Where did it begin? Pick a time. How much can you stand to remember without getting nauseous? Back to Bob Kerrey, an early proponent of the slimy and absurd Muslim slurs? Back to the porcine Mark Penn, and his portrait of Obama as a shiftess cocaine fiend? Back to Bill Clinton, and the ghetto-izing of Obama's victory in South Carolina as just a Jesse Jackson thing? Or just two days ago, to the crafty ravings of a second-rate ex-ward-heeler named Geraldine Ferraro? Instead of asking when did the racism of Hillary Clinton's campaign against Obama begin, one is now forced to ask: has it ever been run without racism?
Pick a few random examples.
* The Muslim Thing: Hillary Clinton is not a lesbian, as far as I know. But -- for anyone who's never sat down in a middle-America shot-and-a-beer bar, or roamed a trinket-shop next to a highway diner over the past 20 years -- millions of blue-collar Americans think she is. What if the Obama campaign were to keep that absurd "slander" alive by digging out a photo of Hillary with a bad haircut and a flannel shirt and circulating it to the Drudge Report with a nod and a lascivious wink? And yet Clinton doesn't even bother to pretend to deny culpability in her sub-McCarthyist tactic with the Obama photo, with its open appeal to racism.
* The Experience Thing: What if a black man were to pull a Reverse Hillary? What if a black man, formerly married to a president, was to claim that his eight years of being publicly cuckolded in the White House constituted valuable "experience" that helped qualify him to be president? You can write the SNL skit for yourself.
* The Michigan/Florida Thing: What if a black man had won a primary in which the white woman's name wasn't even on the ballot, and yet demanded that the votes count for him? What kind of contempt would Clinton, and her surrogates in the media, pour down on that black man's head? We'd be hearing about Stalinist Russia. We'd be hearing dark mumblings about how "they" think "they" can change the rules in mid-stream because "they" think they're entitled to win, and the hell with the rules.
* The Bottom of the Ticket Thing: Everyone knows how to get to the bottom of the ticket -- you just get on the bus, and even if you're first, you wait for the conductor to tell you where your place is.
It goes on and on. The mind reels. The heart sickens. The campaign implodes. It's not an vicious conspiracy -- nothing that grand -- it's what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil." In a way, that makes it even worse: it's nothing but a series of cheesy tactics. And a generation of young voters is left to wonder what might have happened if the Clinton campaign could've run on merit instead of race...Or just found a better tactic than these supremely cynical -- and ultimately doomed -- appeals to the worst in us.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You're right. Edwards should have been the nominee.
Since when being a Muslim is an insult? Islam is a religion that need to be respected just like Christianity and Judaism.
Dear Obamamo: Of course! That's why I put "slander" in quotation marks.
John Eskow
Hillary Clinton and George Bush must be from the same family because they sure do look and act alike. We thought this would be the end of Bush but we didn't reckon with his serpent's head running for the democratic nomination. Where is the shame? Just the thought that she actually has followers that call themselves democrats is beyond belief.
I'm glad someone else has noticed this; it's just what I've been telling my friends & family: Hillary is trying to send Barack to the back of the bus because she thinks he's not good enough to sit up front. I'm SO glad you, as a white journalist, realize this and pointed it out. THANK YOU!!! I love that Keith Olbermann had the kahunas to call HRC out, as well. I myself have wondered why Gore or Howard Dean haven't put an end to her bottom-of-the-barrel tactics. I'm a lifelong Democrat, who supports Obama, and I can tell you without a doubt that if Barack is cheated out of this nomination, all my family & friends and I WILL NOT SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON ... or we might just vote republican---either way HRC will not win in November if the DNC falsely gives her the nomination over Barack just because she is a white woman who feels entitled and that "it's her turn" to be president.
I agree with John Eskow's report too, and I am a Obama supporter, however, I feel we would do a disservice to the democratic party if Obama lose, and not support Clinton. I don't agree with the way Clinton is running her race, however, it will not serve any of us to turn our backs on our party. I hope and pray that who ever becomes the democratic nominee, we will support them.
NO - If Clinton wins we need a real 3rd Party candidate.
Does anyone in Pa. read the Huffington Post?or watch tv, or read a newspaper? How else to explain Hillary's lead there, how else to explain Ohio? The only explanation that comes to mind is that quite a number of voters in those states agree with these horrible remarks, and that is to me, an even worse vision than an actual Clinton presidency. If you feed people garbage and they eat it, is the messanger to blame? or the consumer?
Even without the racism, who in their right mind buys the "experience" claim? Where is the evidence?
My party is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory..so sad.
This piece by Eskow's is both sad and funny. Mostly sad, for the sheer truth of it. And the cheesy tactics he mentions are typical of opportunists. All opportunism is cheesy, what else would it be, when you grab at anything and everything going by? Hillary is not finished; it is foolish to think she is. And when the end comes, she will go down in a blaze of self-pity, righteous anger, and already plotting revenge on anyone and everyone she blames for her demise. It should be a spectacular event.
Thank you for explaining this for the people who refuse to see the underlying racism in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Gee, and you're a white guy who gets it! No white male winning like Obama is would seriously be offered VP. Anyone suggesting it would be told to check in to a psychiatrist. Ferraro was right. Obama is still campaigning in the primary because he is a black man. If he were a white man this would already be over.
You are right on!
Good article- well laid out, and on the money! I am one who gave up on the democratic party 20 yrs ago... about 10 yrs after they gave up on reality, honor, and progressive ideals. That said, to comment on Hillary's campaign, other than mentioning how I want to puke blood every time she lies or spews Rovian racist nonsense from her campaign, and how people VOTE for her... well, you said it well enough.
"And a generation of young voters is left to wonder what might have happened if the Clinton campaign could've run on merit instead of race...Or just found a better tactic than these supremely cynical -- and ultimately doomed -- appeals to the worst in us."
I'm ashamed to say that, until I read this, I hadn't realized that some of the worst effects of Clinton's sleaze campaign have yet to be felt. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton's behavior is newly adopted or represents anything other than her core, essential, corrupt self, and this is what a generation of young people, newly awakened to politics, are being presented as "business as usual." They're not going to be able to differentiate the disgusted mutters and shrieks about her crimes against party--and country--from the usual blovial grandstanding that accompanies all confrontations on the political stage. They lack the frame of reference that could help them tell the difference. For them, this sleazy, racist campaign being run by the female carrying the supposed banner for women (although not this one, kid) risks becoming the norm. And that strikes me as deeply wrong. "Welcome to the Democratic Party! We're glad to have you, but it looks like you came here contaminated with optimism and hope for the future. Bad stuff, but we know how to deal with it. We pride ourselves on running a lean, mean, hope-free operation. Step right this way, and let us disaffect you...."
John congrats on getting under 20 people to comment about your !!!racists article...
Thanks! But actually, according to the latest Style Manual, there are supposed to be FOUR exclamation points before the word "!!!racists."
John Eskow
I was wondering when someone would pull out the 'back of the bus' analogy...this is a disgusting, pandering, misuse of the historical use of the phrase...shame, shame, shame...you dishonor the thousands of black activists who boycotted the buslines, walking and singing all the way to their destinations...not hateful, angry or accusatory...a simple action, amplified by sheer numbers and a mild and peaceful spirit in the face of real danger. Anyone of of them would be proud to have a black man on the ticket in either spot and most people would know that. You, Mr Eskow, are a shameless fool.
And yet the phrase so aptly applies to Hillary Clinton"s repeated call for Barack Obama to be her VP, despite his being ahead in every measure. Can you not see this?
She never called for him to be her Vice President, that's the Obama spin. She called for them to be on the same ticket and to fight it out to see who gets the top spot. Obama is the one who has rejected such an idea out of hand.
Amen to that, Brother. The mind reels. The heart sickens. I'm hoping that campaign implosion is right around the corner because the ugliness of the Clinton campaign is bringing down the party in a way Karl Rove only dreams about.
Thank you for this piece.
Yes, nothing short of no vetting will do.
Let's just crown him.
PURE UNADULTERATED NONSENSE: PICTURING BILL AND HILLARY AND GERALDINE RACISTS, THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR THE BLACKS FOREVER, AND IT IS PLAIN THAT THE OBAMA MACHINE HAS BEEN PERPETUATING THE FARCIAL STORY THAT THEY ARE RACISTS, HELPED OF COURSE BY THE BIASED MEDIA. . WHERE ARE THE STORIES ABOUT THE EMINENT JESSE (HYMIE)JACKSON AND AL (JEW BASTARDS )SHARPTON, IT IS NOW CONVENIENT FOR THE MEDIA TO FORGET THESE PAST STORIES AND OF COURSE MAGNIFY AND DISECTTING ANYTHING SAID BY THE CLINTON SUPPORTERS AND OF COURSE EXTRAPOLATE THEM AND TAKE THEM OUT OF CONTEXT TO SUIT THEIR BIASED OPINIONS RENDERED. WAKE UP AMERICA, OBAMA MACHINE HAS MADE THIS A RACE CAMPAIGN TO THEIR SICKENING ADVANTAGE
You know, while the optics of it suck, and while plenty of ther things in her campaign clearly ARE racism, I'm not at all convinced that the "Obama should be my veep" thing is about race; I think it's about seniority alone.
Hillary sees herself as the senior member who has [aid her dues and earned the nomination. She sees Obama--and every other democrat in his generation--as young pups who still have to pay sume dues.
Which means being second to HER.
John ... you aren't the first one to use this analogy. You want to guess who was the first? KellyAnne Conway.
Check out the youtube video of Jamal Simmons ripping into her on Larry King Live for using the same remarks that you are using in the title of your blog. Go to 3 minutes and 45 seconds in to the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkBUD92oHyI
i've been waiting for someone to point out that hillary's attempts to count florida & especially michigan, and her claims that they were fair contests would make many a dictator proud. as for the rest of it, spot on.
Great article John.
I think Hillary has been given a free pass with the media.
They don't talk about all of her past scandals because they think that everyone already knows about them - and Hillary is constantly saying she is already vetted. There isn't any truth in that because: 1) The young people don't know about all of the scandals, 2) The media has not been reporting on the CURRENT Peter Paul vs. Clintons lawsuit that is in the California court system, 3) We don't know what she is hiding in her previous tax returns or ear-marks in the Senate.
She keeps saying over and over that she IS vetted and that she doesn't get fair treatment from the media - she thinks that if she says it over and over it will be true - and the media is buying it like it is the truth when it is not.
I have figured out that anytime she says something the opposite it true.
The media needs to start looking at everything she says (each and every word) and start calling her on all of her mis-statements. She has hood-winked the media and the American people.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious, John.
Great article.
Excellent article, John!
they are simply using the tools of the generation in which they grew up...they can't escape it, as it part of their mindset...it's so much easier to reach for how we are different as opposed to how we are the same...
it seems that Clinton supporters acknowledge only what appears on the surface as truth...her surrogates and advisors are'nt paid to sit around and play marbles...this is hardball politics and she is behind the eight ball...the "kitchen sink" rules apply...
these advisors are smart and know ways in which to manipulate public opinion and fabricate narratives that draw distinctions, even if they are blatantly, and ridiculously transparent to astute observers...these insinuations are so subtle as to escape a cursory examination but they don't stand the test of scrutiny and context...these snide comments have surfaced too many times to be merely conincidental...
the Clinton circus will shake the tree for the next six weeks to see what falls out...and it has started already with the "abandonment of Pennsylvania" hypocrisy they're pushing...they want to shape the discourse and control the tone of the process...
the Obama campaigns' memo stated that they are focused as much on the states beyond Pennsylvania...you never heard any abandonment narratives emanating from the Obama camp in the midst of his 11 consecutive victories in February...no, the Clintons were simply granted a timeout to reach states that suited them demographically...lowering expectations takes the wind out of their sails and sends a message to the MSM that Pennsylvania alone won't determine the nominee...any pundit or pollster would agree that Pennsylvania is a shoe-in for her...
since I haven't been able to get this posted on the Geraldine thread, I'll try here. Go ahead and flame me, but she had a valid point. If Obama was white, he wouldn't be leading in this race right now. And, here's why. Let's say Obama was white and his experience and positions are all exactly the same.
In the run-up to SC, this is what happened:
In NH, Bill Clinton described Obama's claim to be against the was consistently as a fairytale. Both the Obama campaign and the media twisted his words and claimed Bill Clinton said that Obama's entire campaign was a fairytale. Then they called it a racist statement. If Obama was white, no one would hav complained about Bill's comment at all.
In NH Mr Shaheen talked about Obama's admitted drug use and how the republican's would use it against him. This statement was immediately called racist by the Obama campaign and the media.
Where was the outrage in 1992 when we all discussed whether Bill Clinton did or did not inhale? Where was the outrage in 2000 when we all talked about GW's alcohol and drug use? If Obama was white, no one would have complained about Shaheen's comments.
The following day, Chris Matthews had Mark Penn on his show and asked him a direct question about the Shaheen comments. In his answer, Penn used the word cocaine twice and was immediately called racist by Joe Trippi. Chris asked Penn to discuss the topic. How was he supposed to discuss it without saying the words? And, it really doesn't matter, because if Obama was white, no one would have been outraged anyway.
Bill Clinton appear on the Charlie Rose show and said that a vote for Obama would be a roll of the dice because of his lack of experience. The next day Chris Matthews called it a veiled racist statement. He said it was meant to conjur up images of black men shotting dice in urban alleyways. If Obama was white, the roll of the dice statement would not have caused any issue at all.
All of these FALSE claims of racism happened in the run-up to SC and were a part of the movement of Black support from Clinton toward Obama. Prior to all of this Clinton was leading among blacks in SC. And, without all of these false claims of racism she certainly would have maintained that lead among black voters if she were running against a 1st term, white senator from IL. She would have won SC. Does anyone believe with the Clinton's repubtation in the black community, she would have lost the black vote to a 1st term, white senator?
Now move forward to Super Tuesday. There were two southern states decided on Super Tuesday. And, Clinton's black support would have given her wins in those states as well. Additionally, in states like CA, NY and NJ that she did win, should would have won by larger margins with the additional support from the black community.
Without all the false claims of racism, there would have been no endorsement by Kennedy. Kennedy himself admitted the reason he decided to endorse was because of the LBJ / MLK comments. And, if Obama was white, those comments would never have happened.
Call this scenario racist if you want. But, it is just an analysis of what would have happened if Obama was white. I'm making no assesment of Obama's qualifications here. I'm not arguing that he wouldn't have won the the states outside of the south that he has won. But, there is no way he wold have pulled the support of the black community away from Clinton. That is just a fact.
No Good, how is it "a fact" that Obama couldn't get black support if he were white? Fact is Hillary had more support from the AA community than OB through much of the year and he EARNED THEIR SUPPORT while HRC's actions lost it. Sounds like you.like hillary, feel she's entitled to their support. Another Fact , If Hillary wasn't the wife of "the first black president" (some serious bullshit) their is no way in hell she'd have won a senate seat, let alone be running for president,Fact.
NoGoodNames, your chronology and citation of events is quite good, along with some of your conclusions. But, you have missed the point. The point is that a not too thinly veiled appeal to the offense taken by whites over the perceived unfairness of affirmative action programs is what is on the line. Ferraro made a racist appeal to belittle Obama in the eyes of the borderline racists. To do so is divisive, and will diminish his chances in the general election. While it is probably true that R's will attempt the same thing, having a well recognized Democrat validate feelings of bigotry are incredibly damaging to Obama's prospects in the general election. If David Duke said it, it would be one thing. For Ferraro to say it is entirely different.
Then white people are generally hanging out on the extremes of solipsism. How many time does it have to be pointed out that white women were by far, the most significant beneficiaries of affirmative action? As that is the case, their families received the benefits as well. Hell, Ferraro's husband got the affirmative action that being a part of or associated with NY crime families. You'd think that that alone would keep her mealy mouth shut.
the point is that Obama has gained the lead he has in this race through the use of false claims of racism. But, you can't say that like Ferraro did without having those same racist claims made againt you.
Like Obama said, find one instance where he himself cried racism in defense of attacks on his campaign. You can't because he hasn't. The fact is people like you circle like vultures waiting and watching for a black person to scream "racism" so you can use it against them as a character flaw. When actually the whole time, the fact you would even be involved in such an attempt is in fact......racist.
The media created the racism innuendo (thanks to Bill, Hillary and Geraldine) and reporters asked him to respond, which he did. He clearly didn't initiate anything racially motivated, ever, in this campaign.
Once more, what Ferraro said was racist. Race helps Obama in the same way gender helps Clinton and that is not a racist statement. By definition, being for your race is not racism. Being against other races or claiming superiority to them is racist. The same applies to sexism. What is a racist/sexist statement would be if I said Clinton would not be where she is without women who make up 55% of the Democratic party and is therefore a token white woman candidate who would not be there if women were not sexist. And since blacks make up something like 8.6% of the party vote, it is clear to see that women are discriminating against minority blacks and white men by voting for Hillary.
Obama would have not had a chance in South Carolina had he NOT won 93%+ Iowa. Period.
Why all of a sudden is Barack Obama responsible for how the stupid utterances of Hillary Clinton campaign folks are perceived? The Obama campaign and the candidate himself has NEVER made claims of racism against the Clinton camp. However the Clinton camp has said a lot of things that don't leave a whole lot of doubt as to their intentions.
On Bill Clinton's comments about Barack Obama and war in Iraq. First off, Bill Clinton began by PURPOSEFULLY mis-stating Obama response to the reporter's question as "I don't know" whereas what Obama said was "What I would have done had I been in the Senate at the time, I don't know. But what I do know is the case for war was not made". So Bill Clinton was LYING to begin with to suggest that Obama was not consistently against the war, which was his intent. But more to the point, while others may have, the Obama campaign _never_ suggested racism in that instance.
Why was Mr. Shaheen talking about what the Republicans would use against Obama? Why did Penn have to suggest cocaine? Ever hear the Obama campaign frequently talking in an official capacity about what smears, rumors or innuendo the Republicans would use against her, things like Whitewater, her husband's scandals, etc? Never! Fact is Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" statement was talked about more for its absurd duplicity than anything. While G W Bush's alcohol issues may have been mentioned, his purported drug use was rarely if ever brought up in the media nor by his rivals 2000. Note, we're talking about "marijuana", a "soft drug" and just unspecified "drugs" and "alcohol" for Bush. Suggesting a presidential candidate did cocaine is a more loaded charge, (I believe Shaheen also suggested Obama was a drug dealer) and further because he's Afr-Am, it comes too close to the racist stereotype of a cocaine using drug-dealing black man. That's why it got pegged by some as racist.
Note too the _timing_ of these statements by the Clinton folks - they have control over their mouths, not the Obama campaign. They didn't say this sort of stuff in the whole YEAR prior to the primary voting. So if you need to ask yourself why the Clinton camp was saying this prior to the SC race. Hillary Clinton hardly personally campaigned in SC - Bill did most of it. Further, the Clinton camp started making these controversial remarks when the polls began to swing towards Obama. (BTW, why do you have this idea that black voters can't have opinions, change their minds and just "assume" their unwavering Clinton support. Lots of white voters and others were also changing their votes to Obama during this time.) THAT'S why folks suspected the Clintons were trying to pull the race card to upset white voters in SC and peg Obama as a "black candidate", a sentiment that w
Posted March 13, 2008 | 04:21 PM (EST)