Hillary Clinton About to Race Bait B. Hussein Obama Out of Race (no pun intended)
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (72) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Has anyone noticed this! The New Republic caught Hillary Clinton strategizing a race baiting war against Barack Obama to push him out of the race (no racial puns intended).
Hillary loyalists maintain faith in her iron support in New York and also California--whose vast numbers of Latino voters are thought to be skeptical of an African-American candidate. (One Democratic operative recently described this to me as the Do the Right Thing factor.)
This is unbelievable. If the Republicans were to do this, the press would burn crosses on their front lawns. If the Democrats do it, they seem to be getting a pass.
In fact, the Republicans never actually do this, but the Democrats and press accuse them of doing it anyway. And now here we have proof that the Democrats engage in racial warfare in their own primary system and what does the New York Times give us? Crickets chirping.
Way to go defenders of all that is holy, righteous, fit to print, and racially harmonious.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | On The Empire Striking Back — Comments (20) »
Hillary Clinton About to Race Bait B. Hussein Obama Out of Race (no pun intended) 72 Comments (0 topical, 72 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
'Can-He-Win?' works with blacks as well as hispanics. If Hillary communicates this doubt to the black community, they'll be equally afraid that if Obama were to win the primary then they will have wasted their vote -- that they're better off going with a sure thing (Hillary).
I think it's a brilliant strategy.
And Hillary lost. That would make me want to vote for Edwards if I felt that way. Of course you would have to work past that whole, but he did win thing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I wouldn't call this a race baiting war so much as building a strategy based on realities on the ground. For example, if Clinton were to have her operatives stoke the fires of black v brown uneasiness, that would be a race baiting strategy. Saying that she thinks that BHO can't win a state because the large Latino population is hostile to black candidates is not race baiting. It may be over generalizing, but it's not race baiting.
Indicus
History about to be rewritten? Will Hillary give up her African-American tone and inflection before black audiences, perhaps an Ivy League diction instead?
I put no filth past the Clintons and that heap of human degradation they call a staff, but fat feet and all Hillary will have to tip toe through this one, if she touches it at all.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The quote says "Hillary loyalists," not "the Clinton campaign". This means that it's her supporters, not the campaign, who believe that Sen. Obama will have a hard time with a heavily Latino electorate. That's like blaming a Republican because some of his supporters because some of his supporters are racists.*
Indicus
* I do not believe that all Republicans are necessarily racists nor that they are commonly so. It's just an example.
First, agreed. The Clinton's and their liege are capable of anything, especially the negative. That said, Hillary had for a long time (if you believe polls) carried the African American vote, especially amongst women (I believe the Charlatan News Network had it at 68% of likely voters in October).
The obvious fear is that Iowa (which I still contend is a barometer for very little) will make the AA demographic (and maybe women voters overall) somehow believe B. Hussein has a real shot and perhaps reconsider their support for her. That portends, I suppose, the African American vote will make a race based decision based on a higher probability of BHO success. Sounds ridiculous to me. Frankly, I think they just realize she sucks (having done nothing for anybody), is not Bill (we'll skip that, I like it here) and is dishonest (never giving a straight answer). Conversely, B. Hussein has done less but ya'know he brings "hope". I have no idea what that means other than anybody but Clinton.
The quote is an assertion and I certainly can't tell if it's a demographic fact (nor do I care). But it stinks of an attempt to raise race as a consideration in the minds of some voters. That is despicable and would no doubt make the NYT front page if it were Republicans.
BTW, I believe this is a record for parenthetical comments.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Calling Barack Obama "B. Hussein" is just petty and childish. Hussein was a name given to him by his parents long before Saddam Hussein was an issue and the Hussein part of Saddam Hussein's name was given to him by his parents. They have absolutely no relationship to each other, nor is any indication of whether he should or should not be President.
How about sticking to the facts why he should not be President? This isn't grade school.
Frustrations, tantrums, namecalling. It's all here.
At the moment, "the facts why he(Obama) should not be President" are no more convincing than "the facts" regarding each of the Republican hopefuls(save Fred).
