From CNN.com...


From the same article...


Questions for Debate:

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?

Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.
Republicans have used heavy-handed tactics like prolonging floor votes by extending voting time to buy… I mean persuade key nay votes with bribes… er, earmarks towards constituants, but at first glance it appears she’s whining like Republican whining about the liberal media in the 80’s.

Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?
It’s hyperbole. Is hyperbole enough to bring about better fortunes for Democrats? No.

Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?
They’re inappropriate anywhere, including making the same characterization to a Post reporter.

I'm certain a comparison could be made. You have the ethics committee members of the majority party who haven't even met regarding the ethics violations of their own party leaders. You probably also have a narrow agenda, not to the liking of the members of the other party. Rather than pushing through bi-partisan legislation, they are focusing on divisive issues such as flag burning and other things that really aren't worth a hill of beans when compared to money matters.




It certainly wasn't detrimental to her audience. they must have concurred to some degree since she wasn't booed off of the stage. Perhaps the angry white-ethnic might not appreciate it, but that isn't who she was tailoring the speech to. You must remember that this segment of the population voted 96% for Kerry in 2004, these people know their constituency and know how to appeal to them. The GOP did the same thing with the Willy Horton ad and in opposing busing in the '70s.



It wouldn't be the first sermon of a political nature. Whether it was her or James Dobson, it matters little.

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

It's not the way I would characterize it, but I was not part of her target audience. I do believe that there are U.S. Representatives who are not heard and who are kept out of the process because of the Republican majority, just as there would be Republicans kept out of things if there were an overwhelmingly Democratic majority.

But that is where the comparison ends. No one is being taken behind the woodshed and beaten, the Master is not forcing females to have children by him, etc.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?

They are probably detrimental to Americans, but they MAKE IT ON THE NEWS, and they excite the listeners. These are the two reasons that politicians make inflammatory or potentially inflammatory remarks.

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?

I am reminded of a history lesson that spoke of how John Knox whipped up anti-Catholic sentiment from his Scottish Presbyterian pulpit. So this sort of thing has been around for centuries.

Of course, here in the United States, there is the threat that if churches become too politicized, efforts will be underway to remove their tax-exempt status. But I suspect that this would be harder to do than it would appear.

Let's put it this way: I like politicizing from the pulpit when the politicizing reflects my point of view, and I dislike it when I disagree with what is being said. And that probably makes me like most people.

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

Her comments are utterly ridiculous and the fact that she made them in front of a black audience in Harlem on MLK Day is appalling. The plantation reference is transparent. Playing the race card on the day commemorating the man who wanted race not to matter?

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?

Neither. They are a silly attempt to energize and polarize a group of people. It harms race relations which isn't useful to anyone except those trying to exploit such divisions.

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?

My personal opinion is that churches are just as appropriate for political speeches as anywhere else. However, the content stinks.

Gee, Amlord, maybe you missed the quote in Lesly's post, above. Let me repeat it for you:

I'm quite certain that your level of outrage for good 'ol Newt is right up there with that of Hillary, right?

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

As correct as when they were spoken by Gingrich - maybe even moreso. Consider, Democrats didn't generally lock Republican committee members of of their own committee meetings back then to get stuff done without any "interference". That's been know to happen in the last six years or so under Republican "leadership". The last four or five years in particular, they have been eggreigious in their making sure that, with a few exceptions they can point to to say it's not true, making sure that there is no compromise whatsoever. It's gotta be a zero-sum game to them - with us or against us, all or nothing. Yeah, I think the comments are more correct than the Republicans would like to admit.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?

I'm not sure you'd call this remark "racially divisive". She was after all, in a Black church when she made these remarks, and I didn't see anywhere on the news where Hillary was taken out back and lynched afterward, and the only "outrage" in these remarks seems to be coming from mostly white Republicans.

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?

Out of place? Not necessarily. The perfect place? Again not necessarily. What you say when depends on knowing who your target audience is. Seems Hillary knew who she was speaking to, as she got cheers, laughter and applause, instead of boos and rotten tomatoes.

What is this? Conservative Sensitivity Week or somthing?

