Hillary supporter Robert Johnson apologizes to Obama for drug allusions; Update: Did Hillary denounce Johnson?
posted at 12:30 pm on January 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He’s searched his soul and concluded that his remarks really weren’t innocent after all. The boss accuses KP of wrongly insisting yesterday that Hillary had denounced Johnson’s comments. Is she right? To the best of my googling ability, yup. Bill Clinton distanced the campaign from the dispute afterward by claiming it was “something between Bob Johnson and Barack Obama” and Hillary put out a general press release three days ago lamenting the fact that certain things that had been said over the past week “do[] not reflect what is in our hearts.” That’s probably what Kirsten has in mind; if you want to take it as a denunciation, feel free. Although remember, it was Team Clinton that issued Johnson’s initial feeble “who, me?” excuse, which would appear to mean that they thought — or hoped we’d think — he had nothing to apologize for.
Surprising to see this come so close to the primary, though, as it puts it back on everyone’s radar screen. I wonder if it caught Hillary off-guard.
There must be something about the Clintons that rubs off on everyone around them. Even their apologists apologize dishonestly.
Update: Hold the phone, Kirsten’s right. A commenter points out what Hillary said at the debate on Tuesday night. Granted, Russert had to squeeze it out of her, but even so:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, in terms of accountability, you told me on Sunday morning, “Any time anyone has said anything that I thought was out of bounds, they’re gone. I’ve gotten rid of them.”
RUSSERT: Shortly thereafter, that same afternoon, Robert Johnson, at your event, said, quote, “When Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood, that I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in his book,” widely viewed as a reference to Senator Obama’s book ,”Dreams From My Father” from 1995, where he talked about his drug use as a teenager.
Will you now not allow Robert Johnson to participate in any of your campaign events because of that conduct?
CLINTON: Well, Bob has put out a statement saying what he was trying to say and what he thought he had said. We accept him on his word on that.
But, clearly, we want to send a very clear message to everybody that this campaign is too important for us to either get diverted or, frankly, get the message of what we want to do for our country subverted by any kind of statements or claims that are just not part of who I am or who Barack or John are.
*
RUSSERT: Were his comments out of bounds?
CLINTON: Yes, they were.
CLINTON: And he has said that.
So she accepts his excuse — while acknowledging that what he said was out of bounds? A new milestone in Clintonian nuance.
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:
Nice line, Bryan. Bravo.
mikeyboss on January 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I stand with KP here. Clinton disavowed it in the latest debate.
Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Yeah, Johnson is still a pretty good fall guy to have around, no need to have him fall on his sword for you yet.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Bob Johnson: “I’m really sorry about all those drugs you took…”
Frozen Tex on January 17, 2008 at 12:46 PM
What is “it”? People are missing my point that it wasn’t just the drug allusion that Johnson made. It was the Tillie-esque derision that he threw in moments later. Those were the truly pernicious comments. The Clinton campaign has said nothing about that–because they don’t think there’s anything wrong with black-on-black race-baiting.
Michelle on January 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I don’t mean to be critical, but I don’t understand the complaint. Did you want Johnson to say “I apologize for alluding to your drug use?” We both know that letter is going to be shown and replayed on the news.
Contrast that to when the 3 campaign managers were on the last time Obama’s drug use came up. I think HA even posted the vid with Alexrod, Edward’s guy, and a Hillary guy, maybe it was Penn. Anyway, Hillary’s guy kept saying “we don’t need to be talking about cocaine” and the Edwards guy was saying even in disavowing it, you are saying it.
Which I agree with. How can you take an apology serious if the allusion is again put front and center in the apology? Johnson’s apology is at least classy on it’s face. Again,I don’t mean to be critical, but that just sounds like a partisan view for the sake of partisanship.
Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Johnson’s comments.
Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Meaning, he will stay, and she is dishonest about disowning.
I guess it depends on what the meaning of “trying” is. I think if elected, the democrats are going to print a new book. This book will explain all of the “nuances” of their and their supporters speech, it will correct all of the misconceptions…and it will be edited to be kept up to date.
THE BOOK of HILLARY: Another testament of Bill Clinton
right2bright on January 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
No, but I was unclear. Johnson said what he said, tried to spin it for days, and then apologized once the spin collapsed. If the spin hadn’t collapsed, there would have been no apology.
