Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Clinton likes Obama and McCain (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But after Axlrod and Clyburn got ahold of it (0+ / 0-)

    It meaned Hillary would lose the rest of the AA vote going forward.

    So you're saying that was his goal.

    I can't believe that.

    "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

    by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:45:20 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, I'm not saying that was his goal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alec82

      That's how you play it when you know you're losing them anyway.  Mark Penn was one of the top dogs in the campaign and his whole approach is based on polling.  They knew that black voters were shifting in a big way after Obama showed he could win among white voters in Iowa.  

      To me, it's too obvious because I was part of the Iowa campaign.  We talked about the national numbers where blacks were supporting Hillary over Obama.  We knew that if we could win in Iowa and show that Obama was not just another Jesse Jackson type candidate as many suspected, the black vote would shift quickly to Obama and we'd have a shot nationally.  Having black voters coming over to Obama was a really positive, even beautiful story in a way.  It wasn't beautiful to the Clinton camp, of course, and they made sure the rest of the country wouldn't see it so simply either.  It's easy to spark backlash and these politicians who have known exactly how to talk to the black community for their entire lives were suddenly saying these clumsy things.  You would have to believe in some temporary, nearly unprecedented stupidity from them.  I don't believe that.   They're too damn smart.  

      You keep changing it.  It's one thing if you just disagree with me but you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying.  

      Fear is the mind killer

      by Sun dog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:44:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  why play it that way (0+ / 0-)

        If you know you're going to lose?

        None of this makes sense.

        Problem is. Everyone but Bill knows exactly what Bill's trying to do.

        Don't they?

        Maybe a lot of those people have so overplayed that hand by now, they have lost credibility.

        Maybe I view your cynical interpretation through a different perspective seeing as though it appears on a blog that even thought the Clinton team was trying to darken videos.

        Don't tell me you believe that too??  The discussion would then be over.

        "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

        by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:54:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I remember that stupid story.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sun dog

          ...about the darkening of the image thing.  I don't think that was racist or intentional in any race baiting sort of way, no.  But the SC statement on the day of the primary was, imo, intended to dismiss Obama as an also ran black candidate.  It was foolish, because the voters that Clinton stood to lose support from were white liberals at that point.  And lose support she did, culminating, imo, in the lopsided WI primary results.  

          After Super Tuesday, the remaining February contests were in states with demographics that tended to give an edge to Obama, but the results did not have to be so lopsided and better planning would have decreased his delegate edge.  But poor planning doomed the campaign.  

          Anyway...moot point, as the primaries are over.  I don't believe that Bill Clinton is a racist, but I don't believe it is beyond any ambitious politician to use racially divisive tactics to win an election. Once it was clear that black voters were lining up behind Obama, I think that they acted pretty much how I would expect them to act within a Democratic primary....trying to use it to the extent that they could.  Liberals overreacting to some things, reacting appropriately to others.    

          "We're half awake in a fake empire."

          by Alec82 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:10:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Foolish? (0+ / 0-)

            And yet everyone keeps saying how smart he was and knew what he was doing.

            You're saying he intentionally said something foolish that he knew would lead to losing more support of the white liberals you just referred to.

            My reading of it, since no one asked, I'll say what I think.  It was one of the first statements that culminated in an argument that Brazille and Begala later on in the campaign.

            Here:

            http://www.youtube.com/...

            So I don't see Clinton trying to diminish the SC victory in and of itself.  He was pointing out what Begala was pointing out.  AAs and eggheads alone won't win a general election.  The SC primary is a great victory for Obama but you can't let that one primary determine the rest of the primary process. (Which is actually one of the big problems with the primary process and early states.  To even imply that that one vote shouldn't determine the vote in every other state is played out as a horrible insult to the people in that state.  And I don't believe it is.  It's a big country.)

            Now if the narrative has already been built that the only reason why a white working class person would not vote for Obama is because they are racist, then one must conclude that Clinton was trying to exploit that racism.

            But I believe there are other reasons besides race why Obama wasn't clicking with those voters in question.  So I don't think Clinton was trying to exploit that racism.  

            That's my reading of the situation.

            "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

            by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:33:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then why mention Jackson? (0+ / 0-)

              Why not mention Edwards? His win in SC in 2004 did not result in a primary victory, did it?

              Also, what it was designed to do versus what it DID do are two very different things.  I don't believe, as you do, apparently, that Clinton is some kind of infallible political genius who can be counted on to do what is strategically smart all the time.  See, for example, the hiring and firing of Dick Morris.  I wouldn't let that viper within inches of me were I a politician, but I digress.  

              Here's the problem with the read on SC that you propose: It came AFTER a big win in Iowa, which has an only negligible black population, and a statistical tie in New Hampshire (which speaks highly of the Clinton campaign, as polling indicated that would be a blowout for Obama).  And caucus voters in IA may have been many things, but a coalition of AAs and eggheads they were not (stupid anti-intellectualism on the part of both Begala and Clinton supporters, btw, and disingenuous coming from people with graduate degrees who work in a social science heavy field).  

              But even beyond that, a lot of white liberals had concerns with Obama's general election electoral prospects.  Clinton may have been attempting to convey that message, but he did so pretty openly on the basis of race.  Is it racist? No, not really.  Is it racially divisive? Yeah.    

              Now if the narrative has already been built that the only reason why a white working class person would not vote for Obama is because they are racist, then one must conclude that Clinton was trying to exploit that racism

              But there was no such narrative on the Obama side, or even necessarily on the Clinton side.  How would you argue that with a straight face after Iowa and New Hampshire?

              All that it can be interpreted as is dismissive of Obama's victory in South Carolina.  And the comparison to Jackson only makes sense when viewed through racial glasses, imo.  

              "We're half awake in a fake empire."

              by Alec82 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:45:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because (0+ / 0-)

                He wasn't talking about Edwards he was talking about Obama.

                The comparison to Jackson makes sense when viewed through other glasses.

                "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

                by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:52:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Through racial glasses, right? (0+ / 0-)

                  Because he didn't win Iowa and tie in New Hampshire with the coalition you described.

                  "We're half awake in a fake empire."

                  by Alec82 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:57:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There was three candidates in Iowa (0+ / 0-)

                    Obama won Iowa with 38% of the vote.

                    Clinton won New Hampshire 39.1 to 36.5 and there were three candidates in that one too.

                    THat is not proof that Obama was getting the coalition he needed to win a General Election at that point.  It was very much up and the air.

                    "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

                    by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:10:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But regardless, it couldn't have been propelled.. (0+ / 0-)

                      ....by the coalition you suggested, certainly not in Iowa.  Intellectuals make up what, far less than 5% of the US population.  And blacks far less in those two states.  So what gives? That description of Obama's coalition was factually erroneous at that point.  

                      "We're half awake in a fake empire."

                      by Alec82 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:13:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  My interpretation is cynical? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alec82

          I never said anything about that silly 'darkened photo' garbage, why in the world do you bring that up?

          why play it that way (0+ / 0-)
          If you know you're going to lose?

          None of this makes sense.

          Can I please try one more time?  They knew they were going to lose black voters anyway.  So they had to win among white Democrats.  To help shore up that support, they played for backlash against the black voters who were rallying to Obama.  There are a lot of black voters.  But there are more white voters.  

          I understand not wanting to think this stuff about someone you admire.  Doesn't make me feel feel so great either.  It's not cynical.  It's just what I see.  I wish I didn't believe it.  It's not a matter of embracing it, it's a matter of dealing with it.

          Fear is the mind killer

          by Sun dog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:33:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand (0+ / 0-)

            Why you need to think the worst of everything CLinton does.

            Even when it doesn't make any sense.

