James Clyburn Happy to Play His Familiar Part Once More
Once again -- and for the last time -- the Democratic primary campaign has moved into a southern state, North Carolina, with a large African American population as well as a considerable university and college town liberal vote. Once again, the Barack Obama campaign and its supporters, fresh from a stinging defeat, are trying to stir up false accusations that Hillary Clinton and her campaign have cynically injected racial animosities into the campaign.
The latest round of charges about the Clintons have come from a familiar source, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking black leader in Congress. In January, after the Obama campaign suffered stunning defeats in New Hampshire and Nevada, Rep. Clyburn, although nominally uncommitted, joined a chorus of concerted complaint about Hillary Clinton's supposed denigration of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his contributions to the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of her observation that President Lyndon Johnson had played a crucial part in guiding its passage. (Clinton's actual remarks, rarely reported, praised King enormously and were historically accurate.)
Clyburn then jumped on flimsy accusations that former President Bill Clinton had supposedly made subtle racial remarks by calling Obama's claim to unwavering opposition to administration policy in Iraq a "fairy tale," and by likening Obama's eventual victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. (The first had nothing whatsoever to do with race: Obama had said in 2004, 2005 and 2006 that he didn't know how he would have voted on Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq because as a state senator he had no access to the intelligence, and Obama voted consistently for war funding as a U.S. senator. On the second matter -- again, rarely reported in full -- Bill Clinton's remark was delivered as part of his praise of Obama's campaign in every state, and Jackson himself publicly deemed it inoffensive.) Clinton had apparently done his wife's campaign a lot of good with his work in New Hampshire and Nevada; but the targeted attack on him had the double effect of marginalizing him while advancing the race-baiter charges.
The Obama campaign had already begun injecting race into the campaign, notably on the morning after the New Hampshire primary, when its national co-chair, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, went on national television to accuse Senator Clinton of false emotion and racial intent in her tearful description of her commitment to public service. "Those tears also have to be analyzed," said Obama's co-chair. "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." And then Jackson added, disclosing his underlying political agenda: "Particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest." Clyburn immediately followed up, upping the ante by ripping into Bill Clinton and telling him to "chill." At the same time, an official Obama South Carolina campaign memo surfaced, which specified innocuous statements by Clinton supporters that could be twisted into race-baiting remarks -- including the wild claim, built from distorted quotations that Bill Clinton had said his wife was "stronger" than Nelson Mandela.
The charges leveled at the Clintons by Clyburn and others in South Carolina began what has become a completely predictable pattern among Obama, his campaign, and their supporters. First, Obama loses primary campaigns in key states which he had either expected to win (as in New Hampshire and then Nevada) or had worked desperately hard to win (as in Pennsylvania, where he outspent Hillary Clinton by as much as three-to-one). Then, as the campaign moved southward -- to Louisiana and then the "Potomac" primaries following Super Tuesday, to Mississippi following the March 4 Ohio and Texas primaries, and now to North Carolina -- come the furious but false charges, reported in the press as undeniable truths, that the Clinton campaign has indulged in mean-spirited race baiting, as a prelude to upcoming contests in southern states.
Some of these claims have turned out to be hoaxes, such as the release by the campaign, in the aftermath of Super Tuesday, of a supposedly scurrilous photograph of Obama in native African garb. Posted on the Drudge Report and lifted, as it turned out, from another right-wing website, Free Republic, where it initially surfaced, the appearance of the photograph was nevertheless blamed on the Clinton campaign by Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe who called it "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election." (Obama himself, after dismissing the incident in a public debate with Hillary Clinton, returned to the accusation while on the stump with black voters in Mississippi.)
On other occasions, Obama suggested to mostly black audiences, in coded racial terms, that the Clintons were attempting to confuse them with their criticisms of him. Before the South Carolina, "Potomac" and Mississippi primaries, Obama cheerfully lifted the "hoodwinked, bamboozled" rant from the Spike Lee film Malcolm X, in order to convey to black voters that, whatever he might say about a "post-racial" campaign, racial solidarity against white traducers was crucial to his effort. Denzel Washington, playing Malcolm X, says: "I'm gonna tell you like it really is. Every election year these politicians are sent up here to pacify us! They're sent here and set up here by the white man! I say and I say it again, you've been had. You've been took. You've been HOODWINKED, BAMBOOZLED, led astray, run amok." Barack Obama repeatedly echoed: "Don't be hoodwinked! Don't be bamboozled!"
