Video: BET’s Robert Johnson steps into the Democrats’ race war
posted at 11:06 am on January 14, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Over the weekend, BET founder Robert Johnson went to bat for the Clintons against Sen. Barack Obama, and made an openly veiled swipe at Obama’s past drug use. Confronted with the second Clinton ally to play the drug card, Johnson and the Clinton camp have mounted the absurd defense that Johnson was actually referring to Obama’s community activist career. Bill Clinton himself reacted to the fracas on Roland Martin’s radio show earlier today. This segment starts off with Johnson’s comment, then CNN’s John Roberts interviews Martin about how the comment is playing, then moves to Clinton’s defense and wraps up with Martin’s reaction and finishes with a replay of Johnson’s comments. It’s beyond obvious that Johnson is talking about the drug issue, not community activism.
BET’s Robert Johnson is an extremely successful entrepreneur but he’s perhaps not the best black spokesman that the Clintons could find to take on Barack Obama. It’s an open secret in the broadcasting industry that BET’s hiring and employment practices are less than ideal. Black employees have long been expected to accept lower wages than the industry standard in exchange for the privilege of working for Johnson’s network. And the network itself has been known to air exploitative programming and videos. To the latter, one could argue that that’s what the audience wants, and one would have a point, and BET certainly isn’t alone in airing exploitative programming. To the former, I’ve known people who worked at BET. Substandard wages and longer hours weren’t what the network’s employees wanted, but it’s what they got.
Update: Michelle noticed another swipe that Johnson took at Obama.
It’s surely a sign of near fatal weakness that neither the Clinton nor Obama campaign senses that they can win without resorting to rank identity politics, as both are doing against each other now. Either that, or it’s just who Democrats are and what they do. Or a combination of both. Either way, it’s a preview of things to come in the general election. No matter which one ends up being the nominee, the prospects of this November’s election being a “healing” one are evaporating by the minute. It’s going to be ugly, divisive and nasty.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I was watching Eddie Murphy’s Raw on BET the other day. There were non-stop commericals about the messiah, so I kinda figured they were lock-step. Guess I forgot that Billy Jeff was the FIRST black president…
dish on January 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM
What’s a white-boy republican to think?
(Bryan, good oxymoron ["openly veiled"])
davidk on January 14, 2008 at 11:16 AM
and owner of the very unpopular Charlotte Bobcats.
jp on January 14, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Wow! Real news candidates attacking each other. It’s just never been done before.
/sarcasm off
roux on January 14, 2008 at 11:17 AM
The Clintons are very, very good at playing this game. Obama went right from law school to teaching, and then to “community organizing,” right? Then to IL state level politics then to the Senate. Yes, I do believe that the guy was alluding to the drug stuff, but with the side effect of bringing up the ridiculous resume that Obama places before the American people.
At least Hillary has experience as a litigator, which means she worked in a confrontational field for a while. She’s gonna handle bastards like Putin better if we have to cope with a dem president.
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Johnson is against the Death Tax though, so give him that…
I think is fairly obvious the Clinton’s have Big Business behind them, many of them looked at the ‘inevitability’ factor and moved towards here for obvious reasons.
jp on January 14, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Kenya’s first truly free and fair democratic election was in December 2002, won by Mwai Kibaki and a multi-ethnic coalition party NARC (National Rainbow Coalition). One of the leaders of that coalition was Raila Odinga.
Kibaki didn’t give him positions in the new government that he felt were important enough, so Odinga formed an opposition party, ODM (Orange Democratic Movement, orange the symbol color of opposition).
When Raila Odinga lost the presidential election last week (12/27) to Mwai Kibaki, he claimed the vote was rigged, whereupon his tribal followers went on murderous rampages such as in the town of Eldoret, where on New Years Day dozens of people were burned to death in a church set on fire.
Throughout Kenya, hundreds of people have been politically murdered in the last few days.
Kenya’s 37 million people are divided up into over three dozen tribes and sub-tribes, but the two dominant ones are Kikuyu and Luo. Kenyan politics since independence in 1963 has essentially been a duke-out between them.
The father of Kenyan independence and president until 1978 was Jomo Kenyatta, a Kikuyu. His main political opponent was Oginga Odinga, known as “OO,” a Luo and Raila’s father.
