How the Clinton-Obama Fairy Tale Turned Into a Nightmare

It was supposed to be a fairy tale come true for our country. Finally, after more than two centuries it looked like America's most exclusive club just might be ready to admit a woman and an African-American. Only membership benefits at this particular club offer a lot more than access to fabulous golf courses, but access to the most powerful address in our nation. While the club's founders are likely rolling in their graves at the possibility, Club White House (aka The President's Club) has moved closer than ever to admitting members who actually look more like America's increasingly diverse (and increasingly female) population, and less like members from a reunion of Yale's Skull and Bones fraternity. Others before had tried and failed to gain admission. But this year seemed different. It looked like it may actually happen.

But I guess some fairy tales really are just too good to be true.

The two leading contenders for finally breaking through one of America's last great barriers, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, vowed early on not to allow their competition to devolve into yet another sad example of political mudslinging. Well in the last week their sparring has actually sounded more like the verbal equivalent of mud-wrestling. Typically it's hard to pin down exactly "who started it," in this type of situation. After all, when do one's attempts to legitimately "contrast" their record from their opponent officially become full-fledged political warfare? For me the answer is much like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's assessment of porn. "I know it when I see it."

In this primary, a line has officially been crossed in the tone, and tenor of the campaign. The line may not be visible, but I knew it when I saw it. And clearly I am not the only one. Congressman James Clyburn, the elder statesman of South Carolina politics recently made it known in the pages of the New York Times that in spite of his initial plans to remain neutral in the primary race, recent comments by former President Clinton and Sen. Clinton have him reconsidering his neutrality.

President Clinton irked Clyburn and some other black Americans with his statement in reference to Obama, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." The former President, who was affectionately dubbed "the first black president" by Toni Morrison, quickly worked to clarify his remarks and called in to Al Sharpton's radio show to do so. (Apparently under the mistaken assumption that Al Sharpton's seal of approval is relevant to a majority of black Americans.) He then explained that he was referring to Obama's characterization of his positions on the Iraq War and added for good measure, that "There's nothing fairy tale about his [Obama's] campaign. . . he might win. "I think he's a very impressive man, and he's run a great campaign." As I noted yesterday on CNN, if there is anyone that black Americans are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to, it is the "first black president" and his wife.

But then came the Dr. King debacle. Sen. Clinton, attempting to take the wind out of Barack Obama's King and Kennedy-esque sails, said the following: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964...It took a president to get it done."

Now the Clintons are learning a tough, yet valuable lesson: That there are some things that no white American--even the first black president--gets a free pass on saying. And this happens to be one of them.

While candidate Clinton has worked to explain her remarks in recent days (and has also accused the Obama campaign of trying to inject race into the presidential race, which is odd since she brought it up), the damage has largely been done. And not just damage to the Clinton campaign, but damage to the Democratic Party. After all, part of the fairy tale was the idea of this rainbow coalition working together to make history since everyone is supposed to be on the same side. Now this fairy tale has turned a lot less Disney and a lot more Brothers Grimm.

If Rep. Clyburn endorses Obama, it will be hugely significant, with national implications. Much of the division in the black community between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters has been split along generational lines, with older black elected officials such as Congressman Charles Rangel and Congressman John Lewis supporting Clinton, and younger officials like Mayor Cory Booker and Congressman Artur Davis supporting Obama. If Clyburn were to support Obama, it would send a message to some older African-Americans who are unsure that our country's ready to elect a black president that he thinks we are. It would also signal just how seriously he took the Clintons' recent comments.

If Clinton loses in South Carolina, but even more, if she becomes the nominee and loses the general election, she will look back on this moment as her own Swift Boat veterans ad; the defining moment that sunk her campaign. Only in this case she and her husband were the ones driving the boat. For those who think I'm overstating the possibilities, just ask Mark Green. You may have just asked yourself "Mark who?" which is precisely the point. Mark Green was supposed to be the Mayor of New York City. He was supposed to easily cruise to victory past an unknown billionaire businessman no one had ever heard of. Then two things happened. 9/11 was one of them, but the other was a racially charged controversy in which Green's campaign was accused of disseminating a racially inflammatory flier during the Democratic primary. While Green disavowed the incident (and was cleared of any direct knowledge) he lost a substantial portion of the Latino and black vote in the general election. As a result, he became "Mark who?," and the unknown billionaire businessman became Mike Bloomberg, mayor turned possible presidential candidate.

