You gotta be kiddin right? Is that it? You have been darkly referring for 3 weeks to the "proof" you have of Barack Obama and his campaign being filthy and dirty and this transparently biased slanted hit-piece is the best you could come up with? Did Sean Wilentz also author the little "quiz" we saw earlier today?
You are grasping for straws and casting racial invective here. Maybe that is why you are so sensitive at being called a racist. Pat the little negroes on the head like Geraldine Ferraro and tell em they should be grateful for all we have done for them. Why do you also occasionally refer to the deep dark damaging secret about Obama that might be revealed anyday? Wishful thinking? Remember dear, the last "vast conspiracy" was really about the cover-up of a stain on a blue dress. Oh yeah, and the billing records of the Rose law firm showed up months later in the White House bedroom. What a trashy sideshow the Clintons display. America deserves so much better. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 2008, at 1:58 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > And as to the lengths to which a candidate is > > > willing to go to focus on his opponent's supposed > > > deficiencies, ask Obama why he allowed his campaign > > > to brand Hillary and Bill as racists, > > > > Because those are the tactics her campaign used, > > Judy, in SC, via Bill--that's why. > > No, Sal, no, they did not use such tactics. You've > drunk the Obama Kool-Aid. > > And it wasn't just in SC that the Obama campaign > tried to paint the Clintons as race-baiters, not > by a very long shot. > > > > causing her to lose most of the solid support > > > she'd always deservedly enjoyed from > > > African-American voters. > > > > Right. AA voters are so easily swayed that a candidate > > only has to suggest someone is racist and they defect en > > masse. > > African-Americans aren't any less suggestible > than anyone else, Sal. > > I know you won't read it, but I'm going to post > this anyway. It's an excerpt from a long and > detailed article by Sean Wilentz on the Obama > campaign's strategy to portray the Clintons as > race-baiters; this part is specifically about > Bill Clinton's remarks in South Carolina: > > By the time the Obama campaign backed off from agitating the King- > Johnson pseudo-scandal, it had already trained its sights on Bill > Clinton--by far the most popular U.S. president among African > Americans over the past quarter-century. Not only were Bill and > Hillary supposedly ganging up on Obama in South Carolina--"I can't > tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama complained during the > South Carolina debate--the former president was supposedly off on a > race-baiting tear of his own. Yet, once again, the charges were > either distortions or outright inventions. > > The Obama campaign's "fairy tale" gambit was particularly > transparent. Commenting on Obama's explanation of why he is more > against the war in Iraq than Hillary Clinton, and disturbed by the > news media's failure to report Obama's actual voting record on Iraq > in the Senate, the former president referred to what had become the > conventional wisdom as a "fairy tale" concocted by Obama and his > supporters. Time to play the race-baiter card! One of Obama's most > prominent backers, the mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin, stretched > Clinton's remarks and implied that he had called Obama's entire > candidacy a fairy tale. (The mayor later coyly told a reporter for > the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that she had not intended to > criticize Clinton: "Surely you don't mean he's the only one who can > use the phrase 'fairy tale,'" Franklin said, in a tone that the > reporter described as "mock indignation.") Appearing on CNN, one of > its pundits, Donna Brazile, hurled the wild charge that Clinton had > likened Obama to a child. "And I will tell you," she concluded, "as > an African American I find his words and his tone to be very > depressing." With those kinds of remarks--"as an African American"-- > the race card and the race-baiter card both came back into play. > Although Brazile is formally not part of Obama's campaign, her > comments made their way to the South Carolina memo, offered as > evidence that Clinton's comment was racially insensitive. > > On January 26, Obama won a major victory in South Carolina by gaining > the overwhelming majority of the black vote and a much smaller > percentage of the white vote, for a grand total of 55 percent. > Although the turnout, of course, was much larger for the 2008 > primaries than for any previous primary or caucus, Obama had > assembled a victorious coalition analogous to that built by Jesse > Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 South Carolina caucuses. (Bill Clinton > won the 1992 state primary with 69 percent of the vote, far > outstripping either Jackson's or Obama's percentages.) > > When asked by a reporter on primary day why it would take two > Clintons to beat Obama, the former president, in good humor, laughed > and said that he would not take the bait: > > "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice in '84 and '88 and he ran > a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign. He's run a > good campaign everywhere. He's a good candidate with a good > organization." > > According to Obama and his supporters, here was yet another example > of subtle race-baiting. Clinton had made no mention of race. But by > likening Jackson's victories and Obama's impending victory and by > praising Obama as a good candidate not simply in South Carolina but > everywhere, Clinton was trying to turn Obama into the "black" > candidate and racialize the campaign. Or so the pro-Obama camp > charged. > > Clinton's sly trick, supposedly, was to mention Jackson and no other > Democrat who had previously prevailed in South Carolina--thereby > demeaning Obama's almost certain victory as a "black" thing. But the > fact remains that Clinton, who watches internal polls closely and is > an astute observer, knew whereof he spoke: when the returns were > counted, Obama's and Jackson's percentages of the overall vote and > the key to their victories--a heavy majority among blacks--truly were > comparable. The only other Democrats Clinton could have mentioned > would have been himself (who won more than two-thirds of the vote in > 1992, far more than either Jackson or Obama) and John Edwards (who > won only 45 percent in 2004, far less than either Jackson or Obama). > Given the differences, given that by mentioning himself, Clinton > could have easily been criticized for being self-congratulatory, and > given that Edwards had not yet dropped out of the 2008 race, the > omissions were not at all surprising. By mentioning Jackson alone, > the former president was being accurate--and, perhaps, both modest > and polite. But Obama's supporters willfully hammered him as a cagey > race-baiter. > > Not everyone agreed with the race-baiting charge--including Jesse > Jackson himself. Jackson noted proudly to Essence magazine that he > had, indeed, won in 1984 and 1988, and, even though he had endorsed > Obama, criticized the Obama campaign, saying, "again, I think it's > some more gotcha politics." > > http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm? > fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=100046144&blogID=366349530 > > http://tinyurl.com/62xkbp > > There's much more in the article about this > disgraceful strategy of the Obama campaign. >
