Clinton Camp Responds to Obama Camp on 'Insidious Pattern'

Everyone seems to forget that Senator Obama is not black. He is bi-racial, a product of a white mother and a black father. The people who classify him as being black need to recognize that he is 1/2 of both races.

Please do a fact check.....
Obama's Mother died in 1995.

A basic precept of Barak Obama's campaign is that he is a uniter, and not a divider. Obama claims that his campaign will bring together the legions of Americans who hitherto have been divided by ethnicity, social status, education, political philosophy, religion and the myriad of other tangible and intangible factors that divide us.

During the early of part the primary season (really not that long ago), Obama eagerly pointed to his legions of supporters - supporters that Obama claimed were Americans from all walks of life and included historically apolitical citizens. Obama proclaimed that because of his message of hope and change, he had brought Americans together for one cause. As the primary season went forward, we suddenly started hearing things from Obama that were strikingly divisive. In South Carolina, Obama encouraged, if not promoted, the public discourse that Bill and Hillary Clinton were using Obama's "race" in the elections process, and by so doing Obama painted Bill and Hillary Clinton as being closet racist.

How was it that race was being used by the Clinton's? According to Obama, Bill Clinton said that Obama’s campaign was a fairy-tale and somehow that implied that Obama’s candidacy could not be taken seriously because Obama was African-American. But one must ask, did anything that Bill Clinton say even remotely implicate Obama's ethnicity? Bill Clinton equated Obama's argument that he was always against the war in Iraq as a fairy-tale, truthfully pointing out that Obama was not in the U.S. Senate when the Iraq Resolution was voted on, but that once Obama did become a member of the U.S. Senate, Obama's vote on matters relating to Iraq were, 100% of the time, the same as Hillary's. Because Obama's voting record was the same as Hillary's, the perception promoted by Obama - that he had a different position -was therefore a fairy-tale according to Bill Clinton. Somehow, Bill Clinton's "fairy-tale" comment was construed as being racist and the media, and others including civil right leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, spent several days berating Bill Clinton over those comments.

Now, Obama could have squelched that type of divisive discourse - and shown that he was a uniter - by saying he did not believe the Clinton's to be racist or that Bill Clinton’s comments injected race into the election. Instead of squelching the divisive discourse, Obama saw a political benefit for his campaign to allow the media, and others, to believe that Bill Clinton's comments were somehow racially tinged, and by so doing Obama began to divide the electorate and the public. As we are all aware, the fairy-tale comment is not the only instance where Obama has permitted others, including his campaign, to impugn the character of the Clinton's by painting them as trying to use race for political advantage and in so doing Obama has permitted decades of work, and relationships built, within the African-American community by Bill and Hillary Clinton to be tarnished and, possibly, irreparably damaged. Obama’s conduct, therefore, is at odds with one of the basic precepts of his campaign: that Obama is a uniter.

The recent primary in Mississippi evidences just how much damage has been done to the Clinton legacy within the African-American community - 90% of the African-American voters voted for Obama, despite the decades of relationships built within that community by the Clinton's. The Mississippi primary also showed that "white" voters - who voted 70% for Hillary Clinton - may be starting to take offense at Obama's willingness to trash the Clinton legacy, as well as take offense to Obama's apparent willingness to tear down the image of any hitherto respected party elder who might stand in Obama's way, such as Geraldine Ferraro. The Mississippi primary has, without question, shown many things, the least of which is that while Obama may be gifted, a uniter he is not.

Here is PART of what Obama has accomplished:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.htm...

Also, Hillary's claim of foreign experience debunked:

Obama Foreign Policy MemoTo: Interested Parties

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times.” Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

You are missing the point of the memo. The point was that after NH the Obama wanted to do something to get the black vote and pushing a storyline that made the Clintons look like racists would help in that objective.

According to Huffington Post:

"Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary. [See the full memo here.]

The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.

The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage."

If you look for racial insensitivity in every statement you are going to find it and if you think that the Obama campaign doesn't want to capitalize on "the Clintons are racist story line" you are being naive. This is what they do everytime they are down.

Geraldine Ferrarro comments were stupid but going around calling Hillary Clinton a racist is ridiculous.
Keep implying Hillary Clinton is racist and watch and see how much of the Hillary Clinton women vote Obama can carry in November.