Prometheus 6

do you claim those of us...Black folks...who hold it agaisnt her are irrational haters?

I came here with an open mind, but I've reluctantly come to the point where I have to say yes, you are acting as irrational haters. You point to three examples, one where they call Obama a liberal (oh God no!), another where they point out that he admited to drug use ( again...oh God no!), and the Madrassa lie. Newsflash...Obama is a liberal and he has admitted to drug use. Both of these make him a more attractive candidate to many primary voters. The Madrassa lie was repeated by Kerrey, who is a proven idiot and, as far as I can tell, has not uttered a single word since. To put that all together into some grand strategy is a remarkable stretch.

On Bill Clinton's remarks, I assume you were talking about him saying that Jesse Jackson had won SC twice. You're a very smart person, so surely you're capable of considering the context of those remarks. HRC had just lost there, and WJC was intent on showing that it wasn't indicitive of the way future votes were going to go. He pointed that out, and the media made a big deal about it, and haters jumped on it.

I've read and admired much of your writing, and I appreciate a lot of what you have to say. But in this case it really seems like you're making your case inside of an echo chamber, where the simple repeating of the charges gives them substance. I think that is too bad, because I think that on most other topics you're better than that.

Oh, and Hillary's reaction? Building a "Latino firewall" by approaching the several Latino communities the way she should have approached the Black communities from the start.

I'd gotten the sense before that your enmity toward HRC predated any of the alleged 'race bating'. From the lack of supporting evidence for the race baiting, all that I can conclude is that you already had your mind made up, and now you're just being a 'homer'.

I hope you don't feel like I'm insulting you when I write that. We all have complex motives for everything we do, and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity. I just wanted to let you know that even though it might seem from inside the 'echo chamber' that you've made your case for race baiting by the Clintons, it isn't nearly as convincing as you seem to think it is.

But in this case it really seems like you're making your case inside of an echo chamber, where the simple repeating of the charges gives them substance.

The media continually claims Hillary's problem started with the MLK comments. They did not. That is a physical fact that you'd simply not know if all you attend to is the mainstream media. It took forever to get the NY Times to write "Mrs. Clinton made the first divisive attack." And no other newpaper in the country has admitted even that much, nevermind that the responses Obama made NEVER followed up in the same divisive vein.

If that stands, Black people's reactions to this crap look hyper-emotional, unstable. It is not. At worst we react for him as, for "practical" reasons, we couldn't when the same tactics were used to hinder us in our daily lives.

So I repeat the charges because they have never been addressed in the media. I will not have them hidden because those previous events are what Black folks responded to, what recrystalized how we see The Clintons.

I just wanted to let you know that even though it might seem from inside the 'echo chamber' that you've made your case for race baiting by the Clintons, it isn't nearly as convincing as you seem to think it is.

Just speaking my mind. Telling folks what convinced me. My approach tends to be from a different angle than most folks, so what I present adds to, rather than supplants, what they see for themselves. Plus, as it happens, a whooooooole lot of Black folks were similarly convinced. In fact, great numbers of white folks were convinced by it too.

But again, I speak for me...and recognizing you see me as an irrational hater based on this, I say so be it.

My goal in this is not electoral. Not immediately, anyway. It's to point out...to Black folks, who are in the end my target audience...that Black folks got carrots AND sticks.

You have to master all of the controls.

Black folks abandoning the Democratic Party in November would be a national disaster. Dumping Billary in the primaries would not. And it would get the attention of every political party in the country and several overseas. Democrats would never ignore Black issues again. Not saying Black issues will always carry the day, but they will be seriously on the table going forward and forever more.

Watch this and tell me the smears weren't intentional, and directed by the campaign. Or tell me to ignore fifty plus years of somatic knowledge.

Incident Page:

http://clintonattacksobama.pbwiki.com/Incident+Tracker

First, the nonsense that someone has to "convince" him et al for it to be what it is. It must be me because I missed that memo that said Joe was the center of the universe or the authority from whom we must gain approval. Some people, their denials and their inflated sense of themselves -- their presumed self-importance.

On Bill Clinton's remarks, I assume you were talking about him saying that Jesse Jackson had won SC twice. You're a very smart person, so surely you're capable of considering the context of those remarks.

And we know you can consider the fact that Bill skipped over several candidates who won SC. Mr. Bill (clay figure) made the connection that John Edwards was good lookin' just like Obama. And, guess what? Edwards won SC too and more recently than Jesse. I just saying. If you're going to reference candidates that had/have something in common with Obama, why not Edwards? Bill had made that comparative reference before.

Now, why are you being so stupid? You're a very smart person. (Yes, I can patronize, too.) You know there were any number of other politicians besides Jesse Jackson who won SC. Now, besides being good lookin': tell me what Jesse and Barack have in common. Don't stutter. Don't mumble. Just come out with it. We're talking about... what? How many SC primaries since 1988? (1) 1992 (2) 1996 (3) 2000 (4) 2004 and Bill skips over all of them and numerous others not in 84 or 88 to bring up Jesse.

No. You are smarter than that, Joe. And you got to know we are too. We also know there's nothing new to such denials. It's always someone with you kind of presumed sense of self-importance (you, with your notable denial issues must be convinced even when you can't make the case that no compelling case has been made)... it's always someone like you who tries that "who are you going to believe: me or your lying eyes?" approach. Long and short, simply saying "it's not" is not going to work. The way you tried to deny the drug dealer thing was when "open mind" was exposed for what it is...

But go ahead and tell me what other context was there when, in the same Q&A with reporters, Bill was questioned about race baiting then move swiftly to playing the "some of my best friends are black" card re: John Lewis and Andrew Young (Andy Young of all people) -- "two people left who were with Dr. King every step of the way." Bill basically said they could vouch for him: that they (Lewis and the race-&-comedy challenged Andy Young) "said what need to be said."

Now, you might be an idiot like Bill and think that "some of my best friends are black" kind of nonsense makes sense (as if Rev. Joseph Lowery alone rendered his references to Lewis and Young useless). You might think a lot of crazy things and might just have an inexplicable aversion that just drives you crazy. That's okay but you're not that crazy. P6 already had you pegged before you ever posted here. Again, your drug dealer stunt exposed your "open mind" facade and showed just how "crazy" you are...

Now, don't make me sic Charles on you.

This may be a bit off topic, but to what extent is black support for Obama a reflection of disdain for Clinton's tactics or a matter of race loyalty as the mainstream describes it?  Has Obama gone out of his way to earn the allegiance of black voters or is he merely benefiting from race baiting of the Clintons? 

If you're going to reference candidates that had/have something in common with Obama, why not Edwards?

Because his point was that the demographics of the SC Democratic party favored Obama and Jesse Jackson. Everybody knows that Obama gets a higher percentage of the black vote than the white vote. Does that mean it's race baiting to point that out?

I missed that memo that said Joe was the center of the universe or the authority from whom we must gain approval.

I only answered the question because Prometheus asked it. I assumed that if he had only wanted to hear from the echo chamber he would not have addressed it to Krugman.

tell me what other context was there when, in the same Q&A with reporters, Bill was questioned about race baiting then move swiftly to playing the "some of my best friends are black" card

When someone accuses you of being a pigf***er, you don't run around saying "I'm not a pigf***er!" You get surrogates to vouch for your character, and you don't dignify the attack with a direct response. That's the Politics 101 answer to an accusation like that.

your drug dealer stunt exposed your "open mind"

Um...OK.