While Kenyatta was pro-West and sided with America in the Cold War, OO was a Communist who was aided and supported by the Soviet Union.
That’s why Raila went to school in East Germany (born in 1945, he graduated from Magdeburg University in 1970), and named his first-born son after Fidel Castro.
Thus it likely won’t shock you to learn that Raila has now made a deal for support from the Soviets’ successors as world-champion enemies of the West and democratic freedoms: Moslem fundamentalists.
It may also not surprise you that Raila is not Moslem himself, but claims to be a practicing Anglican. Only a minority of Luo are Moslem (most are Christian). Kenya on the whole is Christian, with 80% of Kenyans either Protestant or Roman Catholic, while only 10% are Moslem.
And here is the biggest non-surprise: Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a “close personal friendship” with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior.
When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi:
http://www.aina.org/news/20080106002912.htm
All together now….RACIST!
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM
It takes a village to use drugs.
Dusty on January 14, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Johnson is not the most popular entrprenuer in the Black Community. How influencial he is to the Democratic black voter will be assessed by this statements for HRC. His implications to Obama being the son of black man who married a white woman is racist and I hope this bombs on him and the Clintons. Most blacks have mixed race couples as relatives. As a black moral conservative who votes independent; I can’t for the life of me understand how race-baited liberal black Democratic voters could justify how the the Clinton’s can be better candidate for black American interests than Obama.
apostle53 on January 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Is there any group more racist than the Democrats…now wonder they were the party that spawned, and supported, and fed the KKK. They care about votes, not people. Give Johnson, and “black leaders” like him, a few bucks, and all of a sudden, the plantation looks a little nicer from the inside, then the outside.
right2bright on January 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Keep-em on the plantation…right Mr. Johnson?
libhater on January 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I do not intend this as a cheap swipe, but Billy Jeff acts so coked up so much of the time that it would be disconcerting to learn he’s just that way naturally.
saint kansas on January 14, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Nobody gave this guy any money. He’s a multi-billionaire if I’m not mistaken. I don’t care what you think about his politics, nobody gets to that level by just getting handouts.
That being said, I have never really liked this guy. His business practices are deplorable and his network is bufoonish at best.
The comments he made were barely veiled and very nasty. The Clintons are a walking hate crime. Obama is learning from the best.
This is sad on the eve of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday.
The Race Card on January 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Cry me a river. They freely chose to work for that organization and therefore accepted the wages and conditions in their contracts. If their skills warranted higher wages and better conditions they could have taken them elsewhere.
JamesP on January 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Hahahahaahahhaahaahhahahaha…thats rich!
In any case, Barack used drugs when he was young. A) so did 90% of the people in America, and B) When Hillary was at college in the late 60s could anyone believe she didn’t even at least smoke a bowl?
mattyj86 on January 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM
So before responding to any questions, der Slickmeister announces to the world, “I did not have anything to do with Mr. Johnson’s comments and never told him what to say”. Now why is that even necessary. We all know why.
Then John Roberts chimes in by saying, “I guess I have to take him at his word”.
WTF? It’s Bill Clinton, you idiot!
fogw on January 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Thank you for posting that info even though it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. As someone who’s been blogging about the Kenya crisis for a couple of weeks, I’d like to urge you to make sure you have the entire context of the situation before you come to conclusions about it. Also, be careful about using the dead bodies of Kenyans for political purposes in this country (USA).
baldilocks on January 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Clearly, Mr. Johnson didn’t get the memo from Oprah! ;-0
Seriously, this fissure that is opening up over race is an interesting turn. Can Senator Clinton win without the black vote fully behind her? Can Senator Obama win enough white voters to topple the “rats” heir apparent and the Clinton political machine? Is this the point where both candidates figure out that they need to hammer out a deal and craft a Clinton/Obama 08 strategy or has all the rhetoric made such an unholy alliance impossible!
This is better than the soaps!
highhopes on January 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM
from USATODAY:
His ex is also a billionaire, and she’s supporting Obama. The fact that she is supporting Obama gives him every incentive to support someone else. :)
The Race Card on January 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Baldilocks, it doesn’t? It’s a substantive, foreign policy issue that is verboten precisely because bringing it up would cause lots of screams of “racism.”
Did/does Obama support Odinga? Did/does Obama support Odinga;s pulling this typically leftist stunt of throwing his nation into choas after losing an election? What is the basis for Obama’s former/current support for Odinga?
