Uh oh! Hillary watches YouTube after all.

I was wondering how long this would take.

"I was personally offended at the approach taken that was not only misleading but unnecessarily hurtful," said Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York. "And I have made that clear to many people in the last several days."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday accused Senator Barack Obama’s campaign of distorting her remarks to suggest that she had cast aspersions on the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

She said she was "personally offended" by the way her statement had been portrayed, and accused Mr. Obama’s campaign of being divisive.

This was a surprise to me. I figured that after yesterday's statement and Bill's rounds on the radio talk shows, this controversy would be winding down. But no. Get this:

Asked to whom she was referring, Mrs. Clinton responded, "I think it clearly came from Senator Obama’s campaign, and I don’t think it was the kind of debate we should be having in this campaign."

"I don’t think either Senator Obama or myself want to see the injection of race or gender into this campaign," she continued. "We are each running as individuals. I think it’s absolutely extraordinary that the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president are an African-American and a woman."

Man, thats a strong accusation to make. And a pretty big leap to suggest that the playing of the race or gender card is coming from "within the Barack Obama campaign". But she must be losing it, because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest th...

Oh.

Nevermind.

•  tired of double standards

  by Scan Hopper on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:23:22 PM PDT

•  Casting self as victim of mythical black savage

  I think she's making a mistake here, casting herself as victim of black savage - playing on that mythical fear found in literature and still alive in our culture today.  

  The problem here is that identity politics will turn off the present democratically charged electorate.  I hope to christ they don't find some sort of solace in Republicans who will spout their pleasing soundin platitudes while they send our children to die.

  by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:25:29 PM PDT

  •  Black savage?

    Where did you get that from, exactly?

    by Trix on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:27:37 PM PDT

    •  I don't have a cite.

      I'm just familiar enough with classic and American literature to know that antagonists are often swarthy.  They motivate men to return to the "real" matters of protecting women and country.

      by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:35:01 PM PDT

      •  Exactly

        You're just looking to stir shit up further.

        by Trix on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:35:53 PM PDT

        •  What are you talking about?

          Are you suggesting that you would accept my argument if I had a fuckin bibliography?

          Are you telling me that our country has a record of treating black men nicely?

          Are you telling me that white juries treat black men equally?

          Are you telling me that semiotically black men are not coded by film, TV, music, and all else as threatening.

          Here's a cite - Jesse Jackson explaining that HE FEARS YOUNG BLACK MEN!  

          That is bullshit, and you should be ashamed.

          by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:38:12 PM PDT

          •  wow, the one who should be ashamed of himself

            is you.

            by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:38:59 PM PDT

            •  why

              why

              by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:40:07 PM PDT

              •  Because you're making every effort

                to present Hillary Clinton, and everyone else who disagrees with you, as a racist.

                by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:40:42 PM PDT

                •  Listen

                  I just fought for an hour to eek out an actual conversation in a diary with people attacking me from all sides.  NO ONE would articulate a flaw in my argument but to saythat I was a "dickhead" "asshole" "sexist" and whatever else you can think of.  I came to a diary where I thought people might entertain my thoughts, and you give me shit here too.

                  I'm trying to discuss.  I didn't call anyone a racist, but I do think Clinton is responsible for her rhetoric.  And should be held accountable.

                  by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:43:17 PM PDT

                  •  And when you put words in her mouth

                    you're responsible for that.

                    When you say shit, you should expect to get shit for it.

                    by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:44:29 PM PDT

                    •  That's crap

                      I never said she called him a black savage.  You are a liar.

                      by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:59:54 PM PDT

                      •  Yup, just trying to stir shit up, you are

                        IGNORE

                        by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:00:37 PM PDT

                  •  Here is part of Clinton's vid on Katrina...

                    Here is the quote responding to JJJr's asking where her tears are for the people of Katrina:

                    "I was personally offended at the approach taken that was not only misleading but unnecessarily hurtful," said Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York. "And I have made that clear to many people in the last several days."

                    Now tell me...where is your "victim" metaphor?

                    by kredwyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:54:35 PM PDT

          •  All I'm saying is that...

            you're putting a blatantly racist term into Hillary's mouth that neither she, nor Bill, nor any of her surrogates ever used.

