So you are saying what she said was not racially offensive, and by no means belittling MLK's legacy, right? Then why did every single CNN article talking about this added one line "which offended some African American leaders/voter" or "Sen. Obama campaign raised concern" etc etc? As for why she said that, my take is she was playing her strategy - experience gets things done. It's common business, you need both vision and execution. Why is that obviously referencing race? If Johnson was black, what difference does it make to the content of this message? Are you still going to believe she's referencing race? I don't get it. The whole thing started from this comment. But no one is even "second-guessing" her motive, while every other single word came out of the mouths of that couple has been labeled with all kinds of "dirty tricks". Maybe there really isn't anything, even for the most skillful conspiracy theorist?
If it's so easy, why have so many other politicians failed at getting them out to actually vote? Howard Dean's campaign was built on young people - and none of them came out to vote on election day. We must have a long history of moron politicans on both sides then, no?
Very good question. I think the answer is that media plays a great role in interpretation. Perception is reality. Howard Dean had everything going for him, until that "yeeehaaaaa". The media jumped on him and called him "unpresidential". Now, 4 years later, what do people remember? Did he lose on issues? What issue exactly? Kerry lost to "swiftboat" and so-called "flip-flopping", that's all people can remember, do issues matter any more? I don't think so. Media, especially CNN kept feeding you this "Change and Hope" and "different politician", people buy that. Young people like that. Will that sustain, when more and more content people are looking for, I doubt it. But the modern media is so powerful it's almost evil. The so-called Clinton confronted CNN reporter with anger video clip was played in CNN over and over and over again. Every single time, the example Bill gave regarding the union forbids latino voters to vote for Hillary was flitered out. Half truth is worse than a plain lie. That's what Dems accuse of Bush in the past 7 years, but they don't shy of playing the same trick against each other.
Except Dean's problem occurred earlier in the day than the "yeehaaa". That was simply the nail. That speech where he said that was in response to a surprise drubbing in Iowa, where the youth vote completely failed to come out. I do agree that the media can shape your message, good or bad. But Dean's problem started with the youth vote - he was expected to carry Iowa comfortably, and instead came in a distant third behind both Kerry and Edwards. The media then shaped him as a miserable failure and that killed his chances going forward.
Thanks for correcting me. As you said, media can shape your message. But media can't be relied on, because they are the biggest flip-flopper. Democrats always tend to adjust strategies according to polls or to figure out what voters might want. It's a strategy for outsiders, not for actual ruling parties. In 2000, all Dems tried to distance themselves from Clinton, because of a BJ. Then they lost the election. How could they? With a strong economy, record unemployment rate, a rare surplus and a big one, how could they? They figured public want them to be clean, so distanced themselves to "morally corrupted" Clinton? What message is that to the public, bunch of fair-weather fans can't show appreciation and support to your own leader when in need? Who would trust such group? Same thing goes on with Dean and Kerry. Republicans have always stand by their guys, even in bad or wrong situations. It's not about who's morally correct, it's about how you get things done. With this election, if the race debating gets further out of hand, and the media is not letting it up at all, Dems could actually lose it again.
Totally untrue. Unlike 90% of the dems voting for Obama, I've actually studied his stance on issues. He is very very liberal. More liberal than Hillaroid, if you can believe that. That is why I oppose his candidacy with every ounce of my being.
so the dems (supposed libpigs) support obama (supposed liberal) even though they don't know what he stands for?
Even better Jorge, without the google (since you don’t really need it because you have studied the issues), where does Obama stand on Energy Research and Development?
for any people interested.....i'm watching a great great interview of jesse jackson by stephen sackur on bbc world right now......maybe it'll also be available online after a while perhaps....in any case, i never realized how intelligent and well-thought jackson is.....
Just curious, has anyone here or in the media ever explored the possible motives for Clinton to "belittle" MLK's effort? What is there for her to gain by doing so? Votes from African Americans? Guess not. Votes from female voters, or white voters? How so? Without any even remotely reasonable explanation of even potential tiny little gain, why would a savvy politician, attempt to belittle MLK? If the motive doesn't hold water, shouldn't the assumed premise be dismissed easily? Then how come people just accept what they were fed?
because she shouldn't have said anything or at least picked another example. I didn't get offended by what she said, but it was just pointless. its no way for some people that was going to come out right, at least not without further explaining. and by bringing up mlk, she was obviously referencing race.
You raised a great point. Would you start a new thread on this subject? I am really not quite sure about the chronology of this racial thing. But didn't Clinton camp (with or without their consent) started by having some surrogates talking about Obama's drug habit when he was young. I am also very confused on how is Mrs. Clinton's MLK remark or Mr. Clinton's fairy tale remark is insensative to Africa American. I am not claiming they are not, it is just very confusing to me. I really wish somebody can start a thread on this very subject.
its not so much as its insensitive to blacks, as it was just stupid. its no need to compare the two, one was an activist, one was a president. of course it had to be fought from inside gov't to get civil rights legilation passed but mlk is the one actually out on the streets marching in very hostile conditions. its just not a very good comparison, and why even bring it up. I know I just wrote in the previous post I understand her point, but the more i think about it I don't.
So you are saying what she said was not racially offensive, and by no means belittling MLK's legacy, right? Then why did every single CNN article talking about this added one line "which offended some African American leaders/voter" or "Sen. Obama campaign raised concern" etc etc? As for why she said that, my take is she was playing her strategy - experience gets things done. It's common business, you need both vision and execution. Why is that obviously referencing race? If Johnson was white, what difference does it make to the content of this message? Are you still going to believe she's referencing race? I don't get it. The whole thing started from this comment. But no one is even "second-guessing" her motive, while every other single word came out of the mouths of that couple has been labeled with all kinds of "dirty tricks". Maybe there really isn't anything, even for the most skillful conspiracy theorist?
Oh crap, I had to play with the url to post, because my company blocked all those little images for "reply" and "edit". Somehow I screwed up and edited the wrong post. Anyways, of course I meant what if Johnson was black ....
because black people love mlk, so if you slight him people take offense. that's not hard to understand. as far as her strategy, as i said in the next post i believe, one guy is a president and one guy is an activist who was black in 1964 had no shot at being president. so what's the point? it doesn't make sense. a better comparison is jfk, who was more activist and idealist than getting things done.
What's the point? The point is pretty simple and straight-forward: "You Obama can be MLK to have the vision of change, and I admire that, but I will actually get it done, as the president." Is it that hard to read? And why is that "slighting MLK"? Who wouldn't love MLK, except for KKK? How that is injecting race into election is just beyond me.
that's the true stupidity, given the time period, its no way johnson would have been black, because its no way a black man would have been president. on the otherside, of course martin luther king couldn't get things done in gov't, because black people weren't elected to fed gov't positions in those days, certainly not the presidency.
EDIT: I understand but its still a stupid point, because no way mlk could have been president in those days and b) it slights the work mlk actually did. maybe you should go look up what mlk actually did to get civil rights legislation taken seriously. he didn't just make speeches. the civil rights movement was a real grass roots political movement that organized black people all over the south. that aint just dreaming.