Bryan on January 17, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Okay. I see what you are saying, essentially you question the timing. Myself, I thought it was just clean-up after the debate where everyone kissed and made-up.
Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 1:12 PM
What’s fascinating to me is the way the Clinton old-guard Civil Rights leaders are biting at Obama. (Not surprising, but still interesting) Shouldn’t they see Obama as the fulfillment of all that they’ve worked for? A black man is running for president and might actually get the nomination. But of course, they don’t see that as the fulfullment of the dream. If the dream is ever fulfilled, they would be out of their jobs. It is in their best interest to keep black Americans in pursuit of the dream rather than in basking in the glory of having accomplished it.
TX Mom on January 17, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Johnson probably received a few calls from his “brothers”, and decided to back up.
I would not be surprised to see a few “changes of heart” in the next few weeks, as others begin to see Obama as the favorite.
…”well, you know Hillary would make a heck of a great Vice-President, take it up a whole level with her experience and all. We would finally have a VP that could get things done…, tha’s all she ever wanted—to make an impact, to change our direction, and with Obama as president, she has done that…” Bill Clinton in about 3 months.
right2bright on January 17, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I’m just glad that Clinton and her apparatchiks don’t practice “the politics of personal destruction.”
OhEssYouCowboys on January 17, 2008 at 1:32 PM
The Clintons will use the old bulls of the civil rights movement to slime Barack Obama. They have already trotted out Andrew Young to suggest that Barack Obama is not sufficiently Black. They have trotted out Bob “patronage” Johnson to deliver the same message. Charlie Rangel has been out on the trail sliming Barack Obama. Maybe they could find somebody who doesn’t remember Burma shaves and five cent cokes.
Larraby on January 17, 2008 at 1:51 PM
The most insane part in all of this is that Johnson began his tirade with, “I am, frankly, insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we [black Americans] are so stupid…”
Johnson then follows up his obvious swipe at Obama’s adolescent drug use by implying that black Americans are so stupid that they will fall for his spinning.
It’s an ugly election but I love how much it is revealing about America.
12thman on January 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM
FTFY.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Bull’s eye.
I especially love it when the pretend their objection is his lack of qualification but they’re the same people that support “‘[Reverend]‘” Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and, oh, Hillary (I was sorta married to a President) Clinton.
12thman on January 17, 2008 at 1:55 PM
I look forward to the day when we stop pretending there are two seperate Americas, again.
12thman on January 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Dude’s still an Uncle Tom.
Mark V. on January 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Johnson is just another pissed off black man and has no idea why he is pissed off. He is a “2k racist”
Wade on January 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Or was he apologizing for that stuff about Sidney Poitier?
infidel65 on January 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM
That’s still a racially charged pejorative. And you’re still an idiot.
***
I thought he was a billionaire and a business tycoon with an opinion. Alas, you’ve shown me the light.
If a black man reaches the pinnacle of his industry and attains enough clout to be sought out for a presidential endorsement, he is “just another pissed off black man” with no clue about his own station in life.
You have set yourself apart as a stalwart purveyor of the American dream. Good show.
The Race Card on January 17, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Republicans aren’t as racist as Democrats. I hear that all the time from the right. I have made the same point myself to friends and family.
I think that mantra needs some recalibrating. It might be said that Republicans appreciates people for their contributions regardless of race. Democrats tend to appreciate people because of their race, ethnicity and/or gender.
These over-generalized differences are a pea under our collective mattress. Republicans and Democrats have differing scales for what they will respond to as “racist.” Both partites are racially-retarded, while they believe that they racially-more-righteous than the rest.
No party has a monopoly on racist individuals.
You go far enough to the left and far enough to the right and you end up at a BBQ with Ron Paul and David Duke.
The Race Card on January 17, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Aside: I don’t know about Ron Paul, but David Duke ran as a Democrat before he ran as a Republican. Racists are amorphous on what values they hold other than hatred of whatever their preferred object of hate is. If more of their racist fellow travelers are Marxists, they lean left. If they move somewhere else and they are surrounded by anarchist militiamen, they become anarchists.