Well, Obama has made several appearances at all Black hubs in Harlem, etc. on the Tavis Smiley Show and all kinds of Black radio. I don't know if that constitutes going "out of his way" but while you can argue that he's benefited from the Clintons race-baiting, you damn sure can't say they've gone "out of their way" to EARN the allegiance of Black voters. Far from it.

If you take Roland Martin's word for it, it was Obama's Iowa win that turned the tide for him. In his view, Black folks needed to know he was going to be a viable candidate. Everything came to a head after Iowa as far as the Clinton race baiting. So it was the perfect storm with heavy rains and strong winds rising in SC.

Watch this and tell me the smears weren't intentional

I watched that the last time you put it up. As I recall, it includes Penn looking slimy and using the word "Cocaine". I just don't see the race-baiting in that.

nevermind that the responses Obama made NEVER followed up in the same divisive vein

Accusing someone of race baiting can be pretty divisive, and while Obama didn't make the charge himself, his supporters have. I agree that Hillary has been on the attack while Obama has worked hard not to be seen that way. That's just politics. It might be distasteful, but it's not race-baiting.

Not saying Black issues will always carry the day, but they will be seriously on the table going forward and forever more.

An admirable goal, but is it worth trumping up or exaggerating race baiting charges against the Clintons to acheive it? Perhaps it is.

recognizing you see me as an irrational hater based on this, I say so be it

I shouldn't have written "irrational hater". I suppose it was convenient to reuse your words rather than come up with my own. I might go with "rational hater". I don't think you are irrational by any means, but I do think that your perception of the alleged race-baiting by the Clintons is colored by some combination of your history with and feelings towards the Clintons, an affinity for Obama, your desire to see black issues pushed to the forefront and, perhaps, a general predisposition to see racial attacks even where none exist. And I think that without all of that, the race-baiting evidence just isn't that convincing.

I missed that memo that said Joe was the center of the universe or the authority from whom we must gain approval.

I only answered the question because Prometheus asked it. I assumed that if he had only wanted to hear from the echo chamber he would not have addressed it to Krugman.

...and your response and style are close enough to him that I'm pretending I got my desired correspondence.

Joe, I assume you've read Herman Hesse's Magister Ludi. In an 'excerpt' of a lecture on the types of associations allowed in the game, Joseph Knecht pointed out that associations like "the smell of apple pie reminds me of my mother" could be encoded, just as "red things may be hot" can...but the former, being personally rather than universally valid, was out of bounds. He also noted you don't ACTUALLY want to not have those personally valid associations.

You're trying to fit our "smell of apple pie"-type reaction to the racialism encoded in the early Clinton campaign into your "smell of apple pie"-type reaction to political pronouncements. You can't. Neither can I. I can't map my "that was personally offensive" to your "that was a tough political statement."

I can tell when someone isn't even trying, though.

Before the SC primary, Mark Shields was on PBS' The Newshour. He said six prominently placed but unaligned-at-the-time Democrats approached HIM to say they thought The Clintons had gone racial. I had it posted here before my YouTube account was cancelled, which means I can find it on the backup hard drive if you really need to see it. Last time you passed through I showed you several mainstream bloggers, Ezra, Drum and Steve B, I think, that said the Clintons had just one more racist stunt to pull before they, too, declared them beyond the, er, pale.

The Clintons stopped doing that blatant sort of thing, and that was good enough for most white folks. Black folk and their real allies sort of looked around wondering where the apology was.

And with this we reach the fork in our understanding of things.

I watched that the last time you put it up. As I recall, it includes Penn looking slimy and using the word "Cocaine".

Among other things.

I just don't see the race-baiting in that.

Then I can't ask you to join me in this gesture.

And for the record:

I do think that your perception of the alleged race-baiting by the Clintons is colored by some combination of your history with and feelings towards the Clintons [P6: She was a fine Senator, he was a manipulative President], an affinity for Obama [P6: Got none. There's not enough of a policy difference for me to worry about], your desire to see black issues pushed to the forefront [P6: Just included as though we were allies rather than an obstacle, is all] and, perhaps, a general predisposition to see racial attacks even where none exist. [P6: Nah...though the question inevitably rises, doesn't it?]

This may be a bit off topic, but to what extent is black support for Obama a reflection of disdain for Clinton's tactics or a matter of race loyalty as the mainstream describes it?  Has Obama gone out of his way to earn the allegiance of black voters or is he merely benefiting from race baiting of the Clintons? *****

I believe that Black folk, outside of Illinois, needed to learn about Obama. They needed to be introduced to him. They were ' skeptical'. They never thought it could be done, what he has done. I'm glad that they didn't immediately warm up to Obama when he announced in February 2007. They took their time. They watched, as he run his campaign. They watched, as month after month went by, and he was still in the race. See, I was always of the belief that Black folk wanted to support Obama, but, they needed to believe that he was 'the real deal'. And, what I mean by that, is that he was VIABLE. It was like, we've done the vote for the Black guy for symbolism's sake - Jesse in 84 and 88 ; if we give you our vote, it's because we believe you CAN WIN.

The two main concerns where Obama was concerned were:

1. Would White People ACTUALLY vote for him?

2. The assassination fear.

I believed that if they got the answer to Question #1 as YES, then they would say a prayer, leave it to the Lord, and go into that voting booth and vote for him.

They received their answer to #1 on January 3rd in 90+% White Iowa.

That, is all she wrote.

The Clinton's race-baiting hardened up any soft Obama support on the fringes.

Part of this nearly year long journey with Obama and the Black community, is that the Black community had to get used to accepting that Obama was NOT going to be ' The Black Candidate', but that he was running as 'The Candidate for President Who Happens To Be Black. '

A major part of the backlash against the Clintons and their Dogwhistle Politics is that the Black Community was pissed that just as they had made peace with Obama on that front, here was Billary trying to turn him into The Black Candidate.

I do believe that Michelle Obama has been invaluable for the Obama campaign in speaking to the Black community.

to what extent is black support for Obama a reflection of disdain for Clinton's tactics or a matter of race loyalty as the mainstream describes it?

I don't think very many Black folks support him solely because he's Black.

Has Obama gone out of his way to earn the allegiance of black voters or is he merely benefiting from race baiting of the Clintons?

He ran a campaign. Under the circumstances it wasn't going out of his way.

The Clintons stopped doing that blatant sort of thing, and that was good enough for most white folks.

Or, everyone around the Clinton campaign became more attuned to how some of their statements might be percieved, and made sure to get the word out that certain things were not acceptable. I think the bloggers you pointed me to were saying that one more incident would convince them that the Clintons were playing that game. I don't think they would have forgiven the Clintons so quickly if they were already convinced that it was intentional.

I'm not sure whether the answer is that it doesn't smell like apple pie to me, or that the smell of apple pie doesn't remind me of my mother, but to me the evidence says that the Clintons went negative but were not race-baiting.