If the Democrats aren't careful, this once promising presidential fairy tale could have a similar ending and Mike Bloomberg could find himself becoming the accidental crown prince once again.

www.keligoff.com

Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff

Comments

[lafrance]

There are many whites, like myself, who have found the Clintons behavior during this campaign to be repugnant.
From voter suppression to having surrogates come out trying to paint Obama as little more than a thug.
I have been a strong Obama supporter since 04 when he ran for the senate here in Illinois. And senator Obama doesn't deserve this kind of treatment from a fellow democrat. He is a brilliant man who is committed to helping people and is a decent person.
It really upsets me to see his character and reputation smeared like this. I would have expected it from the republicans but, not a democrat. But, I forgot how odious the Clintons are.

[adamNsteve]

The Obama campaign - in what can only be described as a most craven and calculated attempt to separate Hillary Clinton from any and all potential black votes in the upcoming South Carolina primary – has taken the Clintons to task for Bill Clinton's use of the term "fairy tale" in referring specifically to Obama's months long, relentless attacks on Hillary's Iraq War authorization vote.

Obama did say he was "NOT SURE" how he would have voted IF he was a member of Congress when the Iraq War authorization vote took place.

What to do? Bury the facts. Create a haze of fog to hover over 'em.

Hillary has tried to make her vote disappear by pointing out that once a Senator, Obama voted almost exactly the way she did on every war appropriations bill to come down the pike.

It didn't work. The crowds were still goin' berzerk for Barak. So they mentioned what the dude actually said.

Obama didn't like that. He knows this "She voted for the war authorization" mantra was his ticket to Change-ville.

So he plays the race card.

While it may be smart - in that cunning as a fox, twist things all up like a real live politician – way, it is D-U-M-B in the long term.

It may get him black votes in South Carolina. It will remind voters everywhere that the Clintons play dirty.

It will also tear a gaping emotional hole in the Democratic coalition that may not be repairable post convention - all the above while being a blatant falsehood.

It will also earn him a deserved reputation for playing the "black-as-­the-victim­" card.

You see, it doesn't matter if blacks are victims of the white-a-premacy of the good 'ol US of A. Whites hate being reminded of it.

Really hate it.

Come November, if Barak does indeed win the nomination of his party, he goes to face the electorate as a whole. And let me tell you.

There are a whole lot of white folk that are going to be voting in November.

[BlueBoomer]

Excellent post, Keli.

I'm not a fan of Hillary OR Obama, and haven't been, precisely because I saw this kind of thing coming. (Well, that's one reason, anyway.)

They are BOTH VERY SELF-AMBITIOUS candidates, with equally self-ambitious spouses, who I fear will, altho' from different contexts, be way too influential in the WH, and I DON'T mean with the decorating.

In both cases, I foresee a "partner's" desk replacing the traditional presidential desk in the Oval Office, AND I DON'T LIKE IT.

I wish I COULD get solidly behind the first woman candidate, or the first black candidate, but for reasons of their OWN conduct (as well as their potentially meddling spouses) I can't.

I have trouble getting past OBAMA's failure to even show up to vote and take an on-the-record stand on the Iraq and Iran Senate resolution votes last September, while claiming "better judgement" (demonstrating cowardice, hypocracy, AND cynicism, knowing that the media would give him a pass)...An­d then there was that disingenuous wierdness in South Carolina with that preacher or whoever it was and the deliverance from gayness -- or whatever it was -- ick.)

I have had trouble with Hillary's candidacy from the beginning, but consider her failure to repudiate Bob Johnson as totally inexcuseable and further proof of her/her campaign's disingenuousness and pure unadulterated raw, blind ambition..­. Too bad... NH ALMOST had me thinking I could support her.

the fact is that they're both so fundamentally flawed that I don't think I can support either of them, except in drastic circumstan­ces... Maybe if they would outline who they would want to have in their "dream" cabinets, that could sway me, but for now...nada­.

