  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Playing the Race Card Against ObamaPosted on Jan 15, 2008WASHINGTON—It turns out that Toni Morrison’s famous line about Bill Clinton as “our first black president” was just a bon mot. If the Clintons took it as a sign of African-Americans’ unconditional fealty, they were mistaken. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that black Democrats nationwide now support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination by nearly 2 to 1. This striking reversal—a month ago, Clinton held a big lead among African-Americans—is perhaps why race has suddenly become such a hot issue in a campaign that previously had dodged the subject. It was never realistic to think that race—or gender, for that matter—would stay out of a contest starring the first woman and the first African-American with realistic hopes of becoming president. From the Democrats’ point of view, it’s probably better to hash all this out now rather than wait until the general election campaign, when the Republican Swift-boat machine would set the parameters and tone for the discussion. Still, it’s surprising that the Clinton campaign has been so aggressive in keeping the race issue alive. On “Meet the Press,” Clinton didn’t just seek to explain her remarks about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s role in landmark civil rights legislation (she said it took a president to bring about real action) or Bill’s “fairy tale” crack about Obama’s record on the Iraq war (which some African-Americans took as a dismissal of Obama’s candidacy as mere fantasy). Instead, she went on the attack, accusing the Obama campaign of “deliberately distorting” her words in a way that was “unfair and unwarranted.” That seemed a curious tactic to employ just two weeks before the South Carolina Democratic primary, in which African-Americans are expected to cast about half the total vote. It seemed especially curious after the most powerful black politician in the state, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, indicated he was so “bothered” by the Clintons’ remarks that he might rethink his decision not to endorse any candidate before the primary. With most polls showing Clinton well behind in South Carolina, it was unclear how this approach would do anything but put her further behind. The charitable explanation would be that the Clintons are, in terms of their political position, simply disoriented. They are accustomed to Bill Clinton’s campaigns, in which African-American support was pretty much assumed. Backing for Hillary Clinton from prominent friends and allies such as Andrew Young, Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., Vernon Jordan, Magic Johnson, Quincy Jones and others didn’t manage to keep Obama out of the race—and, according to the polls, won’t keep black voters from supporting him. It would be understandable if the Clintons were frustrated at seeing such an important Democratic constituency lured away, and if they were doubly frustrated at the difficulty of finding a way to criticize Obama without further alienating African-Americans. This is politics, however, which means that less charitable explanations have to be considered as well. Race is just one of the fights that the Clinton campaign is pressing with Obama at the moment; the other is an attempt to discredit Obama’s opposition to the war. It could be that the idea is to engage Obama in so much tit-for-tat combat that his image as a new kind of post-partisan politician is tarnished. Or the strategy could be more subtle. I can’t help but recall a certain piece of history. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for president, a controversial hip-hop artist named Sister Souljah made an ugly comment about the Los Angeles riots: “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” Candidate Clinton highlighted the remark in a speech to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, comparing Souljah to Ku Klux Klan member David Duke. The episode demonstrated that Clinton was not only tough on lawlessness but also willing to challenge “special interests”—in this case, black activists. The Clintons are reading the polls, too; they might well be resigned to the possibility that most black Democrats will vote for Obama. This would mean that South Carolina is probably already lost, and that the campaign’s focus now has to be on Florida and the many states whose delegates are up for grabs on “Tsunami Tuesday.” Is it possible that accusing Obama and his campaign of playing the race card might create doubt in the minds of the moderate, independent white voters who now seem so enamored of the young black senator? Might that be the idea? Yes, that’s a cynical view. But history is history. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: One Giant Leap for America Next item: No Time to Argue About the Economy Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
The Dream Campaign Goes to Berlin
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By cyrena, January 17 at 2:53 pm #
On this, they are WILLFULLY ignorant and comatose.
How else does one explain it?
Report thisBy hetzer, January 16 at 10:12 pm #
Including people on this site, the world is made up of crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards. No exceptions.
Report thisBy john polifronio, January 16 at 7:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
These brainless attacks on Hillary, are either republican inspired or media inspired. Either way, dems will live to regret them. The dumbest thing we’re doing in the dem party, is allowing this near universal media attack on our best candidate to continue, unabated. Hillary may not be the nominee; but if she isn’t we’ll find out the hard way, what a stupid mistake we’ve made.
Report thisBy jeremypb, January 16 at 4:29 pm #
I don’t think it’s just black voters supporting Obama in places like South Carolina. To quote a story from oneforthetable.com
Report thiscalled Sweet Potato Politics where Julia Flower is talking about her recent trip to the state:
“This group of Caucasian, church goin’, blue-collar southerners were for Barack Obama. I’m talking about men who use the “N” word without thought. These are women who never have and never would even go on a date with a black man and yet intend to vote for him in the South Carolina Democratic Primary on January 26th and hopefully again in the final election.”
