Conduct of the Clinton Campaign

[Silent Hunter]

Actually Truman desegregated the US military and IIRC, Roosevelt did something vis Government contracts.

Tell it to Emmet Till.

I don't see the connection. I commented that President Truman desegregated the armed forces, so he did something about civil rights. Eisenhower sent the National Guard to Little Rock (although that was probably under pressure).

I'm aware that racial murders went on in the US in the 1950s.

BTW, I'm not a Hillary supporter. If she race-baited, people should not vote for her. I correct bad facts- on both sides of the argument.

[TomC]

Actually Truman desegregated the US military and IIRC, Roosevelt did something vis Government contracts.

Tell it to Emmet Till.

I don't see the connection. I commented that President Truman desegregated the armed forces, so he did something about civil rights. Eisenhower sent the National Guard to Little Rock (although that was probably under pressure).

I'm aware that racial murders went on in the US in the 1950s.

BTW, I'm not a Hillary supporter. If she race-baited, people should not vote for her. I correct bad facts- on both sides of the argument.

I said "essentially ignored" the Civil War Amendments, which I stand by. Desegregating the military did not extend these equal protections to millions of citizens, only to one set of people on the government payroll. There was minimal progress on race, but the intent of the 14th and 15th amendments were still not realized after Truman allowed blacks and whites to work together in the military.

My point is that Truman's actions were insufficient. The lawmakers were moving at an incredibly slow rate for the first 90 years after the Civil War. Then in the next 10, much happened to not only make protective laws, but to change the perception of racism to a strong degree. Why? The ongoing speeches and marches of Martin Luther King and the people he organized. That's why it passed Congress and made it to the President. The Civil Rights movement did not merely change the law, it changed people's attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors about race.

[Silent Hunter]

I'm not denying MLK played a major role. But it needed Johnson to get the thing passed through Congress, Warren and Marshall to persuade the USSC to overturn Plessy and the whole US Courts system to actually enforce desegregation.

[TomC]

I guess the difference here is that you seem to be thinking desegregation and I'm thinking of equal protection. I'm also thinking "it took a nation," not just a few at the top. It was people who got the nation ready and compelled the politicians to act.

[Ebowed]

Oh, TCash... it's hard for anyone to even comprehend a time when politicians actually listened to people, let alone angry civil rights protesters whose lives were on the line every day they stood up to the powers that were.

These days, you just vote for whoever won't shake things up too much...

[TomC]

Although, to be fair, I'm sure the Clintons, if Presidents in the 60s, would have come up with a great ""Don't ask, Don't tell" policy to solve issues of race.

[TomC]

BTW, I'm not a Hillary supporter. If she race-baited, people should not vote for her. I correct bad facts- on both sides of the argument.

And btw, I'm not as bothered by the MLK and "fairy tale" comments as I am by other actions of the Clinton campaign. Notice it was not in my list of "greivances" in my initial post that started the thread.

So, let me get this straight: One of the Democratic front runners is running a campaign where her supporters are conducting whisper campaigns about her opponent’s religion, she hints that we might be less safe from terrorism if we elect her opponent, her supporters are attempting to suppress voter turnout among her rival’s supporters, she’s accusing him of flip flopping on Iraq. And then she mocks voters who are calling for change from the political status quo?

Am I forgetting anything here?

[Silent Hunter]

Was this sort of thing done in 1960?

[Ebowed]

Don't you find it interesting that the Clinton defenders are accusing Obama of engaging in the same type of politics, and that it's only fair for the Clintons to strike back?

Actually... not so true, is it.  We've heard about Obama's drug use, we've heard that his grandfather was a Muslim, etc.  What we haven't heard anything about is Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, etc.  I don't see Barack Obama accusing Hillary of being a bad mother after her daughter was caught stumbling on the ground, extremely drunk after a party...

The double standards in this race are appalling.  Imagine the reaction if Obama did bring those things up.  It would be insane.

[TomC]

Was this sort of thing done in 1960?

What do you mean?

[Sam Spade]

Don't you find it interesting that the Clinton defenders are accusing Obama of engaging in the same type of politics, and that it's only fair for the Clintons to strike back?

Actually... not so true, is it.  We've heard about Obama's drug use, we've heard that his grandfather was a Muslim, etc.  What we haven't heard anything about is Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, etc.  I don't see Barack Obama accusing Hillary of being a bad mother after her daughter was caught stumbling on the ground, extremely drunk after a party...

The double standards in this race are appalling.  Imagine the reaction if Obama did bring those things up.  It would be insane.

Not to mention Huma...

[Sam Spade]

I'm with opebo here, at least on the second paragraph, not the first (probably).

The Clinton playbook against Obama is straight from the Lee Atwater handbook, adapted to the necessaries of a Democratic primary. 

In modern times, I can rarely think of an instance when adhering to that playbook failed, and whenever that happened, it was mainly the weakness of the candidate himself who caused it.

Racism is the most reliable force in american politics, SS.

It's only reliable when it can be used - which is not in every situation.  This Democratic primary is perfect for its utilization, however.

[Silent Hunter]

Was this sort of thing done in 1960?

What do you mean?

People against Kennedy. Whispering about his Catholicism, saying that the US would be less from  Communism, suppressing turnout among his supporters and accusing him of flip-flopping?

[TomC]

Was this sort of thing done in 1960?

What do you mean?

People against Kennedy. Whispering about his Catholicism, saying that the US would be less from  Communism, suppressing turnout among his supporters and accusing him of flip-flopping?

Ah, it was rhetorical. OK.

[Democratic Hawk]

Enough is a frickin nough

I don't care who started this thing but the respective campaigns shouldn't have even gone there in the first place. None of them. And I don't care who the hell started it as long as the pair of them finish it

No, I don't think Hillary Clinton meant any disrespect to MLK but it was LBJ who signed the Civil Rights Act (FACT!) - they were, IMO, great men of their time - and the last thing Obama needs is the perception, yes the perception, that he is playing with race. And I don't think he is

Nevertheless, I'm gonna vent my spleen and say this:

1. The fact that any woman may well be voting for Hillary because she's a woman or any African American may well be voting for Obama because he's African American is patronising in the extreme. You either agree with them on the issues or you don't.

2. Furthermore, even if you were to dislike a candidate for some reason or another, that in itself is not good reason enough to vote against them

The only thing that should matter in excerising your right to vote is the extent to which you either agree, or disagree, with a candidate on the issues that matter to you most be they economic, social or foreign policy

I've worked hard politically on the ground all my life and campaigned rigorously for candidates, who, frankly, on a personal level, I wouldn't give houseroom in a decent street. Why? Because, for the most part, I agree with them on the issues, that's why

Rant over

Dave

[Gabu]

Nevertheless, I'm gonna vent my spleen and say this:

1. The fact that any woman may well be voting for Hillary because she's a woman or any African American may well be voting for Obama because he's African American is patronising in the extreme. You either agree with them on the issues or you don't.

2. Furthermore, even if you were to dislike a candidate for some reason or another, that in itself is not good reason enough to vote against them

The only thing that should matter in excerising your right to vote is the extent to which you either agree, or disagree, with a candidate on the issues that matter to you most be they economic, social or foreign policy

Why?  If I mostly agreed with candidate A but thought he was a slimeball out for nothing more than career advancement, and disagreed with candidate B on a few issues but thought that he genuinely cared about his constituents and was reasonable, I would absolutely be drawn to vote for candidate B.  I see nothing wrong with wanting your political representatives to be ethical, honest, and reasonable.  If I thought a politician was an absolute sleaze who I wouldn't give the time of day on the street, I wouldn't vote for him.

Really, in my view, people who solely look at how close they are to a candidate on paper are just as bad as those who solely look at how much they like a candidate, and are part of the reason why politics is in such a sorry state.

[Lief 🗽]

The point of a representative democracy like our own is for the voice of the many to be represented in the voice of the few who run the government. When I vote for someone, I'm not voting for them because they'll be a nice person in Washington; I'm voting for them because they'll vote in a similar way that I would if I were in their place. That's really the only purpose a representative serves. The issue is slightly more vague when it comes to an executive position, as in that case, character and judgment factor in a little bit more.

[Gabu]

The point of a representative democracy like our own is for the voice of the many to be represented in the voice of the few who run the government. When I vote for someone, I'm not voting for them because they'll be a nice person in Washington; I'm voting for them because they'll vote in a similar way that I would if I were in their place. That's really the only purpose a representative serves. The issue is slightly more vague when it comes to an executive position, as in that case, character and judgment factor in a little bit more.

I would say that reasonability is at least as valuable a quality; a person might agree with me on paper, but I would not exactly be very comfortable if that person had a caustic demeanor the mentality of "LA LA LA I IGNORE ALL OPPOSING VIEWS ON EVERYTHING".  They're there to address issues and to determine the best solution to problems, not to just pick answers from multiple choice questionnaires.  The ability to work well with others is a valuable asset.

That, and I am also morally opposed to being party to a career politician's blatant power grab.  I'd like to think my representatives actually give at least a little bit of a damn about the people he is supposed to represent rather than just looking at them as tools to be used to propel himself towards an increase in power.

[Nutmeg]

2. Furthermore, even if you were to dislike a candidate for some reason or another, that in itself is not good reason enough to vote against them

The only thing that should matter in excerising your right to vote is the extent to which you either agree, or disagree, with a candidate on the issues that matter to you most be they economic, social or foreign policy

I've worked hard politically on the ground all my life and campaigned rigorously for candidates, who, frankly, on a personal level, I wouldn't give houseroom in a decent street. Why? Because, for the most part, I agree with them on the issues, that's why

Could not disagree more.

[Democratic Hawk]

Really, in my view, people who solely look at how close they are to a candidate on paper are just as bad as those who solely look at how much they like a candidate, and are part of the reason why politics is in such a sorry state.

Fair comment come to think of it

Ideally, they'll be both close to you on the issues as well as ethical, honest and reasonable. Politics can be dirty

Dave

[Gabu]

Really, in my view, people who solely look at how close they are to a candidate on paper are just as bad as those who solely look at how much they like a candidate, and are part of the reason why politics is in such a sorry state.

Fair comment come to think of it

Ideally, they'll be both close to you on the issues as well as ethical, honest and reasonable. Politics can be dirty

Ideally, there would be world peace and no need for government.

[Sam Spade]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Robocall_trashes_Barack_Hussein_Obama.html

Robocall trashes "Barack Hussein Obama"

The Obama campaign has released a recording (mp3) it says came from a Nevadan's answering machine of an anonymous robocall that criticizes Obama for taking money from special interests while repeating, four times, his rarely used middle name: "Hussein."

"I'm calling with some important information about Barack Hussein Obama," the call begins, before saying that  "Barack Hussein Obama says he doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest groups but the record is clear that he does."

After mentioning his full name once more, the call concludes:

"You just can't take a chance on Barack Hussein Obama."

Click here to listen to the campaign's recording of the call.
Hmmm...  I wonder where this call came from.  What say you, Bob Kerrey?