Other claims have either been either outright fabrications or hysterical distortions: false charges leveled by one popular pro-Obama website, Daily Kos, that the Clinton campaign "blackened" their candidate to make his look menacing by purposely darkening a another photograph of him; and the strained Geraldine Ferraro fracas, in which an awkward remark buried in the Torrance, California Daily Breeze was trumpeted nationally by prominent Obama supporters such as Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown into accusations said that the Clinton campaign had descended into the politics of a former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. Then there was the false claim by one of Obama's best known supporters in academia, Orlando Patterson of Harvard, published on the op-ed page of the New York Times, that there was no black child in Clinton's "3 a.m." television ad on national security, a supposedly racist move worthy of D. W. Griffith and Birth of a Nation -- when, in fact, there was a black child in that commercial.
Which brings us back to Representative Clyburn, on the eve of North Carolina, which some have called Obama's firewall state -- a state he must win convincingly in order to head off his latest slide in the primary race. Last week, Bill Clinton belatedly observed that the Obama campaign "played the race card on me" in South Carolina, and cited a conversation he had had with Jesse Jackson to prove his point. Clyburn jumped back in, getting the attention of The New York Times by charging that "black people are incensed" at Clinton and claiming that it is "an almost 'unanimous' view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are "committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win." Clyburn may well be correct about perceptions of the Clintons among some black voters; but he simply hides how Obama, his campaign, and their supporters have willfully created that impression.
Remarkably, reports about the Clintons' alleged race-baiting have been reproduced so often and so uncritically in the press that they have attained the status of incontrovertible truth. Evidence and arguments to the contrary can expect either to be ignored (with their arguments dismissed, as Ryan Lizza recently and sarcastically did in The New Yorker, as "mysterious"). Or they can expect to be greeted by ad hominem attacks which do not engage the evidence, and which can even stray (as I have learned directly) into attacks on the author as a racist -- the sort who, back in 1860, sneered at Abraham Lincoln as a "Black Republican." There is no honest dialogue on this issue: only constant reiteration by Obama's supporters of the undeniable truth of the charges against the Clintons, and the personal disparaging of any who dare call the charges into question.
Yet, there are, to be sure, some stray signs that the press may be catching on to what is going on here. After Rep. Clyburn's latest tirade, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times -- who has until now been consistently anti-Clinton and pro-Obama -- raised an eyebrow in her column about Clyburn's endorsement of what Dowd called the "Tonya Harding conspiracy theory," that the Clintons and their supporters were out to destroy Obama by the foulest of means. And playing the race-baiter card runs the enormous risk of deepening the racial divide that will make it more difficult for Obama to appeal to white voters, as it has in the past.
But there may not be time for the Obama campaign to worry about that, given the Pennsylvania results, given the possible outcomes in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky, and given the growing perception (deepened by the continuing outbursts by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright) that Obama may not be electable in November. Incensing black voters in North Carolina -- as well as college and university liberals in the Chapel Hill-Durham area -- would be one way to gain the large majority that Obama needs to regain his footing. And so, yet again, the by now routine charges against the Clintons as race-baiters reappear -- with Representative Clyburn of neighboring South Carolina happy to play his by now familiar part once more.
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
B lack Democrats turned against Hillary after New Hampshire and especially after South Carolina because Bill Clinton's comments were racist in THEIR view, not because the Obama campaign or anyone else told them so.
This being the case, it's obvious that the above screed isn't being written with them in mind; they know better. They've heard this sh!t all their lives and know what they're hearing when they hear it. No white guy Princeton professor is going to convince them otherwise.
Glad to see the effect the Obama campaign is having in knitting the country together.
Don't blame Obama for people figuring out Hilalry Clinton hasn't done anything but use the African American community.
Whenever has the country been together?
Exactly.
Obama did tell the voters the Clintons are racist. And he told the voters Ms. Clinton lied about her health care plan. And he told the voters we need to leave behind the politics of division, yet he has a 60's radical as a close advisor. The Obama campaign, David Axelrod, blamed Ms. Clinton for the death of Benazir Bhutto.
