"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

Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

Comments

[moonjumper]

"Obama crossed a line, too, when he ran an ad that states 'Hillary will say anything and do nothing.' Here's a simple rule of thumb: Don't create sound bites that the opposition can use if your opponent gets the nomination."

What, are the Republicans on life support now? They couldn't have possibly have thought that one up on their own? Now that's funny.

Obama's ad was in response to a completely distorted Clinton ad. As far as I know, that's the only "negative" ad Obama has run. He certainly wasn't robo-calling people on the eve of the South Carolina primary trashing Edwards.

[texanna]

Well, this Democrat is already going somewhere else - no matter which of the candidates that the corporatist media has winnowed the race down to for me ends up with the nomination. I don't like Hillary, even though I would love to see a woman in the WH, because I would prefer to have a woman that wasn't owned and operated by the big money corporatists that have ruined our country. I really don't like Obama, because while I would love to see a black or an hispanic person ascend to the highest office I don't think this guy is that candidate. He's owned and operated by the same big money corporatists as Hillary and therefore I don't think much will actually change, except the obvious, of course. And, with Obama, he's already told me he has no use for me, my issues or my help by telling me that all of that stuff in the 60's and 70's has to be put down and we need to move on. Well, I don't really feel like all of the issues from that time have been resolved -- there really is still sexism in this country and that racism stuff is in all the headlines this morning. So, a pox on both of them. I'll be voting for someone else - the first time in 40 years that i will vote for someone other than a Democratic candidate for President.

[MR]

You WERE wrong and you do owe some apologies. The people who first injected race into the campaign was the Obama people suggesting that Clintons very correct remarks about how it took an LBJ and all his skills as President to break down the resistance of Southern congressmen to get the Civil Rights act passed was an insult to MLK. Either these people believed what they said and are village idiots since what she aaid was entirely true and backed up by people like John Lewis who was actually there, or they saw a Rovian opening to take her remarks and use it as a racial wedge in SC a state with more black voters than any other and a state they needed to win or it was over.
The sleaze bag racial strategy of the Obama campaign worked.
And to show the hipocrisy, Obama bring up Reagan as a model and hey, its ok, he's just talking about what got him elected. Clinton brings up LBJ and its an insult when she was talking about what a President needs to do AFTER they are elected.
As for the Jesse Jackson remarks, again entirely appropriate. The media once again in their infinite stupidty tried to ignore the one of a kind win for Obama in SC. With a population that is 50% black and with the voter turnout 55% black, Obama won 80% of the black vote proving it was his racial politics that won the day.The "momentum" argument was silly.It was a set of circumstances that will not be duplicated in any other state and pointing out that SC twice gave Jackson primary wins to diminish the importance of the win is fair game and more than that, accurate.

[KathySammons]

I am sick and tired of white people in the media (of which there are many) calling other white people racist. Where the hell do you get off? And the fact that they clip segments to make statements seem racist when they are not--or even remotely racist, then spun into something racist--is disgusting. I suppose living in lilly-white states like CT and IA, that sort of thing is fine, but in the south, where blacks and whites live side-by-side, the media is creating a fissure that hurts all of us.

In short, shut up about things you don't know about.

[OhgReaTone]

Each candidate has his cross to bear. Obama is a Black man. Romney is a Mormon Scientologist for Jehovah on the 7th Day. Huckabee is a Theocrat. McCain is a Senior Citizen. The challenge of any campaign is to manage the reality of who the candidate is.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/28/racism-just-another-campaign-challenge/

[langstonhughesfan]

I'm beyond disappointed in Billary. I voted for Bill twice but can't stand him now. It was indeed racist for him to bring up Jesse Jackson's campaign. He wasn't asked about Jesse Jackson! It was a clear message and it was very disappointing, to say the least. Bill is hoping that just enough white folks will be afraid of a biracial candidate. He's hoping just enough Latinas/os will be angry that it's not one of their own in the so-called "minority spot," and that the next best thing would be to vote for Hillary. He's hoping, essentially, for racial DISHARMONY, and that is something the Democratic Party is supposed to abhor. So, it's kind of spot-on for Obama to note that Billary will say anything, and as for Hillary's "changing nothing..." That's kind of the case too, if we get more of the same old crap from the Republicans that hate her and Bill so much. Nothing will change. It was a cold way to put it, I admit (see...I can say something critical about a guy I like) but the truth hurts.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

Thank you muchly for spot-on commentary.

As a human being, I know, beyond the shadow of the tiniest little doubt, that we all know - even those of us that don't want to admit it yet (and an amazing number have over the past week) - who the best, strongest, most passionate and inspiring (and, wow, was he tested last week!), and dignified candidate is. Indeed, knowing the import of the character of the next occupant of the White House, Americans (from elder statesmen to citizens like me) are supporting Senator Obama with an intensity unheard of in recent memory.

The author has also pointed out, via the broad spectrum illustrated by Senator Obama's overwhelming support, that he is the most electable - something that's grown from a whispered to a shouted truth.

Barack Obama exudes it. He's one of those very rare people that is EXACTLY what he projects. Perfect? Nope. And he's said that, too. The most amazing candidate in a generation? Yep.

And, yes, over the coming days - as longitudinal data is summed - there is going to be a tilt of tectonic proportions in the numbers; something that's already happened. State polls are, of course, much more infrequent and (interestingly) much less reliable.

There's also the fact that this ain't about the horse race, anymore. It's about a rare phenomenon, a moment in our history that we'll recall for generations to come.

This is the year that we take back our country.

[vsign]

I can not judge Obama's character (which is what we are suppose to judge, right?) because we can not criticize him. I think he does not have a clear center to how he thinks about policy for us. I think many voters are so influenced by the sound of his voice in this new age of communication that he could be anything and do anything he wants. I think he likes power too much. And I worry alot that the power we give him is similar to what the germans did. They just suspended judgement of their leader in order to believe they could win with him and paid terrible unintended consequences. Like we will if we suspend our ability to criticize Barack.

[Purple Girl]

Damn I thought we'd be discussing the Silence we are hearing from these 'top tier' Dems about Impeachment, Criminal Charges.. anything of real importance.
Naive- yes only in the fact you think any of these candidates will seek Justice for US after at least 7 yrs of crimes against our Constitution, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humnaity perpetrated by Corporate Orgnaizations and their counter agents in Public office- for the last 40 yrs.

Hill & Barr- Ginger & Fred, slap & Tickle, then Kiss and make Up- Run on the same Ticket- then they can Crown Her Queen. These are the same crap models they've been marketing to US for decades- just a new paint job and some tail fins
Hillary is Cheney in Drag

[cuthbertallgood]

RJ
You are very right about criticizing the candidates one might like. The various boosters should do so.
Myself, I've been asking Obama supporters to talk their man off the gay baiting ledge for months. It was last summer that Obama held concerts with vocally anti-gay ministers and singers, including members of the vicious ex-gay movement. There was actual preaching by name against gay people at Obama events.
So sorry if I don't leap to defend a bigot against some other bigots. Those who sew seeds of division will reap the same. Really hard for me to think that one side can openly gay bash and still expect to play Marquis of Queensbury rules. Those that defend Obama without mention of the fact that he started the pandering to prejudice are showing that they dismiss gay issues as irrelevant. That is fine, but millions of people will be thinking you have a bit of hypocrisy going on.
Pandering to bigoted attitudes is always wrong, not sometimes, always. Not just when Clintons do it, but also when Obama does it. It is always wrong. It is wrong when it is done using gay people as a wedge as well. Both of these candidates should be held to higher standards by the very voters who instead fawn over them without question.
An accusation of pandering to prejudice carries more weight when the accuser is innocent of such pandering themselves. In this election, the two frontrunners are both guilty of crass and divisive politics. Both should be rejected.

[blackwell98]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0--PJecGmTE
"South Carolina Primary and Bill"

RedStateUpdate.. great comedy and more truth than most can handle, for your laff of the day.

[vbond]

RJ... I generally like your post, but you made a pretty major error.

You said:

"Obama crossed a line, too, when he ran an ad that states "Hillary will say anything and do nothing.""

Actually, Obama said:

"Hillary will say anything and CHANGE nothing."

In context, this was completely appropriate, relevant and powerful.

Sorry.

[sparkandy]

You're right on target, particularly in your analysis of the mindset of disaffected Republicans, moderate Democrats and Independents. The Democratic core ignored these voters in the last election and look what we got - four more years of Bush. Now they're doing it again, by anointing either Clinton or Obama as the candidate and ignoring those of us who WANT to vote for a Democrat, but not either of those two. I'm a Republican, who hates the current administration and would love to see a Democrat in the White House. My neighbors are moderate Democrats; my daughter is Independent. The one thing we agree on is NOT to vote for Clinton and/or Obama, because we feel they are too divisive. I can only pray that on 5 Feb, the moderate Dems prevail and John Edwards comes out on top. Otherwise, I'm afraid the Democratic Party will lose those of us who aren't really liberal, but moderate, to the Republicans once again. My neighbors and I would certainly prefer McCain to Clinton or Obama, as would most of the people I talk to. I just hope the Dems don't ignore the huge mass of voters like us like they did in '04.

[teahead]

It's true!

HillBilly will SAY ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED!

Making fun of Obama for Hope.

Making fun of Obama for his candor for losing papers (while Edwards and Billary said their biggest weakness is being too emotional or too passionate; what bunk!).

Making fun of Obama for pointing out Reagan being a turning pt in American politics.

Making fun of Obama calling him "a kid".

Making fun of Obama for his present votes, which is only 2% of his votes. Unlike Hillary's 23% NON-PRESENT votes in the Senate!

Making fun of Obama for trying to be like JFK, MLK.

YES, THE HILLBILLY TAG TEAM WILL SAY ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED!

[readerK]

goldstategirl: You threaten to vote for a Republican if Hillary wins the nomination. You have a guaranteed right to vote as you please.

But remember that your attitude has been one of the main reasons why the Republicans have gained the White House more often than they deserve. In 1968, strong anti-Vietnam war sentiment so blinded many Democrats that they abandoned Hubert Humphrey, Mr. Liberalism himself. Nixon won as a result. The Eugene McCarthy supporters and the Kennedy family were some of those who abandoned a Democrat's Democrat.

In 1980, Ted Kennedy wouldn't make up after he had lost the primary to sitting President Carter. That split was one of the reasons why Reagan won.

Of course, we all remember Ralph Nader's EFFECT ON THE 2000 RACE. Nader agreed on many more issues with Gore than he did with George Bush. But for truly inconsequential reasons, he hobbled Gore and Bush got in. I don't know if you like the results from Nader's run in 2000.

Look around the country: in state after state, progressives with your attitude make it possible for their ideological opposites to win elections by "punishing" those with whom they agree ideologically.

Too many Dems and progressives behave as if LOOSING a presidential election is not a big deal. They become alarmed only when the winner, with whom they don't agree politically, starts to make appointments or nominate judges and Justices. The these progressives with your kind of attitude waste energy and money in a futile attempt to stop some of the appointments.

We cannot ever get our "perfect" candidates. readerK.