A little known but much publicized joke was made by Hillary Clinton as an introduction to a quote by the late great Mahatma Ghandi.

At a fundraising and election party for Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Clinton prefaced the quote by saying, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis." After the laughter was over she then said seriously that he was a great leader of the 20th Century. Story Here

Many have said her joke was a racist attempt at stereotyping Indians as gas station owners, though she has apologized many times.

Question: Was her joke clearly racist, or is America becoming too politically correct?

Oh, it was racist, and downright stupid...

She was simply pandering and trying to relate with the average American however... (look, I can be funny!)

The joke was racist but so formulated as to obviously have no relation to Sen. Clinton's core beliefs. Criticizing this racist joke isn't unnecessarily politically correct.

It's good to call stupidity in public leaders when we see it.

I actually don't think it was racist, and I would not and have not overly criticized her for it.
However, since the Democrats seem to be much more attuned to political correctness, I am of the firm mind that if Bush or another Republican had said the same.......a firestorm would have ensued.

Hypocritical maybe????

Being a liberal anyway, I did wonder if it would have made a difference if she were Republican.

I think it depends on what the subject was. To me, it seems she quoted Ghandi so it was shortly after assumed in my opinion that she was not being racist. However, if Pat Buchanan said it, it is safe to assume he was meaning there are too many Indians in this country.

Should she have said it? After thinking about it I don't think it was the right thing to say at the time, but I have to wonder if she said it out of stereotyping or just because she was making light of the fact that Ghandi is no ordinary man, but someone everyone knows.

Ok for those of you who have yet figured out yet, I despise Hillary Clinton and everything she stands for. If she were to fall off the face of the Earth the world would be better off than it is now.

That said, that has to be the most human thing I have ever heard her say. Why a future candidate for president would say something like that is beyond me but so what. In my ever-ending quest to end hypocrisy I have to defend Hillary on this. She did NOTHING wrong, she cracked an off color joke, so what! We need to stop this politically correct nonsense and do it now!

Definitely a stu[id thing to say, but racist? Well....what if she had said "Here is a favorite quote of mine from Abe Lincoln, you know Abe, he used to run a gas station around here..."

To me it just seemed like a stupid attempt to couch the quote in a bit of humor and perhaps to bring a sense of "small/midwestern town-ness" to it, and maybe take the edge of any name-dropping charges. Barber-shop wisdom and all that.

This may seem like a reach, but honestly, as much as I don't really care for Hilary Clinton, I have got to think that she is smart enough not to put that in her speech if she knows it will be taken as racist, so she must not have thought it would be.

So stupid, yes, confusing, yes, but racist? I just don't think it was intended that way. How stupid would that be?

how isn't it racist I think is more of a suitable question (that said you know my answer)

I think there was more to it than that, it is possible that "gas station" was a random choice of fictional workplaces, but I seriously doubt it.

I suppose it could be dumb luck... I for one would have never guessed Hillary was so stupid as to include a racist joke (or stupid at all for that matter). But if she couldn't figure out the joke might be taken that way, then perhaps....

She put her foot in her mouth BIG TIME.

You might as well say all Indians own cheap motels too...

Trent Lott at a formerly racist old man's birthday party: We should have elected him. Liberal Response: He should step down as majority leader.

Hillary: Ghandi ran a gas station in St. Louis. Liberal response: She was just trying to be funny.

Hmmm...Yeah a little hypocritical. I do think however that she was just trying to be funny [and sucked at it I might add], this wasn't a racist comment. And btw UGA, "much publicized", I didn't see this comment on CBS, NBS or CNN. Nor is it big news weeks after it happened like Trent Lott's comment.

Edited to add: To answer the second part of the question YES, America is too politically correct.

CP

Yeah, that's a good point Conservpat, isn't it funny how the media hasn't jumped all over this....

What is it with this time of year that gets our Senators all weird? Do you all realize Clinton's comment comes nearly a year to date from Senator Lott's (to which she is being compared here)?

Odd coincidence aside, jump back in the AD time machine with me to see the debate we had: Trent Lott? A racist...I think so - and compare for yourself.

Do note that we jumped on Lott within hours of his comment and the debate lasted for over a month. With Clinton, we are discussing this days after the event and of course, I have no idea how long this will last.

Just thought you'd be interested in having something solid to compare here.

After taking another look at the Trent Lott thread and the OUTRAGE after the comments of Trent Lott, let me change my answer...
Revised Answer: Hillary Clinton should be utterly ahsamed of herself for using this boarderline racial slur, she is clearly a racist. Does she actually think that ALL INDIAN and MIDDLE EASTERN people work at gas stations? How, dare I say it...INSENSITIVE. What type of vile person says something like that...what an OUTRAGE.

CP

Is Hillary Clinton a racist? Of course she is. We all are. Some more consciously than others, some more deliberately than others, but color-blindness simply does not exist.

Was this a racist joke? Maybe, maybe not. Is working in a gas station some sort of Indian-American stereotype? Not that I've ever heard. I suspect it was just a stupid joke that had nothing to do with the Mahatma's race (in fact, I initially read it as offensive in another sense - that she was suggesting her audience wouldn't know who Gandhi was).

But let's give her critics the benefit of the doubt. Suppose there does exist some stereotype that Indian-Americans have a natural propensity toward working in gas stations and that Sen. Clinton was ruthlessly exploiting that stereotype to inject a bit of racist humor into her speech. Okay: it remains stupid and she should probably be getting as much media criticism for it as she has been - as well as such "outraged" responses as Conservpat's.

But to compare her remark to Trent Lott's is absurd.

Let's look at them:

Lott: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

Clinton: "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

Lott was praising a man who ran a campaign on one issue and one issue only - a clearly, unequivocally racist one - segregation. And he was saying that the country would now be better off if that racist agenda had prevailed. He was, in effect, saying that the US would now be a better place if the civil rights movement had never happened, if blacks were still second-class citizens (or worse), if equal rights did not exist, and if segregation was still in effect:
That is the platform which he said would have made the United States a less problematic country. That is the platform which Lott was proudly celebrating.

And that is very, very different from making one stupid joke - even if that joke did mean what many are suggesting it meant.

I'll agree that Lott was much further out of line. Lott complimented a man who supported oppression as opposed to Hillary possibly insulting the race of a man who fought against it. The harm is a little more removed.

Another thing interests me however Wertz...

First you reveal you'd never heard the word "fruitcake" used as a slur against homosexual men, now you're telling us you've never been victim to overhearing a 7-eleven crack about Indians (and Pakistanis).

Wow, Orlando is a magical place!

To help you out with what those offended by the remark might be feeling. Think Apu (The Simpsons)...


I think I just found a great retirement place (as if no one has ever chosen Florida).

What was her intent? IMO, it was to add some humor into her overall message rather than to slur Indian-Americans. If the truth be known, she probably didn't write her speech and didn't catch the gross error in an attempt to be funny when she was quickly reviewing the speech shortly before she gave it.

Hillary Clinton is not a racist IMO, but like the rest of us she sometimes doesn't think before she speaks. I commend the Republicans for not jumping on her wagon for this mistake that she was quick to respond and apologize for. Sometimes, CIVILITY in politics does surface! Now, let's hope Hillary and the Democrats can return the favor when a Republican speaker makes an untentional error in their message.

Wertz: The main difference is that Lott was obviously trying to flatter a 100 year-old man, whereas Clinton was semi-random in her racism. But let's get one thing straight, racism is racism, we need to express outrage equally! If Lott was racist than surely Hillary is too. Personally I don't think that Hillary was racist, my last point was satirical, and I also didn't think Lott was racist, let's be consistent.

CP

It brings to mind a joke that was popular during the Clinton presidency:

Bill and Hillary were low on gas when they pulled in to a gas station and saw a familiar face.

"Hey, that's Pete," Bill said. "Now aren't you glad you married me? Better to be married to the President than to a gas station attendant."

"You're a little confused, Bill," Hillary answered. "If I'd married Pete, you'd be the one pumping gas."

Seriously, though, this was a gaffe. I don't think she was thinking about Apu at the convenience store when she said it. If ever there was a model of political correctness, it would be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And I thought Ghandi was actually spelled Gandhi. I guess it's like al-Qaida and al-Qaeda. ("Let's call the whole thing off..." )

Actually CP, it was much publicized. I got the report off of CNN.com. Also (althought it is against the rules to say it), if you type in goole (<--- ) you can find all the networks that covered the story.

Why it is little known, I have no idea, but I did se the phrase "much publicized yet little known". Would it have been different if a Repblican said it?

I already said earlier it depends on the statement. But I would like to say this. Hillary is a senator, not the President of the US (until 2008!). Therefore, she would have no reason to be scrutinized as much. Plus, the president of the Gandhi organization expressed that the Clintons have shown their admiration to Gandhi several times. This statement would debunk many charges of racism in my opinion.

Trent Lott had more reasons for scrutiny, but I also believe he was just using flattery, not racism. However, people seem to forget. Lott didn't step down because Democrats didn't like what he said at the party, Lott stepped down because Republicans didn't like what he said on BET!

Do we know of any Indian people who were offended? If so, then fair enough, it was a comment in poor taste for which she should be condemned.

If, as I suspect, it is a case of her political opponents (be they Republican or Democrat) getting offended on their behalf, then it was a harmless comment and the measure of success should be whether it is funny or not.

For the record, I didn't laugh, but then I didn't get the reference until someone explained that Indians often own gas stations.

I get fed up with people who cannot possibly be the butt of a comment or action taking umbrage at it in public. They usually drown out any complaints from people likely to be the intended targets, so we rarely find out if any real offence is caused.

I don't think that similar comments here in the UK would be a problem (except with the PC police), unless the person saying them said "Paki", which is very offensive to most people with South Asian ancestry here. Noy least because every brown causasian tends to get caled it by racists, whether they have any connected to Pakistan or not.

I also get upset when people make a huge deal out of nothing like this. I don't personally know of an Indian who took offense to this comment and by the same token everyone I have spoken to about the Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb remark doesn't think that was racist either (and yes these people are African American). The most common comment I heard about that one (from people who didn't even really know who Rush was) was that he must have a lot of enemies for this to be an issue at all.

Apologies - I must be showing my age. When I hear "gas station", I think of, well... a gas station - not a convenience store, not a 7-11 - especially since my last trip through Missouri was in the late sixties when convenience stores didn't even exist. The line, to me, conjured up images of attendants in uniforms who checked your oil and washed your windows while filling your tank - not, um, Abu. I guess we should all start boycotting The Simpsons...

And, while we're on the subject (though I thought this abuse of the language had been laid to rest long ago), the gay slur is "fruit"; "fruitcake" is a slang expression used to describe a crazy or eccentric person. Look the words up.

And, as we're revisiting past "crimes", I would agree with Venom that the Limbaugh remark was not particularly racist either. Trent Lott, on the other hand, was doing way more than paying tribute to a superannuated racist. His "flattery" of Strom Thurmond included the suggestion that the United States would have fewer problems today had segregation been in place for the past forty years. Had Hillary Clinton said something like "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis - which is all any Indians or Pakistanis should ever be doing in this country", then we could begin to compare the two.

Yes, racism is racism is racism and, as I've already said, we are all racist to some degree. It's just that some, like Trent Lott, pursue a racist agenda. Hillary Clinton does not.

I believe the difference between Hillary and Limbagh's statement is that Hillary's statement (although we do not know whether or not she is racist), was taken to be a racist remark.


Limbaugh on the other hand (although we do not know whether or not HE is racist), seemed to seek out a racial agenda when one is not needed. He took an anchoring job about sports and in the beginning, said that black quarterbacks do not deserve the amount of airtime they are receiving. It is to make up for past injustices.

Now let's all be honest here. How many of us really saw Atlanta Falcons QB Mike Vick in his first time back pull over 300 yards and think, "People just like him because he's black"? I know I didn't and it seems he, though like I said is unknown as far as being racist, definitely tried to stir up controversy for the sake of doing so.

On the other hand, I did not see a purposeful stirring of controversy in Hillary's remark. What she said does make me wonder if she had a little much to drink before taking the podium, but it is obvios there is no comparison between Limbaugh and Clinton.

Stupid Comment: Yes

Racist: No

In today's age of political correctness it seems that you can be branded a racist by your opponents for using the wrong name or a name that is out of fashion for a particular group.

In my opinion, you can't really label someone a racist unless they consciously and deliberately make race an issue both with their speech and actions. I don't think that an off the cuff remark or a poorly planned joke makes you a racist. Instead you have to examine the person's history, their actions.

Hillary Clinton has clearly shown us that she is not racist by her actions, therefore it is my assessment that this was just a stupid joke and she put her foot in her mouth. Now granted I can't prove that because I can't get in her head, but it you have to make a judgement based on something and that is how I rationalize it.

I'm also befuddled by all of the "indians working in gas stations" talk.
I thought they just got drunk and hung out on the reservations...

I'm just kidding. They are also owners of casinos, nowadays.

But seriously, I highly doubt Mrs. Clinton would have malicious intent
behind the delivery of such a joke. She's all about defending
the rights of everyone (even the Indians).

Wow...a definite racist joke is not racist? What kind of logic is that? Whats with the double standard here? I dare say if any Republican would have said this rather than Queen Hillary the NY times would be calling for blood and the little lemming DNC crowd would be also. I find it fascinating and a deep look into the character of people and how they view things. I mean, lets be consistent here or are we too much of an idealogue to see this for what it is? I myself thought it was a poor joke, heck who hasn't told a racial joke of some kind..but lets but a little more...to borrow a tired line: "Fair and balanced?"

cusbilla

Again, I ask for consistency!!! Lott says we should have voted for a racist, Hillary uses a semi-slur. If one was wrong, they both were, if one was stupid but not racist, the other was stupid and not racist. Why not just be consistant?

UGA: I am mistaken, you're right CNN did give it some coverage. However, as Jaime said, I highly doubt this will be an issue months after the comment, which is inconsistant.

CP

Many people have already said responses to this comment about "double standard". It would be really helpful if the same comment was not said over and over again...unless something is being added.

Cusbilla, conservpat, you guys are so right. What could I have been thinking! Of course telling a lame joke which might be interpreted as slightly off-color is the moral equivalent of declaring that the country would have been better off if we had elected the white supremacist ticket to the presidency! Gee, what was I thinking!

I would think such a bizarre spin was funny if weren't so sad, typical, and polemic. Oh well.

Which might be taken as offensively? You've got to be kidding! Let's look at the circumstances: Lott was at a 100 year old's birthday party, he was trying to make an OLD man feel good, do you think that he actually believes that? Hillary made a RACIST joke about Middle Easterners working at gas stations! I doubt that she believes that and I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, some folks are letting the pot know that the kettle's black.

As my African American dad so eloquently put it: "What Hilary said is the equivilent of saying the MLK Jr. worked at a Popeye's fried chicken joint." God only knows what would happen if a conservative said that.

CP

Sorry to point this out, Cusbilla, but you are off the mark here.

First of all, what Hillary said was a joke, most likely meant to be
an ice breaker as well as a segue into the subject of her speech,
Gandhi. How is it really racist? So what if many people
from India work in and own gas stations. There's no shame
in that.

Are you only offended by it because it was said by "Queen Hillary"?
In other words, if your best friend or your mom or dad would have said
such a thing it would clearly have been accepted as lighthearted humor?

The comment was incredibly stupid, nothing more, nothing less.

To the PC crowd (were they not all liberals ) this might be an issue. To those who have half a brain or more, it is not.

The amount of coverage given to this vs. the Lott or Limbaugh incidents is disparate, to my mind. Lott's comments were not nearly as bad as some have forwarded, while Limbaugh's were simply true, and not disparaging to anyone except the media.

Just to put this in prespective: Trent Lott thread: Dec 9 2002-January 13, 2003. This thread is all but dead only one day after beginning. Doesn't that seem a wee bit inconsistant to anyone other than me?

CP

Not at all CP and to me this is why the Liberals are losing any credibilty they have had. This constant bashing by the left and couple that with anything the right says that isn't PC and not holding their own to the same standard is silly. I mean, people aren't as stupid as they want you to think they are. The Press is letting Fox News pretty much rule the roost because they actually report this stuff that the elite media refuses to cover because of some bias or adgenda that no one can figure out.

cusbilla

Not really.

Hillary not only went on after that sentence to praise Gandhi, she immediately afterward apologized if the joke offended anyone.

Lott took days (DAYS!) to even figure out what he said that was so wrong. Then he tried to defend himself. Then he finally admitted he was wrong. This story turned into a multi-day story because of Lott himself.

The other point: they're not the same thing, no matter how hard you try to tie them together. One was a stupid joke. The other was said in all seriousness. People forgive stupid jokes faster than stupid seriousness.

The length of time does not really mean much. That thread went on for so long because there were people who were arguing whether or not his comments were racist.

In this thread, even those who don' t like Hillary pretty much agree that the comment could not have been racially charged. Especially since she went on to praise him afterwards.

I don't recall any past instances where Hillary was openly racist, so I wouldn't think this joke motivated by racist intentions. Trent Lott, on the other hand had a history of racial ideals: article

If Hillary has a history of racism (or goes on to have a future of racism), then I would change my mind.

On the other hand, Limbaugh said
link. So I guess it is racist. After all, if anyone would know a racist comment when he see's it, it would be Rush!

I think it was VERY stupid and while her intention cannot possibly be clear, I would have to think SOMEONE might have pointed out to her beforehand that using "gas station attendant" as a hypothetical job for the likes of Gandhi would be VERY unwise and would at least be received as racist.