1. Gee, I don't know. Maybe we should ask one of the leading black conservative Republican congressmen in the House of Representative if they think the place is run like a plantation.

Oops. My bad. Can't ask any of the leading black conservative Republican congressmen in the House of Representatives. There aren't any to ask!

2. Oh, you mean equating how things are today to "plantations." Well, that's a little too much hyperbole for me, but there's plenty of conservatives who don't have a problem dropping the "P" word when the mood strikes them.

I would call the Democratic alternative the "plantation society." The "plantation society" is characterized by a wealthy class of owners who want to limit the choices, opportunities and freedom of working-class Americans.

--- Star Parker, 03/22/05/Townhall.com

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/St...3/22/14865.html

After all, nothing upsets Sen. Kennedy and his pals more than when those they view as intellectual slaves dares to leave the Democratic plantation.

--- Robert Alt, 09/05/03/The National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-alt090503.asp

Democrats are rubbing their eyes in disbelief not just at President Bush's success across America, but also about the fact that a major group they thought would stay on the liberal plantation forever is making a getaway. As they escape out the back door, members of this group are saying "hasta la vista, baby."

--- Michael Gonzalez, 11/08/04/Opinion Journal

Where would the Democrats be if they're not picking up around 90 percent of the black vote? What if black voters started moving off the Democratic plantation?


--- Robert Novak, 01/25/05/CNN Crossfire

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0501/25/cf.01.html

If Hilary needs to issue any apologies for using the word "plantation" in a cavalier fashion, she sure won't have to be the first one to do it.

3. The church is the perfect place for telling the truth and giving evildoers a little taste of fire and brimstone. And with all the Republicans on the Hill hoping Jack Abramoff isn't mentioning their name to the federal prosecutor, while you can criticize how Hilary said it, you can't criticize how dead on accurate she is in what she said.

It's just funny that all the "outrage" is about one word she used rather than the stench of corruption hanging over the GOP leadership in the House. Well, maybe it's not funny. Kind of expected in a way...

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

My liberal media reported this short phrase over and over again in the morning. My reaction was because I had no idea what she was talking about. Now, from reading this thread, I do know. Apparently the plantation simile has been used quite a bit about the House.

I don't think this is a very good simile for a national audience. The only impression I have of a plantation is what I've read in literature. I'm a Yankee.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?

I don't see it as racially divisive. Taking Black people off of voting lists, that's racially divisive. Sneaking in poll taxes, that's racially divisive. Gutting social programs, divisive. The plantation thing is just a lame simile.

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?

Everybody's doing it, people respond, there you go. At least she wasn't claiming that voting Demo is what Jesus wants.

I didn't know that October 20th was Martin Luther King Day. I'm pretty sure Newt did not say that in a black church with the caveat "You know what I mean" wink, wink.

She said this not to make some comment about how the House is run, but to further reinforce the oft-told mistruth that Republicans hate blacks.

Remember Dr. King's message?







How does referring to Republicans as plantation owners--to a black audience, in Harlem, on MLK Day--help race relations?

Thank you, nighttimer, for providing the quotations to prove that Republicans are also fond of using the plantation metaphor.

It's interesting that those who cast Senator Clinton's comments in the worst light for her chances to run for president always seem to be Republican. It seems that it is always the Republicans who bring up Senator Clinton as the potential presidential candidate against whom they will be campaigning. I'm trying to figure out if it's wishful thinking on their part--that they think she would be easy to beat, or if they're that scared that she is going to take up the challenge. In any case, it is up to the Democrats, not the Republicans, to decide who will be the standard bearer for the Democratic Party in the next presidential election.

As far as the senator's comments go about the Bush administration, I think the time for hushed reverence about the Republican president being in office during time of war is long past. The fact is that this president has botched many things, and he has been unresponsive to the needs of the American people in his desire to be immortalized as a "war president". I say that he is unresponsive for a couple of reasons: 1) He never answers mail from anyone, including Congressmen, and 2) even his conferences with soldiers on the field and town hall meetings are scripted, and with hand-picked participants. The question is whether this president is so intolerant of hearing dissent of any sort, or whether he is being insulated from the sting of public opinion by his handlers in order to minimize his often- famous verbal gaffes, or both.