            "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

            by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  And I would bring up the silly darkened photo (0+ / 0-)

            Garbage to provide the environment by which other conclusions are derived.  To provide the mindset behind the conclusion.

            A pattern of conditioning.  A pattern of a group of people taking nothing and blowing it into a charge of racism.  Or race baiting.  Or exploiting race.

            If they darkened photos why then that statement in SC is a no brainer.  We know why the Clintons do everything and there are never any accidents.  Right?

            Let's astroturf the narrative.

            Yes.  I know how this works.  That's politics.  And Obama won.  But the fact remains, the statement was benign.  A dumb statement to the point that it could be easily manipulated by others.  But it was benign.

            And it's what led to people thinking there was something malignant in Clinton's statement about RFK, too.

            Of course by then, the election was over so there was no need to keep building that narrative.

            So people backed off that.

            But.  Yeah.  There's a pattern here.  The darkened photo shit.  The RFK phony outrage shit.  And all the crap Clyburn and others spewed about what Clinton said in SC.

            All the same magic trick.

            "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

            by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:48:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well thanks for telling me what I think (0+ / 0-)

              and why, while ignoring every actual point I make.  

              This has been really wonderful.  

              Fear is the mind killer

              by Sun dog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You aren't making points (0+ / 0-)

                YOu're building narrative.  It's impossible for me to address them cause it relies on our ability to read Bill's mind.  So I just don't go there.  

                You say

                "I think he did it because..."  

                What do I say?

                "No.  I say no because I can read his mind too, and I think he did it cause......"....

                It becomes pointless.

                But if you have a bunch of people agree with you, then it becomes a narrative for you.

                There's other examples of Bill saying stuff and people deciding for themselves why he said it or what the intent was.

                If you wrote a book of all the reasons why the Clintons so what they do from the perspective of other people trying to attack the Clintons it would be far larger than his own book "my life" and 100 times more pondering.

                "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

                by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:05:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This has nothing to do with it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Alec82

                  But if you have a bunch of people agree with you, then it becomes a narrative for you.

                  Nothing.  You and I are talking.  If there were ten people here agreeing with you, I would still feel exactly the same and make the exact same point.  

                  They knew they were going to lose black voters anyway.  So they had to win among white Democrats.  To help shore up that support, they played for backlash against the black voters who were rallying to Obama.  There are a lot of black voters.  But there are more white voters.

                  There is logic to that.  It makes sense that they had nothing to lose (electorally) by playing hard for white working class Democrats.  There is a shitload of evidence that is what they did as well as plain logic in that it is what they had to do if they had a shot at the nomination.  They got real close that way.  If it was Edwards against her in the final stretch, she wouldn't have been in Appalachia talking about how she is the candidate of 'hard working voters, white voters.'  

                  Fear is the mind killer

                  by Sun dog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:18:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yet another reason I reject that line of thinking (0+ / 0-)

                    It means the people he was trying to shore up support with (by your argument) would vote against Obama just cause he was black.

                    I reject that too.

                    Btw, Clinton makes mistakes.  Not doing something about Rwanda was one of them.

                    The guy is not perfrect, and I'd fault him for saying something here that could be easily manipulated by people trying to defeat him.

                    But people keep saying he's such a smart guy and knew what he was doing.  The risk reward of the tactic didn't make sense.

                    He would have been smart enough to know that whatever gain he got from these alleged voters who you think would vote based on race, would be more than offset by support for Obama that would also be be solidified.

                    I heard your argument.

                    There were a lot of things that happened in the primary that also created the demographic divisions in the party.

                    As far as intent is concerned, if I was on the jury you didn't prove it with me.

                    Too much reasonable doubt.

                    And when I do see your argument in the context of the RFK phony outrage (she knew what he was saying), and the darkened video crap (they knew what they were doing), I'm inclined to advise the defense to file libel charges in a civil suit.

                    "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

                    by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:45:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site