This Racism Kerfuffle Is Total B.S.
By SusanUnPC on January 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM in Uncategorized
Obama’s campaign is orchestrating the trumped-up racism brouhaha (see the not-for-attribution Obama campaign memo that Taylor Marsh acquired).
Obama wants to guilt-trip every black voter into voting for him. He needs black voters in South Carolina, a state he must win to stay viable after his New Hampshire loss. (Pundits say if Obama loses South Carolina, he’s finished. So far, he’s behind Clinton in the polls.) That’s what is behind Michael Eric Dyson flapping his gums on every talk show and the Obama campaign memo that gives Obama-ites talking points to promote this fabricated issue.
On Wednesday, Obama warned us to expect a “Chicago smackdown” — a reference to the shady, brutal, mobbed-up world of Chicago politics with which Obama is intimately familar. But now he and his campaign are resorting to low-brow, trumped-up racism? (For a while, it seemed that Obama would avoid Al Sharpton-esque B.S., but the New Hampshire results shook him badly. His deflation was written all over his face and in his body language. It’s a sad mark of decline to see such a smart, highly educated man resort to such tactics. Further, it harms the fight against real racism.)
The Obama campaign started playing the race card immediately after Obama lost New Hampshire with Jackson Jr., then upped the dialogue with Dyson, going further with the above press release. Playing the race card before South Carolina? It fits right in with the ugly politics that is regularly seen in that state every time the presidential primaries roll around. (Taylor Marsh)
[UPDATE: One of the most specious charges is the “Bradley Effect” — that white New Hampshire voters told pollsters one thing, then voted against a black in the privacy of the polling booth. TNR destroys this pathetic excuse-making in a new piece, “Poll Potheads.” (So did I in pointing to stats on the number of young women and independents who voted for Hillary.)]
Black women were enraged over Oprah’s endorsement of Obama, and deluged her with complaints. My sense, from black men and women I know, and whose comments I read on blogs, is that they are a very diverse, independent-minded group who don’t like having race shoved down their throats, and are creeped out by the rapturously delusional, pseudo-feel-good “He is THE ONE!” Bible-thumpin’ rhetoric of Oprah. They also know that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been with them, more than most officials, for decades.
And Obama has a history of alienating black voters: “Obama is regarded with suspicion by most African Americans. … He alienated much of the black political Establishment in 2000, when he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primaries against the incumbent congressman for an Illinois district, Representative Bobby Rush - a former Black Panther and current leading member of the Congressional Black Caucus. His congressional district has more black people than any other in the country, and Obama lost to Rush by 31 points.” And that’s not the only time that Obama alienated fellow black politicians: See yesterday’s Chicago Tribune article, “Obama knows his way around a ballot: Some say his ability to play political hardball goes back to his first campaign.”
The New Republic’s Sean Wilentz’s new article begins, “In war, truth is the first casualty–but in politics, it appears that the first victim is history.” Wilentz, a contributing editor at The New Republic and the author of The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln, observes:
In a pair of television interviews earlier this week, Clinton made the uncontroversial historical observation that Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement put their lives on the line for racial equality, and that President Johnson enacted civil rights legislation.
Her point was simple: Although great social changes require social movements that create hope and force crises, elected officials, presidents above all, are also required in order to turn those hopes into laws. It was, plainly, a rejoinder to the accusations by Obama that Clinton has sneered at “hope.” Clinton was also rebutting Obama’s simplistic assertion that “hope” won the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, and the end of Jim Crow.
The historical record is crystal clear about this, and no responsible historian seriously contests it. Without Frederick Douglass and the abolitionists, black and white (not to mention restive slaves), there would have been no agitation to end slavery, even after the Civil War began. But without Douglass’s ally in the White House, the sympathetic, deeply anti-slavery but highly pragmatic Abraham Lincoln, there could not have been an Emancipation Proclamation or a Thirteenth Amendment. Likewise, without King and his movement, there would have been no civil rights revolution. But without the Texas liberal and wheeler-dealer Lyndon Johnson, and his predecessor John F. Kennedy, there would have been no Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Hope, in other words, is necessary to bring about change–but it is never enough. Change also requires effective leadership inside government. It’s not a matter of either/or (that is, either King or Johnson), but a matter of both/and.