While I consider it distasteful and largely stereotypical (even if it wasn't meant that way, it SHOULD have been understood that this is in poor taste and will be viewed as such by anyone with a working knowledge of stereotypes), it is nothing like Lott's comments. which can EASILY be determined to be derived from racism. I don't think there's much of a way for Lott's comments to be taken in any other way than saying "we'd have been better off if we'd remained segregated". Seriously....what on earth else could he have possibly meant? I sure can't say. The difference between this and Clinton's statement is that Clinton was obviously praising Gandhi and the joke just seemed to be in poor taste rather than a reflection of her own beliefs as she didn't say Gandhi SHOULD have been a gas station attendant or anything like that. It's like comparing apples oranges, even if only because Lott and the person for whom he was singing praises, had a history of such beliefs/statements and Clinton does not. Same reason Limbaugh's comments were taken so seriously (and I personally believe while it wasn't the time or place, it wasn't necessarily RACIST of him to say...even if he takes it upon himself to spew racist speech on other occasions)...a person's "history" certainly should play a role in how their comments are viewed, though! If I were to say something that could be perceived as derogatory about, Blacks, for example - "Blacks need Affirmative Action in order to get a job" it would be TOTALLY different as if David Duke said the samr thing. Context is quite important as well. In this particular scenario, the "benefit of the doubt" would likely be in my favor as I'd think given my personal history/life, it would be obvious that I was talking not about abilities but about opportunities and the lack of equal opportunities that would be afforded to Blacks without AA. David Duke on the other hand...yeah...people would obviously (and almost certainly rightly so) think he meant that Blacks weren't capable of getting jobs on their own because they are inferior. Totally different.

I'm not AT ALL excusing Hillary's comments as I think they were terrible and defintiely in poor taste regardless of what she may or may not have meant. I just think it's VERY different than the Trent Lott incident.

Here's another meaning for ya, he could have been saying that he believed that Strom would have made a good president. A few points. Honestly, does any one actually believe that someone could run for president on one issue? I believe Lott's comments were solly intended to praise Strom as a good man on his birthday. Anyone who thinks that Lott was trying to say that the country would be better off segragrated is out in left field and is looking for something to be mad about. (And on a side note, it is sad that directing praise to a man whose life was dedicated to serving this country automatically labels you as a racist. I could rant on that for a while, but I'll move on)

On the other hand, Hillary's joke was obviously indented to take advantage of the stereo type of indian americans working at gas stations and convenience stores. If you need proof that such a stereotype exists look at the Simpsons' character Apu. This was clearly a racial joke. Does it signify any under lieing racism....no, I don't think so. But it is clearly had more racial intentions that Lott's comment and the hypocrisy of the media's treatment of the two is ridiculous.

Also, some have brought up the limbaugh comment. Sports casters routinely say that players are overrated, and then precede to make their cases. To make a comparison, Limbaugh's comment came early in the season (week 3 I believe). A few weeks later, while watching the patriots vs. texans game the national announcer went on and on about how Ty Law was overrated because the media was looking for a star cornerback on the stand out patriots defense. The only difference in the comment is the lack of a racial component. Even though Rush's comment was a legitment and debatible critisim of the media, he was run out of town for even touching the issue of race.

I draw two conclusions from all this. First, yes this country is WAAAAY too PC. An environment like the one that exists in america today erects barriers between the races, and inhibits open dialog through the fear that a comment may be construed out of its original meaning and "offend" someone. Often this "offence" isn't real at all. People go around looking for things to take offence to. Its really sad.

The second conclusion is that liberals get a free pass on the whole issue of race. Why is this? It is something I've often pondered and have never been able to answer. Honestly, dozen't anyone have any ideas?



"African-Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do."
-Bill Clinton

I find it hard to believe that anyone has never heard of this sort of racial stereotype before? 7-11, Quick-Trip, The Simpsons QuickieMart? Come on now.





Wow, you are assuming a lot here don't you think??? You assuming that he was referring to segregation is no different then others assuming that Hillary was making a racial slur.

I do think what she said:



could be seen as racist, though I do not believe she meant it that way. I think she was just trying to be likeable. I also think what Lott said could be seen as racist but I think it is more likely that he was trying to be nice to a peer who was retiring.

Political Correctness is the new assault on free speech (and common sense) lets lighten up folks

Well, there's not much assuming going on when you consider Lott's past on the subject of race link and the platform that Thurmond ran on - link and link.

Comparing a joke that was not well-thought out to decades of racially motivated speech/actions and the subsequent endorsement of it is ridiculous.

I do agree that it is a racist remark but I also think we are all in some way racist. But for someone as Clinton to say what she said is a little, well dumb.

It was Hillary, not Bill, Nostir.