Those aren’t serious questions?
I thought the thread was about how every single criticism of Obama, on matters substantive or not, was played as some kind of racist attack.
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Obama and Odinga are related.
baldilocks on January 14, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Black on black anger.
When will the hatred end?
While the Dumbs eat their own… Vote for Mitt!
madmonkphotog on January 14, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I don’t think they really need him to ‘take on’ Obama. The Clintons just want to beat Obama by any means possible, and Johnson needs a race-panderer in office to continue his success. Having a black man that doesn’t want to play the victim game in the White House isn’t going to generate new business for BET, Jesse, and Al.
MayBee on January 14, 2008 at 12:10 PM
The Clinton’s are having trouble putting the race card back in the deck.
roux on January 14, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Baldilocks, so blood is thicker than water is the defense? Good heavens. We’re talking about a guy who named his first son after Fidel Castro. If I had a brother or sister who had done that, I sure as hell wouldn’t be out on the campaign trail for them.
And is Obama still a member of TUCC, even though they gave their big annual award to Louis Farrakhan in December?
Sigh. Yes, these are inflammatory questions. The tragedy is that they will never be asked by any MSM or serious dem political person, because they will have RACISM screamed at them.
So we will have the Clintons playing their usual too cute by half games and watching the dems pick their candidate for POTUS based on absolutely nothing substantive, on either side.
It’s bad for the country.
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 12:20 PM
He’s a billionaire. What can the Clinton’s do for his success?
Why is it so impossible to imagine a billionaire acheived his success from his own hard work and unscrupulous business tactics? I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Donald Trump needs politicians to sustain his wealth.
Also, what do Jesse and Al have to do with this? Please be specific.
Get real.
The Race Card on January 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM
And Baldilocks, don’t play the stupid liberal game of charging out of the gates and assuming, and declaring that I mustn’t speak of Kenya because I know nothing about it. You don’t know me, and you have no idea how much I know about Kenya.
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM
It’s a just fruit for the party that has co-opted Dr. King’s message and morphed it into something unrecognizable today.
May the eat each other alive.
SouthernGent on January 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM
“Change” can also mean for the worse…Both sides are psychotic, and so is the electorate on both isles. America is due for a national couch session. It’s really needed and it seems that only a huge disaster will shake us back into our senses. Tough year, and very loooooong. Good for blogging, and hard to tell what else.
Entelechy on January 14, 2008 at 12:29 PM
The Race Card yep
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 12:30 PM
You asked the question I gave you some of the context. I’m not going to pile all of the information that I have into someone else’s blog. If you’re that interested in the background of the Kenya crisis, go here or set your Google alerts to “Kenya.”
The defense for what? For visiting his relative of the same tribe? For not being able to tell the future?
I’m with you on the TUCC stuff and on Obama’s personal deficiencies as a presidential candidate. Again, however, leave off on the topic you clearly know only superficial things about and probably wouldn’t give a second thought to if it had nothing to do with Obama.
baldilocks on January 14, 2008 at 12:31 PM
You didn’t know that they were related.
Don’t play the stupid human game of labeling someone you disagree with as an ideological opponent.
baldilocks on January 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I was wondering when the HillBill would, after their hands were slapped for attacking a black candidate, just use proxy blacks to attack Obama in their stead.
I think any underhanded attack by the Clintons (thats all they know) will backfire.
Speakup on January 14, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Yes, baldilocks, I did know they were (distantly) related. Thus my response that I wouldn’t even campaign for someone in my nuclear family if they were a commie nut who named their first son after Fidel Castro.
I didn’t call you a liberal. I said you were playing a stupid liberal trick. I’ve seen and enjoyed your comments on many different blogs for a few years.
The Kenya connection is something Obama’s supporters have put forward as evidence of his special knowledge of the world. But questioning his connections to the wrong side over there would not be allowed without getting the RACISM label applied.
It’s a real shame, and it’s bad for America. That’s the sum total of my point.
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 12:39 PM
And Baldilocks, one of my best friends has been in Kenya, all over the country, not just the capital (Nairobi, BTW) for many years working as a missionary.
Don’t make assumptions.
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Final point, and then I’m off for the day.
If somebody names their first son Fidel, for Castro, I don’t even have to be related to them to kinda figure out their political leanings, and to guess that they are not a fan of Western style capitalism or the United States.
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Observing/assuming someone’s lack of knowledge as a result what that person says does not have an ideological component. In good faith, however, I will assume you did know that context and apologize.
It’s a valid assumption. However, those who made it would be guilty of commenting on something of which they had superficial knowledge also.
Maybe. But let’s envision it: a prominent American politician visits his African relatives. One relative is a prominent politician also (and probably the big cheese in the family). What should the American have done? (Don’t forget that this was well before the Kenyan elections.)
This what I meant.
baldilocks on January 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I registered this morning as a Democrat so that I can vote against Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton on SuperTuesday. I disagree with Obama on everything but the Clintons tactics are so low, so vile that I will proudly vote for Obama in my state’s primary. For years, the Clintons have called Bill “The first Black president”, although he never appointed a Black person to the Supreme Court, or any position in making foreign policy. Blacks were relegated to HUD. If the Clintons want to use the old bulls of the African-American community to slime Obama, then Obama should bring up the following about Clinton: In 1992, Clinton signed Ricky Rector’s execution warrant. Clinton did it to shore up his base among middle class whites in the South. He was telegraphing that he too was willing to execute minorities . In the case of Rector, Rector suffered from brain damage and had an extremely low IQ. He was the type of person that the liberal groups always support. Yet nobody asks the Clintons about this. Being the intrepid researcher that I am, the Clintons can’t get away with anything when I am around.
Larraby on January 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM
If you do not support Obama, you are clearly a racist.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 14, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Since we want to play that card, my father is Philip Ochieng, a prominent Kenyan Luo journalist. He’s there right now.
Quite. No one is saying that Odinga is a small-l liberal. He went to school in East Germany for Heavens sake. My father is a socialist also.
For that matter so is Obama. Good place to start the attack.
baldilocks on January 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I`m still very down about our chances in november, but atleast we`ll have some theatre to watch before our curtain falls.
ThePrez on January 14, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Here in this country’s context, not in a tribal war of another country. Ever heard of Saul Alinsky?
baldilocks on January 14, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Robert Johnson is an Uncle Tom. Wait… can I use that one, even though I’m neither black nor a liberal?
Mark V. on January 14, 2008 at 1:09 PM
If you can heal anything with Molotov cocktails maybe.
What concerns me about this election cycle is the similarity in the amount of hate directed towards the sitting President like there was when Gerald Ford ran against Jimmie Carter.
Ford was three times the candidate Carter was, Carter’s catch phrase was “trust me”.
Americans took out their media amplified anger at Nixon on Ford by giving us the worst President in a century.
An incumbent may not be running but the projection and the angst is certainly there.
Speakup on January 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
He can’t be. He’s not a Republican. /s
baldilocks on January 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I wouldn’t mind you using it if you knew what the hell you were saying.
Here’s a tip:
Despite the formulaic rap videos and liberal advocacy race-baiting mainstream press, black culture really is deeper than a few catchy phrases.
But people presume to know me intimately because they heard a Katt Williams comedy routine or because they know the difference between nigga and nigger.
Uncle Tom is socially arcane and really not used as much as most people think. It’s the linguistic equivalent to a word like britches. Per my assessment, it is now used out of laziness mostly by whites describing some social dynamic about blacks that they now understand so clearly thanks to ABC after-school specials and Jerry Springer.
The Race Card on January 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Keep eyes peeled for link to YouTube posting of Rush’s monologue today on the Democrats’ Uncivil War. It’s going to make their heads explode.
petefrt on January 14, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Frankly, I don’t care what color Obama is, what matters to me is that he’s a Chicago “machine Democrat”. That in itself is reason enough for me to dislike his politics. Unless you’re familiar with Chicago politics, you might not understand. And the Clintons talking about anyone else’s drug use is just plain laughable.
Big John on January 14, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Hey, I’m going to start up a new TV station. I’ll Call it ‘White Entertainment Television’. Does anyone have a problem with that?
(I’m just saying, BET is racist. That guy is racist. I have no interest in what he says.)
Kevin M on January 14, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I would love to see Obama whup crybaby like a goverment mule
Think BET will air it? hehehehe
unctarheel on January 15, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Demoncrates even eat their own.
MSGTAS on January 15, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Comment pages: