As left-leaning Americans living in Italy, we're often called upon by European friends to explain what happened to the America they once knew and loved. The theme of these inquiries is all too predictable: the mess in Iraq, a failed health care system, a tanking currency and a domestic economy that consistently snubs the average working person. The Bush/Cheney United States is no longer a model for western-style democracies, our friends tell us. With its hobbled economy and arrogant foreign policy, America has lost its claim to world leadership in every sense.
Until recently we felt we had at least one credible retort. The U.S., we asserted, is significantly more progressive than Europe in the area of race relations. In Europe, people of color are still routinely subjected to discrimination, publicly and privately, that most Americans would find backward and offensive. Compared to Europe, the U.S. is an enlightened society: We are far less likely to judge or be judged by race, religion or ethnicity; we're more integrated. No one is surprised, or cares, if their boss, co-worker, professor, doctor or banker is black, brown, red, or yellow. The U.S. presidential race is a perfect example: Name a single European country, we'd say, where a politician like Barack Obama would be taken seriously as a national candidate, let alone win primary after primary.
But after watching this same presidential campaign during these past few weeks, we no longer feel our claim to these bragging rights is unassailable. In her desperation to win at any cost, during the month of March and now April, Hillary Clinton has disinterred an ugly American skeleton, one that most of us from the generation that came of age during the Civil Rights era hoped we had finally entombed: You can still frighten a lot of white Americans into voting against a black candidate -- enough, anyway, to win a primary in a state like Ohio and perhaps Pennsylvania.
The Clinton campaign, its tinge of inevitability long vanished, has only one potent message left in its arsenal as Hillary slogs on to the convention. Cleverly packaged and cunningly encoded, the message is nonetheless simple: Obama can't win a general election. Why? Because he happens to be (whisper) "a black man." And, even if he says he's a candidate that appeals to all Americans, we all know (smirk, smirk) that average white Americans (not the latte-sipping, Volvo-driving, Birkenstock-wearing types) just won't vote for a black man for president. It's not that they're prejudiced; they're just not yet "comfortable" with the idea.
So what's a losing campaign to do? First, pigeon-hole Obama as the "black folks" candidate, who has no real appeal beyond a "narrow" segment of the electorate. Hence, we have überstrategist Mark Penn and Bill Clinton spinning ad nauseum that Obama is only winning because of African-American support and that his victories are, as such, insignificant compared to Hillary's. In this new electoral math a la Clinton, black votes are no longer "separate but equal," they're actually worth less than white votes, a return, as it were, to the original valuation assigned in the Constitution to each slave: three-fifths of a white citizen. The subtext, even while cloaked as "electoral strategy," is racist at its core: your vote doesn't count if you are black and happen to live in a "red state." Never mind that African Americans have been the most loyal Democratic constituency for more than forty years and that any Democratic nominee will need an enthusiastic and large minority turnout nationwide in order to win in November. And never mind that any thoughtful analysis of the results so far suggests that Obama may be assembling a new electoral coalition, a different one than the Clintons and other centrist Democrats have relied on for the past 20 years.
Next, remind everyone repeatedly just how uncomfortable some black people make the rest of us "average" Americans feel. Thus, the Obama campaign has found itself facing any number of over-blown controversies, such as the meaningless media dust-up over whether Michelle Obama was sufficiently patriotic when she said that for the first time in her adult life she was really proud of her country, or the Geraldine Ferraro incident in which Ferraro was allowed to paint herself as a victim of reverse discrimination after her tawdry attacks on Obama last month. To be fair, the Fox and MSNBC talking-heads are the source of many of these scurrilous assaults. But the Clinton team's silence when such attacks are aired, especially in response to Ferraro, Hillary Clinton's own finance chair, has been deafening.
As is often the case when racial bogymen are invoked, the tarnish applied to Obama is guilt by association -- and in this application, Clinton's brushstrokes are clearly visible. In Ohio, during a televised debate, we heard Senator Clinton complain that Obama wasn't forceful enough in denouncing Louis Farrakhan, whose support Obama never sought and whom he had publicly repudiated. Now, in Pennsylvania Senator Clinton and surrogates have made the Jeremiah Wright issue an ongoing campaign theme, with Clinton piously announcing that she would never join Wright's church. Guilt-by-association, of course, is a wonderful "wedge" issue. Nothing need be said overtly; the imagery is what counts. In this case, the notion is that if Obama's pastor was an "angry" and "confrontational" (translated together as "scary") black man, then Obama may actually be the second coming of H. Rap Brown. And, of course, there's that Muslim middle name of his. And the picture of him in the head garb. And he studied the Koran. Do you really want a nominee like that?
There is much to lament here. First, this tactic works with some portion of white voters, suggesting that the racial gap in the U.S. still remains wide. Second, since it works, and since the entire Clinton strategy is to make Obama appear unelectable, we can expect plenty more of it during the coming weeks from Clinton and her surrogates. We are witnessing an astonishing spectacle: a Democratic presidential candidate, the wife of a former Democratic president who professes to have a deep connection with African Americans, condoning -- if not actively exploiting -- racial divisions and misunderstandings in order to win the nomination of a U.S. political party which has a half-century history of promoting racial equality.
In doing so, not only does the Hillary Clinton campaign repudiate the Democratic Party's post-1960s history, it threatens to destroy the party's chances of recapturing the White House. Indeed, there is talk that there will be a repeat of Chicago 1968 should Clinton lose the popular vote and pledged delegates, as seems quite likely, yet still "win" the nomination based on superdelegate support. But another historical comparison also comes to mind from 150 years earlier. At its 1852 presidential nominating convention, the Whig party split over the issue of slavery. Four years later, the national party ceased to exist, with the anti-slavery Whigs having joined the new Republican Party.
It would be an ironic coda to the Clintons' supercilious boast that they have done more than any other couple to strengthen the Democratic Party if the result of Hillary's campaign is not only to lose the general election but create an irreparable split within the Democratic Party itself. But that is where the divide-and-scare tactics that her handlers have borrowed so adeptly from the Republican playbook are headed. Should the superdelegates succumb to the pressures emanating from the Clinton campaign, hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters may feel much the same way McCarthy supporters and anti-war activists felt in 1968.
Hillary is betting that if she becomes the superdelegate nominee, blacks and liberals will have "no place else to go" and will fall into line. But if Hillary's race-card politics make them feel sufficiently disenfranchised, these Obama supporters may abjure Hillary and sit out the general election altogether. Worse still for Democrats, they may see the party as no longer relevant: a moribund party hijacked by the Clintons' ambition, one that lacks the vision so desperately needed to revive our democracy, a party better left behind and replaced with one built on a new politics of unity and hope.
Obama is the far left candidate. The elites in the party may insist that there is a racial division. If you want to ascribe race as our problem, I say - it is more the elites problem. It is your problem because you must still see life with colored eyes. I learned my lesson from Dr King. We must judge character - not skin color. The working class has gotten that. The elites still don't.
I don't want an unvetted, unprepared candidate rammed down my throat. I wanted my vote to count. Watching Obama's campaign has made it very clear to me who played the race card. Bill Clinton tried to talk to me (a Democratic voter) about Obama's true Iraq War voting record and was accused of being a racist. Hillary tried to talk about partnerships and was accused of being a racist. On and on. And the elites don't get it.
Who is defending the Democratic voter? Hillary and Bill. I don't want Obama's image and marketing campaign. I want a public servant. Thank you Hillary and Bill for being my heros.
Carol
His solutions for health care that we can all afford is not going anywhere. Public policy is not his game. Hillary and Elizabeth Edwards both understand a new health care solution has to be mandated like Medicare or it will not bring down costs. Obama's plan only mandates for children so again Obama leaves me out and still wants my vote.
Sorry buddy. I'm not voting for a cardboard image of a preacher who can look down on me.
I'll vote for Hillary the public servant and not Obama the preacher.
McCain said Obama is qualfied and here is Hilary who is supposedly a democrat like Obama saying he is NOT qualfied. How embarassing I can see why people are embarassed to be called democrats. I'm ashamed to tell people that I'm one. They are suppose to be the party for all groups and they sit by and watch Hilary play the race card actng like AA vote is worth LESS than a white vote. I'm very grateful to Lehy and Dodd because I know THEY SAW IT. But because they are Obama supporters it didnt mean much
Carol
Not living up to its nickname as the Land of Enchantment, New Mexico has seen its health care situation continually decline since 1998.
What do you know about Obama?
I Was Fluent In Indonesian – Lie: Actually, not one teacher said he could speak the language.
Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience – He was there from the ages of 6 to 10, and could not even speak the language.
An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - Ebony has yet to find the article he mentioned in his book. It does not, and never did, exist.
I Was A Professor Of Law – He was a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
I Was A Constitutional Lawyer – He was a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
I Won Michigan and Nevada– No, he didn’t.
I Want Americans To Decide – Actually, he prefers caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
I don’t Have Lobbyists – Actually, he has at least 47 lobbyists.
I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate – Actually he has passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate
Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn’t Support – His wife has received nearly a quarter of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is owned by Wal-Mart.
The subtle rhetoric Clinton's campaign sends is heard on both sides of the ocean. So yes, the wealthier white voters help as well with Obama's funding.
Looking at the money Americans donated and then - Look at the Clinton income, not only for the campaign but their business earning affiliations. Look at who they chose as their Campaign Manager who just stepped down -
Candidates are judged by their actions - watch where America judges with their non-tax deductable money -- modest incomers send what they can spare, wealthy people sendmore, college students volunteer because they don't have any money to give. What does this say to you?
More Faust stuff.
Tell me what is more dangerous & terrifying than this? Not even global Warming.
I know African-Americans who have chosen to live in the South simply because racism there is at least unobfuscated. Tragic, but true, and also understandable.
Stuart's "Random Thoughts" blog
As far as we've come as a nation in terms of race, I think this primary season has shown us that deep divisions still do exist in this country. Look at the Wright controversy.
Hillary, as a Democrat, should have spoken out against the medias demonization of Wright and Obama. But did she? No. Instead, she remained quiet on the subject until her Bosnia lie was exposed. Then she attacked. John McCain and Mike Huckabee came to Obama's defense, she didn't. Why? Because she wanted to fan the flames so that many blue collar Dems, who were scared of the "angry black preacher", would move away from Obama.
It's not racism, it's political calculation. All it does is prove what many of us have felt for a long time- that the Clintons will do anything to win.
Hillary Clinton- By any means necessary!
Not liking someone because of creed or skin color is not racism; that 's prejudice or bigotry.
Racism is the political application of power, with race being the factor deciding how that power is applied, or misapplied.
Saying that they are not racists, but only using racism as a political calculation/tool is illogical and a bit offensive. You are basically saying that it is ok to use methods which raise race fears, as long as its politics. That is what it comes down to. If nothing happened when politicians stoked race fears in tense political situations, there would be no reason to discuss the issue.
However, using race-hate to get your political point across has lasting effects and can have serious consequences. Whether it means someone is denied a job, denied respect, denied civil rights, or denied their life, it isn't just an innocent "political calculation." It is a cynical gamble with peoples' lives and fortunes in already tense times.
It matters.
Then you're Labeling Obama's Campaign as Racist... I agree... The Obama's have played to Race and Race Card with MSM support, from the start of their Campaign... Like Oprah's First "Black President".. Like Michelle's wake up and Vote "Black" appeal... Barack cleverly stands atop his pedestal and allows his Campaign, the MSM and his supporters to make Race accusations... And repeat those accusations over and over... Then refer back to accusations, as Clinton's Racism... Like G W Bush's, Cheney and Rove tactics...
Most People, Believe they are a Physical Being, who HAVE a Spirit... I, HAVE a Vehicle I drive, but I do NOT mistake me for Vehicle... Nor would I mistakenly identify me, by color of my vehicle... I AM Spirit, not a skin color... Like a automobile driver, I animate my body... I'm NOT my Body, or skin color...
Personhood is equally of Godly Nature... Is a "BLACK" Person a Fact of Godly Nature, or a taught/ learned Belief? Is the Spirit animating the Body, of Color? Do WE color Segregate Spirits? Does skin color create a "Black" Person? Or, "White" Person... Personhood is of Equality... Racism is inherent in belief, not Nature...
People accuse, but fail to document any actual Clinton's Racism... Especially using terms like subtle, hinting, coded, etc...
You're forgetting aren't you that Obama himself has condemned Wright's offensive speeches. You're also ignoring that Obama himself said on The View that he would have left the church because of them had it not been for the fact that Wright was retiring.
What is offensive to Obama supporters about Clinton is her using the Wright factor to try to deflect attention from her being outed yet again as a pathological liar.
I'd like someone to explain just how opposing Wright's inciteful anti American hate speeches & saying they'd leave the church is a prior racist and anti-African American? To argue that it is surely is to argue that Obama himself is racist and anti-African American.
But this is all somewhat beside the point. Schumacher and Bookchin are looking at the Clinton campaign's use of racial division as a campaign tool. This began much before the Wright story made it into the nightly news. You seem to be missing Schmacher and Bookchin's point, or willfully ignoring it.
It has to do with what the underlying strategy of the Clinton campaign, and what it really means when stripped of its politically correct euphemisms.
It has to do with the language, the Southern Strategy code words and wink-nod racism that has been used by Clinton surrogates, and never forcefully repudiated by the candidate.
It is Clintons assumptions regarding race and electabiltiy, and the tenor of the behind-the-scenes pitch to super-delegates that are at issue.
If you don't see it, you just don't see it, I guess.
Hillary has impressed me the most with being willing to show up to numerous AA events, even ignored by Obama, btw, and express her apologies regarding anything that might have offended.
Would Latino voters get this same type of apology today from candidates?
They are as strong in numbers as AA voters. Their stories are as legitimate.
Who will show up for them and apologize for the nasty anti-Latino language?
Right now? The City of SF has done so. That's it.
So I'm done with the "racist" crap from Obama.
Until I see Latinos equally treated?
This is just plain ole BS.
A rising tide raises all ships. Blacks, whites and hispanics should unite behind the candidate that best supports their interest (definitely not McCain),and not destroy the party in the process.
elected delegates to switch their votes to her, then
surely elected Clinton delegates must also switch
to 'someone else', because this must be what
democracy is all about after all.
It is shameful that the Clintons campaign's prime activity since the rude awakening of Iowa has been to repeatedly and publicly pick, pick, pick at the scab of race. Has it healed yet? Not much chance of that when the wound is exposed again and again to the dark, dank air of intolerance. This is the most damning sign of a Clintonian willingness to do anything to attain power seen during this campaign. What so many have sacrificed for they in their imperial folksiness have trampled cavalierly. They may have made their millions based on their having been professional Democrats, but they have shown that for them party affiliation was just a good business decision. Heirs to the Dixiecrats of yore, the principles of the party only apply when convenient. A principle that is a mere matter of convenience is no principle.