home

Strangest Comment Of The Day

From the Obama camp, via Nico Pitney:
"The Clintons have always put people in a box - they look at everything through racial lines, gender lines, geographic lines; they tend to segment people," said Steve Hildebrand, a senior Obama adviser who spearheaded his Iowa effort. "She goes to Nevada and sits with Latinos in their living room to court their vote - that's not the way Barack approaches people. . . .
(Emphasis mine.) Say what? Now a candidate can not sit in a Latino's home? WTF? Of course, it turns out Obama does in fact do the same thing, as Pitney demonstrates, but what in blazes is Hildebrand talking about?

< If Rezko Is An Issue . . . | News Corp Settles Judith Regan Lawsuit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Is the Obama campaign trying to (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:27:01 PM EST
    implode? I don't get any of this stuff. How in the heck are they going to take any criticism in the GE is he wins?

    This is getting beyond childish now. I also think Latinos will be and should be insulted. How dare Hillary visit their homes?

    Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:30:57 PM EST
    I think I get what he was trying (none / 0) (#31)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:10:05 PM EST
    to do - but since it simply isnt true he stumbled all over himself.  I dont think he was implying racism as much as cynical calcualtion. Like hey, they go to people's houses and suck up and ..um..play politics!

    Parent
    So far (none / 0) (#85)
    by eleanora on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:06:58 AM EST
    that seems to be the Obama camp's major complaint. "Stop being good at politics! You're making us look bad." I'm not sure he realizes that a big part of being president is political, selling a new program to the public so they'll put pressure on their reps and then  muscling your agenda through Congress.

    Parent
    a dirty lie... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by jes on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    he doesn't sit in their living rooms, he sits in their backyards. They won't even let him in the backdoor... or something.

    The world has gone crazy.

    Heh (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:34:15 PM EST
    That is one weird comment (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    Looks to me like he was trying to make it something about "identity politics" and pandering, but wow, did he miss. Smacked his own candidate in the face.

    What the heck was he trying to do? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    I can tell you I felt insulted by it.

    Parent
    What's funny (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    is that I think I probably would have found it pretty offensive even if he hadn't mangled it so badly. But this makes it just... wow.

    And on the straight-up politics front, if this is the campaign's response to Clinton's strength with Latino voters, it's... uh... not going to work too well, to put it mildly.

    Parent

    how can you be insulted (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:08:17 PM EST
    if you dont know what he was trying to do?

    Parent
    will Obama campaign also point out (none / 0) (#33)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:15:45 PM EST
    anytime Clinton visits a female in her home, a black family, a Mormon family, a Jewish family?  Why bring up latinos there?  We can deduce what he was trying to do by noticing what he doesn't point out.

    Parent
    Oh because he said Latino - (none / 0) (#34)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    I see.  I dont think I would have been offended if he called out my ethnicity if she had just cornered the market on that particular vote in the last caucus...but I guess I see the insult - if indeed that is what BTD meant.  I dont know if he has you speak for him.

    Parent
    well I'm latino also (none / 0) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    but our views are independent.

    Parent
    Speaking for yourself only? (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    huh (none / 0) (#59)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:48:13 PM EST
    no I was referring to the fact I am not trying to speak on behalf of BTD and our opinions are independent of each other.

    I suspect you took it to mean I was talking about Hispanics being independent.  That's not what I meant.

    Parent

    I know, I'm just teasing BTD really, as (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:53:42 PM EST
    he adds that disclaimer sometimes, but not always.  

    Parent
    heh, I get it now (none / 0) (#62)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:56:03 PM EST
    I still dont see the insult. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:34:52 PM EST
    and that's ok (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:38:22 PM EST
    the sun will be rising in the morning.

    Parent
    words to live by indeed. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:26:41 PM EST
    What I really (none / 0) (#35)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:22:30 PM EST
    don't get is why the Obama thinks that bringing up race is to his advantage....I would think any dope would know that that would ultimately hurt him as being devisive....They bring up race and then blame Clinton for bringing it up....Lovely...How can you be a uniter by acting this way???

    Parent
    we arent talking about Obama (none / 0) (#36)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:23:43 PM EST
    but this inarticulate dope quoted above.

    Parent
    I meant (none / 0) (#37)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:25:20 PM EST
    I meant Obama camp not just Obama but left out the word camp sorry...

