2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton needs to address the racist undertones of her 2008 campaign
Black Lives Matter, the advocacy group for black interests, has gotten the attention of the Democratic presidential candidates, who are reportedly scrambling to reach out to the movement. Even heavy favorite Hillary Clinton is getting in on it, addressing the movement in a Q&A session on Facebook, where she checked most of the right boxes.
DeRay McKesson, one of the movement's leaders, wrote on Twitter that the post was "solid." But he also noted that she had two days to work on it, and did not attend the liberal forum Netroots Nation, unlike her challengers Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, who flailed in front of activists from Black Lives Matter.
McKesson is right to be suspicious. Hillary Clinton's record on race is not great. If she wishes to earn some trust on issues of racial justice, a good place to start would be with the distinctly racist undertones of her 2008 campaign against Barack Obama.
As the first primaries got underway in 2008, and Obama began to slowly pull ahead, the Clinton camp resorted to increasingly blatant race- and Muslim-baiting. It started in February, when Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam, endorsed Obama in a sermon. In a debate a couple days later, moderator Tim Russert repeatedly pressed Obama on the issue, who responded with repeated reassurances that he did not ask for the endorsement, did not accept it, and in fact was not a deranged anti-Semite. That wasn't enough for Clinton, who demanded that Obama "denounce" Farrakhan, which he did.
<snip>
http://theweek.com/articles/567774/hillary-clinton-needs-address-racist-undertones-2008-campaign
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)And it is something that I think deserves further exploration because clearly, what we've got to figure out is how we're going to bring people together in a way that overcomes the anger, overcomes the divisiveness and whatever bitterness there may be out there. You know?
It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas, to put a message in.
You know, these are problems. And they raise questions in people's minds. And, so, this is a legitimate area, as everything is, when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=1
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)And even if it were years old it would be true
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)nichomachus
(12,754 posts)But then, as Bill said, Hillary just isn't comfortable around gay people.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Unlike Hillary supporters, I prefer to judge a candidate on their past words and actions, rather than their bullshit promises about what they'll do tomorrow, especially when what they promise is in direct opposition to what they have actually done in the past.
Hillary supporters live in a fantasy dream world -- not the real world.
By the way, her anti-LGBT statements are much more recent than 1998.
wyldwolf
(43,874 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And, by the way, Rev. Wright was correct about most everything he got in trouble for saying.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)I haven't forgotten all the things that she and her husband said.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)shit his supporters are throwing up against the wall?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)it needs discussed. If she can demand a full investigation of Farrakhan, then this is reasonable. She hasn't exactly covered herself with glory.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)What she does have to do is to keep putting out progressive policies bringing us in the direction of a more equitable and just society. All three of our most discussed candidates are doing well in this area, in my opinion, with O'Malley leading the way.
That's long enough for her to focus group test every word she wrote.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I'm more concerned with what she's going to do if she is President in 2016.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)The President seems to have 'forgiven' Mrs. Clinton and placed a very high level of trust in her. Senator Sanders likes her too.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)from 2008.
Her supporters don't have any problem with her racist overtones from 2008.
Neither do "hardworking white people" who support her.
George II
(67,782 posts)WHY must Clinton address these fictional "racial undertones" of her 2008 campaign?
Talk about raising the "race card"! Interestingly even Senator Sanders has not brought up this issue, either about Clinton's 2008 campaign or any implied (although not real) "racial undertones".
I see once again the faux issue of Clinton not attending NRN has reared it's ugly head, so once again it needs to be pointed out that she already had a very important previous engagement in the state where her husband was Governor for a decade, and one that is currently "red" but could very easily be turned "blue" again.
Funny thing - Obama has never called Clinton's 2008 campaign "racist", so why now almost 8 years later are those who oppose her nomination dragging it up, partucularly with an OPINION piece that is more than two months old?
Yeah, these two reallly don't like each other (picture accompanying the 2-month old blog):
?itok=A19wPqzc&resize=1260x560