Truce! Not.

I'm sorry, but Clinton agrees to a truce to the MLK Wars and less than a day later, big time Hillary supported Charlie Rangel calls Obama's remarks about Clinton's remarks Stupid?  Wow.  Well, say goodbye to Barak Obama -- the Clinton's are full steam ahead and they've got the entire cast of superhero democratic members of the Hall of Justice lined up to shill for them.  Sorry Barak, but you can't beat this machine. (there goes my money...again.)

<just a little more>

And as near as I can tell, the whole controversy is about what really amounts to a bad analogy.  Hillary wants us to vote for her because she's the hard working, serious type with a "record" of accomplishments and Obama is just a good deliverer of speeches.  OK, she can make that point - I don't buy it, per se, but she's allowed to try to make that distinction.    But lets not be coy here, she is really trying to say that Obama is all Bark and no Bite.  And then she makes this really bad analogy that she is like LBJ and Obama is like MLK, because, like LBJ, she will get something done and like MLK, Obama is all talk....oops.  duh!  Bad analogy.  Open mouth insert foot.  

And then there is the truce.  But there is no truce.  This is a Rovian truce, the kind where you're opponent sighs with relief just loud enough to cover the footsteps of next character assassin sneaking up behind him  and WHAM --

"But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid. It's absolutely dumb to infer that Doctor King, alone, passed the legislation and signed it into law."

I am not even sure I can vote for Clinton anymore.  This is just ugly.  My respect for Rangel has reached sub zero and I know he's basically one of the good guys.  Hell, Hillary is one of the good guys.  

But I can see what's happening and I don't see how the Obama campaign can fight back agasint the Clinton Machine.  It's not the Doer vs. the Talker, It's the Lawnmower vs. the grass.

•  They fight back

  by winning the primaries, that's how they fight back.

  If this works for Hillary, it's no one else's fault but the voters.

  by nrafter530 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:26:49 AM PDT

  •  Damn those voters! n/t

    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:28:56 AM PDT

  •  Itshows an amazing lack of character

    especiall of those up think it's no big deal.  Smells like BushCo.

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:43:07 AM PDT

    •  Yeah well

      it worked for BushCo, didn't it?

      Make it not work, then it'll stop

      by nrafter530 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:47:56 AM PDT

      •  How?

        by David in Burbank on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:51:11 AM PDT

•  From an Obama Supporter

  Who's done my share of slugging it out over this issue, I would say that this diary isn't helpful.  Rangel's comments were pretty dumb themselves, as they put words in Obama's mouth that he never said or implied, but unlike the Bob Johnson thing, there is no evidence that this is official strategy on the Clintons' part.  Let's respect the leadership of our guy and give things a chance to simmer down.

  by Aethern on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:27:24 AM PDT

  •  Charlie Rangel Has a Long Record

    Of saying what is on his mind.  I see no reason to believe this was a "Clinton Campaign" salvo.  That said, (and keep in mind I am an Obama supporter) half this "war" has been about getting offended by non-campaign stuff.

    by TooFolkGR on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:40:09 AM PDT

    •  it's a tactic

      having other people say the bad stuff for you.

      But I hope i'm wrong

      by David in Burbank on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:55:50 AM PDT

    •  If you guys do not think this is a Clinton

      campaign salvo, you don't know Bill Clinton and Charlie Rangel's relationship.  There is no question that Bill and Charlie discussed this issue before Charlie opened his mouth.  Bill knew that Hillary was taking major flak in the Black community (and not from Obama or his campaign) over Hillary's dumb comments, and they planned their counter attack led by Billary's Buffalo soldiers.

      But assuming arguendo, Charlie did this on his own.  It is still the responsibility of the Clinton campaign, just like Bob Johnson is the responsibility of the Clinton campaign.  You can't have your prominent supporters / surrogates talking s..t, and you stand back and say I did not know nothing about this.

      by pwr2thepeople on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:56:06 AM PDT

      •  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

        I would just as soon the candidate I support not attempt to exert mind-control over everyone who endorses them.

        by TooFolkGR on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:38:24 AM PDT

  •  There is no eveidence.....

    that Swiftboating John Kerry was the 'official' strategy of George Bush and Karl Rove either.

    But as a wise man once said, you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.

    The Clinton's will do and say whatever they think will win them a vote, and integrity be damned.

    by cometman on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:04:45 AM PDT

    •  Maybe so

      It could be more underhanded surrogate attacking, or it could have just been Rangel saying some dumb shit on TV (which he has been known to do from time to time).  If it keeps up, then that will be another story.  For now, I think we should cool out.  Again, Obama has provided leadership on this, and if we claim to believe he is qualified to be president, we should back that up by following his lead.  For the time being, at least.

      by Aethern on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:14:19 AM PDT

      •  I'd agree with that except

        what he said was a total fabrication.  And when I analyze it, it's clearly meant to imply that it was Obama who dissed MLK, not Hillary.  I have sat quietly on the outside of all the HRC vs. BHO fights here at dkos and elsewhere, believing that all the candidates were trying to run clean campaigns and all the conspiracy theories were silly (ok, most of them were/are.)  But I can see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's the light on the Clinton Locomotive and it's a runaway train.

        (I also got no sleep at all last night, so maybe I'm delirious.)

        by David in Burbank on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:50:39 AM PDT

  •  Apologize

    Mr Rangel could start by apologizing for his stupid remarks. Alienating half of the democratic base is not helpful come November.

    by mnguy66 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 05:29:52 PM PDT

•  he can fight back

  by sticking to his message.

  by Jeffrey Feldman on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:28:10 AM PDT

  •  i hope so

    but its like hoping the terminator can be stopped

    by David in Burbank on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:53:18 AM PDT

•  Barack.

  eom

  by Puffin on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:30:46 AM PDT

•  I disagree - Obama is not without power here and

  certainly has the additional power of the high road to boot.

  Rove political plays lost their luster and more Democrats who loathed the tactics taken by Rove are NOT pleased to see the Clintons do the same, especially since the Clintons never chose to use that firepower on Rove and the Bush machine the last 7 years, and instead are using these tactics against other Democrats.

  Where were all the 'procedural moves' and tough rhetoric and undermining of Bush and the GOP the last 7 years?

  Clintons wouldn't stick their necks out very far for any Democratic candidate in the past 3 election cycles, and undermined presidential candidates in 2003-4 cycle.

  Now they want Dems to be convinced that ONLY THEY fight the GOP machine when they have only used that fight the last 7 years against other Democrats and our issues.

  by Jail the BFEE on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:31:14 AM PDT

•  Perhaps Rangel simply feels

  that Obama is not as blameless in this latest episode as his supporters make him out to be. No doubt Hillary's made her share of clumsy missteps, to put it charitably, but Obama has not exactly been slow to capitalize either.

  I think it's telling that Obama was the first to signal for a "truce," and did so only when the result in South Carolina became more clear, and it became time to look ahead to other states where the racial politics will no longer work to his advantage.

  But I'm not whining. Politics is a tough business, and this is how it usually goes.

  by Jim J on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:32:35 AM PDT

  •  Not blameless?

    What in the world could Obama have done differently?

    There comes a point where Clinton and the Democratic party have to look towards November. Don't take all the young Obama voters for granted in November. And don't call our candidate stupid.

    by mnguy66 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 05:32:31 PM PDT

•  Silly.

  They didn't say they were going to stop campaigning. They said, both of them, that they'd try to keep it clean.

  by MBNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:33:12 AM PDT

•  I was really shocked

  That Rangel would be so brazen to say such a thing and that CNN would front page it. But then someone said that the News Media is making a killing off of this controversy. So its in their interests to pro-long it.

  I think Mr. Obama will have to start using those elbow jabs he talks about from his Chicago politics days. Then the war will be on.

  This to me is the disparate throws of the old guard Democratic establishment trying to derail the on coming express  train of change and renewal.  

  by chipoliwog on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:33:56 AM PDT

  •  How Could ANYBODY

    With an INKLING of Charlie Rangel's career be shocked by anything he's ever said??

    by TooFolkGR on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:40:57 AM PDT

    •  And before I get flamed

      I love Charlie Rangel.  He's a huge asset to the party.  But he speaks his mind and has been doing so longer than I've been alive.  Everybody knows this.

      by TooFolkGR on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:41:22 AM PDT

  •  lol.....brazen..........

    Agree with you about the front page by CNN, its really not newsworthy.

    I think Rep. Rangell is allowed to say what he wants.

    by Osiris on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:54:58 AM PDT

•  There are no winners here

  Rangels remarks were unnecessary and I don't see how it benefits either Obama or Hillary.  Hillary wants this issue to go away as does Obama.  I don't see how you can assume Hillary authorized Rangel's remarks when it does her no good and keeps a non-winning issue alive.  

  by arogue7 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:36:17 AM PDT

•  Truce Over

  Well, at 9:59 AM ET I received a phone call from Obama's Fundraising Campaign asking for $$. I really don't know the exact name of the group--if it was officially from Obama's campaign (she made it sound like it) or whatever. But, she was using the current controversy to fundraise for him (she wanted me to commit to $150). She was young and nervous as she talked, but said that "I'm sure you are aware of the nastiness that is going on with Hillary's campaign, but it IS coming from her campaign, and Obama doesn't want any part of it, and he doesn't have anything to do with it." She insinuated more--that Hillary's campaign is being very nasty, but that Obama's campaign wants to remain above it all, and wants to stay positive--so would I be interested in donating money to his campaign so he can stay in the race?

  What truce? His campaign is taking no responsibility for keeping this in the atmosphere and trying to use it to raise money. Sure--I'm a Hillary supporter, but I don't think I'm off-base in thinking that this is hypocritcal, am I?

  This is my first Daily Kos rant...{{{{sigh}}}}

  by DianeNYS on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:38:39 AM PDT

  •  It's possible the truce

    Didn't trickle down yet.  She might have also been going off-script.  Let's all just keep cool and see how this plays out.

    by TooFolkGR on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:42:10 AM PDT

  •  So, how much money did you

    give 'em?  (joking, only joking)

    by nolalily on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:00:47 AM PDT

•  As much as I would like to support a truce

  I have gone on record as saying that, given her neocon Iraq invasion and Kyl-Lieberman votes, I cannot imagine bringing myself to vote for Hillary in November, it would then be hypocritcal of me to be calling for a truce, which, truth be told, is meant to guarantee that Hillary supporters would support Barack in a general election and his would support her.

  While I will refrain from engaging in the racism charges against Hillary herself (though not against her supporters), I will not so easily be in a forgiving and forgetting mood toward her. So, I desparately hope that she does not get the nomination. I don't want to again be alienated from the Democrats like I was during the bad old Terry McAullife days.

  by Randian on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:41:53 AM PDT

  •  That's one thing that is an absolute Guarantee

    At the end of the day, when this nomination is settled, Obama and Clinton WILL be less petty about this than a lot of us out in the cheap seats.  I am confident that whoever loses is going to work very hard to see the other elected the next President of the United States, because they know what the real difference is between a D and an R in the white house.  Anybody who doesn't can just compare 93-00 to 01-08.

    by TooFolkGR on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:44:06 AM PDT

  •  thats sad actually, very sad.

    hopefully you'll get over it by November if your preferred canidate isn't nominated by our party.

    by Osiris on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:57:53 AM PDT

    •  If it is Hillary

      my supporting her will depend opon her willingness to apologize for the Iraq and the Iran votes and to pledge to restore constitutionality. Otherwise, I cannot support her.

      by Randian on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:01:05 AM PDT

      •  Only thing I ask you

        is to please take a long look at who the Republican canidate is.

        by Osiris on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:06:28 AM PDT

        •  I will, I hate the Republican Party

          which is why I don't want to support candidates in our, supposedly better, party who are ostensibly enablers for the dark side.

          I will gladly support Hillary if she is the candidate in November, but the burden will be on her to earn my support, just like it will be to earn the support of indie voters. For me, she will need to convincingly demonstrate a break from her formerly hawkish ways.

          by Randian on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:12:51 AM PDT

    •  I won't

      I won't get over the aumf vote. Nobody who voted for that will get my vote for president.

      by discocarp on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:03:42 AM PDT

      •  Ron Paul and Edwards voted for it too

        And Obama said he "was not sure" how we would have voted for it.  It's nice not to have to be pinned down on this issue.

        Did you vote for Kerry/Edwards in 2004?  I guess you didn't.   So can I thank you in part for 4 more years of the WPE (Worst President Ever)?   I guess I can if you lived in Ohio at the time.

        by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:15:14 AM PDT

        •  From Hillary's mouth to your ear.

          by David in Burbank on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:31:23 AM PDT

•  This is definitely still

  in the hands of the voters, and while they may vote for what we perceive as "dumb" reasons (especially when they don't favor our favored candidates), nobody is actually holding a gun to anyone's head. While Democratic voters respond favorably to certain kinds of mudslinging, or can be "manipulated" as much as anyone else, I tend to think they are somewhat more likely to hold people to a high standard than Republican voters.

  Also, while the Clintons are certainly flailing around on the race issue, it can't be a mirage that at least some people (and not just committed Obama supporters) were pretty turned off by the whole thing, and MORE by Clinton's behavior than Obama's. I would tend to think that if you surveyed people who weren't strongly leaning to one or the other, at least some would be more disappointed with Clinton than Obama, and perhaps even a majority. Since Hillary is publicly calling off the dogs, I must infer (cynically I suppose) that some polling or Mark Penn or some such has concluded that the whole thing is hurting her at least as much as it's helping.

  But I hate the whole "learned helplessness" of the whole thing. That because the Clintons are doing it, it must be some kind of master stroke, and not just mistakes on their part etc. If people conclude from this that she is willing to cut off whole groups of people to further her ambition, and take it negatively, she can lose.

  I wouldn't even focus on this too hard, though. I think this chapter is over, and team Clinton has moved on to Part 2 of "how we will divide them". They've now given up on blacks and are courting hispanics--not just courting, but playing up how blacks and hispanics have been traditional enemies. This is truly a fight to the gutter. Obama's got to elevate his game in more ways than one...

  by JMS on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:45:20 AM PDT

  •  On the other hand

    how many of us still think George Bush is just an idiot?

    by David in Burbank on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:03:05 AM PDT

  •  I don't wholly agree with your post

    the fight in the gutter line is out of line IMHO. This primary campaign is fairly mild. And less nasty than the Republican side.

    Obama's got to elevate his game in more ways than one...

    I can agree with that. He does need to step up and show why he should be the nominee. This primary campaign will show if he has what it takes to lead the country.

    by Osiris on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:03:49 AM PDT

•  So Clinton's mind-control chip in Rangel

  must have malfunctioned.

  I've followed Rangel quite a bit.  I can say I know a bit about the man.  And the one thing I know is that, right or wrong, he'll speak what's on his mind.  I see no reason to believe this was somehow directed or ordered by the Clinton campaign.

  If I held campaigns responsible for every utterance of their supporters, this website alone would have driven me to a third party.

  by Boris Godunov on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:52:35 AM PDT

•  I just called Rangel's office

  to express my utter disgust at this type of discourse.  Told them that if he wants to support Hillary, that's great, sing her praises.  But his attack on Obama was beyond the pale and as a lifelong democrat, his remarks made me sick.    

  by acuppajo on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:56:45 AM PDT

•  Diarist --you clearly don't understand HRCpoint

  And then she makes this really bad analogy that she is like LBJ and Obama is like MLK, because, like LBJ, she will get something done and like MLK, Obama is all talk....oops.  duh!  Bad analogy.  Open mouth insert foot.  

  This is an igorant interpretation of Hillary Clinton's comment.  She was actually criticizing Obama's attempts to cast himself in the light of MLK.   She pointed out that MLK was as much a "doer" as a "visionary" - he led great protests, suffered in prison, knocked down doors - whereas Obama is "all hat, no cattle."  

  Fair or not fair as a critique, this is what she was saying.  

  She then went on to say that it takes both activism at the grass roots AND institutional action to make real change (same point Rangel makes today).   So the leadership (vision and action) from a leader like MLK and institutional action by an "insider" like LBJ were both required to make the change real.

  Please, folks, let's not be silly.

  by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:12:47 AM PDT

  •  Oh, I forgot, I'm ignorant

    So nevermind.

    (Ps. I know what she says she said...and I wasn't not getting it, I was rejecting it.  But I guess that's ignorant too, darn.)

    by David in Burbank on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:34:05 AM PDT

•  False alarm

  (CNN) — As both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tried to lower the tension after days of charged rhetoric over race, a congressional supporter of Clinton's presidential bid called the Illinois senator's remarks attacking her over recent comments about President Lyndon Johnson and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "absolutely stupid."

  Rangle's comments were essentially simultaneous with the truce.

  Note the "as," not "after."

  by Pacific John on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:28:23 AM PDT

•  I like Rangel,

  he has been a loyal dem and clearly is loyal to the Clintons. Also , I am sure he anticipates his district profiting from the US senator from his state being elected to the white house so he has that in mind also.

  Based on my reading of the ''truce'' is that Rangels comments were made in the afternoon before Obama offered the olive branch to HRC. She responded in kind and the ''truce'' was finalized.

  Now, if this continues today with more HRC surrogates going after Obama on a personal level rather than issues... then I would cry foul on HRC.

  I have to think that it will be quiet today...that HRC put the word out to hold fire until after MLK's birthday and the debate are over. If not, she is not as smart as I think she is.

  by Hawkjt on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:31:34 AM PDT

•  What do you think of Michelle Obama's comments?

  by dhonig on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:34:54 AM PDT

  •  She rocks!

    But that's what you'd expect me to say, so I said it.  

    And I guess your point was, "look, they were mean to Hillary so she can be as mean as she wants back, nah nah!"  

    Please note that MY point was that Obama is toast in the face of the full onslaught of the Clinton Hydra and that I'm depressed by that realization.

    by David in Burbank on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:42:17 AM PDT

•  Rangel has seen a lot in his life...

  ...and he doesn't care what anyone thinks.  That includes Obama and Clinton.  For those of you who say the truce is broken, try to imagine Clinton calling him and begging him to stop saying stuff like that.  What do you think his response would be?

  Personally, I think the truce was as farcical as the alleged war that preceded it.  But anyone who things Rangel is going to listen to Clinton, or to anyone, doesn't know the man at all.

  by Rich in PA on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:39:15 AM PDT

  •  I think his response would be

    Wasn't I a big reason why you're a Senator from MY state Mrs. Clinton?

    I'm the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee representing the most Democratic district in the country, who the hell are you?

    by nrafter530 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM PDT

    •  Exactly, but with more profanity. n/t

      by Rich in PA on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 04:49:50 PM PDT