    Parent
    didnt mean to pick on you (none / 0) (#41)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    sorry - just in case you didnt catch who said it.

    If you meant camp - then yes, I agree.  Sad and stupid.  

    I had a chat with someone last night who said he was almosat prepared to say screw thew Dems and go with McCain.  I said you cant, then you get the same old GOP nutball machine running things - how can you reward them?  And I am starting to wonder the same thing about Obama now - if these people really speak for him and he picked them - what kind of taste in people does that show?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:40:06 PM EST
    I agree that Judgement is becoming a bigger and bigger question mark in my mind about Obama as a president...Due to the choice of his campaign advisors and also Rezso

    Parent
    we look on this as stragedy and (none / 0) (#51)
    by hellothere on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    politics. i am beginning to think that some of these folks are stating some emotional feeling that is not necessarily backed up by logic.

    if they are surrogates for obama and doing his bidding, then i have to say it is just very poor campaigning.

    Parent

    Unless you look at it (none / 0) (#22)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:51:03 PM EST
    as a nod to the nativist crowd, but I just don't think they'd be that dumb in a primary right before a bunch of western states vote.

    Parent
    disaster (none / 0) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:58:55 PM EST
    Who will be the first candidate to praise Lou Dobbs in this campaign?  It would be worse than Reagan.

    Parent
    Good call. Reaching out to Republicans (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:07:21 PM EST
    who support Jeff Session's 10 point plan on immigration.  Long reach though.

    Parent
    for all of you (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    that have wondered in the past what on earth athyrio means.....it is initials that stand for....

    and the horse ya rode in on .........

    :-)

    ha ha that's great!! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    I kept meaning to google for some (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:09:38 PM EST
    here-to-fore unknown to me Greek or Roman deity.

    Parent
    I just attempted (none / 0) (#32)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    to say it.

    Parent
    Clinton Sits In Their Living Room (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    Obama sits in their backyard to provide more room for better media coverage.

    Much better strategy all the way around. Don't you know.

    Now just who is supposed to be playing divisive politics.

    Geographic lines... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:28:15 PM EST
    Well, he has a point about the geographic lines. Hillary was definitely favoring certain voters just because they happened to live in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada this whole last month.

    I'll bet that if she's the nominee that she just completely writes off Canadians in the general election. The Clintons are so divisive that way.

    As I am of French Canadian descent (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:10:21 PM EST
    . . . you are correct, I am incensed that no candidate has come into my living room or even my backyard.  If McCain does so first, that's it, he's got my vote.  

    Unless, that is, he starts talking about a border fence to the north, too, to keep me from goin' and seein' my long-lost, distant cousins up dere, hey.

    Parent

    I heard Jeff Sessions discussing his (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:13:09 PM EST
    10 point immigration plan, including fencing U.S. borders.  I did wonder if that included U.S. border w/Canada.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#40)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    Sits with latinos... (none / 0) (#1)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:22:46 PM EST
    Kind of like saying Obama deals with Arab businessmen.  See?

    But we're better than that.  The subject doesn't come up again from me.

    Do not please (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:24:58 PM EST
    Not here. I for one will not stand for it.

    Parent
    I already said it's over (none / 0) (#7)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    Let's move on.  I know your stand on it now.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    described his dealings with Rezso "boneheaded", well I think his campaign advisors are also boneheaded...they have made some pretty stupid moves lately....

    Parent
    athyrio (none / 0) (#8)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM EST
    I agree with you on almost everything.

    Parent
    Gee thanks Diplomatic :-) N/T (none / 0) (#15)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:42:08 PM EST
    What's with the Nico Pitney Link? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    It points to the talk left website not to the place with the quote.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:32:28 PM EST
    Fixed.

    Parent
    She does other things too. . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST
    she walks, she eats, she breathes, and she probably poops (although I have no documentary evidence of that).

    In primary silly season, I'm sure there are folks in the Obama campaign who'll object to all those acts as well.

    the evidence is against it (none / 0) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:48:44 PM EST
    You may have noticed. . . (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    I troll-rated that comment.

    Parent
    well done (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:00:24 PM EST
    notice it's now called the "hide button" though.  A kinder, gentler Dkos.

    Parent
    lol, I can tell. Only four anti-Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:03:57 PM EST
    diaries on the rec list right now. (Sorry J. as BTD would say).

