COLUMBIA, S.C. - Sen. Hillary Clinton took her quest for votes in South Carolina on Friday to an historically black college, where her supporters argued that the state’s presidential nominating primary on Saturday is not about race.
Among the most eloquent was Bernice Scott, a local county council member, who introduced Clinton at Benedict College by saying: “We’ve got to pull everybody together. This is not going to be about gender. This is not going to be about race.”
“So please do not get into this kind of politics. It ain’t worth it. We’re starving, we’re hungry for justice,” she said.
“This world is in such a mess, ya’ll, we’ve got to hit the ground running,” she added. “Old people like me have to give the kids money to help the grandkids out. I don’t want to do that at this age, but our country is in such a mess, that’s what were doing.”
Benedict College, where Clinton spoke, was founded in 1870 on a former plantation to provide education for newly emancipated African Americans.
Clinton’s supporters made thinly veiled references to those who support her Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama. Obama holds a strong lead in South Carolina polls, particularly among black voters.
Stacey Jones, a dean at the college, said: “For some of us, it may take a very, very bold step to walk into that voting booth and focus on our community’s future rather than acting on pure emotion.”
David Dinkins, New York’s first black mayor, also was there and said he backs Clinton out of friendship, loyalty and respect for her qualifications.
“Lofty rhetoric is nice but ultimately, you’ve got to govern,” Dinkins said. “We need someone with the capacity to govern, someone who has proven that she has the capacity.”
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.
Photo: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst (Clinton talks to supporters after a campaign stop in South Carolina.)
Trackback
5 comments so far
I’m sorry, but here is the truth. I’ve been reading the boards. Some said that this is what it takes low blows to win elections, that people want the Clintons back in office because deep down people like this stuff, that the doodee (not the cream) floats to the top of the political toilet, that the Democrats and the Republican politicians are part and parcel floating next to each other, and that the Clintons will do and say anything, absolutely anything, to float their way back into the top of the White Bowl.
Obama is running on platform to change American politics, to try to take it out of a back alley street fight and add some rules against biting, groin shots, head butts and the like. The Clintons are doing everything they can to drag Obama back into that alley. This latest Clinton move today is really low. Hillary says Bill says he’s sorry that “maybe” he went overboard in beating on Obama. It’s professional alright. Professional wrestling. After all the Clinton distortions of Obama’s statement about Reagan and falsely accusing Obama of making up fairytales about his superior record on the Iraq war, now Bill says he’s sorry. Only he doesn’t say it. His wife does. Tag team!
What makes me really sick is that the Clintons are race baiting to try to divide the electorate in South Carolina to scaremonger the white vote away from their opponent. The Clintons would love for this election to be about race and gender, old identity politics, vote for your own and screw the rest who aren’t like you, because there are more women likely to vote for the Clintons than blacks likely to vote for Obama. The white women versus the blacks. Great. This sounds like race baiting in the old segregated South that the Clintons so rail against. Now that’s selflessness for you! And to those who say they are no better than the Republicans, I agree that the Clintons give Karl Rove a run for his money.
You know how we know for sure the Clintons are the wrong choice? Because the New York Times endorses them. In a totally vapid and insipid piece, the NYT said they endorse the Clintons because, among other things, Hillary got it wrong on the war but somehow she is more right on the consequences of withdrawal. What the heck are they talking about?
Here is the plain truth the NYT acts like doesn’t exist. Hillary Clinton totally screwed up the most important vote of her career in an admitted gigantic error in judgment. She was a sheep. The self-proclaimed “workhorse” didn’t even read the National Intelligence Estimate at the time, not even after the most senior Democratic Senator in military affairs personally asked her to. Unbelievably, Hillary Clinton still can’t admit she made an error, much more a gigantic one.
Hillary is still spinning her reasons for voting for the resolution by saying she didn’t vote for war - she says she just voted to authorize Bush to use force. She is in denial about the fact she didn’t vote for another resolution that said exactly that. As for her plans to disengage in Iraq, they are no better or more clear than Obama’s. And unlike Hillary who has burned every bridge with the Republicans (the latest NBC/WSJ poll today shows Obama beats McCain and Hillary does not - I wonder why), Obama could reach across the aisle and grab someone like a Colin Powell to be Secretary of State. After all, Powell said “you break it, you own it.” Another run at Secretary of State could be Powell’s chance to “fix it”, at least a little.
So, back to the truth about the NYT with a little rant thrown in. Hey NYT, not only do you not walk on water. You often act like morons. Absolute morons. Don’t believe me? Well, here’s the proof. You were stupid enough to buy into the Administration’s phony made up stories about WMD in Iraq. And don’t tell me everybody was fooled. They weren’t. McClatchy’s wasn’t fooled. The UN Weapons Inspector wasn’t fooled. The vast majority of other nations in the world which would not go along with us into Iraq like they did in the early 1990s weren’t fooled.
And worse of all NYT, you didn’t even give it a college try to find the truth - your reporter Judith Miller was doinking one of the Administration’s biggest felon lying lips Libby as she published whatever he and the Administration told her. Get real NYT. Wake up. It’s obvious, NYT, why you forgive Hillary Clinton for making a gigantic mistake about the war and can’t give Obama credit for having the foresight to be against the war from the start. You, NYT, can’t come to terms with your own gigantic failure in blindly reporting lies about the war. That and the fact that you are scared of change. Those are the reasons, you self-absorbed, conceited institution.
There is definitely an element of truth to the comments of many posters in this thread. In some ways, the NYT is one of the biggest pieces of doodee that rises to the top of the Democratic Party. (Caveat: while the NYT is a big stupid, conceited piece of turd, Fox News is an even more arrogant, evil turd that intentionally distorts the news to benefit rich people, crazy neocons and their billionaire owner directly at America’s expense).
Sorry to get so scatalogical, but you can’t describe poo otherwise. Obama is essentially asking the Democratic Party, CAN WE FLUSH ALREADY? All of the posters on this thread are ready to push the knob on the toilet. If the Democrats don’t, the Clintons are going to be floating around us for quite a while.
- Posted by Duck SoupBottom Line:
Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! “Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care” free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676. htm
“HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.”
But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.
But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!
We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.
I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven’t forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it’s her.
Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.
The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.
As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.
My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all… You are doing great!
- Posted by jacksmithI find it absolutely fascinating and reminiscent of Clinton politics the old back handed game of bring in your husband to beat up any trouble makers.
- Posted by bebe mcg.If one carefully examines the politics of the Clintons over the last 30 years it has always been to turn one’s colors to suit the political stage and to cut anyone who opposes them. They did this with a ruthless sensibility in the WHite House, and on the way there. If anything, the CLintons are united in their love of the political stage and there willingness to do anything to stay there.
So Hilary ran to New York, quickly claimed residence, and ran for Senator. She got in a lot on sympathy for what she’d gone through with Bill.
I don’t think anyone has ever doubted that Hilary is an organized, efficent, steady political wife and as a senator used those qualities.
But calling Obama a fairy tale. Give me a break. Clinton was 42, from a backwards Southern state, being hit by claims of indifelity and mistresses, who worked and charmed his way into office.
Hilary has none of Bill’s charm and ability to maneuver around a mess with a smile, humility, and a fast thinking brain. If anything, she tends to be school mom prudish and shrill and get the hairs up on her neck when someone crosses her. Her candidacy is the fairy tale coming from her relationship to Bill, much like George Jr. to George Sr.
If she wants to be the man and run for the office and show she can lead, then she needs to do it and stop sending Bill out there to fight anyone who is doing her wrong. Its like being traded off from mom to dad, dad to mom and back again.
I think its great the Obama is running, that he’s 42 and fresh, and this old line that Hilary knows what its like because she was there is like a man saying he knows what its like to stay home and raise kids because his wife did. She held no office, she was the wife!
The strategy is as old as the Roman Empire.Divide and conquer. Pit white against black, black against
- Posted by broadbrushlatino. It’s a numbers game with whatever it takes
just the means to an end. It works but it is anything but leadership.
People asked me to post this as a diary so here it is. There is a poll on whether Democratic voters will vote for old style Clinton politics or will vote for change.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1 /26/152022/853/812/443635
- Posted by Duck Soup