The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Also, you guys should definately check out the blogsize Savage Politics at www.savagepolitics.com
Their articles are nothing I have read in any of the current media outlets.

Here is an excerpt from today's article called "MLK and the Establishment's Dream":

"Martin Luther King, Jr. was, by the standards of any reasonable human being, an impacting figure in American history. As a rabid organizer an advocate of African American rights, his exploits did influence public policy in Washington to the point of convincing important figures from the White Establishment to follow the long awaited current towards racial inclusion throughout the electoral process. Nevertheless, there is a sinister side to the Media's obsession with MLK and his legacy. Although history has had at its disposal many other Black heroes to choose from, American society (i.e. the Press and their sheep) had already decided to utilize King, Jr. as the picture-perfect illustration of what a revolutionary should be. And, even if we discount the "closet" datum which surround this historical figure, the fact that Boston University found, after a thorough investigation, that a third of his Doctoral dissertation had been plagiarized, or the lurid details about his sexual misconducts, or his affiliation to disreputable Soviet agents, the questionable aspects of his fame remain embedded into the Establishment's early acceptance of his legacy. What was it about MLK's message that clearly distinguished him, in the eyes of both his detractors and supporters and that as a consequence has engendered a cascading array of honors from the State, be it a Federal Holiday all the way to an upcoming monument in the heart of Washington, DC., between Jefferson and Lincoln?

America's obsession with political correctness and ideological cowardliness is not a recent phenomenon. It goes back to the infancy of the "Baby Boomer Generation" and its decade long stronghold on the concept of illusory tranquility. It was in the 1950's were the whole premise of "going safe", on everything from kitchen appliances to political figures, began to hatch. It's offspring was a social ambiance intolerant of radicalism and true revolutionary change, and speedily attracted to reactionary thought. That era's approach to any apparently dramatic modification of the status quo, was all variants of violent opposition, primarily founded on religious tradition and unwholesome fears of Communism, which were the prevalent scarecrows of the time. We can see this attitude in action when we study the time of Segregation in the South, a circumstance which didn't benefit anyone involved, be they White Southerners or African-Americans, for it created the prevalent structure of resentment and racial competition that would eventually explode into the bitterness in which we find ourselves immersed today. Nevertheless, segregation appealed to that generation of White Americans..."
Find the rest of the article at www.savagepolitics.com

The Clintons have gone so low to have to cultivate a culture of not thinking before they act and i believe this is a new and Bad precedent in the party.
The Bob Johnson as well though meant to help raise the status of hillary might be a spoiler.
The comments about obama were uncalled for as Bob did. Obama though cated more maturely and did not throw the abuses back at him.
Bob Johnson does not automatic powers to change the african american thinking about Obama likewise i dont think even the apoligies were in good spirit.It must have been forced on him behind closed doors to save hillary's head
Richard mawanda
www.jacofoods.blogspot.com

Clinton and Obama have been playing cat and mouse with the race issue. Obama wants to tout himself as a black leader when he delivers speeches to predominately black audiences and when speaking to whites, he downplays his role in black issues because he doesn't want to alienate white voters. Clinton wants very much for Obama to be seen as a black leader like MLK because she also knows this will alienate white voters. So her comments about MLK and Johnson were not racist or untrue (you did need a president to get the Civil Rights Act passed - and if you read your history, Johnson, for all his faults, was a master politician who wanted to go down in history for this accomplishment. After signing the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Johnson commented that the Democrats had lost the South for a generation. AND the South who was traditionally Democratic reversed completely and has been strongly Republican ever since.) But Clinton's point is that she is a master politician like Johnson and that Obama is a great black political, but politically, inexperienced. She's hoping that will win her the election. And Obama hopes he can infer that she is a rascist, so he can win the election. This is politics and both sides are "playing" it.

I feel like i'm in the twilight zone. did people read the entire quote? READ IT -- ALL OF IT! What she said is entirely true; she said mlk deserved the "lion's share" of the credit for civil rights but that he had political partners. That is just true and if you read history, cannot be disputed. Lyndon Johnson may have messed up in Vietnam, but he is greatly responsible for massive changes in civil rights for black people. I just don't get the hoopla and i'm not sure who i'm going to vote for, but it needs to be someone who supports educating people so they can separate personal feelings and prejudices from logical thinking and analysis.

I've read about, and heard, the comments made by Senator Clinton regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and on first blush they seemed rather innocuous. They really did not seem that bad. All she said was that the dream held by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964." She went further to state that "...it took a President to get it done, that dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in peoples lives because we had a President who said we're going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

I heard those words and thought, "Oh, that's not so bad." Her comments seemed to be a restatement of the facts. That's when you hear her comments out of context. Allow me to now put them back in context for you.

Her comments were in response to a question asked by a reporter for her to comment on something that Senator Obama had said. Here is the timeline of events.

Senator Obama gives a great speech that some reporter's had dubbed "Inspirational".

Senator Clinton's response was to imply that speeches are just words but can Senator Obama back them up with deeds (Obviously she was implying that he could not) and that Senator Obama should not be giving Americans "false hope."

Senator Obama's response was to say that when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech, (which has also been said to be inspirational) were they just words? Were those words giving Americans "false hope"?

Senator Clinton's response to that is what you just read above. She basically said, yes, they were just words because he could not get anything done! "It took a President to get it done."

Now, when you look at it in context it shows you that she was trying to diminish Dr. Martin Luther King Juniors accomplishments because she was trying to diminish Senator Obama's accomplishments since he chose to "compare" himself to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We all know that a part of what Senator Clinton does these days is to try and make Senator Obama look poorly so that people will vote for her, and vice versa. Agreed? Good. Therefore you should be able see that what she is saying is that all Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did was give a great speech, but he could not get any meaningful legislation passed. Again, it took a President to get it done. Connecting that to Senator Obama means that he might be able to give great speeches but can he really get anything done?
Of course, the irony here is that if Senator Obama gets elected President then he can get it done. You would then have an intelligent, articulate, inspirational speaker who has the power to get things done!!

As a long-time supporter of Edwards, it disturbs me to see him jump on the Obama bandwagon by taking part in a distortion of Clinton's words. I heard her comment on King v. Johnson and understood it perfectly in context. What she MEANT was that, though King built public backing for desegregation, it took someone in public office to bring about the legislation that would implement the principle.

Incidentally, I found it repugnant that Obama would class himself with King and JFK. King had a specific mission, clear to everyone, unlike Obama who claims to be all things to all people. And JFK--whom I voted for--was a moderate Democrat, making no grandiose claims. His great accomplishment was based on pragmatic good sense, avoiding potential cataclysm that could result from the Cuban Missile crisis.

All in all, it demeans Edwards to curry favor with the Obamites by bashing Clinton.

Than you, polianna -- anyone else?

JakeD: I will join your pledge. I think its my duty as a woman NOT to vote for her.

Adding further injury to insult, Senator Clinton will be in New York City today to attend a Martin Luther King Jr. birthday celebration amid an increasingly rancorous primary campaign in which the issue of race has been pushed to the fore.

Mrs. Clinton is scheduled to attend the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ Martin Luther King Jr. birthday celebration. What GALL?!!

http://www.nysun.com/article/69466

polianna:

I hope you will join me in pledging NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton if she does get the nomination?

Hillary is just trying to have it both ways, she attacks Obama in every low class way she can and then she cries when people come after her. Her appearance on Meet The Press did nothing for me but solidify the idea that she's just another washington hack playing divide and conquer to win. Another 8 years of this is too much.

http://pastandprologue.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/karl-rove-has-nothing-on-the-clintons/

Latest RASMUSSEN Poll: Clinton leads Obama among white voters 41% to 27%. Obama leads Clinton among African-American voters 66% to 16%.

This manufactured flap is all about misdirection on the part of both the media and the candidates. Nothing Clinton or Obama can say will ever diminish Dr. Kings legacy, but this bull &#@% allows them to talk about nothing instead of addressing the issues that really impact the Black community and the families of all other working US citizens. Issues such as massive immigration and amnesty for the 12-20+ million illegal aliens in our country.

I'm a very liberal Democrat, but that fact doesn't make me a fool. I'm not about to swallow the propaganda corporate Democrats are putting out that amnesty for 12-20+ million illegal aliens is a progressive value, and is good for the country; quite the contrary is the reality. The 12-20+ million illegal aliens who snuck into the country exacerbates every problem facing the families of working US citizens! The presence of huge numbers of illegal aliens doesn't solve or even help any of our problems.

As someone commented on this blog before, I have yet to see a valid argument in favor of "more people chasing fewer resources! Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, crime, pollution, lack of affordable housing, failing schools, inadequate health care, diminishing resources, vanishing farm land and green space, depressed wages, increased tax burdens, etc. etc, etc. All of these issues have all been negatively impacted by unconstrained immigration. Enforcing our laws against illegal aliens is not a crime; it's an imperative!

Obama's campaign played the race card with this memo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/read-obama-campaign-memo-_n_81220.html

And this outburst:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQV4K1eFjI

But Barack said that his campaign had nothing to do with it...is that a lie, or did he just not know what his campaign was up to? He is not the victim in this spat, sorry. For someone who is all about unity, his campaign is being very divisive by playing the race card.

Hillary's Russert/Meet the Press claims were all so ludicrous it's a wonder anyone considers her viable. Oh, that's right, it's the military contractors who made her their #1 recipient of donations who've decided she's The One.

Hillary pulls the gender card every single place she goes, then attacks Obama even when he's not the one making it an issue of race! So many white friends I watched as they saw the Fox video of the interview were as outraged as my black, Asian and latino/hispanic friends. It was just a dumb thing for Clinton to say, even if she believes it.