Behind this argument over Clinton’s comments lies a false, mythic view of the 1960s in which the civil rights movement supposedly pushed Johnson and the Democrats to support civil rights against their own will. In fact, the movement and the elected officials were distinct but complementary elements in the civil rights politics that changed America. …
Read all of Wilentz’s history-rich and rational article.
Taylor Marsh has painstakingly gone through the details of the kerfuffle, beginning with Sen. Clinton’s statements regarding Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, et al.:
This came amidst a comment by Senator Clinton about MLK, which according to Politico’s Roger Simon had one Obama staffer saying, “Go ask black people what they think of that statement.” Josh Marshall has what I believe is the definitive smackdown on the misunderstanding of its meaning. [Susan’s Note: So does Sean Wilentz.] But the quote also has been truncated throughout the traditional media and the blogosphere, with Clinton’s subsequent explanation going unmentioned. From Morning Joe, though this is a rough transcript, this is Clinton’s statement clarifying her original remark: … (Read Taylor’s piece for the full skinny.)
After covering Hillary Clinton’s long history of work on behalf of minority voters, Taylor notes:
Using the race card against Hillary Clinton is laughable.
What it reveals is the signs of abject desperation by Mr. Obama and his campaign, which is obviously hoping to inflame African Americans in South Carolina in order to push him across the finish line to victory. Because after the New Hampshire loss, Obama is now under real pressure and simply has to win in South Carolina. The loss in New Hampshire knocked them back into a defensive crouch and they’re going overtly negative on the one issue that is sure to inflame everyone: race. Obviously, they think it’s an ace for them so they’re going to hit that emotional card and hit it hard.
It’s complete B.S. And it’s a real low for Obama, who I thought was above such tactics. Apparently he’s not. The shock of New Hampshire was too much for him to bear and in desperation he’s falling back on the worst of all possible tactics.
And let’s not even get into the ugly remarks by Jesse Jackson, Jr. about Hillary Clinton’s emotional response to a female voter’s question on Monday.
Jesse’s wife, Jacqueline, is one of those independent-minded black women I mentioned that I know so well. Wrote Marc Ambinder for The Atlantic on January 9th:
Jacqueline Jackson, wife of Rev. Jesse Jackson, endorses HRC and tapes a South Carolina radio ad on her behalf. The Rev. himself is supporting, somewhat tepidly, Barack Obama.
A “Chicago smackdown” refers to dirty politics, and illegal campaign activities, at least as I understood it, petty warlords, fighting like stupid children.
Can’t Obama win with his message, his record?
What happenend to the politics of change, and hope?
Truly. Someone posted this over at MyDD, sans link, so I trust it’s accurate — it sure sounds accurate:
This goes along with what Taylor wrote in her history of Hillary Clinton’s 35+ years of activism, beginning in the pivotal pinnacle of the Civil Rights movement.
He running the same winning campaign that Deval Patrick ran. The Clinton surrogates hope to change the subject. They are only moving more and more people like me FIRMLY into the Obama camp.
This is where Barack Obama rises above the field. Instead of calculation or connections, he has risen on convictions. Instead of stoking partisan anger, he calls on our common aspirations. Instead of the right and the left, he is focused on right and wrong. At a time when so many of us - Democrats, Republicans, and independents - are tired of petty division and desperate for change, Obama makes a claim on all of us to join in restoring the American dream. His leadership is about articulating a vision and motivating others to reach for it.
That is why Obama consistently polls higher with independents and Republicans than any other Democrat. That is why he is greeted by crowds made up of every kind of person, from all kinds of backgrounds.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/05/why_america_needs_obama/
This is good:
NY Times: Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) won’t endorse before primary. The Page, 7:22 AM
“This Racism Kerfuffle Is Total B.S.