    Parent
    There are (none / 0) (#19)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:49:21 PM EST
    just so many ways to tear into the faulty logic... my logical mind just exploded.

    I think (none / 0) (#29)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    that the problem that many blogs like DKOS and other people have made is they absolutely "fall in love" with a candidate and don't leave room for a change of mind or anything.....very foolish and really immature as the whole purpose of a primary season is to learn more facts about the candidates and weigh accordingly....In falling in love they have managed to bring all sorts of vile things to light about the competition but I guess nooone thought that maybe they wouldn't succeed...That leaves no fall back position whatsoever as a democrat....Sad....

    I can't speak for others (none / 0) (#39)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:30:14 PM EST
    but I'm not in love with any candidate. I'm a dem and will vote for the primary winner.

    I do question logic presented and then decide if I believe in the direction the logic leads.

    Parent

    Wacky. A tonguetied spokesperson (none / 0) (#44)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    is really not a big help.  Somebody...get Steve some coffee.

    BTD, did you read about the human prop (none / 0) (#45)
    by MarkL on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:07:46 PM EST
    and scripted Obama event?
    http://mydd.com/story/2008/1/25/153831/822#22

        CHARLESTON, S.C. -- It was billed as a roundtable conversation with plain folks at Jason's Deli in Charleston. Barack Obama joined four women at a table for a conversation - the same kind of thing he's done countless times in his campaign.

        Obama spoke to the women of his plans to change the tax code, to provide tax breaks to low-income wage earners and home owners, to improve a tax credit for the same folks, to reform the family and medical leave act and generally to make health care more affordable.

        Christina Stewart, a dance teacher, cancer survivor, and volunteer instructor of underprivileged children brought her daughter, Camille.

        Camille is eight years old. She has cerebral palsy and is profoundly disabled. She cannot walk. She cannot speak.

        Obama was riveted by her story. He told her of his plan to reform Medicaid, to do away with wasteful spending that would free up better care for her daughter.

        But here's the thing: when Obama and Mrs. Stewart had this conversation, Camille was no longer between them. because after initially placing her at the senator's side, after the photographers captured both in the same frame, and after mouthing some faint sounds that had the very slight potential of being disruptive, Camille was wheeled away. First to the edge of the deli, then outside altogether.

        I don't doubt Obama's concern for the child and children like her. His policies are designed to address such incredible misfortune. But Camille today was basically a political prop. Someone to be seen but not heard - even if she could speak.

        Though politics is full of sentimentality and syrup, it is also a very brusque, impersonal kind of undertaking. This was such an occasion.

        "Where's my beautiful daughter?" Mrs. Stewart asked after the conversation ended. "She's outside in a van," was the response

    Scripted as well:


    Think these campaign listening tours are getting a little scripted?

    The Barack Obama campaign organized an "economic roundtable" of South Carolinians, scheduled with the Illinois senator for 11:30 a.m. today. But nearly an hour and a half before the event -- at 9:36 a.m. -- the campaign e-mailed to reporters a text of what the participants "said."



    Last paragraph: same problems critics (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:13:53 PM EST
    face if they duck out before the last act.

    Parent
    Disgusting (none / 0) (#49)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:31:55 PM EST
    that you're falling for spin from The Politico. Here's the context of the quote. It's an unfairly plucked out half of a bit of Politics of Contrast:

    CHARLESTON, S.C. - Lost in the bickering from this week's Democratic debate was an appeal by Barack Obama for voters not to pigeonhole him as a candidate defined by his racial background.

    "I think the media, you know, has really been focused a lot on race as we move down to South Carolina," Obama said on Monday. "I am absolutely convinced that white, black, Latino, Asian, people want to move beyond our divisions, and they want to join together in order to create a movement for change in this country. ... I guess what I'm saying is I don't want to sell the American people short."...

    Obama is walking a tightrope here, trying to maximize his African-American support for a badly needed primary victory while reaching out to other groups in hopes of avoiding the label of racial "identity" candidate.

    "He is speaking to the broad Democratic coalition in this state - [composed of] older people about health care, about the economy, about the war," said Carey Crantford, a Democratic pollster based in Columbia. "He has not run as a racial candidate in South Carolina."

    Some Obama backers believe Clinton's camp has tried to marginalize their candidate by subtly highlighting his identity as an African-American in hopes of diminishing his crossover appeal.