No one with any sense of that recent history thinks LBJ wanted to sign the Civil Rts Bill. He was forced to promise to sign it or he would've lost all black and liberal support for his election. The last thing LBJ could risk was that loss of support when he'd finally ascended to the presidency with Jack Kennedy's assassination.

LBJ put 27 FBI agents on MLK, and that's fact! Don't act like he "generously" responded to MLK's "cleverness", that's an outrage, really! With Hillary so strongly supporting Goldwater in her youth, you'd think she knew that. With her "35 yrs" experience and 8 yrs in the White House, you'd think she'd know that. You'd think.

Read the reviews of Judgment Days, pub. Houghton Miflin 2005:
• FBI director J. Edgar Hoover's consuming racism and personal hatred of King, which spurred a relentless campaign to destroy the civil rights leader. In one incredible tactic, Hoover directed that an anonymous poison-pen letter be sent to King with the objective of persuading him to commit suicide;

• Johnson's use -- in a massive secret and illegal operation equal to Watergate -- of the FBI to defeat the Mississippi Freedom delegation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention and to spy on members of the U.S. Senate who opposed his policy on the Vietnam War;

• The inside account -- revealed through previously secret White House documents -- of how President Johnson authorized J. Edgar Hoover to leak information about Martin Luther King's personal life, with the intention of destroying King as a public figure;

Now, if LBJ loved Dr. King so much and signed the Civil Rts Bill to make King's Dream a reality, why all that? Why not replace the maniac Hoover?

Anyway, Hillary's a nut to say Barack was comparing himself to Martin and Jack. He was criticizing her condemnation of hope, her cynical view of the power of ideas to change the world by calling out the American people to step up and make our country great. I'm surprised she didn't add that he was comparing himself to Teddy Roosevelt!

A couple of points on this issue:

1 - Rep. Clyburn, who has questioned Sen. Clinton's remarks, is neutral in the race. He has no connection to the Obama campaign. Earlier news reports on this subject did not make that clear.

2 - Although the Clintons support the concept of 'civil rights,' I don't believe they've ever actually been responsible for passing any significant civil rights legislation. (I may be wrong on that; if so, I'm sure someone else will weigh in on it.) HRC went to college as a supporter of Barry Goldwater, who opposed civil rights laws, and she didn't 'convert' to a more liberal view until the late 60s, after the passage of the major civil rights laws. I don't think there has been a major civil rights law in debate since she's been in the Senate.

I don't want gender and racial politics.

Edwards is the MOST ELECTABLE candidate. Democrats have had this FACT hidden from them by the corporate media.

In polls, Edwards constently beats McCain, while Hillary loses, and Obama ties.

Unless we want to lose, Edwards must be brought back into the lead.

Clintons' campaign tactics, right out of Carl, Dick and George playbook, have been pretty shocking of late.

We're talking events of a week and Clintons have the audacity to feed recent, uh, days-old, hours-old events to the Revise-History, Scorch-Earth, Didn't-Inhale Machine? And who's coming to dinner? Bob who?

So, last week, during the NH primary campaign when they were feeling pretty desperate with the polls and everything (you with me so far -- this is true, right? Happened? We all on the same page so far?), Bill appears at a campaign event and says Obama's story is a fairy tale. He can't make his wife taller, make her male, make her, well, Obama, Bill whines bitterly. Bill's very angry about this -- can't you see? You're missing something here -- read my lips, he whispers, "she's Female, come on!"

Then, shortly after Bill's remarks, Hillary herself says:

"Dr. King had been on the front lines. He had been leading a movement. But Dr. King understood, which is why he made it very clear, that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That's why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That's why he was there when those great pieces of legislation were passed. Does he deserve the lion's share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does."

After Hillary basically says, "Hey Obama, don't give too much credit to what Dr. Martin Luther King dreamt of -- all this hope stuff is false. Yeah, let's not have "false hopes." I mean, MLB had to get Lyndon B. Johnson to do the real work, remember? Unlike what you think, that white man was really the one who got all the work done for your civil rights movement stuff."

Senator Obama in the meanwhile, stays quiet. All in the meanwhile, with all these headlines going back and forth, regarding what I outlined above, Senator Obama says nada.

The news sort of talk about these remarks by the Clintons. Sort of. There are other headline news. Clinton comes first in NH, and some people think it's because she almost cried, and she makes a speech and says, "Okay, I'll try and cry more often folks, should've listened to you a bit more carefully -- huh. THAT's what you wanted?"

Senator Obama still stays quiet. All in the meanwhile, with all these headlines going back and forth, regarding what I outlined above, Senator Obama says nada.

Then, uh uh, problems for the Clintons. Clyburn, the top ranking black politician, gets angry at the Clintons' remarks (and maybe he also got peeved at other vicious Clinton lies, e.g., Bill claiming he was against the war from the beginning when there's undisputed evidence of speeches he gave supporting Bush on Iraq war?). "You guys being racist here?" Clyburn wonders incredulously.

Senator Obama still stays quiet. All in the meanwhile, with all these headlines going back and forth, regarding what I outlined above, Senator Obama says nada.

So, the Clintons, who desperately need the black vote, then go on radio to Al Sharpton saying, "Hey, Obama is a great guy, he can win, no, no, no, he's no fairy tale."

Obama, in the meanwhile, still keeps quiet.

Hillary now goes on Meet the Press and says, "It's Obama's fault. He's been twisting my words, and oh my god, people, HE IS MAKING RACE AN ISSUE! AND I'M CRYING, SEE MY TEARS???"

So, Obama finally responds, "Uhm. You know, this is kinda fascinating to me. I mean, I didn't say a word? Did anyone hear me say anything about this?"

Nope, Senator. It's just the crazy Clintons again, and some crazy Americans believing the crap, as they do sometimes.

Sigh.

I think the facts really need to be set straight, loud and clear here about who's doing what, even with the headlines, since people seem so forgetful and easily confused. This is not a "fray," it's Clintons' unabashed, intentional distortions and mudslinging to distract the public about what THEY have been saying and doing.

John Edwards is the only true candidate who will effect the change that's needed in Washington. As long as Obama & Clinton both continue to accept millions of dollars from big-money interests (insurance companies, Wall Street firms, coal & nuclear industries, etc.) they cannot make the changes necessary to help ordinary Americans. Obama & Clinton are nearer to one another in both policy and practice than either is to Edwards. He is the only one who will not be beholded to big money if elected.

kissman24x--I totally agree!

absolutely love the way Edwards has always approached politics--bring it to the people, and the politicians will follow. It is what MLK did with civil rights: when LBJ didn't want to sign it, MLK brought the people to washington, right to our doorstep, and said a few words to the crowd...perhaps you heard about it? and wouldn't you know, LBJ signed civil rights...

Follow the Leader! Edwards was the first with a universal health care plan, first with global warming. Do not accept those two followers! Edwards is bringing it to the people and we need to stand by him!

chust70yahoocoin:

No one is saying that Martin Luther King, Jr. was "only subsidiary in the abolition of racial segregation in the southern U.S. states." Should be interesting come January 21, 2008.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/ for more on the Clinton distortions and Obama responses.

I was a grad student at the U of Toronto working for a Ph.D in 1965 and 66.Bill Clinton is right in saying that Lyndon Johnson's ability to arm twist senators and congressman to pass the Civil Rights act was a distinct feature. FDR could not dare that Nor JFK.
But to say Rev.Martin Luther King and his able lieutenants were only subsidiary in the abolition of racial segregation in the southern U.S.states is a grave understatement coming from Bill clinton, who ought to knowhis pre civil rights ARkansas.It is grossly unfair of him to hve downgraded the sacrifice even with his life of REv.Martin LUther King. Politics must remain, like Caesar's wife, above reproach.

P.S. -- I watched the entire hour of "Meet the Press" this morning and Hillary did NOT spend it all talking about Obama -- what an EGO he's got.

benvos329:

I agree with your post, but I wasn't the one who said: ". . . Sen. Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat-out wrong. She suggested that I didn't clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did." [Emphasis Added]

I am so disappointed in the Clintons. I follow the speeches and interviews of the two Dem front runners daily and witnessed Hillary Clinton's insensitive blunder in her statement about Martin Luther King that understandably created a backlash. If she hadn't been attacking Obama's message of hope, this wouldn't have happened. I have never heard even so much of a word from Senator Obama about this blunder until today when he again defended himself from one of Hillary Clinton's lies, now blaming him for the backlash she caused. I am so impressed with the integrity of Barack Obama.

***Tears in Heaven?***

Liberals have had it their way for years--trying to define race as a conservative shorfalling in America. All of the rented 'First Black President' allusions were illusions--Bill paid the 'rainbow' crowd off with our money. Now they get to see how the Clintons really regard race--as a wedge issue. They are used to the wedge on their side, but in an instant they have turned it around.

Anyone with an open mind could see it for what it is:

**Hillary's comment about Ghandi as a gas station attendant.

**Her unbelieveable assertion that LBJ was responsible for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as opposed to the marchers and activists.
I could almost feel MLK's 'tears in Heaven'

**Think about her concession speech in Iowa, and her lilly white entourage--Bill, TerryMcAuliff, Albright and Wesley Clark--like a vanilla snow cone.

Conservatives believe in equality--equal right and equal worth. The divide that liberals have created is due to their black phobia--and they have insulated themselves FROM blacks with money that never changes a thing.

If Hillary was different than my analysis would suggest, we wouldn't be hearing that she is the single most qualified person in the country to be president.

**Does she believe there are no blacks more qualified then she?

**Does she maintain there are no Hispanics more qualified than she

**Women? Lesbians or gays? Asians? Handicapped?

She plays to these demographics, yet only if she is the deliverer of their mother's milk--public money.