And so was the sexism rant against Edwards of a few days ago.
No one has yet even attempted to explain how that comment was in any way sexist.
Mud on a wall, Shirin.
They (Clinton surrogates) throw this nonsense out there and force the candidates to respond to it.
Although just as Hillary has come against sexism..Obama is sure to hit some racism as Edwards is coming up against white manism and media corporatism
Now, that has to be truest thing I’ve read here in a while. There’s no doubt that all these “isms” exist, and they work against one candidate or another.
I’ve known racists, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no doubt when you encounter one. None of the Democratic candidates is such a thing, and none wants to be associated with them. I think the charges of sexism are equally specious. As Shirin points out, no one has offered any real proof.
What is so despicable about this whole thing is that no politician has done more for African Americans in the last 30 years than the Clintons. I can’t believe that any blacks would even listen to this total crap. But unfortunately, some people don’t remember, or just don’t pay attention. If anyone is still left wondering whether Obama really means his “hope” tripe, this should erase all doubt.
They sure have changed, huh?
How many of these workers are Black, Latino, Asian, women???
Clinton Teachers Union Moves to Block Obama Union from Voting.
by Morgan Sandlin
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM PST
The Clinton backing Teacher’s Union are have filed a lawsuit to object to Nevada’s “at large” precincts which were developed to make it easier for individuals within the Strip area to participate in the Nevada caucus. This area includes a large portion of members of the food and culinary workers who have backed Obama.
NYT article
The New York Times reports:
This could shut down those precincts in the casinos and keep culinary members from voting,” said Jon Ralston, a political pundit with The Las Vegas Sun, who broke the story on his blog. Mr. Ralston said it is unclear whether there are ties between the lawsuit and the Clinton campaign but, he predicted, “Even if they’re Hillary supporters, the campaign’s going to say they had nothing to do with it.It is unclear when the court will hear the matter.
Isn’t it amazing that the Clinton Camp had no such concerns prior to the Union’s endorsements of Obama.
Selective outrage. How convenient.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/12/133833/236/583/435712
This teachers union has not endorsed Hillary and has nothing to do with her.
Well, he has to find something to run on, and sympathy is his choice. The “Harry Belafonte Effect” can only carry one so far, and is almost totally ineffective with whute American men.
Harry Bellafonte backs Edwards
http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1207/478529.html
Bellafonte has been working his butt off for justice for a very long time…I have the deepest respect for this man. I forget what conference I was watching on C-span in the last six months that he was one of the main speakers at…but Harry rips it up..no dancing around the issues just gets down to business.
Here he is in Oakland recently
http://odeo.com/audio/17369513/view
Former President Bill Clinton and Hillary have clearly stood up for the rights of African Americans for a very long time. I honor this! I have no idea what Obama’s record on issues in Chicago were, but the fact that he has been sitting on the fence so often the last two years has me deeply concerned.
But folks here at NQUSA know what pushed me over the edge with both of these candidates was Hillary’s vote on the Ky/lieb amendment and Obama not taking a stand on this amendment. Obama would have had me if he would have made a stand on this critical vote
I am headed down to Charleston South Carolina for a week to work for Edwards, the young woman that I signed up with over the phone told me that she was black and voting and working for Edwards. We talked about the issues she shared how she also had deep concerns and reservations about Obamas persistent fence sitting. We talked about how an election should not be based on gender or color but on peoples records, changes and action.
Am excited about going to South Carolina to put in some time for Edwards. Join us!
LOL! The Obama campaign didn’t come out with crazy statements like shuck and jive.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4126
Obama didn’t come out and question Hillary’s ties to some crazy fundamentalists that she is apparently reaching out to( he still can) but her campaign staff sent out letters saying he attended a madrassa. Boomerangs can come back.
