Hillary vs. Obama: Eerily Prescient

-


Via ElectoPundit, I just watched this — and I’m stunned that more of us didn’t see what these creative commentators foresaw and posted back in May 2007.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

17 comments on “Hillary vs. Obama: Eerily Prescient

  1. Kathleen says:

    rich… przdntzy…luv it

    Reply

  2. rich says:

    JoeCHI,
    The issue was never racism. Nor whether Billl & Hill are racist. They’re not.
    The issue is whether Bill & Hill can appeal to racist voters, can play the race card and thus exploit racist sentiments, by tarring Sen. Obama with suggestions about behavior that have no merit, and making claims about relative ‘experience’ that are openly false. Further, John Lewis openly lied on the Newshour about what Bob Johnson said, and what he meant.
    Look, the Clintons have to either put up, or shut up. Looking for gotchas in Axelrod’s or Obama’s or Edwards’ relatively innocent words while throwing out Rovian slurs with their other hand—just will not wash. It may well hand John McCain the Przdntzy.
    If it appears Sen. Clinton ‘Sistah Souljah’d’ Martin Luther King, she’ll just have to live with it: it’s just the price she has to pay for comparing herself, ludicrously, to Lyndon Johnson. That was her mistake.

    Reply

  3. JoeCHI says:

    I agree with Dan Abrams and Rep. John Lewis on this one.
    The public record clearly demonstrates that both of the Clinton’s comments were policy-based and substantive. They addressed Obama’s Iraq Senate voting record, as well as the important role of an experienced political operative, like Johnson, in affecting change.
    The idea that these comments are in any way racist is absurd.
    Less clear is why Jesse Jackson Jr. appeared on MSNBC for the Obama campaign and said:
    “But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama.”
    I have to agree with Mr. Jackson in one sense, it is indeed all about South Carolina.
    And while Obama may benefit from the race card in South Carolina, it will hurt him down the road with Reagan Democrats, Hispanics, and Asians.
    The only thing right-thinking people hate more than racism, is when people cry racism where none ever existed.

    Reply

  4. JoeCHI says:

    I agree with Dan Abrams and Rep. John Lewis on this one.
    The public record clearly demonstrates that both of the Clinton’s comments were policy-based and substantive. They addressed Obama’s Iraq Senate voting record, as well as the important role of an experienced political operative, like Johnson, in affecting change.
    The idea that these comments are in any way racist is absurd.
    Less clear is why Jesse Jackson Jr. appeared on MSNBC for the Obama campaign and said:
    “But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama.”
    I have to agree with Mr. Jackson in one sense, it is indeed all about South Carolina.
    And while Obama may benefit from the race card in South Carolina, it will hurt him down the road with Reagan Democrats, Hispanics, and Asians.
    The only thing right-thinking people hate more than racism, is when people cry racism where none ever existed.

    Reply

  5. Mike Meyer says:

    DEMOCRACY IS A PARTICIPATION form of governance. Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT, if YOU want to participate.

    Reply

  6. pauline says:

    I’d like to see the specific HRC/Obama responses to the following. In fact, let’s throw in Huck’s/McCrazy’s, and Runney’s comments.
    “Bush’s empty talk on Middle East freedom.”
    “One day after delivering an address in the United Arab Emirates about the need for the Middle East to live in “free and democratic” societies, President Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia to spend a day with King Abdullah at his ranch. Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh notes:
    “What could not be found on Bush’s schedule was one Saudi dissident or political activist, much less a democrat. Just a day after his speech in Abu Dhabi, and two years after declaring in his second inaugural address that “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture,” as the president made time for a tour of Saudi Arabia’s National History Museum but not for a meeting with Fouad al-Farhan. Farhan, Saudi Arabia’s most popular blogger, was arrested in Jidda last month for daring to defend a group of Saudis who wanted to form a civil rights group.”
    Hirsh writes, “Don’t plan a major democracy speech when you know you’re not going to act on it, with not even a symbolic move of any kind to accompany it. There’s a word for this kind of thing. It’s called hypocrisy.”
    http://thinkprogress.org/

    Reply

  7. Bill R. says:

    Clarification: The two very flawed people referenced at the end of my prior post are Bill and Hillary. After all that’s who we are being asked to vote for, again, and again, and again, and again… It’s deja vu all over again… Clinton Camelot. Didn’t ya luv the 90s??