            And I don't know WTF that bullet-point list of questions has to do with anything.

            by Trix on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:42:43 PM PDT

            •  I never said she uttered it

              I think she exploited a latent fear that a lot of people have, but don't admit they have.

              Lots of people lock their doors when they drive through black neighborhoods.  I don't think they are racists.  People who trigger those fears for their own advancement - like Bush (Horton Ad) - are racists.  Don't you think?

              by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:45:07 PM PDT

              •  So you're reading her mind then?

                Thanks Dr. Frist.

                by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:45:43 PM PDT

                •  You never know anything with certainty

                  You never know anything with certainty, I can only use the evidence available to me.  So, no, she has never told me that she did this.  Did Bush ever tell anyone at this cite that he lied about WMDs in Iraq?  No, we just surmised it based on available evidence.

                  Mine is an argument.  I don't know for certain that it is true, but requiring me to have absolutely perfect evidence in order to make an argument is a bit strict.  It is a standard to which few others are held.

                  by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:49:38 PM PDT

                  •  Perfect evidence?

                    You don't have any evidence, and have been appealing to your own authority.

                    by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:50:44 PM PDT

                    •  No

                      I've used reason.

                      by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:00:26 PM PDT

                  •  Now might be a good time to...

                    quit while you're behind.

                    by Trix on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:52:39 PM PDT

              •  Ok then...

                casting herself as victim of black savage

                Explain that.

                by Trix on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:47:02 PM PDT

                •  Here...

                  1. Arrives in Iowa following surprising loss, needs to recoup.

                  2. Knows that a big negative is Obama's perceived authenticit versus her own stilted public persona.

                  3. Decides to turn Obama's race into a negative - in a very oblique and shrouded way.

                  4. Cries/cracks in front of the camera, which will very predictably cause the dullards in the press to ask all sorts of questions about gender.  The news casts would be framed in gender terms in that cycle.

                  5. Obama and Edwards, whether they intended to or not, made comments that the media perceived as capitalizing on the salient tenderness of Clinton following cry.  I actually believe that they tried to, and that they were trying to exploit the fact that she is a woman.  Convinced of it.  And, I believe this was a trap set by her campaign.

                  6. Once they bit, made the comments, the question was how to respond.  Given that the issue was that she was a weak cryer (as posed by the mass media), it would strike me as understandable that she would mount her own tough defense, but she didn't do that.  Her husband made the argument.  Who talks when and how is always vetted by strategists - there is little or no variance from script, and Clinton's campaign has been well known for its discipline.

                  Bill Clinton's response triggered a frame of tender, sensitive, vulnerable woman, protected by stronger man against someone who happens to be black.  That he was black certaintly didn't help him any in this framework.

                  by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:59:09 PM PDT

                  •  You missed out on # 1

                    she did not arrive in Iowa following a suprising loss. How the hell would that happen when Iowa was the first state to vote? Where the hell did she lose befor Iowa?

                    by cpresley on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:38:40 PM PDT

                    •  Late...

                      I meant NH

                      by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM PDT

                      •  She got emotional

                        4 days after IA. It wasn't immediatly after...there was a debate in between Thursday (IA) and the question (NH).

                        5. You're blaming her for the actions of the media trying to create some sort of narrative?

                        As for the candidate's responses:

                        Obama's response was clear and professional and pointed out how exhausted everyone was.

                        Edwards's was more rough and tumble but nothing that the candidate couldn't handle.

                        6. Bill had to come out and defend her when you know damn well that the job of the candidate spouse is to support, encourage, and defend the candidate.

                        All of the spouses are doing exactly that...but you opted to point out that Bill was doing it...as though it were some special sub-text calling for men to protect the weak woman.

                        Would you prefer that none of the candidate spouses weren't involved in the campaigns?

                        Oh and you claimed that she didn't actually respond   to the situation herself...when there was vid on Olbermann of her doing exactly that.

                        by kredwyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:24:21 PM PDT

              •  You are exploiting latent fear.

