Anyone But Clinton
Why I decided Hillary Clinton must lose.
Easy as 1-2-3
Once neutral, filmmaker Ken Burns picks Obama
by Jill ZuckmanManchester, N.H. – New Hampshire resident and famed filmmaker Ken Burns said today that he is throwing his support behind Sen. Barack Obama for president, complaining that "recent events" and the negative tone of the campaign compelled him to come forward.
Burns, who lives in Walpole, said he had originally planned to stay neutral because there were things he liked about all the Democratic candidates for president.
When asked what specifically prompted him to come forward, Burns said, "Those recent events are pretty obvious."
Last week, Sen. Hillary Clinton's state co-chairman resigned his position after saying that Obama's acknowledged use of drugs as a young man would prevent him from getting elected president because of likely Republican attacks.
"I'm really just disappointed in the tone this campaign has taken on their part," Burns said, referring to Clinton. "I think she's getting some bad advice."
I would like to welcome Mr. Burns to the side of the angels. And in case you don't know what he's talking about, I am willing to be as specific as the Clinton campaign.
CLINTON CAMPAIGN COUNTY CHAIR PUSHING OBAMA SMEAR...
The infamous Obama-is-a-secret Muslim smear (repeatedly shown to be false) has been winging around the internet via an email forward since late December last year. As I documented for the Nation, it's a permutation of a charge first leveled by a fringe figure in Illinois, but has since been forwarded around by ordinary people either out of ignorance, credulousness or malice. We now have the first example of the smear being forwarded by a someone tied to a rival campaign. Yesterday, Gary Hart, the Jones County Chair of the Democratic party in Iowa (and a Dodd supporter) wrote a diary on DailyKos saying he'd been forwarded the infamous email by an unnamed "Clinton county chair."
Then there's this.
Third Clinton Volunteer Knew Of Smear E-Mail
A third volunteer for Hillary Clinton's campaign was aware of a propaganda e-mail alleging that Barack Obama is a Muslim who plans on "destroying the U.S. from the inside out."
"Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential Candidacy," the email reads. "Please forward to everyone you know. The Muslims have said they Plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out, what better way to start than at The highest level."
Two Clinton volunteers, Linda Olson and Judy Rose, have already been asked to resign from the campaign for their roles in forwarding the e-mail. The AP reported yesterday that Olson, a volunteer coordinator in Iowa County, sent a version of the e-mail to 11 people, including Ben Young, a regional field director for Chris Dodd's campaign. Young passed it on to the AP.
It seems when Hillary says she is an “agent of change,” when she says she can work both sides of the street...um, aisle, this is what she was talking about.
At 8:21 a.m., Phil Singer of the Clinton camp e-mailed a Politico story on Sen. Barack Obama. His subject line was "Politico: Liberal views could haunt Obama," which was the headline of the story.
At 8:32 a.m., Danny Diaz of the Republican National Committee sent an e-mail with the same story, same subject line. The only difference between the two e-mails is that Diaz capitalized every letter in his headline.
Regardless of Hillary's assertion that such openly racist themes are not to be used by her campaign, they went for the “what will they believe about a Black man” analysis. And your proof that Hillary approved of it came from two seriously connected Democrats: Bill Shaheen and Bob Kerrey.
Oh, Shaheen took a hit for it? No...just watch to see what his next job is. He will suffer no damage for this.
Hillary's staff is using the exact rumors and the exact language we thought originated with Republicans, which suggests they were the ultimate source of the original slander. Is that the kind of "change agent" you want? You like NAFTA? That was the Clintons, as was the record increase in jailing Black men. And now that it's been admitted the disparity in drug sentencing (the ONLY acknowledged race problem in the justice system) was wrong she still want to keep over-sentenced Black men in jail. And she voted to invade Iraq. Then there's her anti-Progressive message.
Hillary is angling for the REPUBLICAN vote, not the Democratic vote.
If you want change you will not get it from Hillary. And I think the correct response to her free use of the exact type of racist imagery we attack Republican for...for her apparent coordination, or perhaps instigation, of the racist imagery in their attacks, for her essentially Republican position, is to deny her the nomination to run for the Presidency.