I address Hillary in song with 'Hillaryous,' a song I wrote as part of 12 musical slaps to The Left. I'm just a cop, but I know bad mojo when I see it. I pray for the day when race gets out ahead of politics. Hear it @

www.conservativemusiconline.com

To JakeD - there is a difference between "funding the war" and "supporting the troops". If GW Bush is going to execute a pre-emptive war, authorized in full by Hillary (and Bill) Clinton and John Edwards (who at least admitted he was wrong) and the 70+ members of the Senate, then we can't fight the war effort and end up endangering countless thousands of American and Iraqi lives. If we didn't learn this lesson from Vietnam, then we failed to learn the most important lesson.

It's a big difference to support the war than it is to support the troops who are ordered to fight the war.

The *real* story about the Michigan Primaries is that the DNC has stripped all 156 delegates from Michigan thereby rendering the Michigan Democratic Primaries worthless. Big Media's failure to report this story is yet one more example of their complivity in destruction of democracy in this country via information suppression. For the full story visit: http://www.startplane.com/node/7

Posted by: vaporland | January 13, 2008 04:18 PM

Obama, playing the race card again.
He isn't African-American,He's Kenyan-American. His family in Kenya sold other Blacks into slavery,they never were slaves.
He's whiter than white. (End of Comments)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My Comments in response: Dear Vaporland, you say Obama isn't African-American, he is Kenyan-American...Wow how so troubling is your level of education? The US Census defines him as "Black or African-American"...there is no such a racial group called "kenyan-american" Is there anything I can do to fix that level of ignorance? Than you say: "His family in Kenya sold other Blacks into slavery,they never were slaves". Do you really know the history of Africa from the last century to now. I know one thing; America needs a revision of our educational system in order to save Americans to look ridiculous to citizens in other countries... you look like you hardly went to school and read only books that were designed to teach you to be "self-hatred." That's what Barack Obama will do as President = fix education in America to make good and informed citizens.

Lewis2222: Yes, thank you for pointing out should be obvious to anyone with a brain, but which the Clintons hope people can be fooled not to recognize.

Another analogy: If, say, someone inebriated in a bar is being baited into a fistfight, a sober friend would try to do whatever he could to convince him not to pursue it. But if he gets in the fight anyway, a friend wouldn't try to hold his arms and let him get beat up just because he was against the fight in the first place.

Barack Obama never said that HRC made a "racist" remark.

But let's look at what HRC said.

1. MLK couldn't have made the change unless he worked with politicians.
Response: True, but what's your point? Barack Obama works with politicians.

2. "It took a president" to pass Civil Rights legislation.
Response: True.

3. "MLK gave a lot of inspiring speeches"
Response: True. But more than that, he mobilized and led an effective protest movement against the status quo. He lived through death threats, imprisonment, and ridicule.

HRC has inflamed the passion of Obama supporters who recognize that this is our chance to do what could have been done in 1968. Obama can do what RFK would have done if he would have been elected in 1968.

Most frightening is the statement by a Clinton supporter introducing Clinton (never corrected by Clinton) that, "JFK was an inspiring speaker, but he was assassinated," and so it was LBJ who accomplished those great things.

I think the most offensive part of Clinton's statement is the glib judgment that says Obama has no record of results to show for all his speeches. To that, I respond:

1. Where is Hillary's record of results? Honestly, what has she accomplished?

2. Obama accomplished a great deal as a state Senator and he's done quite a bit as a freshman senator. But you can't measure Obama's lack of results on the basis of his inability to overcome a Bush veto threat or Reid's incompetence as Senate majority leader.

3. Have no doubt that Obama is capable of effecting change. The inspired work of his campaign is evidence of his ability to organize, lead, and inspire. Compare Obama's campaign leadership to the Clinton campaign's leadership, with all of the fighting, mismanagement, unethical behavior, etc. You can tell a lot about governing style by the way someone runs their campaign.

4. MLK organized and inspired to the point that the government leadership had no choice BUT to enact civil rights legislation. His tragic assassination cut short his ability to complete the changes he started. It's insulting to say that MLK's life, which was cut short by an assassin's bullet, demonstrates the need for leaders like LBJ to get things done. What we need is for those in power (i.e., the Clintons and her cronies) to start protecting people and stop the politically-calculating style of character assassination that has characterized Hillary Clinton to this point.

First it was the claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" attacking Bill Clinton (who turned out to be lying to the American people the entire time). Then we have her vote to authorize a pre-emptive war in Iraq, which has resulted in $1 Trillion spending so far. She stands on the sidelines while Obama is trying to pass ethics reform. Then, it's offensive remarks about her political rivals' ability to get things done. Then, we have her insulting the president of Russia and saying he "has no soul". Then we have her saying that elections in Pakistan are unfair because Musharraf will be the only name on the ballot in Pakistan, when Musharraf's name isn't even on the ballot for parliamentary elections in Pakistan.

How many times does someone have to screw up before you start realizing that she's a risky choice for leader of the free world?

