As for Obama thrashing the Clintons and now wanting their support, that seems to be the name of the game in politics. Sad, but true. Remember in 2000 when presidential candidate McCain was smeared by the Bush folks, who publicly implied that he had fathered a bi-racial, illegitimate child–who turned out to be the Cambodian girl that Cindy McCain met at an orphanage and adopted? There was a lot of bad blood between Bush and McCain back then, but lo and behold–in 2007-2008, McCain was Bush’s new best friend. Hmmm. …
The lobbyist thing is disgusting, scary, and, alas, rampant in both political parties. Before you get too critical of Obama’s involvement with Rezko, consider the fact that McCain’s presidential campaign staff was/is crawling with lobbyists. Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>You get help to get voters to get to win and to get future legislation to pass. Many souls were bought and sold in the 2000 and 2004 elections. I remember those souls.</p>
</p>