GOP operative rolls out "back of the bus" Obama smear

Over the past several weeks, reports have surfaced that the Republican National Committee is commissioning "top-secret polling and focus groups" to develop "new code words" that will allow them to attack Obama and Clinton without being accused or racism or sexism.

Last night on Larry King Live, Kellyanne Conway, a top Republican pollster who is likely at the center of this effort, apparently decided to roll out some those new code words, stating that Clinton and Obama are arguing about

...whether she should let him sit on the back of the bus of her presidential ticket, or he argues whether or not she lied us into war in 2002.

Kellyanne Conway is not somebody who would innocently utter a phrase like that. A seasoned Republican message guru, Conway has been out front in talking about the plan being developed for the general election:

"Republicans will need to exercise less deafness and more deftness in dealing with a different looking candidate, whether it is a woman or a black man," Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway said. "But at the same time, really charge back at any insinuation or accusation of sexism or racism. You can't allow the party to be Macaca-ed."

And just take a look at Conway's client list -- it includes all of the usual suspects: the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, Focus on the Family, the NRA, the NRCC, the NRSC, and of course the Republican National Committee.

Let's be clear: Conway's comment was an attack on both Democratic candidates, an attempt to polarize our party by injecting racism into the Democratic nomination battle. Both candidates and their supporters need to be united in striking back against this kind of language.

Obama supporter Jamal Simmons was also on the Larry King panel and fired back at Conway (even rousting King from his usual stupor):

SIMMONS: Larry, we have to address that. We have to address that. This back of the bus comment is beyond the pale. I think Senator Clinton, whatever our disagreements are between the two candidates, Senator Clinton has never done or said anything that would imply that she would rather have Barack Obama sitting in the back of her campaign bus.

CONWAY: No, as VP. You aren't paying attention.

SIMMONS: No, you are not speaking clearly, because that's out of line.

CONWAY: No, she doesn't want him to be the first Black president. She wants him to be her VP. She said that this week. She would consider putting him on her ticket, but I guess he wouldn't consider putting her on his ticket, would he?

KING: Did you use the term back of the bus?

CONWAY: I did. I just said ---

KING: Meaning?

CONWAY: Meaning that she wants --- she has said she would have Barack Obama as her VP. Thereby she is denying something that many Republicans are not denying, that Barack Obama has a very strong chance of becoming this country's first Black president, that someone like me respects.

As Democrats, we need to follow Mr. Simmons lead in calling out these kinds of tactics, and resist echoing them as we advocate for our candidates. And Conway's trial balloon reveals a key aspect of the plan Republicans are developing. And it's the same thing they always do: inoculate themselves by accusing their opponents of doing the very things they themselves are doing. In this case using racist language to imply that Hillary Clinton is a racist.

Democrats need to demand that McCain and the RNC repudiate Conway's comments.

And a final note:

It's worth mentioning that Kellyanne Conway is married to George Conway III, an attorney who worked for Paula Jones and was one of the central figures in the long-term effort to take down the Clintons during the 1990s. Is Kellyanne continuing that work? Why imply that Hillary Clinton is a racist right now? Conway has certainly been doing her best to downplay Hillary's chances of getting the nomination:

In contrast to some current polls, noted political analyst and pollster Kellyanne Conway gives Barack Obama the edge heading into key Democratic primary contests March 4 in Ohio and Texas.

Conway, the president of Polling Company, says there are metrics about the Senator Obama (D-Illinois) campaign that are elusive to pollsters.  According to Conway, Obama has an "intangible advantage" of connecting with voters that is difficult to measure in early polling.

Why was a top Republican strategist pushing the idea that Hillary would lose Texas and Ohio? I thought Republicans wanted to run against Hillary. Is that really the case?

•  Ugh, nasty

  Here's the Larry King Live transcript with the "back of the bus" comment, btw.

  I'm sure we'll be seeing more of the same.

  by Plutonium Page on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:28:16 AM PDT

•  HULLO?

  thankyou ryeland!

  this is what im talking aboot!

  dkos folks & candidate supporters:  quit bitchin aboot tactics & rules (DAMN! the ref called me for holding!) & work to defeat the fascist evil war mongering social security suking evil motherfukers in SUITS! that sadly rule our fuking lives, ...

  by oklib77 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:33:19 AM PDT

•  Same as Hillary

  Hillary is saying the same thing. What is the difference?  I don't get the sublety, it may be lost on the media but it is not lost to the man and woman on the street.

