My Hip Black Friend

Hillary Clinton may have found her "voice" earlier this week, but unfortunately, her inner circle didn't get the memo.

Yesterday, The Guardian reported an anonymous (of course!) Clinton adviser as saying:

"If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

At this rate, Clinton's going to lose her entire staff due to "resignations" by the time Nevada rolls around.

This unattributed quote brings to light myriad problems, including:

1. Journalists -- mainstream or otherwise -- allowing unnamed sources to spout off without any fear of retribution.

2. "Advisers" and "aides" taking advantage of No. 1 and saying ridiculously  inflammatory things without having to sully their own repuations.

Now, before you all say: "He made it up!" keep in mind that Jonathan Freedland is a respected reporter, author and radio host who probably wouldn't stake his career on this. As a former reporter, I can tell you that  journalists usually don't make up quotes, even the ones that are unattributed.

I realize this "adviser" isn't speaking officially for Hillary Clinton the person, but with these incidents popping up every day via Clinton's circle, it's becoming more and more apparent that this is the attitude of the Clinton Campaign.

You paint a man as a drug-dealing, shuck-and-jive hip black friend, and at first, the public becomes outraged that the target is being smeared for his race. But the seed is planted, and the public starts to wonder, "Hmm, maybe we AREN'T ready for a black president."

It's working, too. If you need evidence to that effect, look over at the list of recommended diaries. People are talking.

The seed is planted.

This series of "unfortunate comments" is no accident, folks. It reflects the attitude of an increasing paranoid Old Guard who will do ANYTHING to win.

The disappointing thing is, it is probably going to work.

Some people want a nominee who can play dirty and beat the Republicans at their own game. For them, the ends justify the means.

Sadly, too many of us agree.

•  Tip jar

  "We were talking - about the love that's gone so cold and the people,
  Who gain the world and lose their soul.
  They don't know.
  They can't see.
  Are you one of them?
  When you see beyond yourself then you may find, peace of mind, is waiting there."
  -George Harrison, "Within You Without You"

  by SonicT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:27:27 PM PDT

  •  this has been diaried

    people are already seriously pissed and discussing this  .  
    PeaceMM

    by empathy on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:35:38 PM PDT

    •  It bears repeating. eom

      by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:37:37 PM PDT

      •  yes it should be diaried every day until

        This stuff stops and those that championed this behavior on this site as "no big deal" apologize.

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:06:37 PM PDT

    •  Please. Stop. Pimping.

      Thanks for pimping your diary three times (so far) in the same thread.

      by SonicT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:40:32 PM PDT

      •  Did you read it? n/t

        by klnb1019 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:43:46 PM PDT

      •  OK

        Sorry if I offended.
        Be well.

        by empathy on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:48:12 PM PDT

  •  I don't think it is going to work

    The AA community is very angry.  Young people will not be swayed by this.  They do not have the baggage of their parents generation.  If the youth vote turns out they will win this election for Obama. And this time I think they will because they know they have the most at stake.  The older generation has really screwed things up and they want real change not partisan fighting.  I think John Kerry said it well when he said Obama will bring a transformation not a transition.  And that is what this country needs transformation.

    by ronnied on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:42:18 PM PDT

    •  Uprating comments like

      this is ratings abuse. It can get your ratings ability lifted.  Moreover, such comments are against the community standard of DKos.  You're new here by your UID so I'm asking you nicely to remove your uprate.

      by DMiller on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:17:46 PM PDT

•  my hip black friend who was top of his class at H

  Harrrrrvarrd Law...

  what race-bait??

  by elephantitis on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM PDT

•  Did you check first

  on how many diaries have already been written about this?  I think we need the Diary Police to jump in.
  And just for the record - I'm an Obama supporter.  

  by klnb1019 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:30:14 PM PDT

  •  Seconded

    This has been diaried and flame warred to pieces, leaving vast electronic lands covered with ash and devastation.