    Reply

  8. Bill R. says:

    Wow! This is good satire, Steve. Pretty cute! We, not the candidates, are being satirized. And we deserve every little jibe. When our personal agendas, our fantasies, our limited world-view gets challenged, how petty we can get. This reveals what a tenuous coalition the Dem. party is, and how it can all come crashing down so quickly. I’m an Obama man, as in male, and my take on all this is that the Clinton dynasty simply will destroy anyone or anything that comes between them and what it wants. And if that involves the politics of personal destruction or racial innuendo, so be it. They have already succeeded in destroying their historic standing with a good share of the African American public. The old elites are defending them but it won’t last. If the Dem. party wants to hitch its wagon and tie its fate to these two very flawed people, then it also deserves to go down and the historic coalition will die.

    Reply

  9. Linda says:

    I need to make a correction and apology before somebody else corrects me. My apology is to Senator Edwards who I left out above. The issue remains that Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Clinton (now listed in my order of preference as nominee)can’t do anything unless the Democrats have a veto-proof majority in Congress and/or a Democrat as President. And they all have been working in the Senate to oppose this Administration and the Republicans. And they all are going to have to work with each other in the Senate if a Republican is elected President.
    They all should stop attacking each other and start saying that they will enthusiastically support whichever one of them becomes the nominee.
    Actually Howard Dean should be speaking out, and Biden and Dodd could help a lot as they really have more experience than any of the front runners. They could help heal and end this. Charlie Rangel, John Lewis, John Kerry, and others in Congress who have declared support for one candidate or another can’t do it.

    Reply

  10. daniel says:

    Gee…Newt is saying positive things about Hillary, Hillary is using some Rovian tactics, and, Rove is blowing “beneficial” winds in Hilliary’s direction… Bill never persued Iran-Contra connections that would have implicated George the Elder..now, Bill and George are pals…wonder what all that could mean…?

    Reply

  11. JohnH says:

    Hillary should be careful, very careful. Her negative numbers are already astronomical. Increasing them on the left side of the aisle cannot but hurt her in November. Dismissing Obama as a dreamer and elevating herself to LBJ may be good politics in the primaries. It may also result in lots of disaffected Democrats sitting at home in November. While LBJ was responsible for landmark civil rights legislation as President, Hillary is no LBJ when it comes to getting things done as a Senator, and, given Bill’s record, shows little promise of getting much done as President either.
    LBJ’s Vietnam quagmire is perhaps a more apt model for Hillary. In Iraq Hillary was an important enabler. As President, would she play Nixon’s role in getting us out of the quagmire, or would she simply let us stay stuck? (Don’t hold your breath waiting for her answer.) Democrats already have plenty of reasons to be disaffected with Hillary on her war record alone.

    Reply

  12. Linda says:

    Let’s get a few facts straight about women’s rights as I almost posted these facts last night. I have yet to read/hear anything on any media or on this website the true facts about women’s civil rights anywhere, and these are the facts. I’ve been shocked that this highly intelligent and educated readership on TWN hasn’t got them correct.
    Before any civil rights acts related to race were passed in the 1964, the first civil rights act passed was on gender discrimination for women, the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It was signed by President Kennedy on June 10, 1963. LBJ was still VP. Hillary was in high school in a Republican white middle class family (and not out lobbying or marching for the Equal Pay Act) and yet to even be a Goldwater girl, etc. Obama was two years old and living in Hawaii, and his parents were divorcing.
    The women’s Equal Rights Amendment was not even an issue until the 1970s, and it failed because not enough states ratified it even if Hillary was for it. She was in law school, and I believe it was before Bill even entered politics in AK. Obama was still a child. And just having a women’s equal rights amendment to the Constitution doesn’t mean that legislation is unnecessary.
    It’s not that ancient history at all, but it is amazing how all the candidates spin and gloss over things–mostly taking advantage of how uninformed our electorate is. Hillary takes credit for legislation passed when her husband was President like S-CHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act that all Democrats support. Every one of those bills would have been supported by all the Democratic candidates and would pass if the Democrats had a large enough majority (veto-proof) in Congress and a Democratic President who would not veto it anyhow.
    The Family and Medical Leave Act passed in 1993, the last time that was the case because the Democrats lost control of the House in 1994.
    The Paycheck Fairness Act addressing the fact that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is not sufficient as women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men has been supported and co-sponsored by many Democrats including Hillary year after year. The ones who wrote it and championed it were Tom Harkin in the Senate and Rosa De Lauro in the House, and they started introducing it in the late 1990s, and it has been introduced in every Congress since. I am sure every single Democrat running for President has supported it and probably co-sponsored it. They don’t have the majority to pass it into law. They can pass it over and over, but they need a veto-proof majority and/or a Democrat as President. So all the legislative skills and abilities to reach across the aisle that Biden, Dodd, Kuchinich, Obama, and Clinton are of no consequence whatsoever.
    The YouTube is a brilliant piece of satire–but if both Hillary’s and Obama’s campaigns had been smart, this never would have started or continued. The sound bites are not there for Rudy or whomever to use over and over again. “Important things are at stake,” as Kate wrote above. But as far as I can see, Clinton supporters started it, and they should have been more politically savvy. It is that kind of personal attack that should not be within a political party as well as between political parties. I don’t see the Clinton camp as caring about that as much as they care about winning the nomination. And it is this kind of political game playing that could have the blowback of losing the election for the Democrats.