Calling Mr.Obama "B.Hussein" may be petty but by comparison to the abuse of Republican candidates, Barry is getting a free ride here.
At the moment, "the facts why he(Obama) should not be President" are no more convincing than "the facts" regarding each of the Republican hopefuls(save Fred).
Are you kidding me? Which Republican candidates are for universal health care? So you're saying the only way to distinguish Republican candidates (except for Thompson) from Obama is to make some inference that his middle name is an issue worthy of consideration? That's pretty insulting to the entire slate of them.
I think it's obvious why he doesn't go by his middle name. And saying it's ok because they do it is not a good justification either.
is still pretty mild by comparison to what fellow Republicans have said about our own candidates(save Fred). Fred has escaped with nothing more than the 'lazy smear' here.
Emphasizing Obama's middle name may seem like an innuendo attack. It is petty and insulting to the intelligence and about average for the discourse so far.
What did "Hussein" add to the headline?
Why does he deliberately avoid referencing his middle name? Hmm, it's not on his website, My Space, etc. Could it be intentional? Naaaah. I guess we will have to ask him.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Would Erick would have included Barack's middle name if it was, for example, "Thomas" or "Mitch"? Its fear-mongering, and its wrong.
1. Erick didn't do it, the commentator did.
2. The commentator, in his eagerness to slander Obama by affiliating him with a deposed genocidal maniac, forgot that Hussein is his middle name, and not his surname. The correct way to have given his name in that format would have been B. Hussein Obama, and not B. Hussein, as he did.
Indicus
1- It is his name
2- Who mentioned Saddam
3- Slander by using his name?
4- Not putting Obama at the end was an abbreviation
5- Ask Erick why the title included his full given name (How curious!)
As an aside, I know Fred Dalton Thompson and Rudy W. Giuliani off the top of my head, but that's just me.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
So how many times have you referred to those two you mentioned as F. Dalton or R. William Louis in the past?
Weak.
Spear throwing is fun, unless it goes straight up. That's where the risk comes in since impaling oneself is often permanent. It's also dangerous to divine anothers intent or motive. I am thumbing through volumes and can't seem to find where that's been done. But there's lots of book here.
Now we could talk about how BHO used the "H" at HLR or how it was excluded in his run for senate around the same time some cretin was circling Kuwait. Gee, was that, dramatic pause, calculated? Heavens no! In politics; how shameless! Nonetheless, this is all approaching a threadjack, walks the razors edge and stops now.
Write the blog if you want to discuss names, a history of intentional politics and euphemisms. But be prepared for an eventuality this involves a fair degree of shorthand, writing convention and humor, nothing else.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
"Nonetheless, this is all approaching a threadjack, walks the razors edge and stops now."
Spoken like someone with a lousy (as in disingenuous, bordering on dishonest) argument who thinks the ball is his and its time to take it and go home.
but I think Erick posted the entire story including the headline "Hillary Clinton About to Race Bait B. Hussein Obama Out of Race", which is the headline I was referring to.
Would Erick have included Barack's middle name if it was, for example, "Thomas" or "Mitch"? Its fear-mongering, and its wrong.
But it's OK to scare seniors about social security? Democrats scare senior citizens into voting for them by saying the Republicans will take away their social security benefits. The Dems should be ashamed.
Referring to Barack Hussein Obama by his full name can't be wrong -- it's his name.
...there's only one reason to use Huessein and that's to stoke the connotative connection to the OTHER Huessein, which is fine as long as you can admit that's what you're doing.
If you CAN'T admit it, then... well... deal with that too.
Of course it is, and anybody will admit it freely. So what? It's his name, therefore it is fair game. That rhymes nicely :-)
Should Demcorats go by Fred Thompson, member AARP or Mitt Romeny, Mormon. They can, and they might, but it doesn't make it any less pathetic as a political and lgoical tactic. The people you are going to scare away from Obama by falsely implying he is somehow related to a dead tyrant aren't voting for him anyway and i just makes you (general you, not neccesarily specific you) look like you are running a grade school campaing and can't argue on the issues.
Since he can clearly lose on the issues - why even stopp to such childish tactics?