[Napoleon]

It's ridiculous for Keli Goff to refer repeatedly to Bill Clinton as the first black president. He is not, and never was. It was erroneous when Toni Morrison made the comment, and no amount of authorship of the comment by a celebrity writer can convert this fiction to fact, especially for the average U.S. resident, regardless of race. It's possible to have responsible journalism without making such an absurd statement or exploiting it.

[NABNYC]

I do not know one thing that the Clintons have ever done to advance the interests of black people in this country. They certainly jumped on the anti-black "welfare queen" zealotry in trying to hack and slash welfare to single mothers and force them to work without providing daycare. As far as I can see, the Clintons claim to be some kind of great white civil rights champions because Bill golfs and Hillary lunches with some black friends. Where's the beef?

No civil rights legislation during Bill's 8 years. Nothing done to protect or advance affirmative action (for minorities and for women) or to solidify integration. As a result, the Bush Regime has succeeded in destroying what little progress had been made.

I think the Clintons truly believe that black people in this country "belong" to them. If Bill tells black people to vote for someone, they'll do it. If Hillary says MLK gave good speeches but it took a white man to get things done, well then, that's the truth.

I'll bet anything that Clintons are mostly angry at the idea that any black American would stand up to them, and reject their claims as being the leaders of black Americans.

I honestly think the Clintons are delusional. The party faithful have gone so far overboard in defense of Bill's promiscuity, because the right-wing attacks were so despicable, that the Clintons believe they can do anything and say anything and get away with it. Like the Prom King and Queen, and the whole world is their Prom.

Bill and Hillary are really showing their true colors in this dispute: white.

Vote Edwards. Or Obama.

[vbond]

"If the Democrats aren't careful, this once promising presidential fairy tale could have a similar ending and Mike Bloomberg could find himself becoming the accidental crown prince once again."

If "the Democrats" aren't careful?

"The Democrats"?

What "Democrats"?

Since when is this "the Democrats"?

I have scoured the record for any indication of the Obama campaign's "mud-sling­ing."

The only - ONLY - example that I can come up with is the stupid memo that issued from the campaign last summer about the Clinton's ties to Indian supporters.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Obama immediately and somewhat angrily disavowed the memo which carried the headline - "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" - and referred to Bill and Hillary Clintons' investments in India; her fundraising among Indian-Americans; and the former president's $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company that has moved US jobs to India.

"It was a dumb mistake on our campaign's part and I made it clear to my staff in no uncertain terms that it was a mistake," Obama told the AP.

That was IT. It was a one day story because the candidate associated with it took responsibility for it and SHUT IT DOWN.

Bizarrely, some feel that it is now Senator Obama's responsibility to shut down the completely reasonable outrage that many - blacks, whites and many others - feel not only about this week's Clinton camp attacks, but the pattern of events, from Shaheen to Bob Kerry to now, Robert Johnson and Bill and Hillary themselves.

NO ONE who heard these comments misunderstood them, no matter how vehemently the Clinton campaign tries to re-parse them and to turn the rhetorical tables on their opponents before they have even responded.

Rep. James Clyburn, of South Carolina is not associated with the Obama campaign, but his was the leading and most influential voice decrying the implications of Senator Clinton's comments. Is Clyburn "slinging mud" too?

You are right, this is a Democratic Party problem, but it is not a Democratic Party responsibility.

It is a Clinton campaign responsibility.

And it THEIR responsibility to fix.

[MetricSystem]

***"I don't see why this is so much different from what Billy Shaheen did in New Hampshire," David Axelrod said. "Senator Clinton apologized for that. It's bewildering why, since she was standing there, she had nothing to say about this."***

So does this mean Obama is also responsible for the anti-gay diatribe Donnie McClurkin made a while back?

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Senator Obama made one *HUGE* mistake-- he got within a few points of Hillary Clinton in the polls.

That's why all this is happening.

When you're the Do Anything To Win tree, you bear the Do Anything To Win fruit (not to sound Biblical).

Hillary had to stop Obama's momentum. Think about Kark Rove's strategy with Kerry-- attack his strength not his weakness. A decorated Vietnam hero. No-- it was just a scratch not a real wound, he wasn't there at all (!).

