Clinton-Supporting BET Founder In Flap Over Raising Obama Drug Use

Did he mean it, or didn’t he? It’s a question that has come up often with New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination — and it came up AGAIN in South Carolina as BET’s founder made comments that some felt raised questions about Senator Barack Obama’s admitted youthful drug use. He later explained that he was misunderstood.

Here are the key facts from the New York Times The Caucus blog:

Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who is campaigning today in South Carolina with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just made a suggestion that raised the specter of Barack Obama’s past drug use. He also compared Mr. Obama to Sidney Poitier, the black actor, in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.”

At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent comments that Mrs. Clinton made regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not mean to take any credit away from him, Mr. Johnson said, when she said that it took President Johnson to sign the civil rights legislation he fought for.

Dr. King had led a “moral crusade,” Mr. Johnson.

“That is the way the legislative process works in this nation and that takes political leadership,” he said. “That’s all Hillary was saying.”

A good explanation. But then came a comment that has raised eyebrows in some quarters:

He then added: “And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved.”

Does that suggest he was suggesting Obama was doing something routine or unflattering? The way it’s stated, it’s something he didn’t want to come right out and say…for some reason or another. MORE:

Moments later, he added: “That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.”

Johnson’s comments attacking Obama in general became big news. But then when reporters asked about the apparent drug use reference, this is how the campaign responded. Fox News:

Asked what Senator Clinton thought of a surrogate making a drug reference at one of her campaign events, Clinton Spokesman Jay Carson said “I don’t think that’s what he was referring to and her record on this issue is clear. She has made crystal clear to supporters and staff alike that no one should engage in negative personal campaigning.”

Johnson later made a statement The Caucus carried as an update and insisted he was misunderstood:

Update: 5 p.m. Mr. Johnson just released this statement, through the Clinton campaign:

“My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.”

“When Hillary Clinton was in her twenties she worked to provide protections for abused and battered children and helped ensure that children with disabilities could attend public school.
That results oriented leadership — even as a young person — is the reason I am supporting Hillary Clinton.”

Question: if he meant Obama’s time as a community organizer and nothing else, then why didn’t he just come out and say it the first time? What was so bad about that?

If this was a coincidence and misunderstanding, then Ms. Clinton needs to run a tighter ship because it isn’t a terrific sign of how she’d run the White House. Can’t she simply warn those campaigning for her not to say things that will get her accused of having surrogates run a negative campaign?

And, if it is part of a pattern and strategy, it is…reprehensible. Particularly for voters who seek not just a change in the players in Washington, but a change in the nation’s political culture — in the way the game is played. One Karl Rove era is enough.

For a sampling of blog reaction to this controversy, go HERE.