What is always interesting is how when confronted with facts they don;t want to consider Obama supporters attack the messenger rather than refuting the posting. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Clyburn should just endorse Obama if he thinks the Clinton's are evil and need to chill out. He won't because he is burning the candle at both ends.
Sean:
Hillary and Bill are still big liars and the bottom line is that people do not like the Clintons because they are dishonest, divsive, arrogant and the Clintons are dimissive of the intellegence of the American people.
The American people are saying no to the triangulation strategy of the 1990's Clintons.
The triangulation theory was a desperate improvisation, to turn back the Republican "revolution" -- which came to power by every divisive strategy possible -- by adopting some of the key reasons that had made a majority vote for Newt and his pals. By 1994, the mood of the country about Democrats was like the view of Republicans today. The Clintons are centrist and pragmatic, but spitting out the word "triangulation" like it's some kind of religious heresy doesn't help your cause.
You had me until "pragmatic." I'd say opportunistic.
Wilentz, I thoroughly disagree with this perspective and I feel that it does no more than obfuscate shameful uses of race from the Clinton camp and inflames those views among her supporters. James Clyburn does not act as an Obama surrogate. If you have a problem with what he said don't try to place that on Obama. In creating a discussion about nothing, you are making a poor contribution to what could be a discussion about race in this campaign.
Every single thing you say is a simple declaration, like a declaration of faith, without evidence. Doesn't that bother you?
And what proof does Wilentz offer?
As though everything you've said hasn't been the same thing? Please.
A comment is a declarative statement. It is a statement of my opinion. What evidence do you have linking Obama's camp to playing the race card? Clyburn isn't with the camp. The media didn't force Bill to compare Obama to Jessie Jackson. No one asked Clinton's surrogates to choose the racial smear root. Where is your evidence?
What's really racist is the assumption that black people have no other good reasons to support Obama. Maybe they buy into his vision? Maybe there is something in his message that speaks to many black Americans who have a long deep history fighting for change in this country? Maybe just maybe black people are not the sheep they're made out to be in this article, but rather people who are equally inspired by Obama as whites are. But I guess it's easier to say blacks just support Obama because he's black. Fits right into the narrative.
The core of racism. You, Wilentz, imagine that Black people are so stupid that we have to be told when a racist act has occurred. That from a racist as well. You do have a reach, sir
Sort of like your reaching on the racist label? Can you provide specifcs that qualify the post as being racist? I'm very curious to see your reply since you are an expert on the issue.
Even if I bothered to take the time to point it out to you, you'd miss it. Go back and read his post.
it kind of helps if you are least told accurately what Bill Or Hillary said and in complete context instead of beinf told a twisted version of what was said, don't you think?
Oh grow up. We're not all mindless idiots who swallow all the news and take it as gospel. I percieved those statements as being racist and I'll be damned if I'll let someone else tell me what to think. Bill Clinton was belittling Obama's win by inferring that any black guy would do well.
Great point. I remember sitting in my living room watching Bill say what he said about Jesse Jackson, Obama, and South Carolina and thinking "I must not have heard him right because that is so jacked up." I didn't need anyone to come along and explain it to me and I'm guessing that most other Blacks didn't either.
There is no racism in the statement by President Clinton, no rational or reasonable person could think so.
The right wing will be happy to have you Clintonistas when this is all over. Then again, even many of them have reason to be afraid of you.
Since Ms. Clinton is leading McCain while Obama is in a tie with him I can see why the right wing would fear Ms. Clinton.
This is an excellent post. The Obama campaign has done the same thing and employed the same tactics in labeling Hillary the "negative" candidate meanwhile sending out attack emails, mailers and ads of their own (when asked about it at the debate, Obama said that his campaign was doing it, not him-whatever!) What they have done on the race issue is truly disgusting, especially the reports of Clinton quotes that could be spun and twisted to seem racist. The ones who have been truly "bamboozled" and "hoodwinked" are Obama's supporters who repeat this viciousness.
Sorry, but you didn't convince me.
Perhaps a more relevant question would be is there anything that could ever sway your opinion? I'm only guessing, but I'd put money on a firm 'no'.