The more remarks about race fly around, the more uncomfortable people become, and the more they stick with "their own." ..... "Gee who's doing all this, Mommy?"
....."Look at who benefits, dear."
Yeah, the Clintons aren't racist, but they're not above making "unfortunate" remarks about race to win an election. They won't sound like racists unless their jobs are threatened.

Hello?! Obama DIDN'T "clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq" when he deferred to Kerry on the issue in 2004. Obama DIDN'T "clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq" when he voted for funding said war. Those are simply the facts.

If James E. Clyburn does not come out in support of Barrack Obama before the primary in South Carolina I will lose my respect for him. James E. Clyburn has always been a leader. Now he looks like he is playing both sides. What's up with that.

newagent99 wrote:
"He isn't African-American,He's Kenyan-American."

Kenya is in Africa! Look at a map!
Hillary's supporters are as uninformed as she was when she failed to read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting for the Iraq war.

She also dodged every legitimate question Tim Russert asked on Meet The Press, we need honesty, we need Obama!

Question to those bashing Obama for voting to fund the troops once they were sent to war even though he was opposed to it: So your son or daughter is in Iraq, and even though you oppose the war, you'd be ok with his or her funding being cut while he or she is still in harm's way? You clowns are really stupid.

If Senator Clinton is truly concerned that her remarks are being misrepresented she should simply refer interested parties to the interview she gave to the FOX network in which she made the unfortunate assertion. Most adults are capable of drawing their own conclusions. http://youtube.com/watch?v=v9LhWUsrJnM

I love John Edwards' quote of:

"I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through the Rev. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that. Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long -- and are living in a fairy tale."

This is the probably the best line dealt out in this whole situation -- and he's not even in the middle of it! He nails the Clintons on multiple fronts concerning their recent, odd assertions and he's right on as well.

As a middle-aged female college-educated voter, I was hoping more from Hillary this morning when I watched the interview. I felt we received the usual parsing and well rehearsed Washington response in which she blamed others for her and Bill's comments and actions. She accused Obama and his campaign and others with numerous phrases like deliberately distorting facts, unfairly and inaccurately characterizing comments by taking them out of context, giving out information in a selective way and not providing an entire quote concerning the situations.

A large part of her response precisely utilized such tactics. It would have been better to apologize for the offending remarks and move on to issues instead of trying to place blame on others for their actions and comments. If this type of "style" used by the Clintons is what the future will entail then I vote for a different direction that does not include the Clintons and their style of campaigning or governance.

She had a chance for my vote and she lost it with her own style of rhetoric. I have always voted Democrat, but I would vote for someone like John McCain if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination with such style and tactics that she has displayed thus far in the campaign because it is not uniting, but dividing our country and we need to unite and move forward not backwards. It makes the case that she is unable unite our country, as we need the next president to do.

Don't think that Dr. King is the only politician of color that Clinton has dissed when trying to score points with white voters. See below for what she said about Gandhi.

"During an event [in St. Louis in 2004]for Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Clinton introduced a quote from Gandhi by saying, 'He ran a gas station down in St. Louis.' "

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/

Get it? Gandhi was Indian. All Indians work in gas stations. So Gandhi must have also worked in a gas station! (Hillary rolling on the floor laughing..)

I think it is high time that people stop drinking the Clinton Kool Aid. Hill and Bill pay lip service to Civil Rights when they are trolling for black/minority voites, but when it is convenient for them, they indulge in the most naked pandering to racist sentiments.

I agree with Bob Johnson. Sen Clinton's comments were in NO WAY an affront to Dr. Kind or his legacy. Honestly, I think the Republicians are behind this, not the Obama or Clinton campaigns.

There are obviously a lot of people who believe that Blacks are so stupid as to take ANY comment about Dr. King by a White person as an automatically insult. In the end, only the Republicians have the most to gain by seeing Obama and Clinton tear each other apart.

Hillary Clinton's assertion that Lyndon Johnson, or any other Washington politician, is more responsible for the Civil Rights Act than Martin Luther King Jr. and those he lead during the Civil Rights Movement is the ONLY "Fairy Tale" in this campaign.

. . . And the next time that Bill Clinton or his wife conspire to use half truths and outright lies to distort Senator Obama's statements, positions, or his record as a Senator (tactics that George W Bush used so well to slander John Kerry in 2004); they could at least have the decency to preface their misleading attack with the words, "Once upon a time . . . "

I am a lifelong Democrat, but I would seriously consider voting for someone like John McCain if Mrs. Clinton was the Democratic nominee. Her invocation of how she watched Martin Luther King seemed almost to be an echo of Mitt Romney's Meet the Press appearance when he tried to equate marching in Grosse Pointe (the wealthiest suburb in America) to marching in Selma, Alabama. I say this as someone who has a son in the Marine Reserves and as someone who has opposed the tragic fiasco in Iraq from the outset. Mrs. Clinton voted for this war, did not even bother to read the Intelligence Estimate, and now hints that Mr. Obama's opposition was negated by a comment during the Kerry campaign.
Until today, Mr. Obama did not even react to the slanderous comments of the Clintons. Despite his exemplary behavior, Mrs. Clinton has the unmitigated gall to accuse him of (in so many words) playing the race card. No matter what the outcome of the race for the Democratic nomination, the Clintons are, in the long run, toast on the national stage. She may succeed in the short term in her newly defined role as victim, but she will not be elected and has forfeited any chance on someday becoming Majority Leader in the Senate.
But should we be surprised? Lest we forget, despite the lackluster performance of Mr. Gore in 2000 and the machinations of boneheads like Bob Schrum, it was ultimately the behavior of William Jefferson Clinton that set the stage for the election of George Bush. Hopefully, Democrats nationwide will see through their machinations.