    Enough. Four recommended diaries on the topic is enough.

    by maxomai on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:33:08 PM PDT

    •  Well

      Would it help if instead I started a self-indulgent series?

      by SonicT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:37:34 PM PDT

      •  actually...

        given that there are so many of the "candidate X or Y or Z is bad because..." it might.

        Call it a community building exercise.

        by kredwyn on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:45:06 PM PDT

    •  please join us

      for MM

      by empathy on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:37:42 PM PDT

    •  how many friggin' john edwards man of the people

      diaries do we have?  you don't see people worried about the wasted paper on that.  but when it comes to racism...shhhhh SEE NO EVIL!!! HEAR NO EVIL!!! SPEAK NO EVIL!!!

      by elephantitis on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:41:01 PM PDT

      •  Preaching to the choir

        I'm at the point where I would troll rate candidate diarists on sight.

        by maxomai on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:49:39 PM PDT

        •  make my day screw ball n/t

          by elephantitis on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:53:11 PM PDT

    •  "This"

      I don't think you understand what "this" is.

      by Free Spirit on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:45:39 PM PDT

      •  That's where you're wrong

        Nobody who's been reading the diaries of the last 24 hours can help but know what "this" is.

        by maxomai on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:51:34 PM PDT

        •  This is not a diary about racism n/t

          by Free Spirit on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:20:18 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    The point is not about the comment and race relations in America, but rather that using anonymous sources is a horrible journalistic practice and a brilliant campaign strategy by a campaign that has proven itself brilliant (at whatever cost).

    by SonicT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:34:09 PM PDT

    •  yes, it has been discussed

      join us for MM

      by empathy on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:38:37 PM PDT

  •  please join us

    for MM

    by empathy on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:36:32 PM PDT

    •  Thanks empathy

      I had missed the MM reference but am 100% behind you.  It's an honor.

      by klnb1019 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:42:14 PM PDT

  •  let this person speak. if it bothers you so

    much then don't read it.

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:07:09 PM PDT

•  ugly... (nt)

  by Mr Bula on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM PDT

  •  Agreed---this is an ugly diary.

    by BoringDem on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:49:04 PM PDT

    •  I meant an ugly tactic, but you knew that (nt)

      by Mr Bula on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:50:05 PM PDT

      •  There is no evidence of any tactic, nor of

        any association with Clinton, and no, I didn't realize your judgment was so flawed.

        by BoringDem on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM PDT

        •  all right, peace (nt)

          by Mr Bula on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:55:00 PM PDT

        •  Evidence

          Sure there's evidence -- it's called the piece in the Guardian.

          by SonicT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:58:10 PM PDT

          •  its called a pattern

            Obama is gasp - a secret Muslim - email sent out by a certain Candidate's staff - twice.

            Republicans may say that Obama sold drugs - Shaheen - a certain candidate’s former NH Co-Chair

            Mark Penn, a certain candidate's head political advisor brings up "Cocaine" several times during an interview regarding the Shaheen scandal.

            Obama went to school in a Madrasa - ohhh and his middle name is HUSSEIN in case you all forgot- Kerrey - a certain Candidate's supporter and Former US Senator.

            "You can't shuck and jive at a news conference" - Cuomo - a certain Candidate's supporter and NY State Atty General.

            by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:15:10 PM PDT

            •  Whatever happened to the famed message discipline

              of HRC's campaign?  Why did they maintain that discipline when the Inevitability Express was rolling on to the nomination?  Why is it falling apart now?

              Either HRC's campaign has consciously embarked on a "dog whistle" campaign, or that campaign has suddenly lost its focus once it ran into a little turbulence.  Devious or incompetent--take your pick.

              by RFK Lives on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:24:41 PM PDT

              •  either one is sick and scary. n/t

                by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:22:36 PM PDT

        •  there is a pattern from those who work with her

          worked for her and support her.

          These are not coming from the GOP they are solely coming from one campaign.

          Figure it out.

          If someone had any leadership skills this would be a good time to come out and denounce such hateful behavior.

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM PDT

      •  hateful people who dismiss these tactics

        or pretend that the queen has no clue.