For this post in particular it makes Eric look like because he is trying to pin Hilary for race baiting in the campaing in the same post that he does essentially the same thing with his choice on use of names. At this point in RedStates evolution, we should expect better from the directors.
The choice to use the middle name, and not even his first name was silly and a transparent attempt to annoy people. Calling Mitt "Willard" is the same deal. But honestly, Hussein is the name of a lot of people and everyone just needs to get over it.
As I said on Dkos, the silliest thing ever said in a campaign might just be, "don't use his name! Don't use his name!"
Barack Hussein Obama is okay with Iowa. He'll be okay elsewhere. He doesn't need a middle-namectomy nor overprotective loonies acting like his given middle name is shameful for God knows what reason.
...thus making a point of underlining his middle name.
And, yes, the sooner HE makes a point of saying... um, so what... the more people will let it go.
He should do to his middle name what Kennedy did to his religion. Own it.
Rationality comes from the most unexpected places.
The only thing your wrong about is he will be fine everywhere else. Hill wins the nomination: oddly it has nothing to do with his name.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Why does he (obama) deliberately avoid referencing his middle name?
Good question. Similarly, why does John Edwards avoid referring to himself as an Ambulance-Chasing-Trial-Lawyer? That seems to be much more descriptive than 'U.S. Senator'. ;-)
It's unusual for sure, and it's a part of who he is. How did he end up with such a name? Is that not relevant to who he is? Some will like his diverse heritage, while others won't. That's their prerogative. His name isn't Tom or Bill, it's Barack Hussein Obama. To pretend it isn't relevant to who the person is is a little naive, in my opinion. It sounds like some of you are afraid some people won't vote for him because of his name. And you're right. In my opinion, hiding his name, however, isn't very honest in this case.
I think he and his supporters should embrace the heritage that game him a unique (to American Presidential Politics) name, not be ashamed of it.
I will not fall for the old " you people are supposed to vote on Wednesday" routine again . That made me feel stupid .
The irony in writing a post calling out Democrats for playing with racial politics, while abbreviating emphasizing Obama's middle name (which he doesn't go by) and abbreviating his first name, is a little too thick to swallow. You basically just cut the legs out from under your entire argument for anyone who's paying attention and not being intentionally dense.
I think it was completely intentional.
And it's intention was to drive Dem's nuts with the supposed "irony."
But in the end it's his name and Dem's can't keep it a secret for the next 11 months so we might as well just get over it like Iowans managed to do.
That his middle name is Hussein may seem to the over-anxious like a fault and something to feel ashamed of, but really it's just his name, the name his father gave him, and it will be a complete and total non-issue.
Barack: African form of the Hebrew Baruch, meaning "Blessed".
So "Blessed, handsome one."
That's a pretty cool name.
The late King Hussein of Jordan redeems the name significantly.
And let me just say that his widow (Queen Noor - originally of Washington, DC) was, and is (to my mind) among the most beautiful women in the world.
She certainly is that. She's also one of the nicest and most gracious people you could ever hope to meet.
...that I'm quite proud to be one of the tolerated, mostly ignored liberals around here.
A sincere thanks to all of you who went above and beyond to call out the whole Hussein silliness. Quite classy and honorable.
"Barry."
Shows the proper downward calibration of respect. After all, we're going to turn the page and have a generational change, right?
So let's reflect the fact that the President of the United States is morphing from the leader of the free world to just another media-driven celebrity.
"President Barry." Has a great, feel-good, user-friendly, Oprah-esque ring to it. Just like "Dr. Jennifer" and "Pastor Dan."
And when he retires from the Oval Office, he'll capitalize on his fame to have a real career as a movie star. He'll take over from Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman as Hollywood's avatar of moral authority.
You think that's a new thing?
They've all been media-driven celebrities. Presidential politics is all about theater. Rove was a master in that regard (until Mission Accomplished! backfired), but this guy is raising the bar.
I can still remember when "Jimmy" Carter was elected, some wiseacre guessing that future Presidents would be named "Bill," "Biff," or even "Lefty."
And to answer the next obvious point: Reagan was most definitely a media hero. He was also unmistakably the leader of the free world, and not someone you would ever want to mess with.
My deepest fear with a potential Obama Presidency has always been the JFK factor. Jack Kennedy came to the WH as an obvious lightweight and clearly underqualified for the job. So Khrushchev immediately decided to find out what he was made of. Kennedy gave such a poor showing of himself in Vienna in May 1961, that K decided to roll the dice. We're lucky we're all still here to talk about it.
And yes, I do think something like that could happen again.
Going below 13,000 really got to you.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Plus with this drop your vacation has now been upgraded to a suite.
Bet long on a mixed basket of small caps (I am a hopeless optimist, I know). Hedged with some short term bonds. Between JLL and DADE, well, it's a good thing I don't drink,-much.
But in deference to the thread, BHO will bring "hope".
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Dick Morris is the Heidi Fleiss of politics. This liberal creep carried water for the Clintons and was a part of their dirty work for years and now wants us to think he is Barry Goldwater.
He and Whorealdo were separated at hatching.
In fairness to Morris, he worked for a LOT of people, R's and D's.
That said, I agree Morris is little more then a windsock.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Which is why that Hindenburg graphic RS was using to commemorate her Iowa loss was the wrong note to hit.
There in nothing new in the ideological tank to fuel a successful GOP presidential candidacy. Reading through these message boards indicates that the viciousness that was once reserved for non-conservatives is now taking roost within the community. That's gotta stop, but I don't think it will until the upcoming election is lost.
The one thing that would have helped, paradoxically, was the inevitability of a Hillary! candidacy. Despite what Karl Rove says, that is now out the window.
Instead, you've got B. Hussein. I've plunked money down on his candidacy at Intrade, because after watching that acceptance speech in Iowa, there's no question in my mind that B. Hussein is the next president.
His success is eventually going to force this party to turn the page as well, which is a good thing.
(To pre-empt the charge that I'm just responding to favorable B. Hussein media coverage: I do not read the New York Times, Washington Post, nor watch CNN, MSNBC or FOX. I watch candidate speeches on Youtube and come to RedState, among other places, for commentary)
If she loses New Hampshire, look for the race-baiting to get uglier. At some point the media won't be able to ignore it.
There's no reason to keep piling on the Clintons. B. Hussein's going to kill both of them for you.
Mitt "Willard Romney"? The man goes by Barack Obama, and you should respect his name. Injecting his middle name while abbreviating his first is simply sabotaging any constructive dialog.
Speaking as an outsider...waaaaay outside, this post and all the time and energy devoted to commenting on it make me feel a little like Margaret Meade stumbling upon the Samoans for the first time: So this is how it works!
1. "Hillary loyalists maintain faith in her iron support in New York and also California"
Meaning Hillary's camp maintains faith in their Latino support.
2 "--whose vast numbers of Latino voters are thought to be skeptical of an African-American candidate."
Meaning that if we link to Crowley's "thought to be," we see he's linking to himself and the possibility that black and Hispanic sociologists are studying to see if there is any substance to the alleged hostility between blacks and Latinos
3 "(One Democratic operative recently described this to me as the Do the Right Thing factor.)"
Meaning anonymous Democrat, possibly the guy running the copier machine, used the expression "Do the right thing," which could be code for staying loyal or could be a reference to Spike Lee movie about throwing a trash can through a pizza shop window.
One never knows. And we never will know as long as the MSM ignores stuff like this because it's too busy burning crosses on OUR lawns. You folks okay on this little island of yours?
The "Do the Right Thing factor" is a thought not even attributed to the loyalists in the sentence, let alone anyone associated with the Clinton campaign, let alone Clinton herself? And you wonder why there's no outrage?
The problem, Erick, is that you're a very smart guy, and you know exactly what you're saying. That means that your words aren't attributable to ignorance or partisan emotion. So what does that leave?
The point?
That liberals are apparently much more exercised about the appearance of Republican race-baiting than they are about the actuality of Democratic race-baiting. Unless any of our Left-'sphere visitors have proof that you castigated the Clinton campaign's cynical decision to play black-vs-brown games with equal vigor, or indeed, at all?
No?
