"Black Candidate," Blue Voters, White Heat -- And a Troubling Silence

I don't know what makes me sadder or more disappointed: The gutter politics we've seen over the last few weeks, or the apparent willingness of some Democrats to tolerate it in hopes of a victory in November. Maybe that's "naive," as some will undoubtedly argue. But I don't think so. A dirty Democratic primary season will help the Republicans in the long run, no matter who wins the nomination.

Most of my criticism, especially in recent weeks, has gone to the Clinton campaign. But the others have been inappropriate at times, too. While others thought that attack ads from both Clinton and Obama last week were acceptable hardball, I thought they were errors in judgement. And yesterday's two-pronged racial attack by the Clinton campaign created a new low in Democratic sleaze.

The Clinton radio ad cut and pasted audio from Obama in mid-sentence to alter the meaning of what he said. It was part of a coordinated "outrage" campaign at Obama's purported admiration for a Republican - during the the same week that Bill Clinton co-authored a Wall Street Journal editorial with one Republican and talked about how how "close" Hillary is with another. And you know what? Good for him. Any Democrat who gets elected will need to work with the GOP, so why not reach across the aisle occasionally? (The Bill/Arnold proposal was a good one, too.)

Let's be clear: Attacking Obama for being too GOP-friendly while doing some cuddling yourself may be disingenuous or hypocritical, but it's par for the course in hardball politics. The Clintons cross the line when they stoop to deception.

Obama crossed a line, too, when he ran an ad that states "Hillary will say anything and do nothing." (CORRECTION: As several commenters observed, the actual quote was "Hillary will say anything and change nothing." Still inappropriate, in my opinion - she won't change anything? - but not as strong.) Here's a simple rule of thumb: Don't create sound bites that the opposition can use if your opponent gets the nomination. The line is also personal and nasty. It was a mistake, and I'm glad he seemed to be backing off from that strategy in his victory speech.

(Note what I just did here: I criticized a candidate I like, because he did something I thought was wrong. I did that with Edwards, too, when I was leaning heavily in his direction. It's an exercise I recommend to supporters of all the candidates. The end result might be a better nominee.)

I wrote earlier that I felt the Clinton campaign had engaged in a set of coordinated race-related comments, any one of which might seem innocent but which seemed deliberate when viewed as a whole. Although I mentioned the possibility that I was wrong (and that they might have just suddenly become "accident prone" on the topic), I had misgivings. A number of people I respect said this was a false, media-made accusation, and I worried I might have some serious amends to make if I was eventually proven wrong.

Sadly, I haven't been. Bill Clinton's comments equating Obama to Jesse Jackson - while another, unnamed "Clinton advisor" was saying this victory makes Obama "the black candidate" - is as overt a pitch to racial stereotyping as any Democrat has made in many years. Of all the South Carolina primary winners in the last forty years, why pick Jackson? Why not John Edwards, who won in 2004? Why not George Wallace, who won in 1976?

Why not Bill Clinton, whose 1992 victory in South Carolina led to his nomination and election? Cooler heads than mine, like Glenn Greenwald, have drawn the only reasonable conclusion: This was a race-based pitch, and a shameful one. Imagine if the Obama campaign had responded to the New Hampshire results by saying that Hillary is merely "the woman candidate." I would have slammed him. So why aren't we seeing a backlash from Clinton backers?

Some of his defenders will say he made the comment to point out that Obama can only win black voters. But guess what? Obama won with women, too - and Edwards won the white vote! If the racial mix in South Carolina had been that of voters nationwide (11.6% African American in 2004), this primary would still have been a devastating rejection of Hillary's candidacy. But somehow Bill didn't manage to mention that. Still think all the racial comments are just an innocent mistake?

All this talk about race-baiting is probably serving a larger Clinton strategy. It's distracting us from a stunning defeat, one in which Hillary lost almost all demographic segments in a state where she once led the polls by 20 points. But isn't it profoundly unethical to use race for such a partisan purpose?

And it's odd: When Edwards campaign advisor Dave "Mudcat" Saunders seemed to imply early in this race that a woman or minority couldn't win, he was showered with criticism. Yet some of the same voices that skewered Saunders are strangely silent now. Why? Have some Democrats decided winning is everything? How far down that road are they willing to go?

Hillary supporters - and closet Hillary supporters - should be especially outspoken in their rejection of this kind of politics. These kinds of comments will only add to her negatives. And if South Carolina's results are any indicator, they won't help her win any new voters.

Even if winning were everything, this isn't the way to win. If independents, disaffected Republicans, and moderate Dems perceive enough ugliness behind the eventual nominee, they'll go elsewhere. And if stalwart Democratic progressives believe their candidate won by using dirty tricks and cheap shots, they won't work very hard for the party in November.

That's something to think about now, before it's too late. It would be ironic if frustrated Democrats, eager to win back at any cost what was stolen, wind up sowing the seeds of another defeat.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[tbone99]

Once the Dems decide they would run an identity politics candidate the die was cast - it was bound to get ugly .Somewhat surprising that they decided to shoot each other instead of waiting for the Repugs to do it, but that's the Dems for you.

How can people boast of the first African American president in one breath and the new era he represents and complain that someone called him black in the next?African Americans need to decide as much as whites- is
black a pejorative or a term of pride?

[genseric13]

I have been watching the media on the Clintons and have been astounded at their fanatical attempt to stop HRC at all costs. They set up daily these various straw men and then theorize as to the Clinton's next move, usually stating that this next move is racist or screwed up in some other way. Kind of bizarre watching Dick Morris, Hannity, MSNBC, Drudge etc all on the same side. Bill Clinton had the only 2 term presidency since FDR so that is the answer for Fox News hatred of HRC. Every comment is met by racism charges; for example the obvious comment that Jesse also won SC twice, in 84 and 88. There is a history of the black candidate winning there. Obama's actual victories are very thin so far. HRC's momentum hurt by 2 gigantic victories in Florida and Michigan which do not count for now, so the media use that as an excuse to blow them off.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Somebody help me here. Try as I might, I'm not seeing the race baiting or whatever it is everyone is calling it coming from the Clintons. I've watched the clips and compared them with the headlines and I'm not buying it.
What I am seeing is politics as usual from both the Clinton and Obama campaigns. I'm seeing both sides twist the other side's statements, misrepresent facts and weasel out of answering questions. Both have voting records that are very similar to each other and both use rhetoric that doesn't quite match their records.
But everyone is seeing this evil campaign on the part of the Clintons, and I'm starting to doubt my own perception.
I can't help wondering if this is how we got into Iraq...a blind groundswell that was perpetuated by the press and unquestioned by the masses and punditry (and blogosphere).
Not that I think electing Obama would be as disastrous as Iraq. Obama would be fine. So would Hillary. At the moment, I'm not questioning either of them. I'm questioning the voters and whether they're really researching the candidates, or just buying the soundbytes and headlines without digging any deeper. Because if they were, I don't think we'd be talking about race or gender or haircuts or one senate vote. And we wouldn't be screaming at each other about how Obama/Hillary is the devil incarnate/bad for the party etc etc. Aside from the obvious (which is discussed ad nauseum), they're really not all that different.

[lovethesinner]

As always, RJ, you've asked the most important question:

"But isn't it profoundly unethical to use race for such a partisan purpose?"

I think it is. And ultimately, it's one that can only be answered by the voters, tomorrow in Florida, and on Feb. 5th. But, it's likely that this issue will be discussed all the way to the nomination. It is the fundamental essence of the Democratic platform:

FAIRNESS.

Obama in '08

[Tasies]

The Clintonites are tripping over their shoe laces on this issue. They're taking us back to the "one drop rule" simply because it's more convenient for their campaign to paint Obama as the Black candidate. The unflappable fact is that Obama is bi-racial, bi-cultural and worldly. The Clintons are having a hell of a time pinning Obama down because he's not categorizable. Obama represents the present as well as the future, and many more of our elected officials are going to be of mixed race, as it reflects the flux within our society. Old school politics aren't applicable to a diversified constituency, and even the more subtle forms of race baiting are going to dissipate with the inevitability of diversification.

[lgillooly]

You are drinking the media kool aid as well. Bill Clinton's entire life has been for racial equality.He does not have a racist bone in his body. The right wing media has taken every word from ANY person in Hillary's campaign and blown it into a racial assault. Can't you see what the Rovian's do best.DIVIDE AND CONQUER and you are falling for it. Look at the Clintons' life work. We no longer have a free press,just a bunch of Propagandists for the Neocons.Shame on you all for believing their crap.

[StillAmused]

As EVERY political commentator, TV talking head and columnist endlessly churns and masticates the subject of "the African-American vote", poking, prodding and examining it -- on figurative hands and knees -- from every conceivable angle, the question du jour is shamelessly and piously put to us:

How DARE Bill Clinton comment, offhandedly and AFTER the S.C. results were in, that Obama had run a good campaign there, as had Jesse Jackson years before? There he was, again "playing the race card"...

Small detail: Obama received nearly 80 PERCENT OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN VOTE!

... ah, but in the parallel universe inhabited by the mainstream press, there's an explanation for THAT, too -- Bill Clinton "drove them" to Obama!

So, uhh... that enormous wave of South Carolina's African-Americans WOULDN'T have gone for Obama on their own?

They were "driven" to it?

By Bill Clinton?

Who, exactly, is NOW sounding dismissive of the African-American voter and "playing the race card"? The yapping heads know no limits in their practice of self-fulfilling and self-congratulatory journalism... but they honed their skills long ago, when they rolled over for the thousand-lie Bush White House and lovingly shepherded us into an immoral, illegal and murderous invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Sheesh! The hypocrisy is simply staggering...

[MNmommy]

"All this talk about race-baiting is probably serving a larger Clinton strategy. It's distracting us from a stunning defeat, one in which Hillary lost almost all demographic segments in a state where she once led the polls by 20 points. But isn't it profoundly unethical to use race for such a partisan purpose?"

While we're putting it all out there on the table, and I agree that the comments finally on Saturday were purely in bad taste and over the line, where is your criticism of the media?

The media drove this crap for the last three weeks.

