Umm…Clinton May Not Have Said Racially-Charged “Getting Us Coffee” Quote
Bill Clinton is catching a huge amount of flack for supposedly having belittled Barack Obama by telling Ted Kennedy something like, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
But it’s worth noting that there’s pretty good cause to believe he may not have said this.
The claim about Clinton’s explosive remarks came on page 218 of Game Change:
The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.
The remark is not in quotes. And the authors’ note from Mark Halperin and John Heilemann states explicitly their rationale for choosing not to put dialog in quotes:
Where dialog is not in quotes, it is paraphrased, reflecting only a lack of certainly on the part of our sources about precise wording, not about the nature of the statements.
This is kind of amazing. By the authors’ own stated guidelines, this might not have been the “precise wording” Clinton used. Yet it has been the basis for a huge amount of media discussion all the same, with some suggesting racism on Clinton’s part.
To be clear, it’s very possible that Clinton did say something along these lines. It seems very likely that he did belittle Obama. But come on: In cases like these, when people are hinting at racism, the precise wording is everything. And in this case, the whole claim is based on an anonymous source’s recollection that someone who has now passed away told him or her that Clinton said something like this.
This really illustrates the perils of this approach to sourcing, particularly in the current media environment. And at bottom, it’s just absurd that this has provoked so much discussion, with little to no media figures also noting how tenuous and insubstantial the claim itself really is.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Thanks Greg! I saw this all over the morning shows today and you’re right, not one of them so far has pointed that out. Scarborough actually had a copy of the book in his hand, and he didn’t read that part. I can’t imagine why Jethro wouldn’t have read that part?
“”Political reporting” means “royal court gossip”.”
“No event in recent memory has stimulated the excitment and interest of Washington political reporters like the release of Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s new book, Game Change, and that reaction tells you all you need to know about our press corps. By all accounts (including a long, miserable excerpt they released), the book is filled with the type of petty, catty, gossipy, trashy sniping that is the staple of sleazy tabloids and reality TV shows, and it has been assembled through anonymous gossip, accountability-free attributions, and contrived melodramatic dialogue masquerading as “reporting.” And yet — or, really, therefore — Washington’s journalist class is poring over, studying, and analyzing its contents as though it is the Dead Sea Scrolls, lavishing praise on its authors as though they committed some profound act of journalism, and displaying a level of genuine fascination and giddiness that stands in stark contrast to the boredom and above-it-all indifference they project in those rare instances when forced to talk about anything that actually matters.
This reaction has nicely illuminated what our press corps is.”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/11/halperin
Here’s what Lott said:
“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 the years, either.”
And here’s what Thurmond said:
“there’s not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”
So as we can clearly see, there’s no difference at all between what Reid or Clinton are reported to have said and what Lott was communicating. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/
word missing there is n*i*g*g*e*r
@bernie: Who cares about Thurmond and Clinton? Reid called us a nation of racists and he has yet to apologize to us all. I think he’s an a$$hole. If you’re happy with that sort representing the Democratic party then have at it!
Yo Halperin, you can put this in quotes
“this is bush league b.s.” thanks to greg for
chasing it down. and the paraphrase is the weapon
of choice to attack people you don’t like. halperin
a true village suckup has always hated the Clintons.
Too bad Heileman went along for the ride. He’ll live
to regret it. Heileman has standards. Halperin has none.
@sbj – can you source that quote for me?
I keep giving right winger “sbj” more credit than he deserves.
Tell, you what “sbj”, now YOU owe ME an apology for being a dishonest right wing shill and a racist enabler for repeatedly failing to call out your right wing racist allies on this site.
@Bernie: Did I use quotes?
Figure it out, mate. If Reid says Obama could only get elected because he has lighter skin and doesn’t speak ‘negro’ then that means Reid thinks we are a nation of … ?
C’mon now! You’re a smart fellow – to smart to play silly games.
@sbj – wasn’t playing, thought perhaps you had some quote I wasn’t familiar with and had to check.
Let me ask you then. Do you think it is a mis-estimation of reality to consider it not the case that a more caucasian looking and speaking individual would find his/her path to the Presidency easier than another who had more African features and spoke with a more pronounced African American dialect? I can’t imagine you’d believe that to be so.
But if you do, do you think it would hold equally true in the northern states and the southern state? Would California and the Carolinas be the same? If not, are the people of the Carolinas or the south racist?
And if one can’t describe the US as presently evidencing racism, can you say it never did? Where on the calendar did the change take place and how?
You can insist that comparisons with, say, Lott are irrelevant but of course those comparisons are originating on the right.
Yeah, because only black people get coffee. Not junior, inexperienced, lowly interns. Anything to make Bill a racist. But Harry Reid says a dark skinned person can’t be President and that’s keeping it real. Good Lord.
New rulz from the pundits class: paraphrase second and third hand sources, mixed it with some sleazy trashy and petty innuendos and then spin the combination in a volume. Finally hustle the alleged untraceable potpourri down on the Potomac where assorted gossip mongers and hacks have nothing else to do but stick their noses in septic tanks.
@bernie:
“Do you think it is a mis-estimation of reality to consider it not the case that a more caucasian looking and speaking individual would find his/her path to the Presidency easier than another who had more African features and spoke with a more pronounced African American dialect?”
Yes. If anything, blacks are more likely to express this type of racism. It is evident all over the world – India, Mexico, indigenous versus immigrant.
“Do you think it would hold equally true in the northern states and the southern state?”
Yes. If anything, I think the south’s experience makes them more likely to realize that skin tone is unimportant. They may be more or less racist, but I don’t believe it is based on shade – simply on race.
“Are the people of the Carolinas or the south racist?”
There are racists everywhere – likely in equal proportions. In the South they might hate blacks, in New York it might be boriquas, in California it might be latinos.
“And if one can’t describe the US as presently evidencing racism.”
Who said that? I can at once believe that racism still exists while also believing that it does not manifest in “white” America in terms of skin tone within that race, specifically.
“You can insist that comparisons with, say, Lott are irrelevant.”
I will and do.
This story is already dying – it had its 15 minutes of fame – is anyone still talking about Palin’s book(case in point)?
What are the policy writers up to today – is what concerns me…..
I gotta agree with JenJen on this one. That “quote” on its own (have no more intention of buying this book than I do of buying a Hollywood gossip rag) sounds like it’s more about seniority than racism. After all, Clinton and Kennedy have been in politics forever, and here’s this upstart kid running for President not 4 years after joining the Senate (remember, this is pre-primary-era), so it makes sense that they’d be annoyed at people not having to work their way up the ladder like they did. I don’t support that view, but it’s an easier one to imagine Clinton thinking Kennedy would be susceptible to.
sbj sez…At least the GOP had the good sense to make him resign.
there’s ample evidence that his racist remarks were not the reason he lost his majority leadership…Bush wanted cat torturer Bill Frist in that position
Lott did resign the Senate to become a lobbiest in 2007…5 years after his comments in 2002
Hey, just today discovered your blog but I have to admit that it looks great. I fully agree with your post. Have a good day, keep up the nice work and I’ll definitely come back.I just got in to the Battlefield Bad Company 2 PC Beta for free, check out this youtube video for instructions on how you can do it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeEGe5fIAXo
Hi, just discovered this blog but I have to say that it looks sweet. I fully agree with your post. Have a great day, keep up the nice work and I’ll definitely come back.I just got in to the BF BC2 PC