    "The Clintons have always put people in a box - they look at everything through racial lines, gender lines, geographic lines; they tend to segment people," said Steve Hildebrand, a senior Obama adviser who spearheaded his Iowa effort. "She goes to Nevada and sits with Latinos in their living room to court their vote - that's not the way Barack approaches people. If the Clintons paint him as the black candidate, no one's going to stop them from doing that. They are playing the same old-style games."




    What's the context? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:41:25 PM EST
    What in the context makes it acceptable?

    I do not get what you think the context does for that quote from Hildebrand. BTW, you notice Hidlebrand is ONLY the quote at the end.

    Parent

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:43:31 PM EST
    I'd missed that the other quotes were from other people. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Parent
    You don't understand (none / 0) (#60)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:51:57 PM EST
    that people are more than a marketing segment?

    Totally aside from whatever you think of Obama's get-past-divisions message, that's what his message is. He's saying he doesn't segment, he brings people together across those artificial segmentations that have been used to divide us against one another while his opponent continues to play those old games.

    So simple - you're really telling me you don't understand it?

    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:32:47 PM EST
    Give me the context of HILDEBRAND's quote that you think makes it ok.

    do not try and change the subject.

    Parent

    Change the subject? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:42:41 PM EST
    What are you talking about?

    As far as I can tell, the quote was solicited by the writer of the Newsday article for inclusion in an article about negotiating the racialization of the campaign. link

    Parent

    Hildebrand is the one playing the old games (none / 0) (#82)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:43:05 PM EST
    1st - Hillary didn't limit her Nevada campaign to Latinos - its condesending to insinuate that she did

    2nd - The Clinton's haven't painted Obama as a black candidate

    3rd - Its Michelle Obama who uses race and prejudice(effectively) with black audiences

    Obama's supporters keep saying he will bring people together while his campaign ruthlessly divides Democrats on a purely emotional level.

    Obama should bring UNITY between what he says and what his campaign says for him.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#50)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:14:42 PM EST
    the context makes it clearer what he was trying to do with it.

    I still think it's a weird way to say it, and doesn't come off well to me. But I feel less dubious about his motives.

    Parent

    What was he trying to do? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:41:57 PM EST
    Someone explain it to me please.

    Parent
    Bleh (none / 0) (#58)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:46:46 PM EST
    I can't tell anymore. I've read it too many times in a row now to be able to read it fairly at the moment -- I can see it a lot of different ways.

    At best, IMO, it's a terribly handled statement of a general "the Clintons divide voters up into categories for political purposes and pander to them!" idea. At worst, it's trying to play the "The Clintons are racially divisive!" game, or it's pandering to people who might be horrified about Latinos and their living rooms. This latter I still find highly unlikely. The other two possibilities, I can't decide.

    Parent

    I shall flesh it out for you. (none / 0) (#66)
    by CathyinLa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:22:28 PM EST
    "The Clintons are so political about their politics!"

    "Not like our guy, who focuses on indentities too, but, you know, in a bad Clinton way."

    "Like in Latino homes for instance..."

    Are they trying to marginalize Hillary as the Latino candidate?

    Parent

    P. S. (none / 0) (#67)
    by CathyinLa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:26:04 PM EST
    The weird thing is, I'm a tepid Obama leaner.  If they only realized how off putting they are with trying to make Democrats appealing to Clinton critics in the media and in politics.  

    I want a Democrat to say if Republicans can behave like a tribe looking for the best, least apologetic Conservative, why can't we unapologetic look for the same on the progressive/liberal side?  That's what the Reagan flap was about, not whether Obama was a Reaganite or not.

    Parent

    What's so stupid (none / 0) (#53)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:38:31 PM EST
    is the way each camp in their partisan zeal is carrying out the Republicans' dirty work for them. The obvious meaning of what he was saying is that Americans - Latinos, AAs, women, etc. - all deserve more than to be cynically manipulated as marketing segments picked off through identity politics.

    Taking anything from The Politico as good faith is like taking something from Drudge and running with it. I wish bloggers I respect would have a little more perspective to get us though the silly season or at least be more honest about their motives.

    Parent

    How the heck is that obvious? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:43:10 PM EST
    I see nothing that supports your view in HILDEBRAND's quote, which is what I am focuing on here.

    What is stupid is your failure to support your bald assertions with any evidence.