KATHRYN JOYCE AND JEFF SHARLET, MOTHER JONES - Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. . . Clinton’s prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or “the Family”), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to “spiritual war” on behalf of Christ. . . [the leader’s] friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). The Fellowship’s God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular visitor to Coe’s Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance.
http://prorev.com/hillary.htm
The Clinton campaign started the Southern Strategy on Obama and have moved into the Sistah Soulja territory. This is LUDICROUS!
I enjoyed watching Jack Cafferty pointing right where the blame belongs. The Clinton camp. This is desperation.
Cuomo didn’t say shuck and jive with regard to Obama. Somewhere — oh where — I saw the full transcript that makes that clear. I’d have bookmarked it but didn’t anticipate we’d have to go there, sigh.
C’mon!!! He most certainly did and now is resorting to CYA tactics to deny it!
More mud on a wall!
This IS a pattern. People see right through it.
I can imagine many people sitting out this election if Hillary becomes the nominee.
What? and the silent majority gets drunk and goes home?
I can imagine many people sitting out this election if Hillary becomes the nominee
In the coming election voter turnout will be at an all time high, which isn’t saying much, considering the last few cycles. I don’t know who it will be. I do know they will have lines around the block.
Michel Chossudovsky’s writing : You think any of the Candidates have read any of it?
If so, which one you think can “change” that procession of madness?
In the coming election voter turnout will be at an all time high, which isn’t saying much, considering the last few cycles. I don’t know who it will be. I do know they will have lines around the block.
All time high isn’t good enough when enough people stay home in anger. The Clinton campaign is destroying itself.
Michel Chossudovsky’s writing : You think any of the Candidates have read any of it?
If so, which one you think can “change” that procession of madness?
Kuchinich and Paul have probably read them and would make drastic changes.
I don’t hold out that hope for the rest.
They would just try to go back to the bad old days before W stole the first election.
Things are so bad I could accept this for a minute.
There are some people in America who are crazy.
Harry on Katrina, Bush, Iraq on Democracy Now
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/30/harry_belafonte_on_bush_iraq_hurricane
wonder why he has never run for President…..could he be the VP candidate with Edwards?
You folks seem to be counting a lot on Hillary to get your jobs back.
Hillary supports these WTO agreements doesn’t she?
I have to post something else from the new blog I found on these attacks
For me it’s not about elevating these bottom-feeder attacks, per se, it’s showing how raw people are willing to be under the cover of anonymity, and it gives license for other veiled attacks (remember, Hillary’s supporters were caught with their pants down perpetuating the Muslim smear in Iowa). Hillary’s supporters/camp has tried to “go there” with the casual raising of Obama’s drug use as a teen to get that story back into media play.
Freepers may be fringe, but if you’ve got Dem supplicants willing to go there who aren’t crazy, you can imagine the unending drumbeat of similar race-baiting that will go on in the mainstream GOP. And we all know what kind of third party Republican mailers end up in mailboxes not tied to the party. It’s going to be toned down very little from what that Freeper said in that post, the GOP will decry the tactics, but the low-information voters can be swayed. The people who honestly don’t think they are racist, but can be influenced by what we think is ridiculous propaganda.
Remember John Kerry and the Swift Boat attacks. He thought ignoring it and taking the high road would pass as a “response.” How wrong he was. Rovian tactics of repeating lies so often that they become a truth to the target audience is time tested.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4072
You may want to rename this website: “Hillary Clinton for President.”
There is a double standard when dealing with the Clintons. Had Bill been an employee in most major corporations, those words would have had him fired without severence. Had Bill and Hillary been Republicans, their words would have been a lightning bolt for media to demand her resignation from the Senate and a banishment from the political stage.
Dude,
What in the hell are you talking about? Not following you here.
I nominate obamasuckshillarycandonowrong.com.
But I agree with Larry that your second paragraph is a bit difficult to decipher.
Weak response. It’s called make every weak excuse in the world to redirect what Bill and Hillary say and do rather than have them take owenership of their words and actions.
The Clintons used the race card intentionally in NH and it worked. Rather than apologize they have apologists like this web site try and redirect their actions or come up with weak explanations.