                Lots of people lock their doors when they drive through alot of neighborhoods I don't care if they are black, brown or white.

                by cpresley on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:34:50 PM PDT

                •  Fine, that makes my point

                  Just so happens that Obama's ethnicity is very salient in this race.  So you are right, and I'm not necessarily wrong.

                  by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:39:30 PM PDT

    •  Don't bother.

      AA's latest diary will make everything clear for you.

      by Marcus Tullius on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:36:38 PM PDT

      •  Dude,

        What is your deal?  I'm trying to have a conversation based on literature and of mythology and semiotics in a pretty literate forum.  

        Talk to me.  What is your issue?

        by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:39:36 PM PDT

        •  Oh, I'm sorry. This is abuse.

          by Marcus Tullius on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM PDT

        •  This appears to be your argument.

          Please alter it as suits you.

          Premise 1: Clinton said: "I don’t think either Senator Obama or myself want to see the injection of race or gender into this campaign," she continued. "We are each running as individuals. I think it’s absolutely extraordinary that the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president are an African-American and a woman."

          Premise 2: Literature.

          Conclusion: Clinton is dog whistling racism.

          This does not appear to be persuasive.  Premise 2, in particular, seems to be lacking.

          by LithiumCola on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:47:36 PM PDT

          •  Are you familiar with the Underpants Gnomes?

            Via wiki

            by Marcus Tullius on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:50:04 PM PDT

          •  Not the way you put it

            Absolutely not the way you put it.  But the dog whistle metaphor is apt.

            You've taken the statements out of sequence, and they no longer reflect how the narrative played in the press.

            And I'd be willing to admit that she may have been completely ignorant of this dynamic, but she should have been more careful.  

            by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM PDT

            •  So now it's her fault

              that you're making up shit about her?

              Just give up.

              by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:53:03 PM PDT

              •  Didn't make anything up

                You took the narrative out of order to support your case.  I'm stated what I've known and explained how I've reasoned.  I can do no more.

                by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:01:56 PM PDT

            •  Help me Folks, What does this mean?

              What is the Clinton is the dog whistling racism deal?

              by ebb lenkin on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:57:13 PM PDT

              •  Ok, A dog whistle only dos can hear

                This means a coded message?  What is her coded message and to whom is this message sent let alone understandable to?  What kind of cypher is this, (cypher) being the code used during the civil war by the Union telegraph operators.

                by ebb lenkin on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:02:20 PM PDT

                •  but if you find 'codes' in everything

                  chances are good they are really in your head not in that bowl of cherrios talking to you...

                  by tony the American Mutt on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:19:14 PM PDT

                  •  Well,

                    It's not that easy.  There has to be an ideology available and confirmable for a legitimate claim of an obtuse meaning to be made.  So, I don't have some radical freedom to look at a Bible and say it is a Koran.   But I can look at a piece of film, which tends to be more "open" to reading, and find various messages in it.  For example, Norman Lear wrote All In The Famiily as a critique of conservatism, but probably wasn't too dismayed to learn that it widely appealed to conservatives.  In fact, most television programs, in order to expand their audiences, will rely on multiple codings.

                    by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:43:19 PM PDT

                    •  yet, ALl in the Family

                      was not real. trying to frame everything in the narrow definions of sit-coms does not bode well for anything you may write...

                      by tony the American Mutt on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:08:16 PM PDT

                      •  When did I do that?

                        I

                        by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:09:14 PM PDT

                      •  When did I do that?

                        Look at how utterly absurd and knee-jerk contrarian your response was.  Did I frame anything as like a sit com?  I tried to explain a semiotic dynamic by using an example, a dynamic that is in no way limited to sit coms.  It is used in speeches, written language, prose, expository writing, poetry, photos, film, and perhaps even in other communicative modalities.

                        by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:11:36 PM PDT

                        •  And

                          you used a sitcom as an example.  Step back, have a good drink of cold water, and look at what you wrote.

                          by Grannus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 05:18:01 AM PDT

              •  Dog whistle

                It is an argument that is made without explicitly making it.  Only a few people in the audience can "hear" it, because it is coded.

                Thus, when Bush says he wants strict constructionist judges, anti-abortionists know what that means.  People like my brothers haven't a clue.

                by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:03:18 PM PDT

                •  Ok , that I figured out, even on my own. Thanks.

                  What is the coded message in her case?

                  by ebb lenkin on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:04:33 PM PDT

                  •  This is a bit different

                    Barthes draws a distinction between denoted (explicit) and denoted (implicit) messages in film.  He argues that one text, such as an advertisement, can work on two levels.  The first, explicit, and the second, implicit.  The implicit message, he explains, is mythological - it exist and is acknowledged by the receiver to the extent that the receiver accepts a certain ideology.  But, if asked to point at the argument, they can't becuase it isn't there.  Instead, it is manifested in the images and the subtext.

                    So, this isn't a typical dog whistle argument.  It is more a message subjected to identity criticism.

                    by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:10:18 PM PDT

                    •  So what class did you read Barthes for?

                      Did you have an opportunity to read Eco? Anything more current and relevant to political discourse than looking for sub-text in literature and film? There's a lot out there...and it's very useful.

                      Are you aware that you're blaming Clinton for what appears to be some sort of narrative that the media wanted to use?

                      Are you aware that part of what the media was trying to do was amplify the appearance of weakness in HRC?

                      The language is there...but it's not HRC's language...it's being used outside of HRC's sphere of influence.

                      But neither candidate attacked her for her moment.

                      by kredwyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:33:06 PM PDT

                      •  Didn't know...

                        I didn't know that the question I was answering was an invitation to show off everything I knew about semiotics.  Did I get it wrong, or fail to provide an exhaustive list of everything I've read?  There is a lot out there, and it is helpful.  Why is my usage of theory not fitting, however?

                        I'm not blaming Hillary for what the media did.  I'm blaming Clinton knowing how the media would frame these matters, that the framing would be to her advantage.

                        While countless people have discounted my argument on the grounds that I couldn't possibly know Clinton's intent, you seem quite comfortable "knowing" what various parts of the mass media were doing.  Hmmm.  And I don't believe the media was "trying" to amplify anything.  What we do know is that they follow narratives and try to come up with surface explanations to complex matters.

                        I wasn't looking at "language," by the way.  I was looking at speech acts.  They are arranged in a way that no one here can explain without resorting to blanket accusations that I'm attacking her.

                        And the candidates didn't attack her, per se.  But they did make comments about strength.  Though they didn't make any specific comment about Clinton, this was enough for the media to tie it all together.  Edwards didn't attack Clinton in the last debate, but he made very oblique references to candidates being authentic and being for change, versus more of the same (hmm, he never said anything about her, but he was speaking volumes about her - taking his lessons from Lazio.

                        by ArgumentAdvocate on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 05:09:20 AM PDT

                        •  Speech acts include the language...

                          they also include the context around the speech acts since you're talking about a series of inter-connected speech acts.

                          One candidate made a comment about strength. The other candidate made a "no comment beyond it's an exhausting process" comment. Both were acceptable. Indeed, I don't recall either Bill or Hillary defending themselves against these comments re: "the moment."

                          Hillary did respond to the media stuff...but that's different from commenting on her fellow candidates.

                          I don't know the first thing about her intent. However, you do seem perfectly content to lean on her intent/awareness of a mythological sub-text and using that awareness to play on the narrative that the media was developing re: her being a weak woman.

                          As I pointed out last night,

                          1. you mentioned that the opponents pounced. Those responses are hardly a pounce. Indeed, both candidates were cornered by a pouncing media;

                          2. you argued that Bill's defense was somehow special--a slap at feminist values. Indeed, the defense aspect of a candidate's spouse is par for the course re: being a candidate's spouse and isn't any more or less special than Michelle or Elizabeth engaging in a similar activity;

                          3. you pointed out that the event itself was right after she'd arrived in NH. Indeed, it wasn't. It was 4 days later after a debate in which she actively engaged with her opponents;

                          4. you stated that she used a non sequitor in response to the questioner when in fact, she answered the question.

                          I don't know as you are attacking her, per se. What I think is that you've conflated parts and totally ignored other parts to come up with a theory that rests on some literary analysis and some assumptions as to motive.

                          Is she taking advantage of the confusion going on with the media? After all, they were so sure that she was dead in the water...and the choke up sure was an indicator of that.

                          Prolly...

                          But then again, I don't see Obama coming out and asking everyone to reel back the charges of Racism against the Clintons when they aren't. Do you?

                          by kredwyn on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:35:39 AM PDT

                          •  #3...

                            4 days after she went from IA to NH and 2 days after the debate.

                            by kredwyn on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM PDT

        •  Ah, yes...

          You're obviously trying to steer this conversation in a high-minded direction.

          by Trix on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:48:22 PM PDT

  •  Strawman much?

    by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:33:40 PM PDT

    •  No straw man

      There is no straw argument there.  A straw argument is an effort to recharacterize an opponent's arguments to make it weaker.  I think her arguments are very powerful, but because of the employment of nefarious means.

      by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:36:14 PM PDT

      •  Oh yes it is

        A strawman doesn't have to make an opponent's position weaker, it just has to present it in an extreme or absurd form. And you have done that here.

        by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:38:13 PM PDT

        •  I'm sorry but

          Making someone's argument seem absurd is making it weaker.  Don't you think?

          by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM PDT

          •  The point isn't to weaken the argument

            but to dismiss it with a slight of hand.

            by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:41:47 PM PDT

            •  No

              That isn't true.  If I'm in an argument, I reconstitute the opponent's arguments so as to make it easier to dismantle, discredit.  

              What you are saying isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't how it is used in argumentation theory.

              by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:46:39 PM PDT

              •  A strawman is a fallacy

                so in fact it cannot actually weaken anything, it just appears to.

                by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:48:09 PM PDT

                •  Huh?

                  What did that have to do with the prior post where I explained what a straw argument is?  Here...

                  That isn't true.  If I'm in an argument, I reconstitute the opponent's arguments so as to make it easier to dismantle, discredit.  

                  What you are saying isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't how it is used in argumentation theory.

                  by ArgumentAdvocate on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:05:16 PM PDT

  •  and look at the morons who uprate this shit

    by tony the American Mutt on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:16:26 PM PDT

  •  you proud of your choices on this kos?

    by tony the American Mutt on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:16:50 PM PDT

  •  I think you are making a mistake here.

    My mother called me tonight. she is 80 and a life long Dem. She wanted to know why all of a sudden Bill Clinton was being called a racist on the national news by the black community. Her quote was" I thought Bill was considered the first Black President, why is the black community turning against him now? Is it because of Barack? I don't know why the black community would turn against Bill after all these years."

    I hope to hell you people know what the hell you are doing because you are turning off alot of life long Dems. with this crap.

    by cpresley on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:30:49 PM PDT

•  Expect Mrs. Clinton to be "personally offended"

  a lot! It seems to work for her.

  by Travis Stark on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:29:43 PM PDT

  •  When?

    When has she said that before?  Please link all the previous times she's said she was "personally offended."  

    Since you're claiming she does this all the time it should be very easy for you.  

    by bella on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:50:18 PM PDT

    •  OK

      "Well frankly. It hurt my feelings" - ABC debate
      "I just don't want us to go backwards" or some such - tears in the cafe.

      by Travis Stark on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:39:00 PM PDT

      •  it was a joke...

        by kredwyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:43:35 PM PDT

        •  It was a half joke

          by Travis Stark on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:44:34 AM PDT

          •  Geee...she was just told that poll #s

            said that those polled liked someone more than her. And you want her to say what? That she's thrilled?

            The question was a trap...looking for her to react.

            She turned it around and joked about it some.

            How would you feel if you were on camera being asked to react to a poll that said someone was X% more likable than you?

            by kredwyn on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:34:58 AM PDT

  •  Interesting...

    Here is a link to some vid on Clinton right after Katrina and her response to the lack of Federal response.

    Now...I'm not an HRC supporter, but to be fair to her, it seems as though her response was spot on. And possibly, she has a reason to offended.