    Parent

    So you think (none / 0) (#63)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:57:56 PM EST
    taking the quote out of the context of where it appeared, as part of an argument against racialization, is a peachy good idea?

    I think you failed to do due diligence AGAIN on an Obama hit piece.

    Parent

    I give the entire Hidlebrand quote (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:33:45 PM EST
    You have no argument.

    Parent
    Sure you do (none / 0) (#74)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:44:09 PM EST
    Out of context.

    Parent
    Then what is the context? You (none / 0) (#75)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:46:44 PM EST
    keep saying it is out of context. I read the quotes you posted and just don't see your argument.

    Parent
    The Newsday writer (none / 0) (#77)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:53:42 PM EST
    writing about how Obama's team is dealing with the racialization of the campaign, asks for comment from Obama advisor. Obama advisor says we do not do racialization in our approach to Americans, we want to get past all that, unlike our opponent. (Suuure, but whatever.) Politico selects the comment about what the opponent is doing and presents it out of context as bringing up racialization. Bloggers wanting to bring down Obama gleefully pick up on it, not caring the source because it serves their purpose of the moment.

    Parent
    Ok. I don't think it reflects badly on (none / 0) (#79)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:04:28 PM EST
    Obama at all though. He didn't say it. I liked what Obama said in the quote but I don't like what his spokesperson said no matter the context.

    Parent
    Your argument would be better if (none / 0) (#64)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:01:20 PM EST
    the entire article was quotes by one person. Why should the last paragraph be taken in context with something said by someone else (Obama)?

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:10:52 PM EST
    It's The Politico that took it out of context for bloggers to run with. The quote was said in response to something, not nothing - we don't know what the writer of the original Newsday article asked or what else Hildebrand might have said in response. But the meaning in the original context is for sure a little more obvious than the low-down out-of-context spin The Politico gave it. Did you read the original article and the bit The Politico chose to pick out of it to cause dissension among Democrats?

    Parent
    Ohhhh (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:34:40 PM EST
    You do not actually KNOw the context then is what you are saying.

    Exactly.

    So stuff it with your condescending attitude and stop telling me when I have the right to be offended.

    Parent

    The context is the (none / 0) (#76)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:48:31 PM EST
    entire Newsday article, obviously, which you failed to acknowledge as the original context of the remarks.

    Ad hominem means you know you have no argument.

    Parent

    That's ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:42:58 PM EST
    The guy did not say the entire article. He siad his quote.

    You are making no sense at all.  

    Parent

    OK, last try (none / 0) (#83)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:00:27 PM EST
    This is what he's saying in that quote: She goes to Nevada and sits with Latinos in their living room to court their vote, cynically carving them out as a target on the basis of ethnicity. We on the other hand don't play that old game of ethnic, racial, gender, and geographic divisions. We're trying to move beyond the old divisions in order to work together as Americans.

    You can call it malarky, but there's nothing inherently wtf or offensive about it. Taking the quote out of the context that elicited it is what makes it offensive. Candidates visiting Latino homes wasn't his point - cynical manipulation of racial demographics by his opponent was.

    Parent

    You keep saying CONTEXT (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    And you do not explain what context you are referring to.

    He MAY have been trying to talk about something else, but he SAID visiting Latinos in their homes.

    You simply think you can tell me what I should take from that comment. But you can not.

    If visitng Latinos in their homes is "cyncial manipulation of racial politics" in his book AND YOURS, then I suggest that the two of you have a problem.

    Parent

    I *have* explained the context (none / 0) (#88)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:45:38 PM EST
    An article about how the Obama team is dealing with an increasingly racialized campaign. The title of the article is "Obama, Clinton campaigns negotiate racial straits." The advisor is talking about identity politics and how Clinton plays it and how Obama supposedly doesn't. I don't know how I can be any clearer. He's concretizing that dichotomy in his example.

    Look, you asked in your post about this. You said, WTF? What is he talking about? I'm saying this is what he's talking about. If you prefer to tendentiously cling to seeing it in all its ridiculous absurdity in isolation, just the way the Politico blogger wanted you to, go ahead, I'm not going to stop you.

    Parent

    If the quote was out of context (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:04:18 PM EST
    why hasn't Hildebrand said so?

    Parent
    Maybe he doesn't read bloggers (none / 0) (#84)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:01:22 PM EST
    They're the ones who've taken it out of context, starting with Ben Smith at the Politico.

    Parent