It won’t work. Even Democrats have had enough of the Clintons.
Huh?! Weak response to what?!
I am opposed to Hillary Clinton as a candidate and have made it clear that if she is the nominee I will vote for a third party candidate. Ditto when it comes to Obama.
But my reasons have nothing to do with campaign tactics, my reasons are related mainly to foreign policy.
I thought this site was supposed to have no spin. Give me a break.
I’m likin’ BooMan’s spin.
The Clintons’ Racial Strategy
by BooMan
Sat Jan 12th, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM EST
Carl Hulse and Patrick Healy’s article in the New York Times, Clintons Move to Tamp Down Criticism From Blacks About Recent Comments, accomplishes precisely what the Clintons needed to happen. It’s actually even better than they had any right to expect. First, it makes absolutely no mention of comments from Fmr. Sen. Bob Kerrey, New Hampshire chairman Bill Shaheen, supporter Andrew Cuomo, or anonymous Clinton advisers. It doesn’t touch on Bill Clinton’s patronizing use of the word ‘kid’ to describe Obama. All it addresses are two comments: Hillary’s comments about MLK Jr., and Bill’s comment about a fairy tale. And, it’s true…Hillary’s MLK comment was so stupid and self-defeating that it probably was nothing more than sloppiness. And Bill’s comment about a Fairy Tale was specifically about whether or not Barack Obama has been consistently against the war in Iraq, and not meant to be dismissive of his chances or his message. So, the article fails to address the (possible) use of surrogates to spread racial and anti-Muslim stereotypes about Obama. But the article does not fail to mention the two most harmful names for Obama’s campaign…the names that instantly turn-off white voters and remind them why they don’t like black complaints about racism.
In a call on Friday to Al Sharpton’s nationally syndicated talk radio show, Mr. Clinton said that his “fairy tale” comment on Monday about Senator Barack Obama’s position on the Iraq war was being misconstrued, and that he was talking only about the war, not about Mr. Obama’s overarching message or his drive to be the first black president.
Going hat in hand to Al Sharpton? Not that ambulance chaser again. Won’t he ever stop seeing racism under every pillow and behind every curtain?
Others continued to take issue with the remarks, including Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois and an Obama supporter.
“Following Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa and historic voter turnout in New Hampshire,” Mr. Jackson said in a statement, “the cynics unfortunately have stepped up their efforts to decry his uplifting message of hope and fundamental change.”
Do people even know that there is a Jesse Jackson Jr.? The prevailing sense is that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have once again made a mountain out of a mole hill and injected race into the debate when race wasn’t even the issue.
Never mind that Billy Shaheen suggested that Obama was a cocaine dealer, or that an anonymous Clinton adviser was quoted in the Guardian as saying, “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.” Never mind the rest of it.
Here is how it works. The Clintons push some racially sensitive buttons and elicit an emotional response. Then they go apologize explain themselves on the Al Sharpton radio show. The New York Times only covers the most innocuous of their comments. The result is that they remind voters that Barack Obama is not the post-racial uniter, but a typical black candidate, supported by serial whiners Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Nothing could undermine Obama’s campaign more among the white vote, and the Clintons know it. And there is nothing, nothing, that Obama can do about it. If he complains, he only makes it worse. If he doesn’t complain, these subtle allegations that he is a lazy, drug-dealing Muslim do damage all on their own.
Congratulations to the Clintons. You really are good at this campaigning thing. I’m so impressed.
http://www.boomantribune.com/
The idea that the Clintons are racist is beyond absurd.
Further, if the Obama campaign continues to cry “racism” every time a compliment (read Biden) or criticism is made of him or his record, he will lose both white and (especially!) Hispanic voters.
While I don’t doubt Obama’s desire to bring people together, I question that the best way to do it is by decrying the battles of the ’90’s while simultaneously embracing the battles of the ’60’s.
LOL!!
The Obama insiders haven’t done that.
Further, if the Obama campaign continues to cry “racism” every time a compliment (read Biden) or criticism is made of him or his record, he will lose both white and (especially!) Hispanic voters.