By boo boo, January 16 at 7:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Whenever I hear a white person speak of merit, honesty and law abiding behaviour, I wonder aloud if the speaker has managed to inhale the entire jug of kool-aide, or they are just completely unaware of American history.
You would have to be rendered completely comatose of america’s rich history of slavery, genocide and rape to speak in such meritorious terms, in that your progenitors robbed, raped, killed and stole everything that wasn’t nailed down. It seems to me that white people have never met an entitlement or unfair advantage accruing to them, that they didn’t love, it’s everyone else that must play by the rules, the rules that they made up to benefit them.
A fairy tale says billy-boy, well here’s a fairy tale, “ I never had sex with that woman, and it depends of what is, is”.
Report thisBy hetzer, January 16 at 7:00 am #
It is possible to hate Hillary because she is a dishonest crook, and may even be as rotten as the Bush Crime family (yet to be seen). It is stupid for stupid people to think that anyone who hates Hillary is stupid. Her handlers and backers say it all. I HATE PEOPLE WHO ARE PLANNING MY DESTRUCTION!
Of course Obama is seen as black. We live in a society where skin color is all. There are blacks who think he isn’t black at all. Don’t forget sexism either. Mothers are always discounted.
Report thisBy dihey, January 16 at 4:29 am #
Every political commentator mentions that Senator Obama’s father was a black Kenyan. Does the Senator have a mother or did he, like Minerva/Pallas Athena spring from the brains of his father?
Report thisBy john polifronio, January 16 at 3:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Can the Hillary haters be that stupid? Well,...yes.
Report thisBy cwhipps, January 15 at 10:53 pm #
It may be that Hillary is dealing from a Republican deck of cards because, like the Republicans, they’re the only cards she has.
In Michigan, the first significant black population to vote in these early primaries were found in exit polls to support Obama by 73% by voting “uncommitted.”
After the debate in Las Vegas, it’s apparent that Obama has tacitly agreed to hand her a pass on her earlier Iraq position, knowing that to continue to let her inject race into the dialog only hurts his chances in California and New York primaries, and later in the general.
This is uncharted waters for Democrats, at least post ‘64, and it will be interesting to see if it works in an era that is sick of everything that even reminds them of Bush’s corruption and distraction induced incompetence.
Then again, she may be counting on Karl Rove’s voter caging tactics working in her behalf.
Report thisBy cyrena, January 15 at 10:02 pm #
This is getting old. I’ve not heard anybody calling the Clinton’s racist. If you’re reading blogs that are calling them racists, then you should read something else.
Barack Obama has not called the Clinton’s anything. Old man Clinton, (the 1st Black President) should just go sit his ass down somewhere, since it’s his wife that’s running, and not him. We liked him well enough, (at least most of the black community did at the time...or that was my impression) and now his turn his over, and she just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Nobody is flinging a race card here, in either direction, other than maybe Hillary, because this is NOT NEW for her. So, why don’t you all just get over it?
I am a FEMALE - OF COLOR - and I’m voting for Dennis Kucinich, despite what ‘chances’ everyone claims he doesn’t have. I could live with Edwards and/or Obama as well.
Hillary doesn’t do anything more than what has got us into the shit to begin with. How much more does anybody need to know?
And, let’s stop whining about the accusations of racism and/or sexism. It’s real, it’s alive, it’s been that way for centuries. Fortunately, many of us have gotten over it, and moved beyond it, and I’d like to think that there are MORE than just a handful of folks, who vote based on the RECORD of the candidate, as well as the message, and their likihood of getting us out of this horrific mess..if that’s even possible.
And, and I’m all for Unity, if it can be managed, but I’m with whomever chose JUSTICE, even over that.
To suggest that OBAMA is polarizing, considering Hillary Clinton’s entire Personality of Polarization, (when were you born anyway...were you in a coma back in the day?) is plain STUPID.
THAT’S what’s been her biggest drawback since day one. SHE’S who the dems have always worried about as being the POLARIZING candidate, and she’s fullfilling all of those expectations. She didn’t HAVE to, that’s just the way she’s chosen to play it.
So, get real.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, January 15 at 7:51 pm #
Well said, Jacks.
This whole thing seems like a good way to stay well clear of serious issues, which of course suits the corporate candidates just fine...though it doesn’t sit well with me.
But regardless of who is at the bottom of this race issue, it seems to be having an effect. Early returns from Michigan (low, disenfranchised turnout...but i’ll refrain from that rant) are showing that the African American vote has been going 70-26 against Sen. Clinton. That doesn’t matter in Michigan where she ran unopposed, but it surely might in some other states. Moreover, it could seriously hurt Democratic chances in the general election were Clinton to be the nominee.
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, January 15 at 6:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comments are always taken out of context and probably the media is to blame.
Clinton still can become president, if not then the ticket will be Edwards/Obama, end of story.
Vote anyway, maybe the Dems will shoot themselves in the foot, but the only viable Repb is McCain and his age will certainly be a factor.
Report thisBy jjohnjj, January 15 at 5:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Just what are these “cards” we keep hearing about?
The “race card” used to be a negative, to discourage white voters from voting for a non-white, regardless of merit. Then it became a positive, to encourage people of color to vote for one of their own, regardless of merit.
Now it seems to be a guilt factor… “prove that you’re not a racist - vote for the black guy”. In the Clinton/Obama rivalry we have a competing guilt factor… “prove that you’re not a sexist - vote for the woman”.
Two oppressed populations are represented by these candidates. Both wish to ascend to a new level of approval and legitimacy. Unless you’re one of those rare voters who measures the candidate strictly by their political merits, the question is...who gets to go first?
I gotta hand it to Obama, tho… he hasn’t asked for the sympathy vote or the guilt vote. He seems to be telling white America, “you are all innocent until proven guilty.” We love him for that.
Jesse Jackson said that Obama comes across as a “multi-ethnic” rather than an “ethnic” American. He’s more of a “Global-American” than an “Afro-American”.
I don’t get a positive vibe from Clinton. I’d be more inclined to vote for Cindy Sheehan, a working class woman who lost a son to a rich-man’s war.
I’m still voting for Edwards. I like his promise of “Justice” more than Obama’s dream of “Unity”.
Report thisBy can't find password, January 15 at 3:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama’s not playing the race card or any other card.
Clinton is in the mud bath all by herself and apparently having fun flinging it. Is that what she meant by “now the fun part starts”? And there is no “tit for tat” except for the false confrontations created by the media. The Obama campaign has been open and above all the bitter, nasty comments. If you want to see a nasty campaign, just look at what the Clinton’s are doing. This is all their doing.
Report thisBy hetzer, January 15 at 11:57 am #
Clinton won and threw 2 elections
Gore threw the 2000 election
Kerry threw the 2004 election
Clintons are throwing the 2008 election
Republican money has loaded these dice. Vote anyway.
Report thisBy lib in texas, January 15 at 8:43 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Jacks, No one could have said it better.
Report thisBy troublesum, January 15 at 6:32 am #
Former presidents have stayed out of gutter politics but the blow job boy jumps right in.
Report thisBy Jacks, January 15 at 3:27 am #
Here’s the correct link to the Jesse Jackson, Jr. interview that was aired the first day after NH:
Report thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&e;
By Jacks, January 15 at 3:26 am #
I am an Edwards supporter and I cannot stand the Clintons, but the Obama campaign makes them look downright decent. As a young man of color, I have been astounded by the sheer audacity of Obama and the all-too complicit press in inflaming racial tension needlessly.
*The Obama camp has been the one to keep this explosive, baseless issue alive, pushing inflammatory distortions:
Obama camp South Carolina memo (including distortions of the Clintons’ separate comments and taking Cuomo’s comments out of context):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-m emo-on-clin_n_81205.html
Cuomo used that poor choice of words to talk about retail politics in general--not Obama:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=6141#more-6141
The double standards are outrageous: Clinton herself gets personally condemned for the action of any supporter (Johnson is a damn fool) and yet Obama is not only not touched when his supporter, Michael Eric Dyson, states that any criticism of Obama is “racial in subtext,” but also completely left unscathed when his own national co-chair, that fool Jesse Jackson, Jr., states that Clinton has no compassion for Katrina survivors (obviously, overwhelmingly black) only for her “appearance” because she didn’t get emotional on camera (Hey, Jesse: When did Obama get emotional over Katrina?). Bullshit!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&e;Neither of the Clintons’ statements were racially insensitive. I’m tired of this nonsense. If we refuse to credit LBJ with passing the Civil Rights Act over great opposition (result: Southern Strategy employed by GOP) then what next, refusing to honor Lincoln for the Emancipation Proclamation because he didn’t suffer as much as blacks who fought for their freedom did? Nothing--nothing--will ever diminish the heroic legacy of MLK and all those that marched for freedom. Come on! Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” remarks were about his damn image as an anti-war candidate, when his voting record is the SAME AS CLINTON’S. Check out his entire voting record and you’ll realize when push comes to shoves, Obama defers to the Establishment; he never leads the opposition against the right.
Why the hell would the Clinton campaign want to do *anything* to risk their post-NH momentum let alone demonize their candidate even more by being smeared as a damn RACIST, which all but assures that even if she secures the nomination it will be fundamentally crippled?! The Clintons are many things, but politically suicidal is not one of them. Period.
The Obama campaign is not foolish. They know how this looks and with a press that is blindly fawning over Obama, it’ll only benefit him--at our expense. Just watch comments litter this site, condemning Clinton for distortions, while completely ignoring Obama’s polarizing tactics, which ultimately benefits the GOP against our eventual nominee--We’re screwed before we’ve even started!--as our party is torn apart (Already the blogs are lit up with *Democrats* vehemently attacking the Clintons as racists!).
Report this