Until recently, the Republican-dominated Congress has not provided any opposition whatsoever to the Bush regime. Now, with various scandals going under-investigated and steady reports of questionable activities on the part of the White House, Republicans are getting some backbone and questioning. It would be ironic indeed if this president's questionable policies and activities actually produced the bipartisanship in Congress that has been absent for so long.

Senator Hillary Clinton's statements were meant to inflame. So were Al Gore's. And even Senator John Kerry chimed in, in an exclusive interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday. I am glad they are speaking up. The American public is not gung ho about the way the war has been conducted, and they aren't happy either about the slipshod approach that has been taken to address problems on the home front.

And the more I read the "plantation quotations" provided, the more I realize that if racism must be claimed in any of them, it should be claimed in all of them.

Edit:
It had nothing to do with hate; it had everything to do with power. The Republicans are in control.

No matter what person said it, it's an analogy and should be viewed as such. If Newt said anything like that, I'd criticize those who'd criticize him for making such a comment.



It's fair game in politics-Bush's father showed pictures of Willy Otey and the message was: "elect me or big black men will kill you." Was that not pandering to angry white males? There must be some feeling that GOP policies are detrimental to them, as why it would explain how Bush earned a paltry single digit number in '04.



It was an analogy as to how the house is run-that was the context of the statement. Now if she said: "The GOP is run like a plantation" then perhaps I could see reason for offense.

Questions for Debate:

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

Sounds like Hillary is preparing the ground for her run in 2008. I fail to see how anything the Republicans have done in the majority is substantially different than what Dems did in the some position.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?
Well no but we are sure to see more of such as the comments as we get closer to 2006 election season. A good example is the idiot Mayor of New Orleans to a group of African Americans. He said New Orleans was coming back as a “chockalott” city!

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?
Any place the audience is right for the message and the press is available seems to be the criteria. IMO political speeches in a church are out of place but both parties have done this.

Well, I could ask the same of starting an anti-affirmative action thread on MLK’s day and question the author’s intentions. To each his own idea of what crosses the line.


Amlord, please don’t tell me you believe when conservatives bring up the P word (wink, wink to NT), they’re not making racial references. You know everyone’s mind jumps to slaveholders. When conservatives use the analogy Democrats = The Man keeping everyone else down.

Personally I find it cheesy regardless of who’s playing the soon-to-be empowered victim, especially when it’s a well to do white guy and white woman. Oh, chamber catfights take so much out of me. May as well go for a hail Mary and call it a concentration camp. It’s indicative of our poor national dialogue and reminds me of something comedian George Carlin said.

Here's the difference:

Senator Clinton was speaking to a black audience who largely supports her and her party. She uses the plantation reference to reinforce to those blacks that the GOP is the party of bigots. She doesn't give any evidence, just "you know what I'm talking about [because our party has hammered this into your heads for over a generation]".

The fact that blacks vote for Democrats and still find themselves searching for what the heck this party (whom 90% of their race support) has done for them is not the topic of this thread. However, it is pertinent. You always have to deflect that "what have you done for me lately" attitude to keep people placated. It's true for any constituency that you pander to in words and ignore in deeds.

I've not defended those that have made the plantation analogy in reference to Democrats. Two wrongs do not make a right. We are debating Clinton's words and the context and purpose of them.

Oh and a thread about affirmative action and whether or not it meshes with Dr. King's message of judging a man by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin is perfectly acceptable on MLK Day.

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.
No any reference to slavery and the current congress and administration are factually incorrect, by unbelievable leaps and bounds. The Republican party is acting like the majority party in congress, not slaveowners. Heavy handed to be sure, but the race card is simply not applicable here, and if I were a black man, I have a feeling that I would be quite upset at her trivialization of slavery.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?
I would be hypocritical if I were to act like I hadn't used plantation analogies, I have been known to say similar sentiments concerning the treatment of black conservatives by black liberals. But I'm also not a United States Senator standing in a majority black church speaking on a day to honor a man who exhorted us to not make race matter.