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM PDT

      •  It's not really a tactic

        It's someone expressing their sense of why some people support Obama. Who hasn't had the same thought? It becomes ugly because it's a campaign staffer saying something out loud that you're supposed to keep to yourself.

        It's unseemly to be sure. It's demeaning to Obama to suggest that's why people support him. And, it's demeaning to his supporters. Except that it may not be that far off the mark.

        by FischFry on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:11:28 PM PDT

        •  speak for yourself

          Not everyone thinks like that.

          by zeytoun on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:29:01 PM PDT

•  Can I have some hip brown friends too?

  Maybe a few hip beige and tan ones?

  by Sychotic1 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:31:33 PM PDT

•  Oh. My. God.

  I want a hip black friend!  I do!  I do!

  /snark

  by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM PDT

  •  I'm pretty hip. I'll be your friend!

    I'll even clue you in on the latest slang!

    by brooklynbadboy on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:09:31 PM PDT

    •  Can you teach ME to dance?

      You'd be the first. I can't even get my fingers in that three out, two in position :)

      by anotherCt Dem on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM PDT

    •  Word! That would be dope! eom

      by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:04:49 PM PDT

•  Eh...

  keep in mind that Jonathan Freedland is a respected reporter, author and radio host

  In my professional life, I have found that when someone uses the term "respected" as an argument for trusting someone, the to-be-trusted party is usually far from trustworthy.  It has become a red flag for me.

  who probably wouldn't stake his career on this

  How is he staking his career on this?  Since he hasn't identified the source, who is going to come forward and say they never said that?  The unnamed source isn't the only player in this game who is being protected from fear of retribution.

  by Free Spirit on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:43:35 PM PDT

  •  Journalism

    Simple: Making up quotes is a career-ender. That's called "staking a career."

    by SonicT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:50:06 PM PDT

    •  How do you know?

      If the source is anonymous, no way to know if the quote was made up or not.  No way to know how many journalists make up quotes, either.  It's a career ender only if you are caught, which seems unlikely if the anonymous source wishes to remain anonymous (or doesn't even exist).

      by Free Spirit on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:15:35 PM PDT

  •  Have you ever read Freedland before?

    Because you are attacking him in a really lazy way, on the basis that someone called him "respected".

    Um...yes, he is a respected liberal reporter. A damn good one, in fact.

    Here are some of his recent columns:

    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...

    If you want to attack his reputation, do it directly. Use quotes and make your point.

    Don't try to impugn someone because it justifies a convenient stance in some micropolitical dispute.

    by Maxwell on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:54:53 PM PDT

    •  But but but

      He's with the MSM! He MUST be a liar!

      /snark

      by SonicT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:56:46 PM PDT

      •  The Guardian isleft of the NYT

        From Wikipedia:

        Editorial articles in The Guardian are generally in sympathy with the middle-ground liberal to left-wing end of the political spectrum. This is reflected in the paper's readership: a MORI Poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters (cited in International Socialism Spring 2003, ISBN 1-898876-97-5); according to another MORI poll taken in 2004, 44% of Guardian readers vote Labour and 37% vote Liberal Democrat.

        But...but...but...it questions Clinton's viability in a general election contest with McCain!

        (As do many here...)

        by Maxwell on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:02:32 PM PDT

        •  Which Is Why I Bought the Guardian

          When I lived in England.

          by Empower Ink on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:24:09 PM PDT

      •  the international press plays by different rules

        they are not the same as the MSM in the USA.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:47:37 PM PDT

    •  Attacking him?

      I didn't way a single word about him.

      by Free Spirit on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM PDT

      •  Get real.

        In my professional life, I have found that when someone uses the term "respected" as an argument for trusting someone, the to-be-trusted party is usually far from trustworthy.

        You were responding directly to the diarist's assertion that Freedland was respected, and by clear implication suggested Freedland may be less than trustworthy.