  It does not matter whether the Clinton's are racist or not, they know how to use the history of race in this country. Its a tool like any other tool, they wield it with precision.

  When and if Barack comes out slinging, keep an eye on the firestorm that comes at him for "beating up" on a white woman.  Hillary has this as her ace in the hole. This is the history that we ignore at our peril.

  by kiki236 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:36:56 AM PDT

  •  don't fall for it!

    Republicans are going to be attacking both our candidates by distorting the arguments each are using. Hillary mentions something about Obama being her VP and that becomes "back of the bus". Obama criticizes Hillary's Iraq vote and that becomes "she lied us into war".

    We need to fight back against this crap without letting it further inflame the nomination fight. Don't fall for it.

    by ryeland on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:43:19 AM PDT

    •  what are you talking about?

      (a) I doon't listen to kelly anne conway at all myself.

      (b) fat chance in hell of getting any obama supporters to defend hillary's tactic of raising the VP possiblity.

      Hillary Clinton does not -- right now at least -- have a claim on this nomination. She needs 65% of the remaining delegates to have such a claim, or 60% assuming MI and FL end up getting seated somehow or another.

      Either way, she's unlikely to get the delegates.

      If she does, she can start offering VP.

      Until that point, she's mumbling about this stuff to make herself seem superpowerful, and trying to make us humbly submit to her awesome strength.

      Not gonna' happen.

      So yes, ignore Kelly Anne Conway.

      But if you think that means supporting what Hillary Clinton is doing to our party, you're wrong.

      Let me break it down for you: if Hillary Clinton tries to take the nomination without entering the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates -- it will get ugly.

      Very, very, very, ugly.

      It won't be a question of whether people vote for her or McCain.

      It will get so ugly that you might even end up seeing some strange shit come out of the convention -- like Al Gore.

      I'm telling you, the last thing Hillary Clinton could afford is to steal this nomination and have 1700-1800 pledged oBama delegates walk out.

      she'll be speaking to a half-empty convention hall.

      now if she convinces voters and wins enough pledged delegates, more power to her. i'll be totally supportive of her nomination if she does that.

      but she doesn't think she can do that.

      she is toxic.

      by JedReport on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:23:55 AM PDT

      •  asdf

        Maybe you should listen to Kellyanne Conway since she's telegraphing Republican strategies and blowing dog whistles to a large audience.

        Do you really think that Hillary speculating about Obama being her VP is some kind of horrible tactic?? This is a political contest. That's not even an attack. There's nothing wrong with a politician exaggerating her own strength or standing. She trying to beat Obama. She's allowed to campaign.

        by ryeland on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:32:12 AM PDT

        •  i have a pretty good idea of what they will do

          kellyann conway is a complete tool. i refuse to listen to her to gain insight.

          there's some really good stuff if you're interested in reading about what their strategies will be in the american conservative magazine.

          it's not going to be about race.

          (they may use that in the primary to divide, but they won't in the general.)

          it's going to be more about patriotism/foreigner issues.

          and about arugula. and whole foods.

          although it may have seemed like i said hillary shouldn't be doing the VP stuff, i don't think that's what i said. without rereading my comment, i think that what i said was that askign obama supporters to defend hillary's tactics is a dead end.

          sure she has every right to campaign; but if i find something that she does to be patronizing, am i supposed to not point that out jsut because she's campaigning?

          if i think she's being a hypocrite on some issue, shoudl i not mention it because it's a campaign, and that's what people do in campaigns?

          i mean seriously: newsflash, i know that the gop is the devil. i know that KAC is barely better than laura ingraham.

          so what? the general election desn't start until the primary is over.

          if you think that it's the republican party that is currently dividing us, and pitting us against one antoehr you are wrong.

          the person doing that is the candidate who has given every indication that she hopes to overturn the vote. i have no problem with her campiagtning, i think it's great that she does it. but if she plans on using supers to trump the public's judgment, she will face a disaster. and i don't mean a november disaster. i'll vote forthe democrat in the fall.

          i mean an august disaster. she will literally be giving her acceptance speech to a room that is only half-full if she gets the nomination w/o having a majorty of pledged delegates.

          if people think the clintons aretough and resolute, wait until they see obama backers onthis one question.

          by JedReport on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:02:48 AM PDT

        •  oh and another thing

          why is it that the clinton campaign was proudly boasting on their delegate hub that hillary clinton has received the most votes from white democrats?

          who's being polarizing now?

          by JedReport on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:05:50 AM PDT

  •  Yep.

    And then somebody better ask why that 'poor victim' is trying to become the leader of a country that regularly deals with enemies who kill their women for just looking at another man in the wrong way.
    Again, this victim card is getting stupid. She's not a victim and all she's doing is giving McCain more fodder to win with in the Presidential campaign.

    by RElland on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:37:51 AM PDT

•  "code words" is a loser....

  anyone could argue that's not what Conway meant whether she meant it or not.

  The "code words" argument is a loser for the Obama campaign it will make him look overly sensitive; it cannot be proved that that's what Conway meant.

  "Fairytale"<--- "code word" That's just sad... I didn't receive a list and I'm not sure what words are "code" and what are not.</p>

  by leftbird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:40:43 AM PDT

  •  doesn't have to be proved: only the brain-dead

    don't know what is meant by that phrase.

    by OHdog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:31:00 AM PDT

    •  It doesn't have to be proved?

      convince the American people of that...One person's "code word" is another person's normal vocabulary.

      by leftbird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:53:26 AM PDT

      •  Many condolences to your brain's family.

        Couldn't pass that one up. My bad.

        by OHdog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:22:48 AM PDT

        •  Was that "code":D n/t

          by leftbird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:23:37 AM PDT

•  Conway made a blatant racist slur

  I live in England.  I turned on 'Larry King Live' this morning and almost choked on my cornflakes when I heard the disgusting comments made by Kellyanne Conway.

  Is that the voice of the Republican Party?  If so the USA can keep John McCain.  Europe loves Obama and we want Obama to be the next President of the USA.

  Kellyanne Conway represents all that is wrong with the Republican Party.  She should never appear on Larry King Live again.  Conway should apologise to the world for the offence she has caused. Her comments were ugly - very ugly.

  by canvas on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:45:45 AM PDT

•  Very good catch by the Democrat calling her out

  by Jimmy Crackcorn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:53:08 AM PDT

•  I heard that too and was appalled.

  I was very glad Jamal jumped on it right away and called her on it.  I really like Jamal and think he generally does a good job of representing Barack but I've sometimes been frustrated with how 'nice' he is, too nice, so I was glad to hear him speak out this time.

  Last Tuesday night on Larry King after the primary results, Lanny Davis gave him a real slap (I thought) and Jamal didn't fight back.  Jamal had the first question and disagreed with Larry calling Texas for Clinton and saying Clinton had won the night by a landslide.  They went to Lanny and the first thing out of his mouth was a comment about Jamal being angry when he had been anything but.  I thought it was a snide reference to 'angry black man'.  I think even the director and/or camera man thought so too as they immediately cut to Jamal's face expecting, I guessed, a reaction of some sort from him but even though he didn't look pleased, he didn't say anything.  I think he should have.

  Anyway, I wish Obama's supporters would be a lot sharper in calling out so many of the anti-Obama things Clinton backers say, not just the Republicans when they smear.  (e.g. the 'facts' that Lanny Davis also threw out tonight on LK about Barack's supposed sweetheart house purchase that he got such a discount on only because indicted Rezko helped him out by buying the lot next door.  They absolutely should be refuting 'facts' like that.)

  by vernonbc on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:07:05 AM PDT

•  Good catch by Jamal Simmons

  We have to remember, though, to play it delicately. Yes, they'll try to push that button -- and I think they'll do it on purpose.
  I don't think Conway thought she could get away with it. She wanted to see if she could get a rise out of Simmons.
  They're using the sick and sordid calculus that angry black people will scare some white voters. They're going to play a light-touch game of racial snipes that are just shy of overt. They can deny their meaning, while hoping we take the bait and attack.

  by Jaxpagan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:30:46 AM PDT

•  Basically

  just how do people who spend their lives dedicated to being more effectively nasty sleep at night?

  by pvlb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:59:12 AM PDT