In his column today he suggests that two Clinton "gaffes" are inventions of the media and/or the Obama campaign. Only when wrested from context is that in any way plausible. In context, the response to what the Clintons were saying both times is perfectly understandable - and the Clinton implication ugly.
O.K., Andy believes Clinton was calling for the assassination of Obama not because of what was actually said, but because of the context. Alright, I'll play along; What was this "context"?
the only way for Clinton to win is for something quite dramatic to take Obama out of the race.
You mean like having a majority of delegates at a Democratic convention vote for someone else? Yeah, that sounds like murder to me.
Oh, and there is more "context":
Clinton's earlier invocation of Lyndon Johnson in order to minimize Obama's potential as an MLK figure.
Again, Krugman doesn't get it. What was offensive about this is not that Johnson wasn't essential. It was the condescension it implied.
Yeah that's right, the lesson to learn there was that the Clinton's are unapologetic racists, and not that the Obama campaign (and their press stooges) will stoop to any slander to achieve their goals.
The implication that just because Obama is black he can be equated with Dr. King is the most pig ignorant and racist garbage that has been voiced this political season. For starters, one doesn't run in an election to become a Dr. King; one lives a life of unwavering dignity and moral exactitude. How has Obama done that exactly? (Short answer: He hasn't.)
You do, however, run in an election to be President, and, yes, the comparison to LBJ is more than appropriate for a politician. But the Clinton's, in the view of Sullivan, had the temerity to ask that Obama be judged as a politician instead of as Dr. King successor.
But the Clinton's are right and Sullivan is wrong. Obama doesn't get to wear the mantle of Dr. King because he hasn't done a damn thing to deserve it.
No comments:
Post a Comment