Obama and Edwards have consistently been taking the low road. Hillary and Bill made reasonable, non-racial comments and Obama and Edwards tried to transform them into some kind of racist attack. What a bunch of baloney. If either of those charlatans get the Democratic nomination, I'm voting for McCain (if he's nominated) or staying home on election day.

palmeroth, I think you speak for a lot of voters.

i have not follow us politics , the way am doing now, but Obama, spark that interest to see politics differently.
i wasn't born in us, but now am us citizen, who is not democratic or republican, but independent;and am ready to vote in general election, if democrat nominate,change than status quo.
if they nominate status quo republican will have vote.
Obama represent change and he speak change and i dont have doubt in my mind he will be great president; that represent every American.
Obama, spark that faith and hope that Americans can do better.
i think the greatest leaders in this world are not people with 20yrs experience but people who motivate, inspire,generation to go beyond their horizon,obama is that leader.

obama +people=change

you dont know me but you got my vote in general election OBAMA.
Time has come when americans will start dreaming big and replace fear with faith and love .

Once again, Clinton uses the Joe Goebbels' theory of the big lie (i.e. repeat it often enough and hope people will belive it.) That settles it. Clinton hijacks this nomination and this voter votes for the GOP candidate whomever that may be.

As for Bob Johnson, the African-American community can comment and take care of him. I never watch BET and have had no interest in Johnson until he joined the Billy Shaheen "Sleaze Club". Maybe this Uncle Tom will get his night in the Lincoln Bedroom. He is an insult to all Americans regardless of color! A pox on your house, Johnson!

Obama, playing the race card again.

He isn't African-American,He's Kenyan-American.
His family in Kenya sold other Blacks into slavery,they never were slaves.

He's whiter than white.

Robert Johnson of BET has done more to diminish and demoralize black culture than any single individual since David Duke.

BET owns a large interest in Leeward Islands Lottery Holding Company Inc. This is a company that runs lotteries throughout the Caribbean, and reaps millions from poor people in exchange for... nothing.

Another of his 'charitable' companies is Casino and Gaming Entertainment (C.A.G.E.), a video lottery gaming company headquartered in Puerto Rico and operating throughout the Caribbean.

He will roll out a new gaming operation in Barbados over the next three years, under a plan to broaden operations across the Caribbean.

Johnson's RJL Companies, through CAGE Barbados Inc, will establish 2,500 video lottery terminals (VLTs) in Barbados that it has secured a long term contract to install and manage.

He's an expert at exploitation.

"The only black people ever uplifted by BET are Bob Johnson and his dependents."
-- Posted by Outer-Borough Princess

"Robert Johnson of BET has done more to diminish and demoralize black culture than any single individual since David Duke.

BET owns a large interest in Leeward Islands Lottery Holding Company Inc. This is a company that runs lotteries throughout the Caribbean, and reaps millions from poor people in exchange for... nothing...He's an expert at exploitation." -- Posted by vaporland

Touche!!!!!!!!

"Obama is talking about pioneers and immigrants, about slaves and suffragettes, about the can-do spirit that Americans used to have...and somewhere in a screaming sea of 4,000, Arlene Estevez is pondering a parable: When a man asked for help, she remembers, God sent a rope. Then a ladder. When both went unused, He took them back. 'The world has seemed so hopeless. It's like there was nobody there to help us up and help us out,' she says. 'To me, Obama is the rope and the ladder. It's our opportunity right now, and I'm not going to miss it.'"

"The Clintons have become simply too arrogant and self-serving and forgotten that their popularity was given to them by the American people, despite many shortcomings that they, as all mortals, succumb to. They need to remind themselves how blessed they really are instead of how entitled they should be with regards to the White House. -- Posted by Nguyen Chau Giao

"The real gamble in this election is to do the same things, with the same folks, playing the same games over and over and over again and somehow expect a different result,'' he said. ``That is a gamble we cannot afford, that is a risk we cannot take. Not this time. Not now. It is time to turn the page." Obama

We cannot survive a continuation of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-... politics. This fairytale, freaking nightmare, must end. Enough is enough!

I was working abroad for much of the Bill Clinton years and did not follow the Clintons too much. I believed at the time Bill merely dissembled about his sex life, a personal matter, but was generally honest. Now I realize I was wrong. Now I see clearly that both Clintons are dishonest to the core, driven only by self-serving ambition.