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Good lord, more of this?
    I ask again, how are we, the democratic constituency, (or the nation as a whole), served by this kind of vicious wrangling amongst our party’s candidates?
    The RW talking heads ARE making hay of this, and using this inter-party bickering to portray the Democratic party as hypocritical and fractured.
    If this is the kind of party “unity” we can expect from these candidates, fuck ’em, they deserve neither our attention nor our vote. Lord knows there is a huge volume of Republican policy decisions, crimes, and mistakes, committed these last seven years, that can be underscored and utilized to form campaign platforms and substantive opposition to continued Republican leadership.
    Or are these two candidates afraid to frame the relevant issues, for fear that the inaction and complicity that they have practiced these seven years will undermine their current squeekings about “change”? It is somewhat comical watching them natter on about “change”, then observe them campaigning in the very manner that Americans have long ago grown weary of.
    Neither one of these status quo frauds had my vote last week, and their actions this week have only cemented my resolve to reject them.
    We can do better.
    But damnit, we won’t.

    Reply

  14. rich says:

    Carroll,
    I said no such thing.
    Merely reporting what I’m seeing from a) vocal online bloggers and commenters (i.e., white women ~25-45), and b) the many black women of all ages I happen to run into on a daily basis.
    Completely anecdotal. I draw no conclusions. The former group, though, appears eager to fight a feminist war when they should be running a political campaign. The later wields far superior perceptiveness (IMHO), on a political level, at least.
    If Sen. Clinton’s argument is experience, she loses on the face of it, first in the primary to Obama, and later in the general to McCain. Obama’s got more exp as an elected official. If he loses, it won’t be b/c of relative experience.
    Agree with Steve:
    This needs to move onto substantive policy grounds. Too much is at stake, and playing Karl Rove’s game benefits nobody. So why can’t Clinton do that?

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    Posted by rich at January 15, 2008 06:41 AM>>>>>>>>>
    Sounds like you are saying blacks will vote for a black and women will vote for a woman….I doubt that is true for the majority of either.

    Reply

  16. Kate in Michigan says:

    Move on, people, move on. These kinds of comments and speculation do nothing to promote these candidates and the sooner the candidates, their teams, and the public realize this the better. The media, however, loves this sort of feeding frenzy, and the more negative and hurtful, the better.
    As I understand it, Hillary and Obama have agreed to call a ‘truce’ on these kinds of statements. The three top Democratic contenders are all very talented individuals who are all good presidential material. It would be good for the country to have any one of them as President (or two of them as Pres and VP). Let’s calm down and move beyond this momentary lapse in judgement. There are much more important things at stake here.

    Reply

  17. rich says:

    Brilliant.
    Disappointed to see Rep. John Lewis (a hero of mine) openly ‘misrepresent’ Bob Johnson’s comments about Obama on the Newshour last night. Perhaps because he’s less naive about race in America, but nonetheless.
    (Johnson: “… since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book”)
    Sad.
    Re Hillary’s LBJ vs. MLK remark:
    Technically accurate. Except:
    Hillary Clinton has nowhere near LBJ’s legislative experience. For her to assign herself his status or experience is plainly without merit and is the crux of the matter–even Barack Obama himself has more experience as a legislator than Sen. Clinton.
    Only when you realize that Sen. Clinton is no LBJ that it becomes tempting to say Hillary just “Sister Souljah’d” Martin Luther King. That’s not quite true–Hillary’s mistake was rather in comparing herself to Lyndon Johnson.
    I interact @ work, home & on the commute with African-American women of all ages. Informal inquiries (i.e., we chat) suggest none are moved by Hillary’s tears, and none are taken in by the race-baiting (or however it’s preferably termed).
    It was noted long ago that affirmative action largely benefited white women moving into the workplace. It’ll be interesting to see which way white women who deify “Ain’t I a Woman” feminism at the expense of a broader political common ground (i.e., with progressive men) will fall in this election.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *