TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
13.01.2008
Annals of Implausibility, Bob Johnson Edition

From The Caucus:

At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent comments that Mrs. Clinton made regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not mean to take any credit away from him, Mr. Johnson said, when she said that it took President Johnson to sign the civil rights legislation he fought for.

Dr. King had led a “moral crusade,” Mr. Johnson said, but such crusades have to be “written into law.”

“That is the way the legislative process works in this nation and that takes political leadership,” he said. “That’s all Hillary was saying.”

He then added: “And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood--and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book--when they have been involved.”

Johnson later explained his statement thus:

My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.

Riiiiight.

On Friday I said that, if you were cynical, you could argue that the Clintons have an interest in polarizing the nomination fight along racial lines--the idea being that, even if it hurts them in the short-term (with African Americans in South Carolina), Obama can't win if he becomes the "black candidate," which is what racial polarization accomplishes.

Well, I no longer think you have to be cynical to make that argument. This is just despicable stuff.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:04 PM with 25 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

sprechs said:

how come when surrogates for the Clinton campaign make comments, it's 1) assumed to be directed from the campaign and 2) takes on the worst possible spin, but when surrogates for the other campaigns make comments, no matter how despicable, it's mostly ignored or spun positively.  I find it hard to believe that they told Bob Johnson to bring up Obama's drug use, and seeing what he said, why is it so implausible that he meant what he said he meant?  

January 13, 2008 7:14 PM

sprechs said:

not very likely, but that doesn't mean it was directed from the campaign, anymore than Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s comments about Hillary were directed from the Obama campaign.

January 13, 2008 7:16 PM

CTMathewes said:

I am utterly disgusted with the HRC campaign's behavior since NH.  They had a chance to engage in a strong and rich campaign debate with the Obama campaign, and they have thrown it away in utterly nihilistically cynical Machiavellianism.

Effectively they're trying the same South Carolina strategy that worked for Bush against McCain in 2000--but this time across the US.  It's at the same stage in the campaign, but on a larger field.

I would never have thought that HRC would be taking a page from the Karl Rove handbook of political dirty tricks.

This must be stopped, and stopped now.  Edwards has been doing good service on this, but more people who have supported Clinton in the past must let her know that this sort of behavior by her shills and, to be frank, by she herself will not be tolerated.

It is understandable that they're running scared, but this is shameful and doing the Republicans' work for them.

Keep going Noam!  And congrats about your engagement!

January 13, 2008 7:22 PM

ejbenjamin said:

sprechs, if he was talking about community organization, he just would have said it.  There's no reason to dance around his point except to retain plausible deniability.

January 13, 2008 7:28 PM

ralphnelle said:

The Clintons learned a lot from Rove. Please mark me down as one lifelong democrat who WILL NOT vote for HRC. My guess is I am one of  thousands, maybe much more.

January 13, 2008 7:52 PM

propositionjoe said:

This stuff is so disappointing. What Democrats of all stripes should have taken heart in during the past few weeks is the great turn out that their primaries and caucuses have generated. People clearly want to participate. If this kind of garbage continues, that kind of boost is going to flatline. How terribly sad for everyone. STOP!

January 13, 2008 8:07 PM

sprechs said:

ejbenjamin:  I agree, it's unlikely that he meant community organizing and not cocaine use.  But that doesn't mean it stems from the Clinton campaign, as opposed to something stupid and ugly from a supporter (who happens to be a high-profile one).  There's really nothing the campaign could do at the moment he said it, and then tried spinning it away later--attacking it directly would be an implicit acknowledgment that he meant  cocaine.  So I don't see how this is Rovian dirty tricks as much as a supporter saying something stupid and offensive to win points.  But this being a The Stump, we can always be sure that Hillary will be cast in the worst possible light.

January 13, 2008 8:23 PM

LDuncan said:

Come on folks.  This is a litmus for whether you come to this site to comment as a complete hack for your preferred candidate or whether you have an ounce of independent thought.  Bob Johnson did not -- I repeat, did not -- have "community organizer" in mind, when he was referring to that "thing" Obama talked about in his book but that Johnson said he did not want to bring up.  The sentence makes no sense if you insert "community organizer," because no one has ever suggested it's shameful to be a community organizer.  If you are a Hillary supporter, just say you support here despite her campaign's making Johnson put out a laugh-out-loud bs statement.  Indeed, I cannot recall finding a statement by a public figure so obviously false since Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

I am a life long Democrat sorely tempted to vote for McCain if Hillary wins, since it is critical that our leaders not be liars.  With McCain at least you know what you are getting, and you can have an honest debate.

January 13, 2008 8:42 PM

ethelfrog3 said:

I second that sentiment about Clinton vs. McCain, LDuncan.  If it's Clinton vs. any of the other Republicans, then I'll hold my nose and vote HRC...but McCain would make me think a lot harder about that.  I'm no fan of Rovian tactics even when done by a Democrat, and that's exactly what HRC brings to this race.

January 13, 2008 9:15 PM

masonberk said:

Noam-

I was at the event today in Columbia, and I can tell you that the Clinton people absolutely cringed when Johnson made that awful statement. Obviously, Johnson, despite being a successful businessman, isn't the most savvy politico. But I don't think it's a reflection on the Hillary camp. Do you honestly think they would want that kind of attention? Especially right now?

January 13, 2008 9:16 PM

Writersclog said:

The Clinton campaign absolutely does not get a pass on Johnson's comments. According to Ben Smith's blog at politico, Johnson's follow up (and completely incomprehensible) attempt to backtrack was issued through the Clinton campaign. Fine, the campaign may not have solicited the original comment, but if they felt the need to clarify, why not just flat out disassociate from the statement altogether rather than pass along an interpretation that blatantly assumes people are stupid?

As Noam said, this is just despicable.

January 13, 2008 9:35 PM

ralphnelle said:

Sullivan re Hillary on MTP (seems about right in light of recent events):

I just watched the whole thing. I'd say this: the old pre-New Hampshire Clinton was back. I know I am a broken record, but bear with me. There were several moments when she could have said, even in a small way, that she misjudged the Iraq war. She could have conceded that, in fact, Obama's judgment was actually better than hers at the outset. Heck, many of us have been able to say such a thing, and in the end, we take our lumps but move on. But she simply cannot.

If you want yet another president who cannot say he or she made a mistake, who can never cop to errors, and who uses everything as a political tool against his or her opponents, you have your candidate. And she is ready on Day One. Oh, so ready.

January 13, 2008 10:31 PM

psantillana said:

I realized, suddenly today, that I can vote for the Republican in the general no matter which one they pick, if Clinton is the Dem, because my state will go blue whatever happens. So I'm doing that. I'm going to do what I can to prevent her from being the Dem nominee, but if it comes to her vs. Republican X, it's the only thing I'll have left to do.  Because this needs whatever tiny punishment I can give it.

January 14, 2008 2:50 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Psantillana,

You're not alone.

I will only vote for Hillary to stop the worst Republican nominees, and the longer her campaign goes on like it has since early December, the shorter my number of won't-vote-for Republicans gets. Pretty much down to Rudolph W. Giuliani and Freddie Thompson at this point. And I live in a Republican-leaning state that has a chance to go Democratic this year. My generally deep loyalty to party does not extend to voting for a candidate who combines consistent legislative support for George W. Bush's foreign and military policies (and the Patriot Act) with Richard Nixon's racial politics. And the way Bill Clinton has played a leading role in the Hillary campaign's game of bait-the-black-man has me ashamed for the first time of the cheap inaugural-souvenir Clinton bust that I've had on my desk since 1993.

If I wanted this kind of cynical crony politics from a candidate who feels entitled to office by dint of surname despite a nearly total lack of personal achievement, I'd have voted for George W. Bush the last two times, you know?

January 14, 2008 10:19 AM

blackton said:

and did you read where Obama said that while Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Ida Husted Harper did good work moving along womens suffrage it was actually Woodrow Wilson and the men in the house and senate who deserve equal respect for passing the 19th amendment? No, you didn't hear about this, well, it is not surprising since Obama would not be anywhere stupid enough to say it. Clinton is taking a line from Bush, never admit a mistake but instead blame the mistake on others who by merely pointing out your mistake are playing dirty politics and hurting the country.

January 14, 2008 10:24 AM

blackton said:

rhubarbs, psantillina, the fact that Hillary hating is so fierce even among a large group of Democrats doesn't give the Hillary kool aid drinkers the slightest pause. If Hillary had so much experience why didn't she run in 2004? And why did she run for Senate in NY and not from her own state? She always takes the easy way out hoping if she can secure the nomination she can ride anti Republican sentiment to the White House. How inspiring. Bush has headed America in the direction of a train wreck, Hillary will just get us there faster. She is the female Jimmy Carter.

January 14, 2008 10:46 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Bob Johnson is loathed in DC - a greedy selfish plutocrat of the first order.  If anyone can name me a worse US employer, I'd be shocked - he underpays, overworks, no benefits, no advancement - he uses people that would have made Enron proud, mostly young black folk, natch.  That Clinton even shared a stage with him shows how shallow her enitre perspective is: hey, it's the first black biliionaire, I'm so IN!  The most cursory knowledge of Johnson would put him on the stage with Cheney way before any Democrat.  I'm slowly coming around to your perspective Black, I'm more disgusted every day.

January 14, 2008 10:53 AM

shims-b said:

Noam, I had forgotten that it was your post where I first saw suggested the cynical interpretation presented. You have proved to be extremely prescient. I wish I could be happy about your accomplishment, but alas, as is so often the case, a TNR editor has been right when anyone reading his or her posting wishes they were not...

Has anyone (besides Obama himself) bothered to point out that the Obama campaign has not, to my knowledge, said anything about Clinton's comments other than that they were "ill-advised"? In other words, the Clinton camp is accusing Obama of making a political issue out of her mis-step when in fact the campaign has done no such thing. It was the blogosphere (as far as I can tell) that really exploded over this issue, as well as non-aligned democrats such as Rep. Jim Clybourn (D-SC) and Donna Brazile. Neither works for the Obama campaign.

To my mind, this spin by the Clintons is far more objectionable than the quote that generated all the controversy. While I fully understand why her statement on Dr. King is so insulting to so many, it certainly can be defended by claiming that Clinton mis-spoke, and that her comment was mis-interpreted.

Also, after the first time the Clinton campaign brought up the drug use issue, I decided to start reading through "Dreams From My Father," which I had bought but hadn't yet read (FYI: The second word in the book's title is "from," not "of"). The references are very casual and passing, and he claims to have made a clean break with all of it when he transferred to Columbia after his sophomore year of college. Contrast this with Clinton's inability to make a clean break with her dirty habit: dragging her opponents through the mud.

January 14, 2008 11:46 AM

stgla said:

There's HIllary herself and then there's the campaign.

Hillary let the comment slip because she is condescends to black people, urging them to stay out in the streets, hollering and marching, while she roams the halls of power and gets things done.  Blackton's comment about the suffragists was very insightful.

Her campaign goes on full defense of Bob Johnson because they are the ones who are "in it to win it"... at all costs.  Too many people have invested too much of their careers in a second Clinton presidency that they'll stoop as low as they need to.  It's revolting.   THe sight of a smirking Mark Penn or Terry McAuliffe is about as appealing as the smirk of President Chimpy himself.

January 14, 2008 12:34 PM

The Populist said:

Is Hillary Clinton trying to divide the black community?<p align="center"> </p><p>I am sitting here tonight reading the headlines about what a <a...

January 14, 2008 12:54 PM

The Populist said:

Is Hillary Clinton trying to divide the black community? I am sitting here tonight reading the headlines about what a Hillary supporter said about Barack Obama. In the interest of full disclosure, I do not support either of these candidates at...

January 14, 2008 12:55 PM

The Populist said:

Is Hillary Clinton trying to divide the black community? I am sitting here tonight reading the headlines about what a Hillary supporter said about Barack Obama. In the interest of full disclosure, I do not support either of these candidates at all...

January 14, 2008 12:56 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

If you numbskulls think that the HRC campaign is engaging in race baiting in SC, then you need a catscan. Blacks make up an enormous demographic in the primary, especially in SC. How is alienating 50 percent of your voters a fruitful ploy? Explain that one to me. This is an cynical ploy by the Obama campaign to swing black SC voters into his camp. Nothing more. Yes, Johnson might have made a refernce to cocaine, but how in the hell is that a "black thing." It's an electability thing. I'm still voting for Obama, but this type of nonsense has got to stop.

And for the record, if you really want to know what a racist commentary on Obama looks like, give a look at Rove's comments that Obama was lazy at Harvarda and he picked fights playing pick-up basketball. The only thing left out was a reference to food stamps and fried chicken.

January 14, 2008 1:02 PM

The Plank said:

Given that cable news and the internet are abuzz with talk of Robert Johnson's despicable allusions

January 14, 2008 7:43 PM

jmrugo said:

Populist: dont read headlines.  They are misinformative.  Dont rely on what you read here or hear from others.  Read the source comments before you make any conclusions.  I thought the MLK comments were entirely accurate and completely inoffensive.  You can disagree with her point as to how things get accomplished into law, but racist?  Anyone saying this either didnt read the actual comments or oisnt interested in trying to understand and appreciate the point.

I read here too, as well as elsewhere, the typical, "if she is the nominee I will vote repub."  So i am calling you all out.  If you do that you are a betrayer of progressive causes and will hand another conservative republican appointment to the Supreme Court, and you will hand the court to conservatives for decades.  An entire, separate co-equal branch of government is at stake, not just spite.  I will vote to help my country and that means Democratic no matter who the nominee.  You cant possibly call yourself a progressive for change, if you will sell out progressives out of spite and support the appointment of the final conservative straw to that Court, to join Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.  Lets get real about what is at stake here.

January 14, 2008 9:28 PM