        Who are you trying to fool, exactly? It's not like your comments just disappear after you post them.

        by Maxwell on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:30:55 PM PDT

        •  I suggested nothing

          I stated very clearly what my experience was when someone uses the term "respected" as an argument for trusting someone. And that this experience was from my professional life.  DKos is not my professional life, so how much that experience might extrapolate to anything here, I cannot say. All I know is that, because of the experience, the use of this approach raises a red flag for me. (That's a reaction, not a conclusion.)

          I neither said nor implied anything about Freedland. I wasn't talking about Freedland or his trustworthiness. I was talking about the wording the diarist used and my reaction to that wording. I assume Freedland didn't choose the wording, so what I said had nothing to do with Freedland.

          A Kossack posts a stupid argument in support of a candidate, trying to persuade people that the candidate is deeply committed to racial equality. If I say that I think it's a stupid argument, am I implying that the candidate isn't committed to racial equality? No.

          by Free Spirit on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:22:54 PM PDT

•  Oh please.. this is pure garbage.

  It's terrible reporting, and there's no evidence of any connection to the Clintons.

  by BoringDem on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:47:37 PM PDT

  •  No evidence

    There is no evidence because there is no attribution. That is my point.

    But on the other hand, why would the author of The Guardian piece lie about it?

    The dirtier campaigns are using the mistrust of the media to plant these seeds and watch 'em grow.

    by SonicT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:54:49 PM PDT

  •  Freedland isn't "garbage".

    I doubt you've even read him before.

    He's a solid journalist at a left-leaning newspaper. Feel free to sample:

    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...

    by Maxwell on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM PDT

•  "people are talking"

  What people? DKos members? And what do we NOT obsess about? Some people say...

  by anotherCt Dem on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:58:42 PM PDT

•  One reason why you're wrong

  I have already discussed this with a black kossack.

  The comment you quote is a bit demeaning to Obama supporters, since it suggests that there's less substance to Obama's support than there is to Hillary's.

  Frankly, I think if you're in social need, you should be taking a hard look at voting for Edwards -- but let's focus on the remark.

  It's not really racist (*** see footnote below). It may be ageist. It's calling the youth superficial -- that they support Obama because he's black and cool. If not ageist, it's at least aimed at shallow whites that want to have a hip black friend, so they can feel cool, or not racist.

  It's not playing a race card. It might even be accurate. I'm 43, but I've been that young white kid from the suburbs all excited about having a cool black friend.

  Having said that, I have to agree with you that it is a stupid, possibly despicable thing for a campaign representative to say. Even if the voters are sometimes that shallow or callow, we expect better from the campaigns.

  *** My one qualification -- I noted above that I think this remark is not racist because it's a criticism of supposedly shallow young or wannabe-hip white people. I should say that I don't know the race of the speaker, If a black person said this, my reaction would be a little different. That would be racist, I suppose -- since it would be a black person offering a stereotyped view of white people. On the other hand, as a white wannabe-hip person, I wouldn't be all that offended.

  I do understand that you find it demeaning to Obama because it suggests that those who support him have no substance. I agree that is demeaning. It's just that it's not racist.

  Think of it this way -- If Obama was of Czech heritage and the speaker spoke of people going for their imaginary hip Czech friend, it wouldn't be racist -- it doesn't become racist just because Obama is black. Are white people prohibited from mentioning or noticing that he is black? Or commenting about how that might be influencing people to support him?

  I would agree it's unseemly for a staffer to say that, but it all depends on the context. Someone else could day that without giving offense, if they're giving their considered view of the Obama phenomenon. Demeaning for the candidate. Demeaning for the supporters. But, possibly accurate, and I don't think really racist. Or maybe I'm missing something...

  by FischFry on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:08:07 PM PDT

  •  The difference is

    that the major legacy of Czech immigrants on the popular culture is the ancient habit industrial American breweries have of insisting that their bland, bitter pop is "Pilsner."

    Popular culture is not saturated with brazenly caricatured Czech-Americans singing about a ridiculous and negative cartoon of Czech-American life. There are no legions of suburban kids emulating ersatz Czech-American clothing, mannerisms, figures of speech, music, participation in sports. And behind it all, there is no 400 year history of enslavement of Czech-Americans followed by systemic discrimination, poverty, disenfranchisement, etc., for the cartoons and caricatures to exploit for profit from non-Czech customers. Tommy Hilfiger has never come out saying that he didn't want Czechs wearing his clothing.