[dtd]

"I would have slammed him. So why aren't we seeing a backlash from Clinton backers?"


As an African American woman, as far as I'm concerned, White woman who continue to support Hillary Clinton at all costs in the interests of getting a woman in the White House is validating these racist tactics. I would sooner cut off my right arm than vote for Hillary Clinton in November. And while I don't speak for all African Americans, I suspect a large percentage of African Americans will feel the same way in November AND STAY HOME! The Clintons may be willing to jeaopardize the Black vote for the Latino vote in the primaries, but someone should remind them that only 50% of Latinos are eligible to vote. How is she going to win NY, IL, and PA without at least 75% of the African American vote?

[EspressoAtNoon]

RJ,
I agree with your assessment. However, when Obama put up that add "Hillary will say anything to get elected, but change nothing" that was almost a last resort to the Clinton's lies and distortions that would NOT desist.

Bill continued to lie and distort his record ALL WEEK and advertised the distortions and at some point Obama felt he had to hit back and hard or he'd suffer the same fate as John Kerry.

As soon as he put his ad up, PRESTO - the Clintons drop their ad, and so Obama drops his in response.

I think it was Obama pulling a Trump card on them: if you continue to lie about me at every opportunity, then I'm going to state that you are a liar. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

Obama has fought a VERY clean and civil campaign. His speeches are uplifting, inspirational, and moving.

The Clinton's speeches are mostly lies about Obama.

[Micaanab]

It's the press that injected race into the campaign. They have been waiting for either candidate to slip up and say anything remotely close to race. And Obama did not counter with race either. People were offended after race was brought in by the press and responded. This was not Obama. The press wants to get dirt to report or this would all be so boring. They think that this is all Americans can respond to. They think we don't care enough about the real issues.

[tdbach]

So tell me, who’s really the bad guy here? The answer isn’t so black and white.

[tdbach]

Was Bill (and thus Hillary) making race pivotal in the primary by the Jesse Jackson and “black candidate” comments? Perhaps. Not necessarily, but perhaps. His point about Jesse need not be a cynical ploy. In fact, Jesse’s victories in South Caronlina ARE a more interesting and illustrative comparison than Edwards’s and Clinton’s own. Jesse won because he was a black candidate who appealed to black voters in a state with an unusually high proportion of black voter, and Jackson’s victory in SC couldn’t be replicated in other states. It’s not a truly accurate comparison because Barrack’s appeal is far broader than Jesse’s was, as shown in the exit poll numbers you recited. But it’s a fair and wholely within bounds comparison to draw; naturally, you want to cast your own defeat and opponent’s victory in the most favorable-to-you light. Besides, what harm is this really doing to Obama? How will this work against him in the general election if he wins, even if it does bring his race front and center? You’re not going to scare off center and left Democrats, because we love that we have a viable black candidate. Even a lot of Republicans like to feel good about themselves for liking Obama. The only one’s turned off by his African heritage are the whites (and they’re not all in the South, believe me) who wouldn’t vote for any off-white man or woman, and they don’t need reminding that Obama isn’t white.

Whereas Obama (and you) have chosen to seize a decades-old Republican meme against the Clintons, that they are cynical political opportunist who will say or do anything to win, and use every means, including this supposedly “overt pitch to racial stereotyping”, to that end. This characterization of the Clintons, repeated ad nauseum on right-wing radio, has been so effective that even the hard-core left in this country, who were disappointed in Clinton’s choosing efficacy over ideological resoluteness, have believed it. And now Obama is given it his blessing, reinforcing it to the point of irreparability, most likely.

[tdbach]

RJ, your piece, much like Obama's campaign itself, feigns thoughtfulness and balance, a departure from “the politics of divisiveness”, but in fact falls squarely in the tradition of bare-knuckle primary politics, and the choice you’re making vis-à-vis HRC is the most self-serving and ruthless of all.

You make an important point: “Here's a simple rule of thumb: Don't create sound bites that the opposition can use if your opponent gets the nomination.” And you say this in relation to an Obama ad, then you promptly drop it with a little “I'm glad he seemed to be backing off from that strategy in his victory speech.” The real slash and burn candidate – the one who has chosen a strategy that will sacrifice any other hope of ousting Republicans from the executive for the cause of winning the primary (that is, if I don’t win, nobody wins) is Obama. I like Obama, and I think he may have chosen this strategy because he really sees no recourse, not because of an inclination to cynical politics, but let’s call it as it really is. And in my opinion, Obama’s strategy (and now yours) is by far the most destructive.

[Yappa]

Mr Eskow - When you refer to "Bill Clinton's comments equating Obama to Jesse Jackson" you are greatly misstating what he said. Bill was asked about the SC win, and in his reply he mentioned that Jesse Jackson had won there too. That was nothing more than what most pundits had been saying for weeks: over half the voters were black, so a black candidate had an edge. You are engaging in some gutter politics yourself when you say Bill's comment was an "overt pitch to racial stereotyping" and "shameful".

In fact, much of the so-called dirty politics of the Democratic campaign is media-created fiction. The HuffPost is leading the charge in this regard. Why? I guess it increases your revenues.