Let me show you something.
La. Pol's 'Buckwheat' Remark Draws Ire
HOUMA, La. (AP) -- A white state lawmaker in a runoff election called a black civil-rights veteran who had helped her campaign "Buckwheat," angering the NAACP, which urged voters to kick her out of office.
Rep. Carla Blanchard Dartez, a Democrat, acknowledged that she ended a Thursday night conversation with Hazel Boykin by saying, "Talk to you later, Buckwheat." Dartez had been thanking Boykin for driving voters to the polls.
The local branch of the NAACP responded appropriately.
On Monday, Jerome Boykin held a news conference asking voters to cast ballots against Dartez, who faces Republican Joe Harrison in Saturday's runoff.
"The NAACP is going to do all it can to see that she is not re-elected," he said. "At this point, the NAACP is not concerned about the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. If a Republican is elected because of her racist remarks, that's her responsibility."
As a result, Rep. Carla Blanchard Dartez, a Democrat, no longer has a job.
I want you to consider the message that is sent when a Democratic 'front runner' feels free to go openly racist against a Black candidate. How will you ever be able to point out the racism of the Southern Strategy when you support the Democratic version thereof? And you, open-minded white folk and EVERY BLACK PERSON IN THE COUNTRY know this is not the kind of change we seek. The Clintons, no less than Rep. Carla Blanchard Dartez, a Democrat, must be punished.
Now, I'm not going as far as Jerome Boykin did in saying, “If a Republican is elected because of her racist remarks, that's her responsibility." But then I don't have to. We're talking the primaries, not the national election. Throwing Hillary the hell out of the race in no way benefits Republicans. It would be far more effective in getting both Republican and Democratic attention than voting for Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell would have. It would end that “first black president” bullshit.
That's a personal goal of mine.
I am already an Obama supporter for selfish reasons. I am not hyping him in this. I will be perfectly satisfied to see all of Hillary's supporters move over to Edwards or Dodd. But Hillary must lose. If she doesn't, it's open season on Black people, probably for another century, because she will have shown it's an effective plan, a way to win. And though we may not be able to totally drive policy in the USofA, during the primaries we can do this. Without coordination with others, without a lot of money, without permission.
Think about that.
And vote Anyone But Clinton.
Blame Clinton, she started the shit
You still have to blame the attackee for being attacked.
It's not that unusual, frankly.
But this happened right out in the open and the Clintons were caught dagger in hand. They can't even blame hip-hop like Imus did, not when they brought Bob Johnson into the mix. Yet the media insists on indicting the Obama campaign.
Why?
If you don't want to take my word for it, here's a couple of white guys
Have patience until I arrange for a replacement...this one is important.
Margaret Carlson has chosen different things to ignore than most
A cease-fire initiated by Obama was formalized into a peace agreement during a love fest at the debate. And why not? For Clinton's campaign, it was Mission Accomplished, intentional or not. Obama was now the black candidate. There had been minimal blowback and only a minor casualty (Shaheen resigned).
For Obama, he lost the essence of his candidacy as the first black man to run as himself. Once the race card is on the table, no matter who puts it there, it's impossible to put it back up anyone's sleeve. Obama may look back on the first two weeks of 2008 as the time when he lost the nomination to Clinton.
Hillary Pulls Race Card and Obama May Fold: Margaret Carlson
By Margaret Carlson
Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- At approximately 6 p.m. on Jan. 15, three hours before a Kumbaya interlude at the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, I saw Al Sharpton defending Senator Barack Obama from charges of youthful drug abuse.
As we all know by now, the accusation arises from Obama's own admission in his modern Horatio Alger tale, ``Dreams From My Father,'' published long before he became a presidential candidate, that he tried cocaine as a teenager.
The hoopla over this has validated the judgment of George W. Bush eight years ago to refuse to answer questions about his own alleged drug use, which many believe continued well beyond his teen years. This is why honesty isn't considered the best policy by political consultants. But I digress.
Sharpton has done things to redeem himself in recent years, but his presence is a one-way ticket back to Tawana Brawley, boycotts, shakedowns and good old-fashioned, in-your-face confrontational race-based politics. Seeing him in that box on TV, I realized that the Clintons had done what they needed to do to stop Obama's historic surge in its tracks.
From the start of his career, Obama wanted, and needed, to remove the race card from the political deck. While it isn't clear from whose sleeve the card was pulled, it is likely it wasn't from the person with the most to lose. [P6: Grow some metaphorical balls, woman]
If Hillary Clinton's campaign had taken only one shot at Obama, it might have been blown off as a mistake. But four shots constitutes a pattern, with Clinton's former New Hampshire chairman, Bill Shaheen, Representative Charles Rangel, Clinton pollster Mark Penn and Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson all getting into the act.
More additive morality, or, The next best thing to getting off clean is blaming the victim
The New York Times has realized the Clintons screwed up so bad, even white folks are calling them out for race baiting.
The presence of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should have made talk of race or gender academic. But Mr. Obama seized the mantle of change and upset Mrs. Clinton in Iowa in part by drawing away her support among women. By the time the campaigns got to New Hampshire, the Clinton team was panicking. Mrs. Clinton had to win or risk being out of the primaries entirely.
They're still trying to disappear the most egregious, obvious cases, the ones that convinced white folks the Clintons went Southern Strategy.
It was clearly her side that first stoked the race and gender issue. Mrs. Clinton mentioned in a debate in New Hampshire that a woman president would be a change for America. It was an offhand comment, and obviously true. But the next day, at events we attended, Mrs. Clinton’s surrogates were pushing hard the line that a woman president would be “the real” change.
Mrs. Clinton followed up with her strange references to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson — and no matter how many times she tried to reframe the quote, the feeling hung in the air that she was denigrating America’s most revered black leader.
Then the staff and surrogates got involved. Mr. Obama’s team circulated lists of supposedly racially insensitive quotes from Mrs. Clinton. Her staff and supporters, including the over-the-top former President Bill Clinton, went beyond Mrs. Clinton’s maladroit comments — and started blaming Mr. Obama for the mess.
Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, compared Mr. Obama to Sidney Poitier’s character in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” — a black man trying to insert himself into white society. Representative Charles Rangel of New York said that Mr. Obama had said some “absolutely stupid” things.
See? No mention of Shaheen. No mention of Kerrey. No mention of Penn. No mention of the mysterious campaign chair that forwarded the madrassa myth, nor the other two, apparently lesser entities that also forwarded such crap.
The defense the Clintons and their allies have put forth is "They've been involved wioth black issues for so long, they can't be racist." And they do not wear the pointy hat, this is true. But the 'black issues' they address are the issues the mainstream has with Black folks.
On the other hand, being an admission of the general racism of the society, I'm not really complaining
You know what's wrong with this, and ALL the media coverage I've seen today?
For a while, it looked like Obama could be the rare African-American leader whose race was nearly invisible – and he may still be. He’s post-Civil Rights, Oprah-branded, with that classically American blend of a mother from the heartland and a father from a distant shore. And after that Iowa victory speech, people felt something had passed into our collective rear-view mirror, without actually saying what that something was.
Now it looks like every mention of race – from the overblown dust-up with Senator Hillary Clinton this week to the calculated comments comparing him to Sidney Poitier – is bad for Obama. A victory in South Carolina, with its heavy black vote, will be seen as one-dimensional.
He needs people to look at him and see John Kennedy, or The Beatles, or Tiger Woods in his first Master’s tournament. He needs people to see youth, a break with the past, style under pressure.
When they see black this or black that — even a positive black first — it’s trouble.
It's written as though this is a law of nature. No one says anything about the immorality of the situation.
See, this is what I'm talking about
I just paused the video of this discussion between Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris-Lacewell from Democracy Now. It's like Politics vs. Analysis, and it's demonstrative of a couple of horrible shocks the American nervous system will have to absorb:
- You really have to listen to Black folks
- Straight truth is pretty much unstoppable
You should check out Jack and Jill Politics
Prof. Harris-Lacewell, rock on. Now for the rest of that video.
Something of an explanation
Looking over my pittance of posts today, I suspect there's a couple of folks who were confused by my absolute approval of The Divisive Frauds in the Media by eriposte, when I follow up with questions about The Clintons like
if they are not bigots, why did they play on white folks' racial fears? Because that is the underlying meaning of "play the race card," no matter who plays it.
Here's the deal. Though I am not as unhappy with our slate of candidates as Republicans are, none of them are what I'm looking for. Edwards' statements come closest but he didn't vote then the way he's talking now...and even so he's not very far from Hillary and Obama's positions. I entered this campaign season prepared to jack whoever lied to, on or about Black folks.
I am, however, under no illusion about Republican candidates. Frank Rich was right in Ronald Reagan Is Still Dead (GHOD, I love that title).
Whatever the merits of the Democratic candidates’ takes on our fiscal crisis, at least they saw the crisis coming. Though Mr. Romney officially kicked off his presidential candidacy in Michigan, he started grandstanding about the misery in that state only after all his other campaign strategies had failed and he needed a Hail Mary marketing gimmick. In his announcement speech in Dearborn last February, the lone economy he mentioned was the fuel economy of the Ramblers his father manufactured at American Motors in a distant past.
Among Mr. Romney’s rivals, Mike Huckabee alone made affinity for economically struggling Americans his calling card. Unfortunately, Huckanomics is more snake oil. All federal taxes would be replaced by a national sales tax that despite its Orwellian name (the Fair Tax) would shift more of the burden to middle- and low-income Americans.
For the other Republicans, the downturn has been an occasion to recycle the mindless what-me-worry optimism of the pre-1929 G.O.P. presidents and Wall Street potentates since relegated to history’s dustbin. When Maria Bartiromo, moderating a CNBC Republican debate in October, asked the candidates if the nation was heading into a recession, Fred Thompson found “no reason” to think so and pronounced both the near and longer-term economic future “rosy.” Rudy Giuliani extolled the glories of freedom and the market before promising that “the sky’s the limit.”
Even if they managed not to run the ol' Southern Strategy this year, that crap right there is a loser for everyone in the country. You don't have to worry about me voting Republican.
Here's the thing, though. We're supposed to be transcending race, right? Well, if I read the way the term is being used correctly, we only get to do that one issue at a time, one moment at a time. And for every moment that passes, another one arises.
The whole idea of "transcending race" is a sign of how confused everyone is, to tell you the truth. Clarence Page, who I like, mind you, wrote a column titled Race hides campaign's bigger issues that ends with this paragraph.
Obama observed that it's not easy for a black politician to strike the right tone between anger and not-angry-enough. But, rightly or wrongly, "white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America." Every time news people talk about "the black vote," for example, I suspect it makes somebody feel "more white." But race is so deeply ingrained in American customs, traditions and memory that it's hard to cover politics without talking about it.
Read that last sentence again.
I was going to say it's wrong, but maybe it isn't...race coded rhetoric is the norm. I personally don't consider its use to be talking about race, though. I consider it hiding. Either way it's obvious race is a huge issue in the USofA. There may be larger issues but race is the longest issue. It will not be resolved by "transcendance." We're going to have to work through it.
And that's why Democrats, Liberals and Progressives, if they want to get to a place where racism is no longer a problem, need to answer the question:
if they are not bigots, why did they play on white folks' racial fears?
Because if they are NOT bigots, you must identify whatever it is that encourages and rewards bigotty behavior and eliminate. And if they ARE bigots, you need to figure out how you were so badly fooled.
Such overwhelming sincerity...I'm...all choked up
Via Professor Kim we find Bob Johnson apologizing to Sen. Obama for smearing him at the Clintons' request.
Johnson's letter states:
"Dear Barack,
I'm writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the un-called-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event. In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail.
Warm regards,
Bob Johnson"
Being the unforgiving type, I think I'd have preempted this "apology" (which isn't as long as the smear!) by now. Having not done so, I might respond with something like:
Dear Bob:
After promoting BET as a cultural watershed then tranforming it to Black-Sex-and-Violence-Central, I feel you owe a lot more people a more sincere apology than this. Get back with me when you've done that.
Sinicerely (no, really...that's a sincere sentiment),
Sen. Barack Obama
Thanks a lot, Hillary
YOU enabled David Brooks' stupidity.
All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.