Not surprised, frankly. After all, coming here and complaining is safe.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Let's look again at the quote Erick pulled out of a longer article.
Hillary loyalists maintain faith in her iron support in New York and also California--whose vast numbers of Latino voters are thought to be skeptical of an African-American candidate. (One Democratic operative recently described this to me as the Do the Right Thing factor.)
What you appear to be taking issue with is a strategy that relies on the presumption that "Latino voters are thought to be skeptical of an African-American candidate". That's pretty awful, I agree. So who exactly is proposing this strategy?
According to the article in question, it's not the Clinton campaign. It's not even anyone on her staff. Apparently, according to the author of the article, it's nebulously unnamed "Hillary loyalists", and some anonymous "Democratic operative".
That's worth repeating, since you seem to have missed it in your hurry to shout "race-baiting!" at Democrats. Not Clinton. Not her Clinton campaign. Not her staff. The foundation of sand on which you and Erick are basing this smear is the author quoting some random people he knows who like Hillary Clinton.
So yeah, I'm coming here and complaining, because the only people in this case who were race-baiting were Erick with his "B. Hussein" garbage and some anonymous (and stupid) Democrats. Congratulations--I can dig up random anonymous stupid Republicans on the internet too, and we can play that game til the cows come home. Show me something that even vaguely resembles evidence that this came from the Clinton campaign itself, and you'll have the outrage you're looking for, because I'm not a big fan of hers either. Until then, you'd do well to take a few steps back from this one and rethink how much of your weight you want to put behind it.
Unsurprising.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...I've gotten worked up about the appearance of Republican race-baiting. Even slightly. On any occasion.
If you're talking about the race-baiting that TNR is doing, then your answer is "Yes" -- I'm more exercised about that than about the game Erick's playing.
It won't change the fact that not only haven't you provided even the slightest shred of evidence that this is actually a Clinton campaign strategy, but that you also haven't bothered to actually read the quote on which you're basing your outrage. If you had, you'd realize why it's not getting any traction while Erick's poorly-chosen title is getting all the attention.
Don't come back to this line of attack until you can point to single line in that article--preferably by quoting it--that indicates this was the view of the Clinton campaign, as opposed to some random anonymous Democrats quoted by the author.
You can't, and you know it, so I don't know why you're digging in your heels on this one. There are a wealth of criticisms to make of Clinton that have the benefit of actually being true; you don't need to fabricate them on the basis of anonymous sources cited in an editorial whose authors are supporters of one of Clinton's opponents.
While you may not be surprised at my position on this, I have to say I'm both disappointed with and ashamed of yours. I gave you credit for being both smarter and more honest than to get behind something like this.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...but at the end of the day you'll still be a person who reacts as if stung to the suggestion that there's a class of supposedly open-minded commenters out there who elect to show it by complaining about Republicans on Republican sites - and complaining about Republicans on Democratic ones, too.
But if it makes you feel any better, I don't particularly give a tinker's dam about whether anyone against the war has a good opinion of me. It is, in fact, somewhat of a relief when they don't - because the only thing that will match my general contempt for the antiwar movement now will be my contempt for those members of it who will abruptly change their position roughly five minutes after the next Democratic President of the United States of America is sworn in. Which is to say, roughly 80% of them.
Have a nice day!
Moe
PS: Do feel free to link to this; I gather that pretending to still like me is growing to be a bit of a strain for some people, and I'd hate to think that they were courting apoplexy for no particular reason.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...I don't agree with everything you're saying here, but on one thing you've got a real point.
I came to RedState to try to understand conservatism better, and to see what sort of common conceptual ground I shared with conservatives. Lately, all I've been doing is complaining and posting gadfly comments. I'd like to think that I complain about Erick's approach for the benefit of the site, but the bottom line is that it's just personally distasteful to me.
When those things are the case, it's probably time to go blog and comment somewhere else. So with that - and with no animosity toward you or anyone else here - adios and happy blogging.
David
Dick Morris has made several comments that she'll pull race into the campaign, but, of course, not say "race". Instead, she'll say things like "but can he win?". Obviously, the implication is that b/c he's black, he won't be able to win the general.