Mary C. Curtis: Hillary’s Phone Call with the Trotter Group
Posted at 9:36 am, March 29th, 2008
In the middle of a trip this week through North Carolina, Hillary Clinton strayed off the economic message that was the focus of speeches in Raleigh, Fayetteville and Winston-Salem to talk about race.
Clinton took 30 minutes in the middle of a hectic day for a conference call with members of the Trotter Group – a national organization of black columnists.
We knew why we were there and so did she.
I always wonder about the etiquette between the press and politicians during these scripted moments. I want to listen and report on what the candidates say. But when Clinton described her heated Democratic primary race with rival Barack Obama as one of the more “civil and positive” campaigns she has ever been involved in, I also wanted to giggle – just a little bit. I was in Myrtle Beach for the candidates’ slugfest of a debate.
As a columnist, I can add some tone to the writing. But I know there are folks out there, measuring the inches and the snark factor in everything I write about Clinton, Obama, Huckabee, McCain, etc., ready to pounce on some perceived bias.
For the long term, Clinton is looking to November, when the Democrats don’t want to blow a chance to take the White House after a war, an economic meltdown and two terms of a president with sinking approval ratings.
“If we can’t win this one,” Democrats must be thinking.
For the short term, Clinton is looking at a May 6 primary in North Carolina, where 38 percent of Democratic voters are black and where she now trails in the polls.
Obama had his speech, and now she wanted her moment, and called us to make her case.
In a statement before the question and answer session, she started on a high – “the historic nature” of a contest between a woman and an African American. She quickly got to the point – which she clearly considers a low point – the “ugly perception that my campaign has used race as a tactic.”
“I categorically reject that,” Clinton said. She did admit that some supporters – of both candidates – have “crossed a line.”
In the S.C. primary, Bill Clinton compared Obama to Jesse Jackson and Hillary Clinton’s numbers among black voters went south.
Clinton – who last year had a lead among black voters – told the columnists that she had earned that support because of her work with the Children’s Defense Fund and other causes. And she went down a list of many of her black supporters, in Congress and mayor’s offices across the country.
She promised unity in November and a civil tone until then, something to make Democratic Party leaders and exhausted voters happy.
I don’t mind my part in it all. It is the job of the media to inform. It’s also my job to see how long the truce lasts. I’ll get back to you on that one.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:11 am |
The talks is talk, but is it true that Sen . Clinton told a
cheering audience in Mishawak, IN on Friday(as part of her “Solutions for America”) that she would force illegal immigrants to learn English and pay a fine or go home? If she was quoted correctly, Illegal immigrants are deported, not kept around for English lessons, and many legal immigrants (contrary to what people may believe) struggle daily to learn a difficult language. The pandering to this audience is certainly different to what she pandered to the hispanics that helped her victory in California and Texas.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm |
I think you are misstating her speech and position. If you are interested in the facts, you would understand that she has been fighting for immigration reform for a long time. She stood up against Bush and other Senators-when it was political suicide..so did McCain-for the rights of all ‘folks’ in the US.
Mrs Clinton advocates health care for all children..hispanic, african american and white if they can not afford, it regardless of their country of origin or status with regard to citizenship or wether or not they have insurance.
She believes all tax paying people..again hispanic, asian, african american or white who are not citizens should have the right to apply for citizenship and during that process-not be returned to their country of origin, if that is their wish.
She does not believe the United States should mandate English as a precursor to citizenship and ads that, obviously, it would be easier for immigrants if they could converse in what Americans accept as the language of the country.
All three candidates are pretty much the same on the issue of immigration..only one believes and has worked for many years on their behalf with regard to health and welfare and that is Mrs Clinton.
You may or may not be familiar with her entire record and you may or may not care if you have chosen another candidate. That is your right. I ask you as a human being and a civil person to support your thoughts with the facts before lambasting anyone for what you haven’t found to be the truth.
I would ask you to actually look at Mr Obama’s record and note that not once before this election did he ever speak about Hispanics in any legislation. I would also ask you to look at his record, in his old district in Illinois, where over 30 buildings stand rotting and unoccupied. Mr Obama procurred $100 million from the state of Illinois, supposedly to revamp those buildings. The money dissapeared. Obama’s friend, advisor and contributor Rezko got the money. He is on trial now.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:44 am |
Mary: I repeat the question I asked several weeks ago in these columns and for which I was pummelled: If race is not an issue and if journalists are supposed to be diverse and critical, in the larger sense, why does virtually every black columnist(save the usual right-wingers and the one exception I mentioned))effusively and uncritically support Sen. Obama and “giggle” at the thought of Sen. Clinton trying to get her message across to black journalists? Not all women columnists support Clinton; not all Jewish columnists support Joe Lieberman, I’m not sure every Hispanic supported Giv, Richardson. Once more: It’s not the support that I question. It’s the lockstep unanimity.
April 5th, 2008 at 6:09 am |
Well, Saul Friedman, why do the vast majority of white “journalists/pundits/columnists” with the major newspapers and on networks and the garbage-laiden cable “news” so cheaply and ignorantly continue with their front-page, wide-screen, hi-def lynching of Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Very simple: a “good story” to some is always worth far more than the truth!
It all started several weeks ago with ABC’s Good Morning America (variety show) ripping from several of Dr. Wright’s sermons “inflammatory and anti-American” sound bites, Virtually everyone else in the “business” immediately grabbed them up for flashy display and reason to condemn Dr. Wright for being “anti-American” and, yes, even “racist.” And then, of course, they all were quick to condemn Barack Obama for having sat through all these “anti-American, racist” sermons in Dr. Wright’s church–for twenty years. Remember, Saul?
It was not until I was able to view the whole of Dr. Wright’s sermons about a week ago, on http://www.truthdig.com, that I realized just how bad a “lynching” it really is–and it continues. I would wager that many, if not most, of these “journalists and pundits” have yet to view these sermons in their entirety. Why? Because they just don’t want to face the fact that they have assassinated the character of Dr. Wright in their “good stories,” while at the same time tarring Barack Obama with these totally out-of-context quotes. Have you, Saul, have you viewed the sermons in their entirety? And, if so, I’d be most interested in your reaction.
By the way, I am a 71-year-old male who happens to be white; was born and grew up in racist South Louisiana back in the 40s and 50s; and, as an affiliate corresponent for NBC News, covered the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.
It just so happens, Saul, that these same shabby journalists/pundits/columnists could find similar “inflammatory, anti-American sound-bites in the sermons and speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Jim Michie