All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Churchill and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.
Not like anyone that listens to him will vote for either of you. And I do like his linking Ward Churchill and Thomas Sowell...
But the entire theory of identity politics was that we are not mere individuals. We carry the perspectives of our group consciousness. Our social roles and loyalties are defined by race and gender.
I would say assigned rather than defined. And I would say we carry the experience of common treatment.
It’s a black or female thing. You wouldn’t understand.
And yet David's startling self-assurance suggests he understands, making him Black or female.
Gah. He has to misinterpret. It's his job.
The "I'm exhausted" Open Thread
I got one more thing, too short for a post, then it's breaky-time.
Why is it that when The Clintons play the race card...and you know they did...why does responding to them become a threat to fracture the Democratic Party? Why is it Blacks vs White Women instead of, "Damn, you really assed up with THAT one..." Why is Hillary's error suddenly our collective burden?
Taylor?
Therefore...
In the comments of the post immediately preceding this one my friend Quaker said
Mr. Egan seems to have figured out exactly what Mr. Obama can and can't do if he's going to be successful in his campaign. That's awfully generous of him.
Great ghost of Jehosephat! That was an awful column.
Awful. But was it wrong?
I am far from the only Black person that called it as it was developing. And though the Clintons started the problem, stank things up to the point that no mainstream media outlet can bring itself to list all the things they've done, you almost can't blame them. It was inevitable no matter who ran against The First Viable Black Presidential Candidate.
And you know what the funny thing is? It's that The First Viable Black Presidential Candidate is the perfect person to lead the nation.
I'm not joking. The First Viable Black Anything has to be perfect to even be considered. That's what viable means when you're talking about Black folks. The Little Rock Nine. The marchers on the Pettus Bridge. Folks at the lunch counter sit-ins. The first Black folks have to take the worst white folks can throw at us with a smile (though they weren't smiling inside, let me tell you).
He is exactly what white Americans need. And most Black folks will take what they get from him plus the psychological boost of a new First Blackism. Haven't had one of them in a long time.
But you gotta be perfect...if you're not, whoever let you in takes heat too so they will not let you in unless you're perfect. You know that coming in. So unless Obama commited a gross blunder of some sort (which he has not) the idea of him admitting making racism a critical issue is absurd. Yet all the press, all the analysis is like "Obama had the most to lose if racism is discussed," and "Obama depends on running an race that's free from the Taint of Blackness"...white folks raise the topic and it's Obama's fault somehow.
"Oh, oh...not his fault but once the issue is raised..." Bullshit. No one is going to ask Hillary, "Why did you do that," because the rules don't let you call the candidates liars when they lie. Which means when she says "The Obama campaign is twisting my words," no one calls bullshit.
And if you want to know the truth, he's not the perfect candidate for Black folks. All white constituencies expect The First Viable Black Presidential Candidate to demonstrate a lack of favoritism, specifically by not supporting any effort to undo the damage done by slavery and its legacy in white Americans. Any taint of Blackness on him will destroy his chances.
Right?
Do you know how foolish that is? And it's a lesson in human nature and American society that has to be seen and generally recognized before any of the broken things in American society can be fixed.
I got a favor to ask...could someone watch Hillary on Tyra's show and let me know who the target audience is? I've seen most of it onthe news last few days so I don't feel the need to stand before the coherant stream of rhetoric.
Sorry. Had to get that out.
Watch John Edwards' face
You should have told The Clintons BEFORE they called out the dogs
Flake, a former U.S. Representative, is senior pastor of the 25,000-member Allen African Methodist Episcopal Church in Jamaica, Queens. He has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.
Barack & Hillary, it's white men you ought to worry about
By REV. FLOYD FLAKE
Wednesday, January 16th 2008, 4:00 AM
Be Our Guest
The deafening din of identity politics has thrown the Democratic presidential nominating process into a tailspin for more than a week. Yes, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have called a truce for now. But the damage already done, and ongoing sniping by their surrogates, has the potential to cause both candidates to stumble on their long walk to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Why? Because the Democratic Party has developed a race and gender problem in recent decades. It's not just about African-Americans or Latinos on the racial side, or about women on the gender side.