They have completely distorted Obama's record. And it's just one more distortion spun by Clinton that Obama had anything to do with the reaction of many black Americans to Hillary's and Bill's desperate statements about MLK and Barack.

While I vowed never to vote for a Republican again, I now can understand why they hate the Clintons so much. (But I still don't understand why they don't hate the Rove/Bush administration even more.)

It is time to pass the torch away form Clinton-Bush divisive politics of the past 20 years. It is time to move forward !
I hope we have an independent candidate to vote for if Hillary is nominated because I will vote against the Dems for the first time. I fail to see how Clinton can stand for a new direction this country desperately needs.

The reality of this race is that two capable leaders are giving it all for the opportunity to represent the Democratic Party in the Presidential election. Though there are few notable differences between Hillary and Barack there are differences.

Hillary Clinton: Mostly business attitude and from a political perspective is relatively cold. Here speeches are directed towards work and policy. Hillary's experience is respectable even though it is belittled by those ignorant of her accomplishments. She has always been and advocate for minorities and children for many years.

"Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, like her father a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962" (wiki).

To paint Hillary as disingenuous is fair, however, this assessment can be made of all politicians. Taking a position on a policy to win votes is what politics is about. Obama is no stranger to politics:

"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature -- to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted ""present,"" (MSNBC)

It should be pointed out that Hillary Clinton is polarizing and is an "insider" and that Barack Obama is inexperienced when compared to Hillary.

Reference:

MSNBC, Voting record becomes issue in presidential campaign, downloaded 1-13-08 from website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739/

Wiki, Hillary Clinton, downloaded 1-13-08 from website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

Edwards and Obama are pure class. They have some disagreements about their positions and approaches to certain issues, but they are respectful and cordial in their discord.

I appluaded when Hillary was voted most admired woman in the US last year. Now I've changed my mind completely. If she wins the nomination, the Democrats will lose the general election. I'll be one of those Dems voting for a Republican

Obama, Edwards, McCain or Huckabee in 2008.

Clinton focuses on economy in Presidential race Obama focuses on RACE!Obama Trinity United Church of Christ, an African-American mega-church unorthodox pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright describing the September 11 attacks as a "wake-up call" to America for ignoring the concerns of "people of colour", and for claiming that Americans "believe in white supremacy and black inferiority . . . more than we believe in God". Wright travelled to meet Muammar Gadaffi, the Libyan leader, in the 1980s with Louis Farrakhan, the black supremacist leader of the Nation of Islam, and subscribes to the "Black Values System", which preaches self-reliance but claims "middle-classness" is ensnaring blacks. Reverend Jeremiah Wright went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan., The arguement that Obama offers white voters a chance to free themselves from white guilt, is continuing to create a negative race issue..
Billionaire Clinton backer Bob Johnson, who founded Black Entertainment Television, said he's "a little bit insulted, if you will, by Senator Obama letting his campaign imply that Hillary Clinton does not revere what Martin Luther King did for African Americans.""I think that's taking it way too far," he said while campaigning with Clinton in South Carolina. "I think Barack understands clearly what the senator was saying." "Nobody believes either Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton would say anything that would denigrate either Barack Obama or Martin Luther King. And to me, what may happen is a backlash may occur when people see that Barack Obama is allowing his PR people to let out the notion that Hillary Clinton did not respect everything that Dr. Martin Luther King or any other person who faced the problems and the threats of being a part of the civil rights movement faced. ""And to me, Barack knows better than that.

Anybody who cant see through the lies of the CLINTONS are plain stupid. I am not a US citizen but it is funny how Clinton surrogates are trying to spin this whole ACCUSATION. If Americans are so bumb to believe them, then God only can help this country. I am not a BLACK or WHITE and I hope people put an end to this kind of "lying tactics" that take the credit away from those who stood for a movement that changed the face of this great nation. Shame on Clinton's. I respected them a lot but this election has truly revealed them as a power seeking selfish couple. VERY DISAPPOINTED.

Obama's response to HRC's Meet The Press appearance:

What we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. But Sen. Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it, and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.

I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Sen. Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat-out wrong. She suggested that I didn't clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn't read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance. She belittled the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate despite the fact that she stood on the sidelines during that negotiations on that bill.

I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected, but I really don't think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party, and I don't think it is good for our country, and I think that the American people will reject it in this election.

What I want to do is spend talking about how we are going to make sure that people who are losing their jobs get work. How are we going to make sure that our young people are going to afford college? How are we going to make sure that the subprime lending crisis does not lead to an all-out recession? How are we going to create the kind of foreign policy that allows us to bring our troops home and makes us safer and goes after a genuine terrorist threat? Those are the issues that we are going to spend time talking about in this campaign and if Sen. Clinton wants to be distracted by the sorts of political point scoring that was evident today then that is going to be her prerogative.

Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico.

People need to see this!

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.