    As a result a "hip Czech friend" is just that. A "hip Black friend" is a stereotype. With an African-American and a woman in the race there are going to be a lot of landmines like this. For example, Hillary "crying" (not that she did) is an issue because of the legacy of hysteria and the longstanding assumptions about women that undergirded it and lent it credence as a diagnosis.

    by oldjohnbrown on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM PDT

  •  If you're talking about our relatively

    civil debate, you are still wrong.  I don't care to argue the matter further as I'm finding myself becoming increasingly incensed by people telling me what I am or am not allowed to find racist and offensive.

    To people excusing/rewarding Clinton's campaign for these disgusting tactics, I have nothing more to say.

    But in addition to the already substantial number of people who find the Clinton presidency intolerable for actual, substantive policy reasons, Clinton can add those like me who aren't naive enough to think she wouldn't govern precisely as she is campaigning.  I care more about my country than to endorse this mess.

    by GN1927 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:05:09 PM PDT

•  This is the Guardian's policy

  on anonymous comment (which I also posted in another thread):

     Anonymous quotations: We recognise that people will often speak more honestly if they are allowed to speak anonymously. The use of non-attributed quotes can therefore often assist the reader towards a truer understanding of a subject than if a journalist confined him/herself to quoting bland on-the-record quotes.

     But if used lazily or indiscriminately anonymous quotes become a menace.

     We should be honest about our sources, even if we can’t name them.

     The New York Times policy on pejorative quotes is worth bearing in mind: "The vivid language of direct
     quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source."

     There may be exceptional circumstances when anonymous pejorative quotes may be used, but they will be rare — and only after consultation with the senior editor of the day. In the absence of specific approval we should paraphrase anonymous pejorative quotes.

  And

     Sources promised confidentiality must be protected at all costs. However, where possible, the
     sources of information should be identified as specifically as possible.

  And

     Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

  (Guardian Editorial Code [PDF])

  What they're saying here is that this unsourced quote would have to have been approved by an editor or it must be paraphrased.  In this case, it wasn't.

  You think a very highly respected international paper like The Guardian is going to give a specific, unsourced quote in an article without the strictest journalistic standards being applied? I think this supports your comments nicely.

  Then show me some instances where they have egg on their faces, because otherwise, I trust them.

  by DemocraticOz on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:29:54 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    People come out right away and say there's "no evidence" that a Clinton adviser made the comment.  At this point, I'll trust a respected newspaper's ethics over the Clinton campaign's. The latter has A LOT of work to do to earn their credibility back.

    by SonicT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:35:56 PM PDT

  •  No

      What this shows is that they are violating their own ethics policy.

      What possible reason could they have for not revealing the identity of the speaker?  What point was gained by shielding his identity?  What point was made by providing the quote anonymously?

      There was no good reason for keeping the quote anonymous.  If the speaker demanded anonymity, then he shouldn't have been quoted.

    by WIds on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:07:16 PM PDT

    •  I think they have a very good reason.

      if the comment would not have been made honestly otherwise, then they have a great reason for keeping it anonymous.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten it at all.

      Saying they violate their own ethics policy without knowing the circumstances is pretty ignorant, truthfully.

      Again, can you find any examples of times when the Guardian has used anonymous sources and caused some kind of incident?

      If not, your argument doesn't hold any water, and you're also impugning the integrity of one of the world's most respected journalistic institutions in the process.  Good show.

      by DemocraticOz on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:52:28 PM PDT

•  Imaginary at that

  Thanks for the reality check, I guess.

  by jorndorff on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:38:52 PM PDT

•  Add it to the pile of things we ' imagine'

  You know...those of us who are trying to point out the obvious PATTERN going on here.

  Here's another ' isolated incident' that is neither ISOLATED nor INCIDENTAL.

  by rikyrah on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:28:29 PM PDT