Intentions vs. Perceptions, How the Dems Lost Their Way

I have been amongst the harshest of Clinton critics over the past several days, there is no doubt and I freely admit it.

As of right now, I'm going back to square one. I am giving the Clinton team the benefit of the doubt on the race flap. I'm doing this because of two words, intention and perception.

Join me after the flip for an analysis of these words and why I'm willing to give the Clinton Campaign the benefit of the doubt.

Words can be very funny things. This is due to perceptions, and how a phrase is perceived can be completely dependent upon a person's life experience. I believe that this is a central theme around why we find ourselves in the mess regarding race. This came to me after having a brief, and from my part visciously bilous, conversation with Blue Democrat in a diary composed by that Kossack. I'd like to take this opportunity to publically apologize to Blue Democrat for the words I typed. I was wrong to assume your intent when I have no way of knowing it.

After carefully considering Hillary Clinton's comments centered around Martin Luther King Jr., I find that I can point to no explicit ill intent. I perceived insensitivity, but now I do not believe that was her intent. If one explores the record, she has been in the forefront of improving race relations.

On the other hand, my perception allows me to see how nasty and condescending those remarks have to be perceived by many in the African American community. Coupled with other racially insensitve remarks by members of the Clinton campaign and high visibility supporters, and there is no doubt that a pattern emerges in perception.

From this analysis, a solution emerges. Members of the Clinton Campaign will have no choice but to carefully choose their words. A phrase I heard often when I was a child befits the situation:

Engage your brain before opening your mouth.

Words mean things, and can mean completely different things to those whose life experience is greatly different from yours.

On the other side, those who perceive racial insensitivity need to not jump to conclusions over intent. If I peceive racial insensitivity in a comment I hear from the Clinton team, or any Kossack, I will attempt to graciously point out how and why the comment could be perceived as racially insensitive. Again, a phrase is applicable:

Engage your brain before opening your mouth.

With that said, my hope is the two candidates involved in this will be able to come to similar conclusions. This is very difficult when there is little trust already between two groups.

The first candidate who is able to express the dichotomy of intentions and perceptions with regards to race should probably end up being the nominee.

But that's just my two cents...

•  Smack down cup

  because I now figure supporters of both will destroy me now.

  - Albert Einstein

  by Walt starr on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:27:08 AM PDT

•  Unexpected diary

  but I don't trust your intentions or your perceptions.  Sorry.

  by prodigal on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:35:36 AM PDT

  •  Fair enough

    I can understand why.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:36:00 AM PDT

•  Without LBJ and MLK, Jr.

  no civil rights legislation would have been passed.  Their convergence was inevitable given the times.  One can speculate whether Johnson would have independently called for civil rights measures, but it would be only speculation.  The 'stars' were aligned and it didn't seem racist or even insensitive for HRC to speak to the matter.  Obama shouldn't have been "baffled" by the assessment.

  by JFinNe on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:35:51 AM PDT

•  I do not think

  the comment was racist, but what the hell was she thinking? Leaving race out of it the analogy was 2 well loved men of vision and hope both got shot dead and so another guy had to step in and get the job done? Huh??  

  That also would have really pissed people off since it reads like a subtle threat.

  by housesella on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:53:24 AM PDT

  •  Only if you are predisposed...

    ..to reading it that way.

    by rserven on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:34:12 AM PDT

    •  OT: did

      you get my electronic mail..?

      by condoleaser on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:46:21 AM PDT

      •  Finally.

        My email was experiencing problems until last Friday.  I'm trying to catch up.  I'll get back to you later...hopefully today.

        Robyn

        by rserven on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:47:32 AM PDT

•  Hillary's An Evil Witch..

  ...eats kids too...  

  Seriously, I made my mind up about her already, f*ck all these second chances.  

  Further Screw America in 2008!  Vote For Hillary!

  (Kucinich '08)

  by indigowatcher on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:57:46 AM PDT

•  naive

  How naive were we to think race would not enter into the fray?  It was unavoidable.  We, as Democrats, tend to think we are above the fray went it comes to race and politics.  We are in the midst of history here, in more ways than one.   That's why I love the title of this diary "Intentions vs. Perceptions".  The "perception" of the entire Democratic Party will be forever altered after the election in November.  I just hope, after all is said and done, the perception is a positive one and not negative.  

  by djbender on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:18:04 AM PDT

•  BS

  Quite honestly, I don't understand how this comment could have turned into a s*it storm about racism. I'm not making any apologies for HRC, or any other candidate or person for that matter - I'm not a HRC or BO supporter per se - I like them both for different reasons and I'd have a hard time picking between the two if I had to make that choice.

  But this entire drama about her remark about MLK and LBJ being "racially insensitive" is just absurd. Firstly, it does not necessarily follow that she was in any way diminishing MLK to suggest that LBJ's role in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was essential. That fact is, MLK wasn't a member of Congress or the POTUS and I'm sure he'd have agree that LBJ's support was of the essence. Nobody suggested that LBJ was the single most important factor or that it was exclusively LBJ's actions that brought about this great achievement. Simply that it took a POTUS to make it happen as it did.

  That doesn't sound to me like a racist remark. It just is a fact. Of course everyone knows that MLK was the catalyst, and that the AA community worked tirelessly for this over many years and decades. And it did take a POTUS - LBJ in this case - to use that bully pulpit and the power of the office over the Congress to push the bill through. MLK couldn't do it b/c he wasn't in Congress himself - his role was focused on the social movement. Heck, one could even argue that JFK's death was greatly responsible for hte passage of the bill - historians often say that the bill would not likely have passed if he had lived, but the desire to honor his legacy in death motivated the Congress to pass the bill. And it is also true that LBJ knew that JFK's passing provided this opening and he acted on it, and twisted arms in his own party's Congressional leadership to push through the bill.

  That said, it did take a president (maybe even two) to make this happen when and how it did. Does that mean MLK didn't matter? Of course not! And that was never said either overtly or otherwise. The point is, lots of people and circumstances conspired to bring this about, and the POTUS was one of the important ones. I suspect that MLK would have agreed with the statement, and given LBJ credit for the role he played. Certainly, LBJ gave MLK the credit he deserved and they stood little shoulder-to-shoulder, side-by-side when the bill was signed.

  So, what's this all about? Can anyone really say they think HRC is a racist? Or that she would deliberately be racially insensitive? I don't believe it - I don't agree with her on a lot of things, but to say she meant to diminish MLK or to manipulate or engineer some advantage by using race as a political tool? It is utter b*llsh*t unless you really try hard to inject something into the comment that was not there. And even if you do that, explain to me how this would have been to her benefit?

  Everyone needs to calm down, stop pointing fingers at one another, and act like grown-ups. And I mean both sides, both candidates and their supporters - they share an equal blame for the degeneration of the dialog to this low level. Please, all of you, stop it with the cries of racism and sexism - and let's talk about the real issues and your differencs/similarities of your program proposals.

  And please stop trying to find the boogey man in everything the other guy says and/or does. B/c for most Americans, there's no boogie man there and your credibility is what is in doubt when you have shouting matches over alleged insensitivity that either didn't occur, was not intentional, or simply doesn't square with the personal character of the accused. Remember, we've got a general election to win, too. This BS has to stop.

  by Redneck Aeschylus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:36:12 AM PDT

•  Circumstantial evidence

  is, nonetheless, evidence.  In the instant matter, we have not only a pattern of comments from the Clinton campaign--too many to be (IMHO) random remarks pulled out of context--but the entire political record of Bill and Hill which demonstrates that pretty much everything they say and do in public has been calculated in advance.  

  It's funny, in fact, that you suggest that the Clintons must, henceforth, choose their words carefully.  Were I on a jury, the evidence would demonstrate to me that the Clintons have been choosing their words very carefully, replaying the Sistah Souljah moment, purposefully injecting race into the process while maintaining plausible deniability and, bonus, being able to blame their opponent for the crime.

  I'm just not buying the "poor me, couldn't be" defense anymore.  I mean, really, we're supposed to believe Andrew Cuomo didn't know that "shuck and jive" is a racially loaded term?

  by costello7 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:47:46 AM PDT