The race and gender problem facing Democrats is largely about white men. White men have drifted from or have been driven from the party in record numbers since the 1960s. Their absence has left the party hobbled in presidential politics, primarily playing for states on the liberal coasts.
Our candidates will never win over those white men unless we can, on the one hand, talk candidly and openly about race - without setting off spasms of theatrical finger-pointing after seemingly innocent comments - and, on the other hand, transcend race, by answering Americans' common concerns, especially on the economy.
Think about it. If white male Democrats like Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry have been unable to win white male voters in sufficient numbers, what can we expect when the Democratic contender is either a woman or an African-American?
So, for the sake of the Democratic Party's electoral chances and its two historic candidates, two things must occur immediately. One, the racial and gender pitch of the last week must be ratcheted down. No Democrat can win a "racialized" or "genderized" general election. Identity obsession might work in the primaries, but it is off-putting in the general election.
At the same time, of course, race is real in America. So is gender. Racism and gender bias are serious problems. Democrats have to find a way to talk about these issues in honest language - without either mouthing platitudes or breaking out in hives. To his credit, Obama has transcended typical discussions of race in this campaign so far.
The second thing we must do to eclipse the "white noise" of the nihilistic identity campaign is raise the volume on a substantive discussion around bread-and-butter economic issues for rich and poor alike. Mortgage misery is impacting homeowners from top to bottom. Middle-class African-American homeowners in Maryland suburbs - who almost always vote Democratic - and wealthy white suburban homeowners in Colorado - who generally vote Republican - might actually be able to coalesce into a unique political alliance to elect the next President.
A Democratic nominee who speaks to these issues could cancel out Republican appeals on standard issues like taxes, where they have had an historic advantage with white suburbanites since Ronald Reagan. Add the economic fears of foreign investment in American industrial giants and an economy flirting with a recession, and a pro-growth Democrat can forge a coalition that includes white men who have been injured by the economy.
A debate that keeps returning, in tired old language, to race and gender will ensure that another Republican changes the curtains in the White House.
Clinton and Obama - not their paid political surrogates or celebrity mouthpieces - must move beyond simply declaring a truce. They must realize that we live in a changing America in which all Americans, not just marginalized minorities and underpaid women, feel threatened.
This message must go forth - unconstrained by fear, race or gender. Then, and only then, will the "jangling discords of our nation," as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. aptly noted, be blended into a potentially winning Democratic symphony.
You want to know how badly The Clintons screwed up?
She got booed at a Martin Luther King Jr. memorial event.
Even though the event was billed as a rally for an SEIU affiliate celebrating King’s legacy and Clinton was a late-addition [P6: Hmmm...], the less-than-enthusiastic reception was still noteworthy. It took place in Clinton’s backyard and came as she is making extensive efforts to put the kibosh on the racially tinged controversy swirling around her campaign.
NO ONE gets booed at a Martin Luther King Jr. memorial event.
Incidentally, it matters greatly who dealt the race card.
Clinton booed at MLK rally in New York
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
January 14, 2008 04:44 PM EST
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Dogged by continuing racial tensions around her presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton drew a smattering of boos on Monday when she spoke at a religiously tinged Martin Luther King Jr. rally put together by a union organizing predominantly black security workers.
The catcalls came when Clinton was introduced and her speech drew only tepid applause compared to the boisterous ovations drawn by many of the pastors and reverends — not to mention a hip-hop artist and slam poet — who took the podium before her.
Her participation in the event drew nary a mention during nearly two hours of speeches, performances, prayers and acknowledgments. But she was a late addition to the event — SEIU Local 32BJ President Michael Fishman said he didn't know Clinton would be there until he arrived at the rally. The SEIU affiliate supports Clinton, though a union official stressed that the event was not a Clinton campaign rally.
The New York senator called on the roughly 2,500, mostly black attendees “to fulfill [King’s] unfinished dream and to live the legacy that we have inherited.” Some of her biggest applause came when she cited her rival for the Democratic nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who had his share of supporters at the event.
“How many of us ever dreamed that we would see the day when a woman and an African-American are running for the presidency of the United States of America?” Clinton asked, referring to herself and Obama.