Especially Hispanic voters? Just the white ones or the little brown ones like the son of Jeb Bush? LOL!!
I’m sooooooo glad you went here. This is another Mark Penn tactic.
Clinton pollster: Latinos don’t like Black leaders
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:37:58 PM PST
I really think that Clinton’s people need to go to a cultural competency lecture. Like a real retreat, where they sit down and talk about how not to offend voters.
Here you go. Unlike guacamole and chips, Black leaders and Latinos don’t go together.
When I asked Bendixen about the source of Clinton’s strength in the Hispanic community, he mentioned her support for health care, and Hispanic voters’ affinity for the Clinton era. “It’s one group where going back to the past really works,” he said. “All you need to say in focus groups is ‘Let’s go back to the nineties.’ ” But he was also frank about the fact that the Clintons, long beloved in the black community, are now dependent on a less edifying political dynamic: “The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” {emphasis mine)
Just replace the word white with hispanic:
The White voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.
Does that make it more clear?
I truly believe that this is how the Clinton people view the world. Mark Penn in all his Blackwater/union busting glory says: let’s divide us all up into our specific groups and I’ll appeal to you on that basis. Latinos don’t like Black leaders, well let me talk to you. She’ll even tell you you’re not illegal, but you can’t drive. Poor white person, let me tell you how scary Al-Qaeda is, waiting for a “new guy” to come along so they can blow us all up!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/12/171256/424/480/435807
As I look at my RSS feed of this site every day, I keep wondering what happened to No Quarter. Rather than the intelligence and national security issues I come here for, I’m getting post after post of Clinton cheerleading and Obama bashing. I can get that anywhere, but I can’t get the insights on the war and the battle over the future of intelligence anywhere else. Worse, the passionate preference for one particular candidate threatens to undermine the once unimpeachable objectivity of this site.
“the passionate preference for one particular candidate threatens to undermine the once unimpeachable objectivity of this site”
And it gets even weirder when you realize that the owner of this site claims he is really an Edwards supporter, and yet focuses entirely on Hillary as the next best thing to god and Obama as evil incarnate, utterly ignoring his own ostensible candidate.
Another specious charge of racism, eh? I’m inclined to agree, but given how this campaign has gone so far, I’m not in the least surprised. Heck, we went almost a day without one.
I think that all you have to do is look at the difference between the expected results and the actual ones to understand that this charge doesn’t make sense. A white guy who is that much of a bigot isn’t likely to favor a white woman as a candidate, either. If anyone had benefitted from such a “Bradley effect”, it would have been Edwards. Yet he did no better than expected. Obama also did about as expected.
It’s pretty clear that what happened was that Clinton got many of the undecided and second-tier candidate votes, and perhaps some help from elsewhere. “Elsewhere” would probably mean voters the polls didn’t count, I suppose, or independents who decided to vote for candidates in a different party. Turnout appears to have been higher than normal. Not at all surprising given how many candidates there were on both sides.
Sadly, this should be a cautionary tale about freely throwing around words like “racism” and “sexism”, but I know better than to expect it will have any effect.
The MSM contributes to making it a battle of cutural sterotypes. The myopic understanding of the “low information” voters are at not to go beyond the 9 foot recommended viewing distance of the HD set they got for the holidays. The picture might have more definiton to it but not much else.
I have heard of the growing economic pressures on the “black community” due to illegal immigration. This can be seen in the aftermath of Katrina.
In the next 5 years it won’t matter what color your skin is cause the poor are going to be a whole lot poorer and there will a great deal more people in that catagory.
(in quotes because I think it is not right to refer to someone’s color just the “content of their character”)
[…] Clinton’s MLK/LBJ remark has been twisted and stretched into something some people delight in calling racism. And just in time for the heavily African-American primary in South Carolina! What a mind-numbing […]
arlington virginia real estate
Now is the time to invest in US property, Don’t abandon it, invest in it.