No party can be right on “race” because identity politics is inherently idiotic. The Democrats believe nearly all black people are alike so they make affirmative action part of their platform because it gives a blanket advantage to black people. The Republicans believe nearly all black people are individuals so they focus on policies that tend to benefit individuals regardless of race.
As a general rule, Democratic policies are going to “lift up” blacks because they have been designed specifically to affect someone of a certain skin color or ethnic background. That’s the logic anyway. Most of them inspire laziness, doubt, and dependence though. Republican policies are going to “lift up” whoever has the most ambition and drive to succeed. Since there are numerically more whites and whites tend to get a better start in life, it appears to favor whites, even in the face of the many brilliant black homeowners, businessmen, politicians, accountants, lawyers, etc who benefitted from the incentives the program put in place.
My definition of racism is injecting race into matters where it does not belong.
This means that the Duke Lacrosse Case isn’t about race, it’s about a scummy DA who used racial animus to get re-elected. Then racial demagogues, feminists, ancient academia hippies (some even at Duke), and other left-wing kooks took over and used it as a springboard to get on their “hate white heterosexual males” soapbox, gambling that the allegations were real. Since Nifong was a dirtbag through and through and spun a web of lies, the kooks were forced to eat crow.
That’s what happens when you get involved in identity politics. Your brain turns off and your militant biases often lead you into very compromised positions. Democrats spin this off as “getting carried away seeking legitimate justice,” I just call it what it is: Dispicaple, disgusting, thoroughly racist idiocy. Justice is blind, and black people don’t need advocates who make it their life’s work to pile on whitey in pursuit of racial justice. What they need is people to respect their individual competence, ability, and contribution to society. In other words, to be treated like everyone else.
While plenty of people have made millions tearing other people down, great societies are never built on the backs of those people.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 3:24 PM
He is the one who played the race card, address your distaste of racism to him.
Wade on January 17, 2008 at 4:22 PM
I love it when writing makes me feel as if someone’s brain just spilled their thoughts onto my monitor. Nice writing.
While I agree in varying degrees about most of what you’ve said, I find this statement to be the most interesting:
I think that’s a very functional definition. Some people might see it as limited in that it does not take emotion or motivation into consideration. But I think it works because racism is illogical independent of the emotions behind it. Emotion does not increase logic, so it’s an unnecessary modifier and therefore superfluous to the definition.
I think a lot of people claim to think like you do. But a lot of those same people have their own way of injecting race into situations where it was not a factor. They use sarcasm or irony as a mask, but the byproduct is the same.
I also think that a lot of people who profess to be so evolved as you, engage in racially provocative and sometimes antogonistic language thinking their credo cloaks their indecency.
***
???
I have less disgust for racism than I do for the creeps who deny their own bigotry.
I know many people who are friends despite the racism or prejudice by one or both. Being a racist does not disqualify one from being my friend; being a wife-beater does; being a criminal does.
Growing up, I was enough of a minority in many places where I lived that if I turned my back on every friend who may have been a little racist, then I would have been a pretty bored kid.
We all know people and have friends with flaws, big flaws. But people have support groups and empathy for a range of moral failings — alcoholism, gambling, violence, sex abuse, etc. The first step is admitting there is a problem. Most people in that enduring that much pain or anger could use a good friend. Not all…most.
The Race Card on January 17, 2008 at 5:24 PM
“We accept him on his word on that.
But, clearly, we want to send a very clear message to everybody”
Those were Hillary’s words to Russert. Hill & Bill haven’t sent a clear message in their adult lives. They place themselves just close enough that if things blow up, they can get away. At the same time, just far enough away that if things come out smelling like a rose, they can dash back to the scene to take credit.
oakpack on January 17, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Race Card, how is this man not an Uncle Tom? That’s exactly what he is, by the rules of liberal identity politics. He’s a black man sticking up for the white power structure against another black man. Why should liberals get all the fun?
Except he’s not a Republican. Damnit, how could I forget that?
Mark V. on January 17, 2008 at 9:18 PM
It’s amazing how Hitlery and her hubby (live in PC political consultant) get others to slander their opposition and call it PC (political correctness).
I have seen this before, during military survival training, its called brain washing-and believe me there is nothing worse than being caught in a double spin cycle.
MSGTAS on January 18, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Comment pages: