A Question For A Senior Clinton Advisor Planning to Boycott Obama's Speech
Forty-eight hours from now Senator Barack Obama will deliver to the nation what is expected to be his most important address thus far. But according to the Washington Post.com several senior Clinton advisors will not be there.
This is not unexpected given the lingering anger and bitterness resulting from the hard fought Democratic primary. But the decision by one former Clinton aide in particular is deeply troubling. The report that Clinton campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, will boycott Obama's historic speech raises questions about some of the former Democratic National Committee chairman's most impassioned comments about diversity and his scathing excoriation of the Republican Party's "minority outreach" program.
In 2003, as the Democrats were gearing up for the next year's presidential election, McAuliffe told the Chicago Defender: "If they (Republicans) were sincere (about recruiting blacks and Latinos) they would have more success." He further vilified the party of Lincoln (and Nixon for that matter) for using Blacks for Show.
A month before the start of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, McAuliffe made a point of naming a veteran publicist and producer, William Marshall Jr, to carry out an aggressive media relations campaign to black communities. With Obama, the Democrats have been successful in ways McAuliffe may have never imagined. McAuliffe often spoke in broad terms about Democratic values. "As Democrats," he said in 2004, "we consider the values of inclusion, tolerance and social justice to be fundamental to the fabric of our nation"
This question, therefore, to Terry McAuliffe: As someone who espouses principals of inclusion--principals that supercede your commitment to any one individual, including Senator Clinton --why would you decline to be present this Thursday during one of the most visibly inclusive moments in American history?
I met Terry McAuliffe in July of 2004 at the Democratic Convention in Boston where I was working as a senior editor for National Public Radio. I was helping to vet guests for Tavis Smiley, who at that time had a program on NPR. As chairman of the Democratic Party it made sense to get McAuliffe on the show. But when I escorted him into our temporary studio overlooking famous Boston Garden, Tavis exploded. "I don't want Terry McAuliffe on my show" he fumed. It was not clear what the beef was all about between Tavis and McAuliffe, but it was serious. We took the microphone off McAuliffe, and Former Labor Secretary, Alexis Herman, volunteered to replace him. Senator Clinton appeared on the show later that week. But McAuliffe, for whatever reasons, was persona non grata forever with Tavis Smiley.
Early this summer when it became clear that Obama would be the Democratic nominee, McAuliffe was quoted as saying, "Hillary is 100 percent behind making sure that Barack gets elected president. We're instructing everybody, 'Let's get on board, let's win this election.' '' McAuliffe's presence on Thursday night would signal to Clinton supporters that he and other senior operatives are indeed "100 percent" behind the Democratic Party's nominee for President.
I never knew what specifically transpired between Terry McAuliffe and Tavis Smiley. I do know it came down to an issue of respect or lack thereof. That's how many, no doubt, would interpret Terry McAuliffe's failure to show up on Thursday evening; as a sign of disrespect and a contradiction of the "big tent" ideals that he once championed.
For more Huffington Post coverage of the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.
Follow Phillip Martin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pwdmartin
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
McAuliffe's allegiance is to the Clintons, period. He has no interest in party unity or Democratic victory in November.
Having said that, who really cares? So, Jill and Joe Sixpack are watching Obama's speech Thursday evening (the first part of the convention they probably have watched, because 'Deal or No Deal' and 'Americas Got Talent' have been getting better ratings hands-down), and they hear some talking head they've never heard of say, "Wow, Terry McAuliffe snubbed Obama and the party by boycotting Obama's speech." And they go, "Who the hell is Terry McAuliffe?"
No word of a lie, this is a story for wonks and junkies only. Nobody else cares.
I was not happy with Terry McAuliffe's advocacy for Hillary and against Obama in the primaries-- mostly because I felt he was too vitriolic, strident, and disrespectful, more so than that he supported Clinton.
However, I have seen him on numerous talk shows since then, and he has advocated strongly for election of Obama and other Dems. That is so much more important to me than whether or not he and other Clinton supporters are in love with Obama. The goal is to defeat McCain and the destructive GOP machine.
Please.... let's stop criticizing everybody and their mamas. NONE of us is perfect, and we never will be. Let's stop fighting each other and fight for an end to unjustified wars, quality health care for all, economic parity, and global salvation, just to name a few priorities. Please........
Where was McCauliff when the DNC started down the road to excluding Michigan and Florida? Where was his leadership at a time when that disaster could have been avoided. They allowed the DNC and those two states to reach that impasse and didn't say a word. Then, when it became a time of desparation, they used those two states to stir up resentment of Obama.
As a prominant democrat, it is his job to be there.
I remember when W was innaugurated and they showed Gore in the audience. I remember thinking, how can he sit there and watch this. How can he keep the emotion from showing on his face. The answer is... it was his job. Bush was going to be the President and as out-going VP it was his job to show the world the America was united behind his party.
It is McCaulliff's job... it is Bill Clinton's job... to convey the same thing here to America about the Democratic party.
They don't want to be there? Fine. We'll win this without them.
I don't care who does what and who says what, what the polls say, who doesn't support etc, puma, hatefulness, but there is just something about this election that I know, and I repeat I know, that Obama will win. Against all odds, adversity and gutter politics, attacks , sabotagers, msm deceitfulness, ...mark my words he will rise and be victorious.
I have been fearful, anxious etc but having gone through the different stages,at present I have the faith to know!
Just watch it all unfold!
Obama/Biden 08
Isn't McAuliffe kinda crazy?
I thought he answered your question. This is O's night. Terry is not about O and there's tension. He exits out of courtesy.
Yes, McAuliffe is another "democrat" that will be casting his vote for McCain.
Despicable!
And to think, this was the guy we let run the party, of course, that was under the Clintons. Looks like loyalty is to a couple of persons, rather than to the ideals and standards of the Democratic Party.
Phillip Martin: This question, therefore, to Terry McAuliffe: As someone who espouses principals of inclusion--principals that supercede your commitment to any one individual, including Senator Clinton --why would you decline to be present this Thursday during one of the most visibly inclusive moments in American history?
===
The answer is painfully obvious.
McAuliffe is a liar. His commitment isn't to party, much less to country - but to his masters at BubbaCo.
And - if you want to ask your question - ask Bubba himself. He's skipping out on Barack's acceptance speech too.
Here's what's going on: BubbaCo is busy playing good cop/bad cop right now. They don't want to be tagged as spoilers if Barack somehow loses - because that would end BubbaCo's political future. But they don't REALLY want Barack to win - because that cuts off their juice.
Their interest - tragically - remains self-interest; and everyone should follow the money to figure out what they're doing, and why they're doing it.
The one thing this contest has taught me, is that there are some wonderful white people in America. For the first time in my adult life I feel like more people want a better tomorrow for there kids and are judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.
There is a lot of work to be done for our kids, just as our parents did for us to have the right to vote and a brighter future in the education system. A lot of people are first time high school graduates or first time college graduates....we need to work together for our kids. So anytime the anti-Obama people start in just refocus towards working to get Obama elected President instead of arguing with people that obviously are not concern about their kids future.
gosh..what I got out of all of this posting is a morbid curiosity on why Tavis doesn't like Terry.....someone find OUT (no..it's not important..I just want to know)..
Terry is NOT an elected offiicial..past or present..who cares if he's there...I certainly don't. I await with a certain amount of dread, Bill C's speech...but..for today..will pretend that it will be uniting and compllimentary to Obama... We will all know tomorrow..
Terry was in fact an elected official. As chairman to the DNC he was in fact elected. It might not be a national election but it was a party election and he didn't just get the job because he applied. He did in fact have to be elected to that position. And as a former DNC Chair, it is a sign of disrespect of the party if he snubs the nominee on the nomination night. His loyalty is obvious. It certainly isn't to getting a democrat elected, but rather to getting a clinton elected.
Who needs him?
Or Carville.
Or Begala.
Or the rest of them.
It won't matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/us/politics/27watch.html?hp
History is being made in Denver, but so far, it has been slipped under the carpet during prime time. Tuesday night was tailored to pay homage to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s barrier-breaking near-miss, yet there was no overt celebration of the bull’s-eye: Barack Obama is poised to be the first African-American presidential nominee.
Mrs. Clinton, splendid in a tangerine silk blazer and matching trousers, told the supporters she called “the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits” that “together, we made history,” and moved many of them to tears. She turned her moment into a milestone for women’s rights.
But when the first female also-ran at a convention merits such hoopla and hosannas, then it is harder for viewers to understand why the Democrats seem intent on soft-pedaling their presumptive nominee’s arguably more remarkable breakthrough....
Obviously, race is a tripwire topic for television, as Chris Matthews of MSNBC demonstrated all too irrepressibly on Tuesday.
Mr. Matthews said the Obamas are “like the Huxtables,” and praised Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Obama as exceptional role models: “They do everything right. They have great kids, they work their hearts off, they make it in their professions, they don’t live off welfare, they don’t commit crimes, they don’t live on affirmative action.”
His two African-American guests, the seasoned television personalities Ed Gordon and Jeff Johnson, gave him a skeptical look but did not comment.
They didn't comment ON THE AIR -- but I'll lay serious odds they gave Matthews an earful afterwards. Or will. And, if not, they SHOULD.
Can you IMAGINE anyone saying things like "they don't live off welfare, they don't commit crimes and they don't live on affirmative action" about ANY OTHER FAMILY and not get called to task?
I have been giving Matthews a pass recently, but now, "WHO THE HELL DOES CHRIS MATTHEWS THINK HE IS?"
The terrible thing is that CM probably doesn't understand what is so offensive about his statement.
My parents are "like the Huxtables" -- all my parents' friends who are black are "like the Huxtables". I firmly believe most black people would LIKE to be like this -- but when the playing field is as 'unlevel' as it is -- many simply feel they don't have a choice. But there's no easy answer for that -- it can't be captured in a soundbite -- so too many people don't to want to acknowledge this, let alone try to rectify the situation -- BECAUSE THERE IS NO INSTANT, EASY, SIMPLE ANSWER.
It's going and is difficult to solve this -- and has been proven by the attitude of "We don't have to sacrifice to fight a war" -- far too many of us -- don't WANT to face the difficult problems. But, those are pretty much the only ones we have left to solve.
Barack Obama, our Democratic Presidential nominee, is half white and half black, but largely identified as 'black'. This should prove what a long way we have come, but sadly it does not. The only person who has spoken about race honestly throughout this process is - Obama. Some use code to express their concerns, saying they 'do not know enough about' Obama. Others, like Matthews, believe their comments about the Obamas not living on welfare are positive.
I believe that Obama is that once-in-a-lifetime candidate who has the ability to do so much for out nation. But, with or without him at the helm, America must come to terms with race. I am 57 years young, a former hippie, an ardent feminist and my life's journey has shown me that talent, intellect, beauty and goodness, as well as their polar opposites, are qualities found among all races and ethnicities. Am I free of any and all racial bias? Nope, I wish it was so, but it honestly isn't. But I do believe we will get there. My friend, while filling in for a daughter traveling for business, met with her grandson's first grade teacher. The meeting went well, and she left feeling impressed with the teacher. Coming home, she asked her grandson why he hadn't told her that his teacher was African American. His answer was innocent, honest and something we should all aspire to. It seems he didn’t notice - it just wasn't that important to him.
Chris was absolutely correct in what he said. The Obamas have done everything right, but still for some people it's still not enough.
You know what....
This whole "healing" thing works two ways. While I think McAuliff, Hill and Bill should attend Barack's speech, it may be they are not going to because it's his night and they don't want to upstage him in any way.
Recall the criticisms of Barack after he was not anywhere near Hill's concession speech? He responded that it was her show - not his.
Thursday is Barack's show - not Hill's, not Bills, and for SURE not Terry McAuliff's (who looks kinda like he could fill in for Joel McHale on "The Soup," but I digress)
I am a staunch supporter of Barack and have been since he announced.
But it's time for Obama Nation to bury the Hatchet with the Clinton supporters just as it's time for the Clinton supporters to come home.
It works two ways people - really - how can you expect them to come home to the kind of viciousness that I'm reading all over the BLOGs whenever Hillary and her supporters are mentioned?
Think about it - perhaps replace the hatchet with an olive branch and let's see what happens?
Well said
Thank you - I needed to hear that. I appreciate your words and will try to follow your lead.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