So unfortunate that I read so many raising the prospect of voting Republican or sitting out the GE. What is more frightening are the ones such as Denni in the post above who are so ingraciously escorting a while voting block of Democrats out the door.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion,but in this case you're wrong. Why would a black candidate bring racism into his campaign? You make no sense. Hillary is good at playing her con games and apparently she has managed to con you.
wake up. the post is saying that Obama's campaign has been making FALSE claims of racism against Clinton in order to erode the support she had from black voters.
The Clintons themselves have done quite well on their own in alienating Black voters. I think the tone they have injected into this campaign will not only come back to bite them in the general election, but I believe that the Democratic party will feel the sting of this incredibly divisive campaign. The good thing that may develop form this is that a 3rd party may now have fertile ground for growth.
And at 92% of the black voting population backing Obama I would say it worked.
wow.....
Reporter>>"so what do you say that it takes two clintons to beat one person?"
B.Clinton"well jesse jackson won south carolina"
WTF?!?!?? thats not race baiting?
Because you get a lot of sympathy and your opponent gets backlash from being labeled a racist., especially in the Democratic party. Don't be dumb about it.
It's called race-baiting. A similar tactic has been used on Obama in the past, as for instance, when he tried to run against Bobby Rush. He wasn't "black enough." It worked in Chicago.
Some people get it. Some people don't. Your cultural background is a handicap, Mr. Wilenz. I have no doubt that you are very cerebral, but you don't get it. As a member of society's majority, you do not share, do not comprehend, and are not capable of empathy for minority perception. You are just vaildating the majority need to feel good about itself. The majority can do no wrong.
Grace2008, the majority elects presidents. That's the problem.
It is not a problem for the majority to elect the president. Your statement is goofy.
Not in this nation.
you are obviously being paid by the right, aren't you?
Why do you make that assertion? What's your evidence? How do you define "right"?
And why do you think that anybody who supports Hillary must be doing it out of corrupt motives? It's one jump away to Rush Limbaugh with this kind of thinking.
I don't think that the Obama campaign's hands are clean on the racial issues, but you are really reaching in this post.
I have to draw the line in the sand on one point though And that is the Malcolm X quote. Most Black people I know have seen that movie and even if they don't know the full quote, they do remember the hoodwinked, bamboozled, run amok part--and it will come up in conversation under various circumstances. And you may call it "racial coding" but that is exactly what the Clintons were trying to do, bamboozle people. Just a few days prior, they were shouting to the roof tops that Obama was not qualified to answer the red phone at 3 am, but with a bait and switch, they wax nostalgic over a "dream ticket"? Sorry. I was not born yesterday. Everybody and their mama knows that she was only saying that so people would vote for her now, with the impression she would have Obama as her VP...yeah right. So, although I don't think it was "racist" or "racially insensitive" I do think the Clintons were trying to hoodwink people with false/illusory promises.
Sometimes a person is not qualified, but needs some OJT. In that case they go in as an assistant.
Read the text of that ad. Look for the name, "Obama." It isn't there. The ad says, "Who do you trust?" The kicker is, the Clinton campaign had a survey that told them about 10% of the voters DID trust Clinton more with that phone call. That's an important difference, and any campaign manager wants to draw people's attention to a difference like that. Obama ran a commercial in the last minutes of PA where he, to my mind, lied about Hillary's health care proposals. Negative ad? Yeah, you bet. Is he blamed for it in the press? Why, no.
The most depressing part of the Obama movement is this: anybody who points out flaws, real or unreal, is not treated with respect. They're a paid agent, a racist, a shill for Billary or "that bitch." I suggest you honor democracy a little more.
I think the "dream ticket" was dreamed up by the people. It's highly unlikely, now, but it still wouldn't be a bad idea. The only real problem is, who would take first place?
But now, think of this. Obama wins. Hillary concedes. They appear together, talking against McCain. Impossible? No. Then, at the convention, Obama nominates Hillary for VP. Horrible? No. They're very close on most issues, closer than the Obamans think, that's for sure.
The only problem to me would be, would the Democrats be better served taking on racism and sexism with the same ticket?
