Why do Clinton Proxies Keep Flirting with Racialism (if not racism)?

First it was Bill Shaheen with his race-baiting question of whether if Obama did drugs, he also sold drugs.

Now, a new Clinton Proxy describes Obama’s campaign in New Hampshire as “shucking and jiving.” Andrew Cuomo had this to say about Clinton’s win in NH:

”It’s not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can’t buy your way into it, you can’t shuck and jive at a press conference, all those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the phrase, shuck and jive thusly:

b. shucking and jiving: fooling. Cf.

JIVE v. 1a. U.S. Blacks.

The OED then gives the following list of quotations to explain it’s meaning and evolution:

1966 E. BULLINS Theme is Blackness (1973) 27 Yawhl jivin’…yawhl shuckin’.] 1969 H. R. BROWN Die Nigger Die! ii. 25, I told him he should think about it, but I knew I was schuckin’ and jivin’. 1974 H. L. FOSTER Ribbin’, Jivin’, & Playin’ Dozens v. 195 For many blacks, shuckin’ and jivin’ is a survival technique to avoid and stay out of trouble.

It will be hard for anyone to claim that this was not a racially motivated comment, even if it was unintended.

Hillary and Serenity Now

In the Seinfeld “Serenity Now “ Seinfeld episode, Jerry learns to get angry and can no longer control his emotions. Now that Hillary has learned to get angry, and learned to cry, will she similarly lose the ability to control her emotions? Will she respond to a question by George Stephanopoulos, by saying, “I’m so lucky to have a friend like you, George. Ever tell you how much I love you?”

The Best Headline Yet

I’m not saying this definitively, but I’m pretty sure that in a past life, Mark Penn killed a man

The Politics of Doubt

Daniel Drezner offers a third alternative:

Screw the politics of fear and, frankly, screw the politics of hope. I want the politics of doubt. I want a president who, in these complex times, has the capacity to admit error before all is lost.

Obama Wins First Victory in New Hampshire

Obama just won the tiny hamlet of Dixville Notch in New Hampshire. Of the 10 votes cast for Democrats, Obama has won 7. This is probably not indicative of anything, but it’s gotta feel good to Dixville Notch that they are making the news.

Former JFK adviser agrees, Clinton is like LBJ

Ted Sorenson, one of JFK’s closest advisers, recently told Ari Berman at the Nation:

Sorensen sees parallels between the youthful vigor and idealism of Obama and JFK. If Obama is Kennedy, I asked Sorensen, who’s Clinton? “She’s LBJ,” he responded, “particularly when it comes to the future of Iraq. Mrs. Clinton is talking about leaving combat troops in Iraq, maybe even whole divisions. That’s where LBJ got into trouble in Vietnam.”

Even Obama’s advisers are making Hillary’s arguments for her.

Finally, Hillary begins to make the argument that she should have been making all along: You may be JFK, but I’m LBJ

Today, it appears that Hillary may finally have the beginnings of an argument against Obama that may stick. She is finally giving in to the notion that he may be the latest reincarnation of John F. Kennedy, but her response is that she’ll be Johnson. Her argument is that Obama may be an inspiring speaker, and may have a compelling background, but she is willing to be the grizzly well-connected and well-seasoned politician who will work behind the scenes, not always in a pretty fashion, that will thanklessly get things done. This is a strong argument, and one that she should have begun a while ago.

She may run into two problems with this argument. The first, as Matt Yglesias rightly stated recently, is that it is Kennedy who is held as our post-war president saint. Though Johnson was a far more effective president, and Kennedy did not accomplish much during his tenure, Kennedy is remembered as one of our greatest leaders, and Johnson is forgotten if not reviled.

The second problem that Hillary may face is that it may be too late for this argument. She should have been making this argument back in November. She has co-opted too much of Obama’s rhetoric and logic to now cast herself as the only one who knows how to direct the political discourse and move her position along. She should have been giving Obama his props from the beginning, while recognizing and embracing her own defects. Rather than give the (largely unconvincing) argument that she is the only one who has been vetted, she should have said from the beginning: Yes, BHO is the second-coming of JFK, but HRC is the second coming of LBJ. And, even though it is obvious which of the two had the golden face and the silver tongue, let’s not forget who did more to get us out of Vietnam and work towards healing America’s racial tensions.

Plus, if given the choice, I’d prefer another Johnson in the White House than a possible Thatcher.

How did Hillary come up with the number 35?

For the past couple of months, Hillary Clinton has been saying that she has been enacting change for 35 years. The number has basically been accepted as true, but as Matthew Yglesias quickly points out, it must be somewhat exaggerated. Thirty-five years ago, in 1972, Hillary Clinton was a 3L at law school in Connecticut with Bill. In 1973, Hillary became a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund.  The following year she briefly served on Impeachment Inquiry staff of the judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. Hillary then moved to Arkansas, where she married Bill in 1975. She was an adjunct briefly at University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. Then she joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm, and became its first female partner in 1979 (the same year that she became First Lady of Arkansas). During her joint tenure at the Rose Law Firm and as First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton did begin getting involved with worthwhile family and children’s causes. So, at its earliest, she began “enacting change” in 1979–28 years ago. So, where does the number 35 come from?

Joe Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 (35 years ago), and my guess is that she was afraid that he might begin to capture the mantle of experience. So her campaign took the number from him before he could use it. If her argument is experience, then she must make sure that she’s got the highest number. And that number is 35.

This Picture Says It All

Notice everyone’s stance in this picture. Each candidate’s stance seems to be a metaphor for his/her respective position in the race.

Clinton is pointing to individuals in the crowd, almost as if she is trying to pick up a few voters around the margins.

Obama is looking past the candidates, past the stage, past everything.

Edwards is trying to get a little hand-love from Obama.

And Richardson is just trying to have his face between the two leaders (it’s almost as if he is in one of his hostage negotiations again).

The speech that Began Obama’s National Rise

It’s amazing how much this 2004 speech still works for him.