Posted by
rycK on Saturday, January 26, 2008 10:44:37 AM
The New York Times Wonders about Team Clinton and their “Slimy” Use Of Overt Racism.
Today, the Times question some antics by Team Clinton where they might have broached the boundaries of racism and religious bigotry. An article by Bob Herbert poses some interesting questions and makes a few comments:
[1] “Joseph P. Riley Jr….[makes the comment] … He talked about his fondness for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said: “It’s tough when you have to choose between friends.”
The author comments: “That welcome tone [by Riley] has been lost, undermined by a deliberate injection of ugliness, and it would be very difficult to make the case that the Clintons have not been primarily to blame.”
The salient question here is to ask if Bill and Hill would act any different if Obama was white.
[2] It gets a bit sticky now:
“This week, while making the remarkable accusation that the Obama camp was responsible for raising the race issue, Mr. Clinton mentioned Andrew Young as someone who would bear that out. It was an extremely unfortunate reference.
Here’s what Mr. Young, who is black and a former ambassador to the United Nations, had to say last month in an interview posted online: “Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.”
Now, we wonder what the political thrust might be here. The New York Times is very comfortable with black-on-white overt racism of the Al Sharpton, Quannel X and Cynthia McKinney, Kamau Kambon sort. The Times is also willing to tolerate and even celebrate comments by Senator Byrd like:
““Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds] ”
Al Sharpton speaks:
White folks were in caves while we were building empires.... We taught philosophy, astrology, and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos.
And: "What’s wrong with denouncing white interlopers?"
Indeed, what is wrong here? The New York Times, always supporting black on white racism for political reasons, cannot bring to the point where they would inflame black racists and risk losing votes.
The Times successfully avoided any damage on those issues. The situtation now is a bit sticky:
“The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics.”
And,
“Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.”
The author brings up serious questions about white on black racism where high political stakes are on the chopping block. Except for Ron Brown, it is difficult to identify any high-level blacks in the Clinton Whitehouse or later organizations.
Dick Morris seems to think that Bill and Hill are staging a backlash of white agaisnt black votes in later primaries so as to squash Obama.
“Precisely because he is going to lose it. If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama’s ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It’s one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don’t read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.”
This is slimy enough.
After all, if a lot of whites vote for Obama then Hillary could lose. Morris thinks that Bill is trying to draw the heat and apparently shift white voters from Obama and magically attract more black voters.
Both Clintons are gutter-grade warriors and have used just about any political tactic, howeve sleazy, to dismount their enemies from their steeds. The shapeshifters in the Clinton Team bow and weave to push and pull varous votes into compartments that favor them.
We wonder if the Times will tolerate this much longer as such a placation of the Clinton’s Overt Racism collides with the solid racist work the Times have acienved in the past. Can the Times resolve this in a way that their favorite Marxists get elected and preserve the black voting block??
We shall see.
rycK
comments: ryckki@gmail.com
Questions for the Clintons By BOB HERBERT Op-Ed Columnist. Published: January 26, 2008 Charleston, S.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton