Vote Obama: Hillary’s a Racist!

Hahaha the more this goes on, the more I read, the more obvious it is that this man has a character flaw. So bowled over was he at his ‘shock’ New Hampshire loss to Hillary Clinton, that it appears Barack Obama’s using the race card. A dangerous precedent to set when he’s attempted many times in this campaign so far to suggest that the race isn’t about race. Apparently what she says here is racist:

Err she’s right folks. This isn’t a racist comment, unless you’re going about doing the now very British thing of choosing to take offence. Apparently she’s being dismissive of Martin Luther King Jr. and it’s angered Obama. As her husband quite rightly said – give me a break. Another case of Obama’s bad-tempered haughtiness? And take a look again at the video I posted a few entries ago – just how was Bill Clinton racist? Obama had been spinning a ludicrous fairy tale in his portrayal of his candidacy against hers, the media were so smugly infatuated with him (and biased against her), that they let him get away with it. Clinton called him on it – that’s all. It’s not racist. Preposterous nonsense.


8 responses to “Vote Obama: Hillary’s a Racist!

  1. This woman is disrespecting Dr King

  2. Whites who are the most racist people in the world are always discounting racism and saying always made snide comments about Dr.Martin luther king jr. and then have the nerve to go around saying things like “I have a dream’and various King sayings…did I miss something didnt a white person murder him? .Hillary is phony she would pander to anybody to win the Presidency.The in thing for whites is to incite fear against blacks,they are phony ,racist and not to be trusted ,(BUsh etc.)the codewords they use keep the fear of successful blacks in their minds.Only whites thought Bill Clinton was the first Black President,black folk knew better!

  3. Did you really say that whites are racist and not to be trusted? Isn’t that itself racist?

    I heard the stories likening Clinton as the first ‘black’ President but never understood it myself. It did indeed sound like a pretty condescending thing to say.

    And Shania – I totally respect your opinion, but I’ve seen that video multiple times and don’t see even where the disrespect is. It’s a straightforward fact that King wasn’t an elected member of Congress, nor was he President, therefore wasn’t able to transform his dream into law. I agree that Hillary’s probably using far too emotive an example to demonstrate what she sees as a difference between herself and Obama, but isn’t what she says in the video merely a statement of fact?

  4. It’s not that she’s being racist; It is just incredible disrespect to a person that achieved the impossible, and so drastically changed America’s history for the betterment of our nation. But for her to continually use the term of ‘false hope’ in this speech is really the turn off for most people who listened to her interview- including me. Back in Dr. King’s day, it was impossible for a person of any other race than Caucasian to run for congress, let alone president, whether it was because of ridiculous laws or because it was viewed as an unaccepted breach in social hierarchy. Although it is true that he didn’t win the position of a seat in government, he was able to inspire thousands, no, millions of individuals of all ethnicities and races to realize right from wrong, join the civil rights movement, and promote the end of discrimination. Dr. King wasn’t able to accomplish this goal- alas, he was murdered at the age of 39- but others inspired by his actions finished the project he left off, and finally all people were free. The same way she quite frankly criticizes Dr. King (simply by using those two words of ‘false hope’) is similar to criticizing Gandhi. Are you really going to say that Gandhi’s vision of a free India was an image of ‘false hope’, and that he really had no hand in both the establishment of the free states of India and Pakistan? Or even the Dalai Lama. Just because Tibet isn’t yet free, is his Holiness creating ‘false hope’ by promoting the liberation because he is simply the leader of –and I note- the 5th most popular religion in the world, instead of being a stale politician? Must I even bring up Mother Teresa? I really find it hard to believe that someone would have enough, well, ‘courage’ to make such accusations about any humanitarian leader such as these great individuals. Though I am a woman, and to the public eye supposed to ‘support Hillary in her hope to become the first female President of the United States’, I absolutely can not stand for the continuous comments she makes about all individuals, regardless of race, or gender, that she pictures as ‘beneath her’. That’s why I am urging people not to vote for Hillary (hence I’m only 15 and can’t vote yet). This is also why I refuse to believe that this is merely a ‘statement of fact’. I admit- I hope to see a woman, or even someone whose is more than just of the Caucasian race (as I am also mixed), in office before I die. I simply feel like there are other women in politics who are far more articulate, open-minded, and respectful than Hillary Clinton.

  5. Wow. That’s some argument, and I have to admit you’ve mostly swayed me too. I honestly can’t knock anything you say, but I would like to open out the argument a bit beyond where the Clintons and Obama are fighting. I really want to see the original speech she gave now – on its own I don’t disagree with the simple equations she makes here, but they could be a case of massive backtracking.

    My point is that neither she nor Obama can deliver change at all, certainly not in the way he’s describing it. Of course it’s ridiculously disingenuous for the Clintons of all people, who campaigned on just that in 1992, to suggest that. But the economic and political systems now pretty much prevent it. Sure W’s used both of them to make things worse, but Obama’s claim that he can change the way in which things are done is naive (albeit laudable if he means it). If she’s used race as a wedge between them then that may be politically astute in a country in which it can still work, but it’s still nasty politics, which we do need to get away from. Obama does indeed offer the possibility of breaking away from this red v blue, Conservative v Liberal schism through American society. But isn’t this just Third Way triangulation again? Clinton came in pretty liberal in 1992, but was quite conservative on the way out – his friend Tony Blair went the same way in the UK. Does Obama really have the ability to transcend that? Doesn’t entrenched conservatism destroy the possibilities from idealism in the end? In Clinton’s case it was a matter of electoral necessity, in Blair’s it was cowardice. Do we take Hillary who might want to at least navigate through this forewarned & forearmed? Or hope that Obama is proven right? Risks either way.

    I do hope you reply because that really is one of the best argued positions I’ve ever seen on a blog.

  6. Thanks! You’re reply was also rather insightful, and full of big words that I had to look up in the dictionary. So kudos to you too!

    I would have to agree with your first point about change. Obama’s whole campaign, running off the phrase of “Change We Can Believe In” is similar to, well, a hot dog. As appetizing as it does look on the outside (well, okay bad metaphor, but bear with me), on the inside, you aren’t 100% sure on what exactly it is made up of. Though the image Obama draws up pretty much embodies the ‘American Dream’ (I’m quite surprised he hasn’t brought Langston Hughes’ poem A Raisin In The Sun into one of his speeches yet), the some of the change Obama calls for, especially concerning the emphasized topics of race, religion, and gender, is actually just impossible. Even just for the 15 years I’ve been alive, (and the 10 years I actually understand), I’ve bounced between being hopeful, and giving up on becoming anything in life because I’m continually fighting the barriers put up by age, race and gender. For Obama, or any other candidate to state that they want to, e.g. ‘end all racial profiling’ in the mere 4 years they plan to be president, it’s just unachievable. The only way you’re going to be able to end all these race problems, is if you were to brainwash the country and turn us into loving, peaceful individuals who garden and go cloud hunting all day. As amazing and wonderful that sounds, we all unfortunately know that’s not going to happen. Though this is a quite ridiculous example, I just feel politicians should be a bit more realistic. But, it is politics…
    I continue to agree with your statements. I find it almost cowardly that Clinton is using this race card to try and place herself in a higher position than her candidate, and also while campaigning. For example- Clinton was giving a speech to a primarily African-American church in New York, and stated something along the lines of “The government is being run like a plantation.” Well, way to go, Hillary. You might have been trying to make a point, but instead you just pissed off a huge number of people by trying to ‘relate’ to the ‘hardships African Americans endured’. Well anyway, as much as we’d both like to hope that politicians could really sway away from these race, or gender cards, I don’t think that will ever happen. And quite frankly I am sick of Hillary. Sorry.
    Wow, I am just in a dapper mood today, aren’t I?
    And lastly, on Third Way triangulation, I must admit that I’m not so knowledgeable on that topic, but from what I can draw is that you are asking if Obama really has the ability to overpower conservatism to make way for idealism. To that, I feel that all we can really do is hope. I did state earlier that his ideas concerning civil-rights seem a bit far-fetched, there is always the possibility that things will actually get done under his presidency. From what I’ve seen of Obama, he seems rather enthusiastic about his plan for America, and is proving himself to be a worthy contender in this fight against conservatives. But then again, these conservative ideals are shared by a large number of people in this country, many of them who find themselves on the Forbes list of the 100 richest individuals in the States. So I’m sure he understands- this is not going to be an easy- or cheap- fight. Back again to my amazing metaphor, we don’t always what exactly is in the hot dog until we read the ingredients (and realize we’ve been eating guts all along…ew), but the same is with this presidency. We don’t know if Obama will actually accomplish most of these things he says he will. But, change itself is a chance we take. If you never take the chance, you will never know what change it might have brought. So personally, I choose to take a chance for change with Barack.

    I hope this satisfied your needs, and do reply on anything I stated. I’m open to all ideas.
    And sorry for writing so much… I like to talk.

  7. I find both candidates extremely frustrating right now. Hillary’s policies (for the most part) work, her attitude and background do not. Obama’s attitude is inspirational, but the policies? If they could work together they could almost finish one another’s sentences in a way almost everyone could agree on. But they won’t. Electorally neither needs the other, and although my most recent post suggests the momentum’s with Hillary once more, the donors are all flying to Obama. If he could energise a base other than a majority of young people (who are sadly stereotypically not voting as much as older ones) he could clean up in days.

    Third Way was about pleasing everyone all of the time – Clinton & Blair both saying they were both post-ideology, but in practice they picked and chose (mostly conservatively) in order to stay in power. Yes, you’re basically right – they started out idealists and ended up pretty conservative. Obama is making the exact same noises – ‘yes we can what exactly’? Of course Hillary’s argument of ‘don’t bother with hope, there ain’t any’ hardly trumps his, but look deeper and you’ll see hints that he isn’t necessarily all he seems. Does he still advocate preemptive bombings of Pakistan? He suggested this when she started to accuse him of nothing to offer of substance – did he go for idealism? No – neoconservatism.

    It’s also true that he’s advocated ‘talking to America’s enemies’, like Syria, in order to keep them engaged rather than plotting behind our backs. That makes intellectual and diplomatic sense, but this contradiction suggests he isn’t this unique candidate which his campaign likes to paint him as. The choice though will remain between someone who rejects idealism and whose voting record has supported the world’s most disgusting neocon for years, and someone who at least is holding out the meagerest alternative.

    Don’t stop talking so much. Talking’s good…mmm kay?

  8. Pingback: IS ANYONE ELSE GETTING MAD? - Page 3 - Political Forum - US & World Political Discussion Forums

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s