I guess for you it smells like apple pie and reminds you of your mother, so you see race baiting and it is personally offensive to you. But you go a step beyond that and say that you know that it was intentional on the part of the Clintons. That doesn't seem to be fully supported by the evidence.

You had to be there, I guess.

Because his point was that the demographics of the SC Democratic party favored Obama and Jesse Jackson.

One question: How much are the "Learn to be a creative psychic" lessons you're giving... AND one observation:

• Bill didn't mention anything about demographics.

But feel free to make things up as you go. You know, completely out of thin air.

a general predisposition to see racial attacks even where none exist.

P, you're getting soft in your old age. Not only are Joe's vowels alive but he's still posting from his pre-contrived script.

My bad. Joe is the center of the universe and therefore is the duly ordained determiner of when and where racial attacks exist. You black folks don't know nothing about racism.

P, you're getting soft in your old age. Not only are Joe's vowels alive but he's still posting from his pre-contrived script.

Object lesson: no matter how reasonably and patiently you explain, you WILL be accused of excess sensitivity. Quite predictable.

That IS the last time he gets to keep his vowels, though.

not a request or recommendation. The irony is really thick with Joe. Trying to disclaim racist attacks, race baiting and just plain textbook racially problematic thoughts/remarks ("some of my best friends are black", "I can't be racist because I know blacks who agree with me") with a mindset and comments steeped in it.

Of course black folks are just over sensitive and see racism where there is none. Right. It's black people who don't know anything about racism. We can only hope to have a clue when gracious folks like Joe clue us in or give us a nod when we're onto something. Nevermind the "drug use" vs. "drug dealer" error of his. He still knows what he's talking about and there is no issue with his predisposition. Pure as the undriven snow.

That IS the last time he gets to keep his vowels, though.

I can see that I've about exhausted your patience. Thank you for indulging me for as long as you have. I hope I haven't offended anyone. If I have, I apologize.

I want you to explain why you speculate that I may have

a general predisposition to see racial attacks even where none exist

You see, all it takes is a single complaint about racism for someone to make that accusation. And no one has survived making such an accusation against me. Over 19,000 posts...if it were there, someone would have found it already.

I think YOU have a general predisposition to deny racial attacks whether one exists or not. And I have your comment here as evidence.

Where's yours?

I want you to explain why you speculate...

It was exactly that, pure speculation on my part. I have no evidence to support it other than that the other explanations didn't seem sufficient to me. I put a "perhaps" in front of it to indicate that it was speculation, but I guess that didn't come across. It seems that I've offended you, and if I have, I apologize, and I withdraw the speculation/accusation.

As for my predispositions, I have given some thought to those. I do have a predisposition to defend the Clintons, otherwise I would have gone right along with the media narrative about the race baiting. On denying racial attacks, I suppose that based on the same standard of evidence that I used, it would be reasonable to speculate that I have that predisposition. That's my fault for only commenting on this single topic out of all of the things that you write about. I just happened to pick one where I disagreed with you. The truth is that while I may not see racial attacks everywhere you do, I am not OK with them, and I am OK with calling them racial attacks when I see them.

Since you invited me to stay for just a little bit longer, Nquest should know that while

Bill didn't mention anything about demographics.

he also didn't mention anything about race.

It was exactly that, pure speculation on my part. I have no evidence to support it other than that the other explanations didn't seem sufficient to me.

Interesting...it's almost like my deciding Hillary's tactics were racist...except I have actual stuff her cronies did for her as evidence.

it's almost like my deciding Hillary's tactics were racist...except

Except you were deciding, not speculating.

Contrary to what Nquest wrote, it seems to be the people on your side of the argument who are engaging in mindreading. You seem to be able to infer nefarious motives from innocuous comments. If you think Krugman and I are alone in thinking this, check out here , here, and here.

To me, it's pretty clear that you're getting played by the media, which is fine for you...until they turn on your guy.

Thank you for inviting me to continue to comment. I trust you'll let me know if you feel that I'm abusing the privilege.

Except you were deciding

Yes, I am. I decide stuff all the time. I'm pretty good at it.

it seems to be the people on your side of the argument who are engaging in mindreading.

Did you know that humans evolved a specific ability to impute the motives of other humans by observation?

The mind's mirror
A new type of neuron--called a mirror neuron--could help explain how we learn through mimicry and why we empathize with others.

ScienceNOW
A recently discovered system in the brain may help explain why we humans can get so worked up watching other people.

That's WHY I'm pretty good at deciding. I trust myself, fundamentally...especially when I have evidence.

I don't have to check your links. I know you two aren't alone. The problem you're going to have convincing Black folks is that we have seen the pattern all our lives. Your argument can't stand against our experience.

I can't tell you your problem with white folks. I don't argue other people's points anymore. But I think it has someting to do with a very disciplined campaign making three outrageous comments simultaneously. Yes it was a mistake...but it wasn't an accident. No one can accept they all went crazy at the same time.

That's just a guess, though.

By the way...the only thing the media did to help shape my opinion was show me the actual event. I decided from there.

Joe, tell me about those demographics, again.

There's a reason I never even discussed that 'dispute.' It's what folks want you to think the dispute is about because it's too ambiguous to do anything about.

Joe, tell me about those demographics, again.

Here's Bob Sommersby from one of the links I posted above

Campaigns routinely “explain away” their defeats—and journalists do the same thing, all the time. When Huckabee won in Iowa, for example, every journalist from here to Saigon rushed to explain the outcome, noting that 40 percent of the Republican electorate in Iowa was evangelical. In this instance, Bill Clinton is “explaining away” a defeat in the same manner—although at best he’s doing so clumsily. And by the way: Every journalist from here to Moscow has been saying, for the past seven months, that South Carolina’s high percentage of African-American voters made it a state Obama needed—a state in which he held a theoretical advantage. This has been a very standard analysis. Every big pundit has said it. Every big pundit has applied this standard of analysis.

The moment I heard the Clinton quote, it was obvious to me that he was doing exactly that, explaining away the victory.

Hillary's comments then were more than just patronizing, as Too Sense, observed but they are historically challenged

I'm beginning to understand your reaction to the MLK/LBJ thing. Not having been where you've been, I don't have the same reaction. I stand by what I wrote about this in the earlier thread, but I'll add that if this was some calculated attempt to appeal to voters using racism, I can't imagine who those voters were that she was trying to appeal to.

if this was some calculated attempt to appeal to voters using racism, I can't imagine who those voters were that she was trying to appeal to.

I can. The same people they thought 'secular madrassa' would reach.

But the LBJ/MLK comment wasn't a racist appeal, it was a distraction. 

I won't be more specific...I've learned to measure the doses of me I hand out. Plus I'm pretty sure there'll be other opportunities to make a few trenchant points. 

Look, Joe, I'm as big a fan of Somerby (note spelling!) as anyone. It pays not to read him carelessly. He writes:

In this instance, Bill Clinton is “explaining away” a defeat in the same manner—although at best he’s doing so clumsily.

And at worst? What do you think the worst case might be?

What do you think the worst case might be?

Thank you for correcting my spelling. The worst case would be as Prometheus 6 characterized it. But that's Somerby's and my point. There are other perfectly reasonable explanations that fit the evidence at least as well as that one.

I like the Clintons, so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. It seems that the people accusing them are disinclined to do so. They may have good reasons for that, but the evidence by itself is not nearly as conclusive as it's been portrayed.

I realize that we approach this issue from different perspectives, so to some extent we're just talking past each other, but to me it seems like there is a lot of room for the possibility that much of this has been taken out of context and interpreted in the most unfavorable possible light.

I like the Clintons, so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. It seems that the people accusing them are disinclined to do so.

Plainly so. The point is that candidates (or surrogates) in any primary will be wise to choose their words carefully. Ill-conceived statements create rifts that may not be repairable after the primaries are over. No one knows this better than Mr. Clinton, yet he has offered up public statements that are clumsy--"at best." 

If clumsiness really is Mr. Clinton's problem, he's losing his touch. If he still deserves his reputation as a careful triangulator, then he made those statements with a purpose. Either way, he's playing dangerously. As our host wrote upthread: "Black folks abandoning the Democratic Party in November would be a national disaster."

there is a lot of room for the possibility that much of this has been taken out of context and interpreted in the most unfavorable possible light

You'll get no argument from me. I've been debating that very point on a different thread. The incidents I think have been overanalyzed include Ms. Clinton's LBJ/MLK remark and maybe Mr. Penn's appearance on Hardball.

On the other hand, there are many other such incidents that are much harder to wave away: Mr. Kerrey's recitation of the Muslim smear, Mr. Shaheen's reckless speculations, and more recently, a member of Ms. Clinton's campaign finance committee once again circulating emails fanning the Muslim smear.

Joe said upthread: "You seem to be able to infer nefarious motives from innocuous comments."

Every word former president bill clinton uttered was part of a politically calculated message presented in a politically coded language. To ask us to think otherwise is to ask us to abandon our common sense. The Clinton rhetoric went way beyond "fairy tales" and "MLK/LBJ" and "Jesse Jackson." The polarizing and poisonous statements about "black/brown" politics in the lead up to nevada and super tuesday were a brazen form of race-baiting that continues to feed fear and social unrest in communities across the nation. Those who carry the burden of "race" in a racist society don't have to infer nefarious motives; they recognize and know the symbols and language of racial oppression. The failure or inability to see that reality means we must then believe that millions of african americans suddenly lost their minds over a few innocuous comments. Overnight, masses of "blacks" simply became hysterical. In south carolina dazed negroes defied their store-bought preachers and machine politicians and voted en mass for Obama and against the wife of the man they'd elected twice to the white house. Other "blacks" in other states zombied their way to the polls and cast their votes likes Obamabots, only weeks after the majority of them had been supporting Clinton.

"White" privilege serves to innoculate so-called "white" people from the existential reality of antiblack racism. They have no "lived" experience of it, so for them it's merely a "fiction." Consequently, discussions of its "real" effects by its "real" victims often are dismissed as fabrication (playing the race card) or treated as hysteria ... just a bunch of silly negroes having a collective attack of the vapors.

I'm beginning to understand your reaction to the MLK/LBJ thing. Not having been where you've been, I don't have the same reaction. I stand by what I wrote about this in the earlier thread, but I'll add that if this was some calculated attempt to appeal to voters using racism, I can't imagine who those voters were that she was trying to appeal to. 

Joe, first of all, don't patronize me.  If you understand my reaction to the MLK/LBJ thing then you render your second sentence moot.  It's unintelligible given what my reaction is to the MLK/LBJ thing which you obviously don't understand.  You just want to deny the existence of the Clintons race-baiting because of the associations you make, the image that plays out in your mind when you hear racism is afoot.  

It's the usual racism=evil+hate+KKK straw-man.  Surely few if any White person seen as making racist appeals or expressing a racially problematic view are like those lynch mob startin', 4 Little Girls church bomb making racists of that so distant American past.  So you make it easy for Bill and Hillary to pass.  No white sheet, no racism.  Amazing how that works.

So really, with this "nefarious motives" thing you bandied about, it's obvious that it's your own (pre)conceptions that are the problem here.  The MLK/LBJ thing was never about "nefarious motives" or racist appeals per se.  So, again, you obviously don't understand my reaction to the MLK/LBJ thing.  Was it an indication of "nefarious", racist motives? Well, that was never really alleged.  What was presented in the press was how Hillary's esteem of LBJ was a direct disrespect to the legacy and reality of the contribution MLK made.  This is what Charles said, articulating the contours:

The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results.

Forty years ago, that arrangement -- white president enacting African American dreams -- was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement -- white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty -- is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly.

 

The irony of it all is that Obama referenced both JFK and MLK as "dreamers."  Hillary, like Bill, locked in on the black one.  It might seem as if it wasn't her fault.  After all, that's the way the question which lead to the particular statement in question was framed.  Oh, but Hillary was all too aware that Obama had, as she claimed, "basically compared himself to two of our greatest heroes" referring to JFK/MLK. But for some reason Hillary did not talk about the white dreams of JFK that LBJ brought into reality.  Her line that it "took a president" already made odd by the fact that Barack Obama was running for the office of the president would have been even more odd if she had.  And that's the deal:  Hillary had problems wrapping her mind around the concept that Barack Obama could be that president.

You talked about complex motives.  Well, I'll stipulate to the not-so-complex understory.  The country is used to not talking Black presidential candidates seriously.  Billary casting Obama as a "dreamer" (read: someone who is not serious and not to be taken seriously) and as someone who only/primary skill or competency is his speaking ability plays out a saying "the black guy isn't a serious candidate" but that Blacks aren't intellectually capable of being president.  Sure, Obama is charming and inspirational -- i.e. black people are emotional -- but he's just not capable of doing things... the serious things, making the important decisions that have always taken white president...  

It doesn't matter whether the Clintons intend to say it.  It's just revealing that Hillary thought there was a point to be made with that LBJ/MLK thing.  Again, it's something that's historically challenged.  It's an issue because it's always an issue when White Americans try to dictate THE historical narrative on the Civil Rights era.  In the Nevada debate which came after all the controversy, Sen. Clinton repeated the questionable narrative that "[Dr. King's] dreams have been realized."  And so much of this is about conflicting viewpoints:  White Americans tend to see the Civil Rights Acts, etc. as much more significant and conclusive than African Americans. At best, the conflicting views over what those events mean complicates things; at worst, it exacerbates things specifically because of what Charles Krauthammer noted.  And, for the record, Dr. King had his issues with good-intentioned, well-meaning Whites.

To be more precise, the LBJ narrative reflects on a deeper, older notion more often associated with Lincoln: the Great White Benefactor/Savior/Emancipator narrative that's the flip-side to the White Man's Burden.  So, the biggest problem here, whether anything that's been said by anyone here in the "Echo Chamber" has said is "convincing" or not, is the very fact that Billary gives us reason to question what they really think (about us).

That Clinton would compare herself to LBJ and Obama to JFK is cause for concern on two points.  First of all, the Clintons are not so much the spiritual heirs of LBJ's Great Society as they are the political step children of Ronald Reagan.  They just like to drape themselves in progressive rhetoric while pursuing centrist ends.  The implication in Hillary's statement that black leaders have been symbols of change while white leaders have been architects of change indicate that her mindset has not progressed much in the last forty years.  Secondly, Obama, like JFK, promised change with stirring rhetoric; but it is worth remembering that JFK won the presidency with the decisive support of black votes by running on the most progressive civil rights plank in history up to that point and, then, for the first two and a half years of his presidency did absolutely nothing to make good on his promises.  In the mean time, the prospects for meaningful change dissolved into violence.  As Malcolm X pointed out, Kennedy was willing to face down US Steel, Kruschev, Castro, and other foes but did little or nothing beyond token gestures to confront white supremacy.  It was only when Negroes in large numbers started to abandon peaceful protest in favor of more combative tactics that Kennedy finally intervened in order to ensure that the movement for change be placed in the hands of the "courts" and not in the hands of street protesters. 

With America yearning for a "post-racial" society, it is not hard to imagine Obama abandoning a progressive and hard-hitting agenda that tackles the problem of racial inequality in our own time.  Much of his white support is derived from those who want to deny the legacy of white privilege and believe that an Obama presidency will provide a firewall against anyone desiring to confront the lingering existence of white privilege.  The question that people have to ask as they cast their lot with Obama is whether they believe that an election win for him will signify the culmination of the struggle for racial justice or a new chapter in this struggle.  Obama, himself, will have to ponder this question if he, indeed, becomes president.  If he does, than he cannot afford to repeat JFK's mistake of taking action only when confronted with the prospect of a highly visible social catastrophe a la Katrina, Birmingham 63, Watts 65, etc.                               

there is a lot of room for the possibility that much of this has been taken out of context and interpreted in the most unfavorable possible light

You'll get no argument from me. I've been debating that very point on a different thread. The incidents I think have been overanalyzed include Ms. Clinton's LBJ/MLK remark and maybe Mr. Penn's appearance on Hardball.

I could have been a lot more harsh. For instance:

Why is it you gentlemen always insist of searching out a non-racist interpretation when you know it's not always the case?

I did not go there with you, Joe, because then I'd have to go there with Quaker and I'm not inclined to lose his participation. There's only one thing more useful to me (I mean, other than Black folks waking up) than busting a racist publicly, and that's having white folks around that don't quit when they miss it a bit.

And oh, yeah...the MLK/JFK thing was intended to be overanalyzed because it was a distraction.

Distraction?  I beg to differ.  The MLK/LBJ thing was the most definitive and, not doubt, most revealing of all.

If that's what floats your boat. But consider: how many sentences does it take to explain the racism in Kerrey's comment? Or Shaheen's?

The question that people have to ask as they cast their lot with Obama is whether they believe that an election win for him will signify the culmination of the struggle for racial justice or a new chapter in this struggle.

That question obviously has to be asked without the fraudulent premise that lead to you posing it.  Hillary did not compare Obama to JFK.  She said Obama compared himself to JFK and MLK.  It's important to get the facts right vs. looking for an angle.  If it was not for the question itself, that very error would disqualify everything you aimed to say. 

Nquest...

Thanks for pointing this out.  I didn't mean to imply that Hillary was comparing Obama to JFK, but that Obama and his supporters were making the comparison.  My wording was poor.  I also wanted to point out that embracing Kennedy's legacy as an indication of promising change is problematic because the notion that Kennedy diligently carried out his promise of change is largely a myth.     

If clumsiness really is Mr. Clinton's problem, he's losing his touch.

I'm leaning toward that conclusion. He seems to be losing his cool in public much more than he used to.

On the other hand, there are many other such incidents that are much harder to wave away

True enough. I don't think there's any excuse for Kerrey's statements. I think he thought that he was so damn clever that he could sneak that by everyone without them realizing what he was doing.

Anyway, it seems that all I'm accomplishing here is annoying and offending people who have been here a lot longer than me. I don't want to be that guy, so I'm going to go back to lurking for a while. Thanks to everyone for tolerating me.

Anyway, it seems that all I'm accomplishing here is annoying and offending people who have been here a lot longer than me. I don't want to be that guy, so I'm going to go back to lurking for a while. Thanks to everyone for tolerating me.

Fear not, Joe. You're doing allright. See the host's comment, above.

Wow, I got some catching up to do.

Ourstorian wrote:

Every word former president bill clinton uttered was part of a politically calculated message presented in a politically coded language.

I think I agree here, especially in regard to the "Jackson won SC" remarks. I would only emphasize that we're talking about the things Bill Clinton said, not Hillary Clinton. (Yeah, I know, they're an indivisible team. But that doesn't mean I have to attribute the same motives to everything said by either one.) Ourstorian includes "MLK/LBJ" in that list, but it was Hillary who said that one. I'll get to that shortly.

Ourstorian also wrote this, which is dead on the money:

"White" privilege serves to innoculate so-called "white" people from the existential reality of antiblack racism. They have no "lived" experience of it, so for them it's merely a "fiction." Consequently, discussions of its "real" effects by its "real" victims often are dismissed as fabrication (playing the race card) or treated as hysteria...(QiB: I'm leaving off that last bit. That might not sound right when it's coming from me.)

This is highly relevant to the point I was debating with our host in a different thread. In that discussion, I made a distinction between people who act from ignorance and those who act with animosity. What Ourstorian describes here is how some white people remain ignorant of the dynamics of race and racism. Whether people act out of ignorance or animosity may not change the outcome, but it changes the motive, and motive matters.

Nquest writes widely, but I'm going to pick out just this:

Her line that it "took a president" already made odd by the fact that Barack Obama was running for the office of the president would have been even more odd if she had.  And that's the deal:  Hillary had problems wrapping her mind around the concept that Barack Obama could be that president.

Now that really gets to the heart of the whole MLK/LBJ thing, but I get an entirely different read on it. Ms. Clinton's statement wasn't something she offered out of the blue. It was in the context of an ongoing exchange between the candidates. They were discussing a mildly interesting and relevant issue of leadership style. Ms. Clinton's style is that of a plodding, legislative policy wonk. Mr. Obama's style is inspirational and motivational. Ms. Clinton said something about how hope isn't enough. Mr. Obama replied that JFK and MLK did all right by creating hope. Ms. Clinton focused on MLK in her next response, I think, not because he was black but because he wasn't president. She was arguing that a president needs to be a plodding legislative wonk. If she focused on JFK, her point wouldn't have worked at all, for all the reasons ubstu34 lists.

When this was reported, all the context got left out. Without the context, the remarks sound very different. Anyway, just because I think this specific incident is overblown, that doesn't mean I'm ready to give the Clintons or their campaign a total pass on everything.

Now to our host:

Why is it you gentlemen always insist of searching out a non-racist interpretation when you know it's not always the case?

Well, first let me quibble with the word "always." I don't always search out a non-racist interpretation. That's why I also wrote:

On the other hand, there are many other such incidents that are much harder to wave away: Mr. Kerrey's recitation of the Muslim smear, Mr. Shaheen's reckless speculations, and more recently, a member of Ms. Clinton's campaign finance committee once again circulating emails fanning the Muslim smear.

It's possible for honorable people to disagree whether racial animosity is driving a specific incident. It's also possible to differentiate between people who act from the ignorance of privelege and those who knowingly choose division and exclusion. I'm perfectly willing to call both racisim--just two different kinds of it. Why? For the reasons Ourstorian explains, every white person will commit racism of ignorance, but only some will commit intentional racism.

Also from P6:

But consider: how many sentences does it take to explain the racism in Kerrey's comment? Or Shaheen's?

None. You just have to watch the tape to know.

There's a lot more to say, but this comment is already way too long. If the thread continues, I'll add more.

It's possible for honorable people to disagree whether racial animosity is driving a specific incident. It's also possible to differentiate between people who act from the ignorance of privelege and those who knowingly choose division and exclusion.

When you run your Black opponent through the standard Black stereotypes on national television, I put you on the knowingly divisive side. And when another guy simultaneously raises and apparently validates a racist smear while your campaign manager repeats every problematic statement in the process of 'trying to put it behind us,' I put you and your campaign on the knowingly divisive side. And when the media assists you in burying the undeniably racist actions of your campaign behind your knowingly ambiguous next statement...and I have no doubt there was no order or request given, they knew what was needed and volunteered...I adjust the 'racism score' of the range of possible media reactions rather sharply upward.

Not happy, me...

As for 'always'...you don't deny what's in front of your face, and now that we have broken through the MLK/JFK barrier you see this stuff. But you weren't looking back there. You got distracted by the media noise too. We spent an awful lot of text on "Mrs Clinton fired the first divisive shot."

it's high time people stop making excuses as if White people are that damn dumb.

Now there's an interesting thought... 

Ms. Clinton focused on MLK in her next response, I think, not because he was black...

I already noted how Sen. Clinton focused on MLK because the question (from Major Garrett , Faux News - 3:42 mark) was framed and focused ONLY on MLK. That may have been her first indication of Obama's response to her original "false hope" rhetoric. But one thing is for sure, the intentional attempt -- or intentional, conscious thought -- to paint Obama as a stereotypical "managerially unfit ", given to (inspirational) emotion vs. reason minority was part of the campaign strategy.

Now, I also noted how Hillary stated Obama basically compared himself to two of our greatest heroes. In that speech, Hillary referred to JFK's 14 years of experience in Congress, talked about how MLK led movement and all the struggle (being gassed, etc.) and organization it involved but never failed focused on his great speech and how inspirational they were. She didn't talk about JFK's gift of inspirational gab from what I can find at this date. Regardless there is no excuse and no reason for the over-allowance, the kind of pass people are willing to give her for getting caught in the matrix. She told on herself while trying to promote herself.

A Jewish poster (I believe of Ukranian, immigrant descent) picked up on it.  He called it 2nd Order Racism and noted how it was something he felt Jews experience as well as Blacks.   Paraphrasing, he described this 2nd Order Racism as the kind of backlash that happens when the ambitions, competence and abilities of would-be subordinate peoples' cause discomfort for presumed entitled (and superior) and, therefore, more deserving Whites who believe such subordinate peoples' should know their place and limitations.  

She was arguing that a president needs to be a plodding legislative wonk.

Yet she argued that "it took a president" not a legislative wonk. Again, JFK was a president and at no point did she emphasize anything about LBJ that JFK lacked. Plus the contrast was "experience" vs. "hope." (Again, she emphasized JFK's 14 years in Congress not how he was given to being all cute and inspirational but didn't get around to doing anything. And the historical record shows that LBJ was forced into glory. His record on civil rights wasn't sparkling and the choice is fitting that of a Goldwater Girl, I suppose.)

On other occasions she had referenced the "show horse" vs. "work horse" difference in mindset, the latter being her set. So the wonky stuff wasn't in any wise made explicit whereas the other much more appealing traits were. Indeed, Obama recently addressed a question about his BaRock-star status earned from his inspiring speeches and noted how people complained when he was too wonky.

If she focused on JFK, her point wouldn't have worked at all

Which is all the more reason why her zeal to play up her "experience" not only was stupid but showed her inner colors. Again, Barack Obama is running for the office of the president. Unlike others, I'm not inclined to think Hillary is that damn dumb not to realize that obvious fact and just how ridiculous the "it took a president" line was. But sometimes the revealing truth comes out awkwardly. Again, it was not about "wonk", it was "experience", "ready on day one" and "work horse." Those were the themes and that's what Sen. Clinton pointed out about JFK/MLK. So, let's be straight on the facts...

When this was reported, all the context got left out. Without the context, the remarks sound very different.

I knew what the context was all along. The sound never changed with me because of that with thanks to P6 and others.

I'm perfectly willing to call both racisim--just two different kinds of it.

That's the very point I tried to make yet you felt it was necessary to state why you thought Hillary focused on MLK even as you apparently disregarded the context. Not that that changed anything because she promptly compounded the pass you were willing to give her. For some reason, when "different kinds of racism" were noted, you were not willing to call it.

And, again, the campaign strategy to emphasize Obama's "superficial", non-managerial skills was intentional. Besides that, it's high time people stop making excuses as if White people are that damn dumb. It's ridiculous extremes. Either race-baiting whites are evil incarnate or they just tripped over racism, unbeknownst to them or their subconscious but clearly verbalized thoughts. She got caught in her own web and I saw her reflection in the mirror. Charles and I did too and I've always been willing to say so explicitly.

it's high time people stop making excuses as if White people are that damn dumb.

Now there's an interesting thought...

I have that same opinion when it comes to the dominant narrative about American foreign policy f@ck-ups. If we believe these ready made excuses then we are supposed to buy the storyline that the U.S. just has two-left feet when it comes to foreign policy especially in the Arab/Muslim Middle East. The bring democracy to Iraq crowd claimed it was an effort to clean it that grainy picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam but once we bombed, arrested and jailed Saddam without "winning the peace"... Well, it's back to same old song. "We're just so clumsy."

That bs becomes too transparent when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. 

it seems that all I'm accomplishing here is annoying and offending people...

Joe, whether you annoy and offend people here, is at least not an issue with me. It's just that you better be prepared to argue your point without assuming anything you say is self-evident and, worst, THE reality, much less the way Black people should see things especially with your noted errors (and your own non-invisible bias) if not your lack of perceptual knowledge.

Further, what really did you hope to "accomplish"?  Realistically, what did you think you could by being as contrary as you have? Specifically, what did you think this would... accomplish?

• I came here with an open mind, but I've reluctantly come to the point where I have to say yes, you are acting as irrational haters.
• it really seems like you're making your case inside of an echo chamber
• I think that is too bad, because I think that on most other topics you're better than that.
• all that I can conclude is that you already had your mind made up, and now you're just being a 'homer'
• I just wanted to let you know that even though it might seem from inside the 'echo chamber' that you've made your case for race baiting by the Clintons, it isn't nearly as convincing as you seem to think it is.
• Accusing someone of race baiting can be pretty divisive
• That's just politics. It might be distasteful, but it's not race-baiting.

And finally...

• I do think that your perception of the alleged race-baiting by the Clintons is colored by some combination of your history with and feelings towards the Clintons, an affinity for Obama, your desire to see black issues pushed to the forefront and, perhaps, a general predisposition to see racial attacks even where none exist.

 
Seriously, what did you think any of that would "accomplish"??
 

Also, I want to see how this works:

"Yep, they're being racist. Just racist enough to send out the subtext..."

 

Says "a white man who grew up with almost all black friends in almost all black schools..."

Though that wasn't about Bill and Hillary per se, I think they're covered when One Drop says this:

"They're good liberals, educated progressives, Very Serious People. Of course they're not racist!"

I did not post a comment on this thread because I knew that the good folks who come here regularly and who own this site would expose Joe's haplessness about race and other related issues. I knew that he was going down fast when he began hectoring black folks about their alleged inability to sniff out racism.

What Joe and other white folks will never understand is that blacks folks as a general rule do not see racism where none actually exists. We check each other's perceptions and conclusions all the time. We may not share our findings with white America but we do share our opinions with each other regardless of Shelby Steele's rants to the contrary.

Keep in mind the older black barber in Los Angeles who was interviewed by Al Sharpton about O.J. Simpson. The barber replied that in his opinion, "They tried to frame a guilty man." We see quite well what goes on here in America. This is a seldom referenced but terribly important aspect of the dual consciousness that we, as African Americans, carry in this country.

If we had really thought that Br. Bill was struggling to express himself about the South Carolina results or that Bill Shaheen, Mark Penn or Bob Johnson simply misspoke then we would have cut them some slack. The reality is that we clearly saw what they were attempting to do. We are not easily fooled. Our survival has always depended on our ability to see through the fog of obfuscation and rationalization.

Joe, whether you annoy and offend people here, is at least not an issue with me.

Actually, you are the one I thought I was annoying and offending the most, so if you're OK then I guess I needn't worry.

Seriously, what did you think any of that would "accomplish"??

This is my first time participating in an online conversation like this. I've found that it can be difficult to get the tone right. Hopefully I'm getting better as I go along. I think I withdrew the most "contrary" of those statements. I will discuss any of the others if you'd like, or you can take my word that they weren't meant to be combative or insulting.

It's just that you better be prepared to argue your point without assuming anything you say is self-evident

That's exactly the thing that prompted me to speak up in the first place. I felt like parts of the case were assumed into existence. Remember that this thread started with a rhetorical question from Prometheus 6 to Krugman. Everybody here knew what the answer was supposed to be, but to me, and apparently to Krugman, it wasn't so obvious. My purpose was to point out that to some of us (perhaps just white people with no background in dealing with racial issues) it's not so cut and dried. Normally I'd just walk right by and assume that there was something that I didn't get, but because I had already started thinking about this topic, I decided to jump in.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm dismissing everything that has happened. As I wrote in an earlier thread, I agree that several of the incidents were objectionable.

We're getting all at cross purposes here.

As for 'always'...you don't deny what's in front of your face, and now that we have broken through the MLK/JFK barrier you see this stuff. But you weren't looking back there. You got distracted by the media noise too. We spent an awful lot of text on "Mrs Clinton fired the first divisive shot."

You're not going to make me go back through your old threads to find the first time I called out Mr. Shaheen and Mr. Kerrey, are you? I've been calling their remarks the same way you do. But those comments were made by participants in Ms. Clinton's campaign organization, not by Ms. Clinton herself. If that's what we're talking about when we say "Ms. Clinton fired the first divisive shots," then fine, we're in agreement. I make the distinction only to better understand which comments we're talking about--Shaheen's and Kerrey's or Ms. Clinton's.

On the other hand, if we're talking about words actually spoken by Ms. Clinton herself, then we're most likely talking about the MLK/JFK comment. You can get sharply different opinions on what that comment was all about just among the other commenters on this thread, never mind the rest of the world. Even our host has written:

"But the LBJ/MLK comment wasn't a racist appeal, it was a distraction."

Also, I'm not sure I understand which of the many events under discussion you're referring to here:

When you run your Black opponent through the standard Black stereotypes on national television, I put you on the knowingly divisive side.

Are you referring specifically to the Robert Johnson appearance? A different single event? Or the whole pattern?

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm dismissing everything that has happened.

You blatantly dismissing the question of what you hoped to accomplish or, rather, how you hoped to accomplish "pointing out how it's not so cut and dried" when you made the statements I dot-pointed out, amongst others.

because I had already started thinking about this topic, I decided to jump in.

Apparently, you didn't think long enough.

I agree that several of the incidents were objectionable.

Yet you still felt compelled to object under the pretense that, no matter how objectionable "several" of the incidents were, they were not so "cut and dried"; that Black perspectives that didn't agree with your White one were somehow not valid, I guess because Black people (those who's views don't align with your predisposition) would have no reason to perceive what they do. And, note, you never framed it as "for some of us." You were speaking as if your objections were supposed to count for all of us -- as if your thoughts were universal; pointing a finger in such a typical (and, might I say, unflattering) fashion to say P6 et al have a hypersensitive "predisposition" that disqualifies their (our) perceptions/views while not accounting for your own built-in bias-preference.

You presumed you were qualified to tell us what THE reality was/is; again, for all of us. Instead of just saying "I don't see it that way" you said it was not that way -- i.e. "it might seem from inside the 'echo chamber' that you've made your case for race baiting by the Clintons, it isn't nearly as convincing as you seem to think it is."

Again, what did you hope to accomplish with that kind of remark?

It's clear that your whole purpose was to say that since you weren't "convinced" that it wasn't THE reality. You made yourself the Grand Interpreter and didn't care how it looked to "some of us" who are not White, e.g. No, you said even the accusation is/can be "pretty divisive." And by goodness, none of us would want to do that, huh Joe? But go ahead, explain this:

I agree that several of the incidents were objectionable.

You didn't agree several of the incidents were race-baiting (the point of contention), so what is the point in saying this?

I make the distinction only to better understand which comments we're talking about--Shaheen's and Kerrey's or Ms. Clinton's.

The coordination of the only comments I have ever discussed means she owns them all. 

The coordination of the only comments I have ever discussed means she owns them all. 

Way back when I first got into this thread, that was the only thing I was after. If you're including comments by Mr. Shaheen and Mr. Kerrey in "Ms. Clinton fired the first divisive shots," I understand you just fine. Also, I have no dispute, complaint, or exception to offer.

Did Ms. Clinton plan and encourage the remarks by Mr. Shaheen and Mr. Kerrey? If I'm reading you correctly, your answer is "yes."

You blatantly dismissing the question of what you hoped to accomplish or, rather, how you hoped to accomplish "pointing out how it's not so cut and dried" when you made the statements I dot-pointed out, amongst others.

Actually, I offered to discuss any of them other than the ones I've already withdrawn. I really don't see much point in it, but if you'd like to pick one we can do that.

You were speaking as if your objections were supposed to count for all of us

Again, in the context of responding to a rhetorical question asked of someone outside of the usual participants here. I'm pretty confident that everyone here knows that I don't speak for you, but I'll try to be more careful with that.

You didn't agree several of the incidents were race-baiting

Then I'll do it now. I do agree that several of the incidents were race-baiting. I used the word objectionable in my last comment because, to the best of my memory, that was the work I used in my very first post on the other thread, and I didn't want to misquote myself. I haven't re-read everything I wrote, but probably wherever I wrote highly objectionable, you can take that to mean race-baiting.

You made yourself the Grand Interpreter and didn't care how it looked to "some of us" who are not White

Not at all. As Quaker in a Basement wrote

It's possible for honorable people to disagree whether racial animosity is driving a specific incident.

Just because we disagree does not mean I am dismissing or invalidating your opinion.

Again, what did you hope to accomplish with that kind of remark?

Again, My purpose was to point out that to some of us (perhaps just white people with no background in dealing with racial issues) it's not so cut and dried.

This seems to be becoming more about me and some of my regrettable word choices than it should be. Perhaps you can just accept my blanket apology from earlier in the thread, and we can discuss the issues themselves.

If I'm reading you correctly, your answer is "yes."

You read correctly. 

Perhaps you can just accept my blanket apology

I keep asking you what did you hope to accomplish? And, again, you most certainly did not start out speaking from a "some of us" tone. As for pointing out that it's not so cut and dried to you? What did you hope to accomplish by saying that?

Why would that be relevant to me? To P6?

You raise the specter of "people with no background in dealing with racial issues." Again, what's the purpose in doing that? Why would that be relevant or important when, in this case, P6 et al apparently have a background in dealing with racial issues? Exactly what would make the ideas and thoughts of "people with no background in dealing with racial issues" competent, much less formidable or worthy of consideration, when the topic is "racial issues"??  What were/are you trying to say? 

You wanted to tell P6 what he said was not convincing. PERIOD.  Not that it didn't help you, someone (I presume) with "no background in dealing with racial issues."  You insisted that he didn't make the case he intended and you continue to do so, apparently, even as you feign offering concession.  It's a mystery how you can concede points yet still maintain position.   

As Quaker in a Basement wrote

Quaker's point is complicated by its own internal inconsistency and the noted error(s). Further, anything is possible. I'm not dealing in abstract generalities, though, and I don't play those empty concession games either.

wherever I wrote highly objectionable, you can take that to mean race-baiting

Before you purposely and consciously used the term objectionable, even highly objectionable because you were did not agree that those things were race-baiting. Regardless, your agreement isn't necessary. Your honesty would do just fine. Again, pointing out that it's not so cut and dried to you? What did you hope to accomplish by saying that? Also, why do you regret the comments you've made? You had plenty of time to think about them before you posted them and if you have "no background in dealing with racial issues" exactly what was the purpose of this one particular statement of yours:

"I came here with an open mind..."

What did you hope to accomplish by saying that? How was that relevant? Why should that be important to us along with whatever your background is in terms of dealing with racial issues?

I felt like parts of the case were assumed into existence.

So you didn't "come here with an open mind..."

Quaker's point is complicated by its own internal inconsistency and the noted error(s).

It was hard work getting to where I did. Don't drag me back into this.

I'm pretty confident that everyone here knows that I don't speak for you

You're trying to be evasive.  You said: 

I just wanted to let you know that even though it might seem from inside the 'echo chamber' that you've made your case for race baiting by the Clintons, it isn't nearly as convincing as you seem to think it is.

Not a single word in that resembled anything like you had conceded that "several of the incidents were race-baiting."  Not a single word suggested that you were saying P6's case wasn't "convincing" to "some of [you]" (i.e. white people with no background in dealing with racial issues.) 

No.  You were clear that P6 never made a convincing/compelling case.  PERIOD.  And you suggested that he... well, we the members of the "echo chamber" shouldn't think that he has.  So, you did exactly what I said:  you were speaking as if your objections were supposed to count for all of us; that none of us should think P6's case was convincing because you/Krugman, [white] people with no background in dealing with racial issues (your statement) don't/wouldn't think so.

Also, I thought I told you not to patronize me.  You regret things you said and felt you offended people because you know what kind of bs you said.  That's why you don't want to discuss the list of statements that define your position here.

I tried, Nquest, but this has ceased being a conversation, if it ever was one.

It was hard work getting to where I did. Don't drag me back into this.

I didn't bring your name up.  Joe did.  I responded.   

These were conversation pieces?

• I came here with an open mind, but I've reluctantly come to the point where I have to say yes, you are acting as irrational haters.
• it really seems like you're making your case inside of an echo chamber
• I think that is too bad, because I think that on most other topics you're better than that.
• all that I can conclude is that you already had your mind made up, and now you're just being a 'homer'
• I just wanted to let you know that even though it might seem from inside the 'echo chamber' that you've made your case for race baiting by the Clintons, it isn't nearly as convincing as you seem to think it is.
• Accusing someone of race baiting can be pretty divisive
• That's just politics. It might be distasteful, but it's not race-baiting

• I do think that your perception of the alleged race-baiting by the Clintons is colored by some combination of your history with and feelings towards the Clintons, an affinity for Obama, your desire to see black issues pushed to the forefront and, perhaps, a general predisposition to see racial attacks even where none exist.

Did Ms. Clinton plan and encourage the remarks by Mr. Shaheen and Mr. Kerrey? If I'm reading you correctly, your answer is "yes."

You read correctly.

OK, just one more thing and we might be able to close out two solid weeks of grappling. We don't have the benefit of video tape or transcripts or meeting mintues that show Ms. Clinton instructed Ms. Shaheen and Mr. Kerrey to make their remarks. Without these, one would have to use experience and reasoning to determine whether she did so.

So this gets me back to my initial comment, way back in the Bob Herbert thread. When the New York Times editorial page writes that "Ms. Clinton fired the first divisive shots," there are several ways to read that statement:

1) Ms. Clinton's campaign--through Kerrey and Shaheen--fired first. If that's what they mean, then they're saving just one word at the cost of being imprecise. It wasn't Ms. Clinton, but her spokesmen who fired first. This interpretation puts someone else's words in Ms. Clinton's mouth.

2) Ms. Clinton, in saying "It took a president," etc., fired the first divisive shots. That view washes away Mr. Shaheen's and Mr. Kerrey's comments. This interpretation washes away at least a couple of "divisive shots" that took place before. 

3) Ms. Clinton, giving instructions to Mr. Kerrey and Mr. Shaheen, initiated the first divisive attacks. It's not surprising to me that anyone could think so. But as I said, we don't have the hard documents to prove it. And if this is what the Times is saying, they're being terribly oblique about it.

The New York Times editorial page makes a logically weak statement if they intended any one of these three interpretations. Other than that, I agee that Ms. Clinton's campaign has trafficked in low stereotype, that she--as the candidate--bears responsibility for that, and that her campaign has sought to marginalize Mr. Obama as inexperienced and "all talk."

You know, sometimes agreeing with you is hard work.

Keep in mind the older black barber in Los Angeles who was interviewed by Al Sharpton about O.J. Simpson. The barber replied that in his opinion, "They tried to frame a guilty man."

Ha! I hadn't seen that before. Out of the millions of words spent on the Simpson case, those might be the very best.

The LAPD did what they'd done countless times before - try and frame a Black man. This time they did it to one with the money to fight back. ...that's the only difference between OJ and Pookie.

The pity is that there was no need to frame Simpson because the forensic evidence clearly pointed to his involvement in the crime. The LAPD's stock-in-trade was the framing of black men who had not committed the crime for which they were accused.