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?
Clinton played the race card. It was premeditated and calculated. And it is her right to say such things. But due to the inflammatory nature of her remarks, the rest of her message has been drowned out. How her analogy of the GOP House leadership stifling substantive debate equates to keeping human beings in cruel servitude is beyond me.

Questions for Debate:

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

They are completely out of line and I don't see how the analogy works at all. Clearly Hillary Clinton is too self absorbed to even understand how a Plantation was run and what it represents to the audience to which she was speaking. I can't believe that her "plantation" comment made it through the speech revision process. It is absurd and detracts from the meaning for the day.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?

They are obviously detrimental becasue they serve to deepen the divide.

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?

They are out of place EVERYWHERE.

I'd venture to ask how making a joke about plantations in front of a nearly completely black crowd is the same as bringing up racially discriminatory legislation??

It's not like I said that Affirmative Action is like a plantation and white-men are the slaves!!! LMAO!

The irony is that anytime a white-conservative-man brings up race, it's biggoted. However, if a liberal woman/black person/whoever else makes a blatently racist remark it's perfectly ok and people will stand in his/her corner until the end of time.

Affirmative action IS racist, and does propogate a feeling of inequality and does diminish the accomplishment of those who are subjected to the idea. As I stated, I'm confident that if Dr. King's children and grandchildren had become Doctors and Lawyers, only to be told that had they not been black their test scores wouldn't have been high enough to get into Medical and Law school without their race... it wouldn't have been a warm-fuzzy feeling for the man (any man really).

However, it's nothing like making statements about the elected majority and referring them to a plantation. Good luck drawing the coorelation there...

It wasn't a joke, it was a direct response to a question posed which asked about race.

There's nothing ironic about that.

Here are more examples of people that were not named Hillary, and that brought up the plantation comparison, on their own, not in response to a question about race, and were not targeted for it.

I call that selective outrage.

"They're going to say that blacks were disenfranchised, whatever they can do in order to regain power, to keep black Americans angry in order to keep them on the plantation of the Democratic Party. It's about that and nothing else." - Jesse Lee Peterson, November 29, 2004

"A real job is marrying a very rich man and spending the rest of your life giving away the money you never made a penny of yourself. That's a real job. And that kind of snobbery and sort of, you know, plantation mentality, you've seen in her for months. And this is only a small eruption of it." - Charles Krauthammer (speaking about Teresa Heinz Kerry), October 20, 2004

"I mean, he [Tom DeLay] does make the trains run on time. He sort of reminds you of an antebellum plantation where he's the straw boss. I mean, people live in terror of, of, of crossing him." - Mort Kondracke, July 5, 2003

"Yeah, but liberals have used many scare tactics over many decades to gain support for their plantation of dependency. We conservatives do not like to see the plantation of dependency consistently expanded. What we've done is try to eradicate it, eliminate it. And that's why the welfare reforms have worked. Why then would the liberals now try to reconstruct that same plantation of dependency?" - Josh Green, May 6, 2002

"You have a lot of irons in the fire, and you're getting heat from both sides: those that are complaining that in selling BET Holdings to Viacom you're giving up control of content, and then others that are saying, in going into DC Air, you are not competitive unless you have a majority partner, and it's a plantation-type mentality." - Karen Gibbs (to Robert Johnson, BET Holdings CEO), January 15, 2001

"As a matter of fact, for 40 years they're [the Democrats are] the ones that held them down. They're the ones that kept them on the plantation of welfare." - Trent Lott, July 16, 2000

"The liberal Democrats have run their party like a great plantation. They have not done things that have been in the best interests of African Americans. They have passed out to the poor..." - Cal Thomas, January 13, 2000

"There is no legal process provided in the constitution. What's provided, by the way, is not a vote by the American people, either. What is provided for is a vote by the Congress of the United States, the House to impeach, the Senate to convict, with a responsibility to the constitution and the law. And I find it appalling to sit here and listen to these gentlemen arguing as if this is supposed to be a majority tyranny without respect for constitutional principle, without respect for moral conscience. If that view had prevailed, I'd still be picking cotton on some plantation. Thank God it did not." - Alan Keyes (a part of his argument for why Clinton should be impeached), September 29, 1998

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

Yes, but it was distasteful. From what I hear, those in attendance didn't boo, and did seem to understand what she was talking about.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?