What's Obama's strength? He's new, he's different, and-- he's a black person who will take votes away from the Clintons. So try to present him as a pseudo-MLK, a wanna-be making nice speeches . . .

(Obama was a community organizer in the bad neighborhoods of Chicago doing lots of good without much pay or credit, you cynical schmucks in the Clinton campaign).

But as I was saying-- the Clinton strategy is to turn Obama's strength into a weakness. Suddenly the ability to speak without sounding like nails across a chalkboard is a liability. If you speak of hope and change you're just using flowery words-- so shame on anyone who felt inspired to be a better citizen because of what Obama said.

And obviously the cynicsm rubs off on me. I thought Obama would unite us. I didn't think too highly of him but too highly of us-- we have our brand name loyalty and we're sticking to it. Buy "Clinton" for "Peace & Prosperity­."

[iluvsam]

Oh please. Let's pull the tape and review. Obama went negative first and hard. She had no choice but to turn the tides.

Here we go again with the "everything is the Clintons' fault" bullshit.

[OhPlease2007]

"she will look back on this moment as her own Swift Boat veterans ad; the defining moment that sunk her campaign."

Yeah, and with the 'politics of hope' pulling it's own brand of the race card, we just may look back on this moment as Obama's own, 'REVERSE Swift Boat veterans ad!'

Give us a break with all this political drivel. The people are not dumb. We see both campaigns trying to win the black vote, and BOTH camps are equally guilty of pulling, 'the race card.'

... So much for 'change' that we ALL can believe in.

[independentrepublicrat]

Obama---nor his campaign---is not and was not a particpant in the racial diversion and division instigated by the Clinton campaign. He has more class and leadership judgement than the Clintons. Blacks simply should express their dissatisfaction with Billary by not voting for them now or ever. JMO

[auntiecairo]

I've always been a big fan of the Clintons but am losing faith quickly. THey created this debaucle and have no one to blame but themselves. Clinton's words about the fairy tale speak for themselves; context doesn't matter. All of these politicians quickly forget we are in the age of youtube and everything is immediate. Even if the Obama camp is talking/using the MLK comments behind the scenes, publicly they are not. Hillary had ample opportunity to say "my bad: on Meet the Press but instead threw it back on Obama, who has yet to comment on it (until yesterday after she went after him). It's like her crying incident last week; at first it seemed very real; then it turned into how the world will crumble if she's not elected (which is why the woman who asked the question voted for Obama). Aggressiveness torward Hillary before was because she was the frontrunner and even then were in the context of her experience, being an insider. Don't recall anyone mentioning Bill's indiscretions, pardons given to her brothers, her own receipt of money from lobbyists, etc. Hillary may take down Obama but in the process will cause other voters to be turned off and not show up and as usual the Dems will turn off their base and lose to the Republicans. Every time I see her I wonder which Hillary will show up - smart, focused inspiring Hillary, or defensive evasive Hillary. It's her continually changing public persona that keeps folks on the fence about her - not what Obama or anyone else says. She should start focusing on Bush and what she plans to do -- otherwise she really will turn off half the voters.

[S1m0n]

There are three theories explaining how Hillary won on New Hampshire, and one of them--not the least plausible--is that working class white democrat voters are less willing to vote for a black man than they're willing to tell a pollster.

In a close--very close--race, in which the Clinton campaign nearly got swamped, the temptation to do what it takes to remind those voters of Obama's skin color must be nearly overwhelming: that could be the margin of victory for Hillary and the ticket to her life-long goal.

Which is why the Clinton campaign's decision to come out of New Hampshire spouting racially-c­harged--ev­en subtley so--attacks on Obama is so inflamatory, and has the potential to dynamite the Democratic party coalition.

[LMarley]

Sank, dammit. SANK. Not sunk.

But this is the silliest post I've ever seen on HuffPo, grammar notwithstanding.

[BillZBubb]

To accuse the Clinton's of racism or racial insensitivity is the height of absurdity (and cynicism). If African Americans buy into this smear, they should be ashamed.

BTW, I'm a Hillary supporter at this time. If she wins the nomination, though, she'll get my full support.