Are you serious? After Hillary has made it a theme of her campaign to stress Obama is not prepared? Please. I think the reason you are being rejected is because many of us have gone beyond Hillary. I and many others, supported her and her husband for a decade. We've heard it before. We feel used and frankly don't want to get fooled again. And using terms like "Obamans" doesn't help your cause.
Swift2, I appreciate your response, but even though Obama's name was not on that ad, it was quite obvious what her message was (maybe obvious to me and others). And to top it off, she even said that she and McCain had passed this "commander-in-chief" test, but Obama hasn't. I'm not saying that Obama hasn't run ads that are negative or don't accurately portray HRC's positions, my point is, don't go on and on about how inexperienced someone is, how they have no substance, how they are only good for giving speeches, and then in the next breath say, wouldn't a dream ticket be nice?...and that was not just dreamed up by the people, both HRC and WJC mentioned it in their stump speeches before primaries...
Another thing that bothers me, why are you grouping all Obama supporters together? I know that the tone of the comments on these blogs have gotten out of hand, but unless you have met or talked to every single Obama supporter, please do not lecture me how I don't treat non-Obama supporters with respect or how I should honor democracy more. You have every right to your opinion, I just respectfully disagree.
This is bullshit. Clinton has clearly been the negative campaigner. What about the pictures of Obama in his little African clothing getup? What about Clinton saying her and McCain were the only two qualified to be president?
Clinton, faced with losing, went negative early and kept it up. Then as she hit harder and harder, her supporters said, "FINALLY, SHE SHOULD HAVE GONE MORE NEGATIVE BEFORE!"
Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comments were exactly what the poster below says, code for, "The black guy only won because there are lots of blacks here. Even Jesse Jackson won. But don't worry, when we get to whiter states, Hillary will do better." To say different is completely disingenuous.
Wilentz pretends that because Bill disguised the comment inside of "compliments," it was something else. But it wasn't. "One may smile, and smile, and be a villain."
The Clintons want it both ways. They want to pretend to be friends to blacks and want black votes. But they want to borrow from the Republicans and use Obama's race, as behind the scenes as possible, to win the primary.
Reality? LOL!!!!!! what a joke. The only one pretending not to know what is REALLY going on is YOU! There is a reason that the majority of the REAL Democrats and women, Latinos, Asians, working classing people are NOT voting for Obama -- he is a Race-baiting LOSER. Where have you been. Everyone gets it except Blacks. Sad, really sad.
You've apparently missed the boat on this one and are drowning in ignorance. The split is GENERATIONAL, not RACIAL! There's been a strong racist tinge running through the Clinton camp with it's whining about 'the race card' and 'reverse racism' and yet clintonistas continue to offer racist explanations for simple matters. YOUNGER latinos overwhelmingly support Obama. YOUNGER women are Obama supporters. Clinton alleged that Latinos just won't vote for blacks and that it's 'historical'. That should have made anyone supporting her ASHAMED.
I suppose you are a "real" democrat and I'm not? What a jerk.
Hello, Obama is winning....and pulling in more money and more new voters than Clinton. He has more votes (excepting the state where he WASN'T ON THE BALLOT), more delagates, more super delegates. Clinton simply can't win. Anybody with basic math skills can figure that one out.
Get a life.
Speak for yourself. Obama is more of a Democrat than Hillary ever was. This working "classing" person isn't fooled by the Clintons any longer. I can see they have you hook, line, and sinker.
OK...you just insinuated that Blacks are not "REAL Democrats" and then go on to call Senator Obama a "Race-baiting LOSER". You completely ignore the reality that without those fake Democrats the "REAL Democrats" can't win the White House. It's the math. It was your so-called "REAL Democrats" that voted for Reagan. It was your so-called "REAL Democrats" that made the southern strategy work. If these are your "REAL Democrats", I have just another reason to thank God I'm an Independent.
He just said the african get up was lifted and posted by a conservative site. Read the article.
I read here on Huffpost a while back that it came from a Clinton people. It wouldn't be the first time the press has been wrong. I haven't seen what you are talking about.
But there's also nothing to say that somebody from Clinton's camp didn't give the picture to the website. She CERTAINLY would have tried to hide the trail back to her campaign if she did do it. Nobody would have posted it on a liberal site, so a conservative site would have been the only option.
Clinton sure has been cozy with Murdoch, and her people talk aweful good about Fox News.
Newsflash: who says that "the Clinton campaign" GAVE Drudge that picture. Why, Drudge. How believable is he? Are you freekin' kidding? Taking "facts" from Drudge? And yes, the picture did appear on the Free Republic site.
When Salon wanted to reprint it for their story, they didn't want to pay Drudge royalties, so they went straight to the AP site, searched, and bought the photo within a few minutes. Do you think all the oppo researchers are Hillary's?
As for the rest, it's obvious that you've fully bought into the right-wing picture of Hillary the Controlling Bitch. Well, I haven't bought into the right-wing picture of Obama the Angry Black Man, so maybe you should think about it.
Sean, this is a load of nonsense. You know as well as the Clintons that the only way for them to wrench the nomination from Obama is to Sharptonize him. If you haven't noticed the Clintons employing this tactic since South Carolina then I don't know what primary you're following.
Is that why Obama didn't go to Jena, didn't go to the Tavis Smiley event in New Orleans, and hasn't had a peep to say about the Sean Bell shooting? If anybody wants to play race two ways, it's Obama.
Thank you.
I long ago concluded that the Obama campaign was deliberately "playing the race card". to win the nomination.
The tragedy is that this nasty, stealth campaign of racial division and hate directed at the Clinton's will divide the democratic party to the profound determinate of Black people.
Obama will not win the general election, and his supporters will never concede defeat.
His defeat will be attributed to white racism. The "blame the voter" mentality is already well in evidence.
Historically, Obama will be "credited" with dividing the party and disabling the progressive movement.
Did you an Sean smoke the same pipe? Unbelievable!
I worked on Obama's campaign in South Carolina and if the race card was never to be played, then why for the first three months was I given call sheets of only registered African American voters?.
If he is the nominee, I agree, he will lose McGovern-style (maybe not even in Mass, however, as he is polling even with McCain there according to Survey USA). However, instead of blaming the voter, they will try to blame Hillary and all her supporters. Isn't democracy wonderful?
This article takes pro-Obama findings of fact and converts them pro-Hillary findings of fact. Many people from both camps and their supporters use different sets of facts concerning issues to bolster their arguments and are often a distortion, and this article is no exception. Here, a few instances that the writer pointed to were instances that were not black and white and clearly are gray. I.E., Jesse Jackson stating that Clinton invoking his name was not offensive. but the Q & A between Mr. Clinton and the reporter showed that Clinton's answer was nonresponsive and race baiting and Rev. Jackson chose not to inflame the situation. Still, there is no need to continue to harp on that isolated instance (but looking at Clinton's actions on a whole one can see that he is using tactics to make S. Obama's candidacy less attractive). This is politics. Additionally, S. Obama has stated that he would not have know how he would have voted in the senate when he has been asked to criticize other senators, like John Kerry, who did vote for the war -- and he clearly spoke out against the war when he was a state senator, which could have hurt his career.
This article seeks to show that one "supporter" (Clyburn, who stated he is neutral) is stacking the deck with overexaggerated statements while, at the same time, this article has been written by another "supporter" (unsure if Wilentz is an open Clinton supporter) asserting overexaggerated statements.
You've been BAMBOOZELED by the MSM selling the Obama company line. Obama's people HOODWINKED you when they claimed Hillary dissed Dr. King because she said LBJ passed civil rights. And why is Obama throwing Louis Farrakhan under the bus with Rev. Wright, I thought Obama was channeling Farrakhan when he went to South Carolina using Farrakhans and Malcolms favorite words, BAMBOOZELED, HOODWINLED and OKIE-DOKE. Go check the record of Obama's speeches in S.C. and Mississippi and you'll see Obama himself playing that race card real good, not some surrogate. He wanted to let black folks know that he was down with Malcolm and Farrakhan, that he was "Black Enough". It went right over the head of most white folks though, and the MSM didn't want to talk bad about Obama, they knew the deal.
Oh get over it already. There's nothing to your argument. Who cares that he used black language to a black crowd. Do you criticize Hillary Clinton when she panders to her crowd with this kind of zeal? Hillary has been playing the race card as well, you can't deny that.
Oh, I think Wilentz would say, openly, he's pro-Clinton. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