I don't think it was racially divisive. What would be really useful would be for the media to focus on real issues. Not 'gotcha' moments featuring public figures.

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?

She was invited there. It's really up to those people at that church.

Amlord



Was it really appalling? If they didn't take offense at it, then how was it appalling?



Does it matter that she characterized the house and not the GOP as being like a plantation? I would argue yes.



I more than a gree with you on this point in regards to the pulpit being just as good for political speeches as anywhere else. We have a long history of that and it's pointless to argue otherwise.

...well, while we're on the subject of outrageous and breathtakingly brain-dead comments from public figures howzabout this one?

Universal Press Syndicate columnist Ann Coulter "joked" during a Thursday speech that liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1001919956

Haw. Haw. Haw. Oh, you've gotta love that dizzy blonde Ann Coulter. What a kidder! About as funny as prostate cancer too.

I eagerly await the flood of utter shocked outrage from my conservative brethren on America's Debate. I can't wait for Bill O'Reilly to go off the deep end on this one. Unleash the hounds!

Or is this just Ann, as well as Hillary, having a "blonde moment?"

I wouldn't hold your breath NT. I suspect most of us here on AD, both liberal and conservative make distinct interpretations between what a pundit says and what an elected representative says.
I can't seem to remember the flood of utter shocked outrage from liberal brethren when similar remarks are made by a liberal pundit. Let's pick just one shall we?

From the sweet and affable Randi Rhodes, one of the more popular AAR hosts:

On Judge Alito:


On Hurricane Katrina:

MP3

On Americans in general:


Nope, I looked......no utter shocked outrage. If you don't expect any better from your representatives in Congress, fine. But you can't expect the same apathy from everyone.

I must say, DTOM, that I had never heard of Randi Rhodes let alone what she has said, so I could not comment on the outrageousness of her remarks. Judging from the quotations you cited, I would characterize her as a child who vies for negative attention because it is better than no attention at all.

So we have established that both sides have their enfants terrible (read: brats) who work very hard to inflame their audiences. And granted, it would be better for all of us if they took the core issues and expounded on them in a responsible manner. But it isn't going to happen, evidently because there is not enough of an audience when they do.

Which brings us back to Senator Hillary Clinton...

A speaker seeks to bring examples to her (in this case) audience with which they are familiar. Now gee whiz, what kind of an environment would her audience identify with when she's talking about a group of people basically being shut out of a decision-making process? An allusion to one of the former Eastern Bloc countries in Europe probably wouldn't have worked as well as a plantation. No, it had to be something to drive the point home, and a headline-getter if possible. A dry reference to disenfranchisement would not have had the same impact there or here. Indeed, we have spent a lot of pixels discussing the outrageous Hillary here already, so she has gotten the desired response, hasn't she?

The fact remains that a Congress that is so heavily partisan does not represent a plurality of the American people, and that is the point she gracelessly but effectively made. Senator Clinton really doesn't care about whether she is characterized as being gracious (she had eight years as First Lady to be that); Elizabeth Dole was gracious and it did not get her the Republican nomination. Senator Clinton would much rather be powerful.

I would probably not have used the plantation reference had I been the speaker in the pulpit on MLK Day, but then I don't have the drive or the prospect for success that Hillary Clinton has.

Ah, I see...it's a case of "selective outrage."

Randi Rhodes is a radio talk show host. She's supposed to say inflammatory, rude and occasionally "out there" remarks. Ann Coulter is a pundit who writes books with bomb-throwing titles like "Treason" and "Slander" and often makes inflammatory, rude and occasionally "out there" remarks. The difference between Ms. Rhodes's statement and those of Ms. Coulter's is the worst you can accuse Randi of is being insulting. Ann threatened the life of a Supreme Court justice and may have broken federal law.

... threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section,

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...15----000-.html

Whoops...but Annie C. said it was, "just a joke" so it's cool, right? Kind of like her entire career. The thing is that Randi and Hillary weren't exactly "politically correct" but everything they said was within the law. Here I always thought conservatives were "law and order" types. So who's going to make a citizen's arrest of Ann Coulter?

Or is the message today there is one standard for liberal Democrats that are blonde and another standard for far right-wing Republican moonbats that are blonde. Is that it, DTOM?

Well NT, let's take this to it's logical outcome. I say go ahead and petition for the arrest of Coulter. File a libel suit if you're so offended. You're selective outrage comment would carry a shred of legitimacy if I was defending what Coulter said. Try as I might, after looking through the posts, I can't find where I have.
But if you wish to impede satirical speech that is used extensively by the left mind you, be my guest. I always had you figured for a supporter of the 1st Amendment.
For you to bring about Ms. Coulter's conviction, you have to prove intent, based upon her own words or actions. However:

www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Surely you don't mean that satire is only protected speech for liberals?

Selective outrage is indeed quite the correct term. When liberals call out Franken for joking about the executions of Rove, Libby and Bush......I will join your bandwagon against Coulter.
Link

When liberals denounce Professor Kamau Kambon recently of NC State appearing on C-SPAN and stating:
And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.
Link
.....then I'll join your bandwagon.

But until then, how about I just hold my elected representatives to a higher standard of speech than pundits, autheors, talk show hosts and certain professors.

You can't honestly say that conservatives hold dual standards while liberals don't......with a straight face......can you?

Finally, 'moonbats' is a term of *ahem* endearment for far left liberals.....it's not nice to co-opt it.........
That was satire by the way.

Questions for Debate:

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?

[/quote]

George Bush's Cabinet and White House are more racially diverse than Billiary Clinton's was, so the first comment is incorrect.

The democratic party get much of it vote from racial politics and race-baiting, and they get a free pass when they make racially insensitive remarks, all in all, it is more of the same from the left

Hilliary Clinton was part of the worst presidency in our history, not one substantive item, domestic or foreign was accomplished in EIGHT years of Clinton. And as we have seen during its last days and immediately afterward, the utter chicanery and incompetence of Clinton's foreign policy and smoke and mirrors domestic ineptness employed George Bush for much of his first term, when real progress could have been made on Social Security, health care and foreign policy.

1. Are Hillary Clinton's comments correct in reference to the house being run "like a plantation"? If so/not, please explain.

I do not have enough evidence and knowledge about this issue. But I feel she should have tried to use another anology. Race issues in the U.S. are very touchy subjects, reactions are never far away. Maybe she should have been a little more diplomatic in her phrasing. This only leads to unnecessary party-bashing, Republicans are waiting eagerly for comments like this, just as Democrats are waiting for Republicans to say something that they can use as ammunition against their political opponents.

2. Are racially divisive remarks coming from a Senator such as these useful or detrimental to Americans?

Racially divisive remarks are never good. Politicians should try to bridge the differences in society and try to improve the relations between different communities in society.

3. Does anyone feel like speeches like this are out of place in a church, or is this the perfect place for such commentary?

I do not see what this remark about plantation has to do with the fact Hillary was speaking in a church.



I have no intend of attacking you personally Jeepman, but..........

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeereeeee we go again. Bush v.s. Clinton. Why is it so difficult for so many "conservative" Americans to defend Bush's actions without referring to the bad Clintonian times. As an outsider I am constantly amazed by the agressiveness from both sides when talking about Presidents and political parties. I understand that one likes to defend his/her president, but why the mud-slinging? Statements like the above are absolutely not helping to improve the political discours. Aren't you people getting tired of this bashing?

So Clinton did some things that you didn't like or approve, we live in the present not the past. Let history decide which one was a better president. In the mean time, lets try to judge Bush and his administration by his own standards and its own time. What Clinton did is history, what Bush does affects the present.

Had you come up with some kind of evidence or links to substantiate these claims, I might have had to take them seriously. But as it is, these comments call attention to the increasingly defensive attitude of Mr. Bush's constituents.

I think we've pretty much established that it wasn't very tactful for Senator Clinton to use the plantation comment, but it was certainly effective in instigating dialogue.