    Additionally she offered up this legislation: The

    FEMA Restoration Act will restore FEMA to Cabinet-level rank and establish it once again as an independent agency. The FEMA Director would report directly to the President and would have full authority to coordinate with all agencies and take whatever executive action is necessary to ensure needed resources and recovery personnel are deployed to impacted areas in an efficient and timely manner. The bill also requires the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to have significant experience, knowledge, training, and expertise in the area of emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation as related to natural disasters and other national cataclysmic events.

    I'm sure that some research can tell you where that legislation is in the process.

    by kredwyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:43:15 PM PDT

•  I wonder if she is "personally offended" by

  her campaign's tactics?

  by humphrey on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM PDT

•  UGH

  Jeez, i guess there are perks to having your guy be in third... you don't have to get tangled up in crap like this. You'd think you guys could get along, your two candidates actually aren't that dissimilar. Or maybe that is the reason you've resulted to splitting hairs and parsing phrases and reading innuendo.. there's no real substantive differences to point out.  I've been leaning Obama over Clinton for a while, but these sort of wars just turn me off to both of them and just give me another reason to donate to Edwards.

  Hillary is not racist. Obama is not sexist. I really couldn't give two shits what anyone working for them says. Jesse Jackson Jr is not running for president. Now, just. Shut up. all of you guys, and talk about some friggin POLICY differences. You are just continuing the cycle of bickering here.

  by goodlittlesquid on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:46:33 PM PDT

  •  JJ is on his team

    Do you really think he said that without permission from Obama?  I don't.

    by bella on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:51:56 PM PDT

    •  my point is

      who gives a flying fuck? It doesn't effect my opinion of Obama or Clinton, it's just typical campaign Fox News sensationalistic crap instead of focusing on the goddamn ISSUES.  When a republican is president in January, will you be thinking, Gee golly gosh, I'm really glad i spent all that time pointing out how Obama's staffer accused Hillary of accusing Obama of playing the race card because Bill accused Obama of playing the gender card in response to BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH. NO, you'll be think, Gee wilikers, i wish we had spent some of that time making the case to the American people that THE PLANET IS MELTING. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OF PEOPLE ARE STARVING. CRAZIES ARE BLOWING UP OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM. PEOPLE ARE BEING DENIED MEDICAL CARE SO CEOS CAN HAVE PERSONAL JETS. UGH. This is why Edwards doesn't get Media play, because he doesn't engage in this kind of sensational crap. INSTEAD HE TALKS ABOUT STARVING PEOPLE. YAWN LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW ONE CANDIDATE CRIED AND ANOTHER ONE'S STAFFER SAID SOMETHING STUPID THAT'S MUCH MORE TITILLATING

      by goodlittlesquid on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:05:14 PM PDT

•  Good Diary.

  It's good to see Hillary getting some use out of those horses**t allegations.  If you're gonna come, better come correct.

  by Lush on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:15:31 PM PDT

  •  Nonsense.

    Obama has not made any claims against her. The Clintons are playing the victims. Period. So all good Democrats will remember how the Republicans trashed them and come to their defense yet again.

    by skeptica on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:54:03 PM PDT

    •  the clip included with this diary

      is rather dramatic evidence that Obama's campaign is indeed behind it.

      by ScanDroid on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:04:36 PM PDT

•  Daily Kos is really sinking...

  ...I guess I can have loads of hope that it will be a decent place again someday.

  by candice on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:45:05 PM PDT

  •  if this is the level

    to which self-professed hopemongers will stoop, i'd rather stay cynical.

    by CC Music Factory on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:56:54 PM PDT

•  Added to your tags. Please do so next time.

  by Jacques on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:42:54 PM PDT

•  Perhaps the marketing guru brought on board

  for the Clintons is already at work. Their marketing strategy is clear: Brand Obama as "The Black Candidate" and only that--meaning "The Candidate for Blacks," and only for blacks. And then they win. That's why they're not only playing the victim for sympathy but doing all they can to perpetuate the issue.

  by skeptica on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:56:57 PM PDT