James Clyburn Happy to Play His Familiar Part Once More

Once again -- and for the last time -- the Democratic primary campaign has moved into a southern state, North Carolina, with a large African American population as well as a considerable university and college town liberal vote. Once again, the Barack Obama campaign and its supporters, fresh from a stinging defeat, are trying to stir up false accusations that Hillary Clinton and her campaign have cynically injected racial animosities into the campaign.

The latest round of charges about the Clintons have come from a familiar source, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking black leader in Congress. In January, after the Obama campaign suffered stunning defeats in New Hampshire and Nevada, Rep. Clyburn, although nominally uncommitted, joined a chorus of concerted complaint about Hillary Clinton's supposed denigration of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his contributions to the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of her observation that President Lyndon Johnson had played a crucial part in guiding its passage. (Clinton's actual remarks, rarely reported, praised King enormously and were historically accurate.)

Clyburn then jumped on flimsy accusations that former President Bill Clinton had supposedly made subtle racial remarks by calling Obama's claim to unwavering opposition to administration policy in Iraq a "fairy tale," and by likening Obama's eventual victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. (The first had nothing whatsoever to do with race: Obama had said in 2004, 2005 and 2006 that he didn't know how he would have voted on Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq because as a state senator he had no access to the intelligence, and Obama voted consistently for war funding as a U.S. senator. On the second matter -- again, rarely reported in full -- Bill Clinton's remark was delivered as part of his praise of Obama's campaign in every state, and Jackson himself publicly deemed it inoffensive.) Clinton had apparently done his wife's campaign a lot of good with his work in New Hampshire and Nevada; but the targeted attack on him had the double effect of marginalizing him while advancing the race-baiter charges.

The Obama campaign had already begun injecting race into the campaign, notably on the morning after the New Hampshire primary, when its national co-chair, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, went on national television to accuse Senator Clinton of false emotion and racial intent in her tearful description of her commitment to public service. "Those tears also have to be analyzed," said Obama's co-chair. "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for." And then Jackson added, disclosing his underlying political agenda: "Particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest." Clyburn immediately followed up, upping the ante by ripping into Bill Clinton and telling him to "chill." At the same time, an official Obama South Carolina campaign memo surfaced, which specified innocuous statements by Clinton supporters that could be twisted into race-baiting remarks -- including the wild claim, built from distorted quotations that Bill Clinton had said his wife was "stronger" than Nelson Mandela.

The charges leveled at the Clintons by Clyburn and others in South Carolina began what has become a completely predictable pattern among Obama, his campaign, and their supporters. First, Obama loses primary campaigns in key states which he had either expected to win (as in New Hampshire and then Nevada) or had worked desperately hard to win (as in Pennsylvania, where he outspent Hillary Clinton by as much as three-to-one). Then, as the campaign moved southward -- to Louisiana and then the "Potomac" primaries following Super Tuesday, to Mississippi following the March 4 Ohio and Texas primaries, and now to North Carolina -- come the furious but false charges, reported in the press as undeniable truths, that the Clinton campaign has indulged in mean-spirited race baiting, as a prelude to upcoming contests in southern states.

Some of these claims have turned out to be hoaxes, such as the release by the campaign, in the aftermath of Super Tuesday, of a supposedly scurrilous photograph of Obama in native African garb. Posted on the Drudge Report and lifted, as it turned out, from another right-wing website, Free Republic, where it initially surfaced, the appearance of the photograph was nevertheless blamed on the Clinton campaign by Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe who called it "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election." (Obama himself, after dismissing the incident in a public debate with Hillary Clinton, returned to the accusation while on the stump with black voters in Mississippi.)

On other occasions, Obama suggested to mostly black audiences, in coded racial terms, that the Clintons were attempting to confuse them with their criticisms of him. Before the South Carolina, "Potomac" and Mississippi primaries, Obama cheerfully lifted the "hoodwinked, bamboozled" rant from the Spike Lee film Malcolm X, in order to convey to black voters that, whatever he might say about a "post-racial" campaign, racial solidarity against white traducers was crucial to his effort. Denzel Washington, playing Malcolm X, says: "I'm gonna tell you like it really is. Every election year these politicians are sent up here to pacify us! They're sent here and set up here by the white man! I say and I say it again, you've been had. You've been took. You've been HOODWINKED, BAMBOOZLED, led astray, run amok." Barack Obama repeatedly echoed: "Don't be hoodwinked! Don't be bamboozled!"

Other claims have either been either outright fabrications or hysterical distortions: false charges leveled by one popular pro-Obama website, Daily Kos, that the Clinton campaign "blackened" their candidate to make his look menacing by purposely darkening a another photograph of him; and the strained Geraldine Ferraro fracas, in which an awkward remark buried in the Torrance, California Daily Breeze was trumpeted nationally by prominent Obama supporters such as Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown into accusations said that the Clinton campaign had descended into the politics of a former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. Then there was the false claim by one of Obama's best known supporters in academia, Orlando Patterson of Harvard, published on the op-ed page of the New York Times, that there was no black child in Clinton's "3 a.m." television ad on national security, a supposedly racist move worthy of D. W. Griffith and Birth of a Nation -- when, in fact, there was a black child in that commercial.

Which brings us back to Representative Clyburn, on the eve of North Carolina, which some have called Obama's firewall state -- a state he must win convincingly in order to head off his latest slide in the primary race. Last week, Bill Clinton belatedly observed that the Obama campaign "played the race card on me" in South Carolina, and cited a conversation he had had with Jesse Jackson to prove his point. Clyburn jumped back in, getting the attention of The New York Times by charging that "black people are incensed" at Clinton and claiming that it is "an almost 'unanimous' view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are "committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win." Clyburn may well be correct about perceptions of the Clintons among some black voters; but he simply hides how Obama, his campaign, and their supporters have willfully created that impression.

Remarkably, reports about the Clintons' alleged race-baiting have been reproduced so often and so uncritically in the press that they have attained the status of incontrovertible truth. Evidence and arguments to the contrary can expect either to be ignored (with their arguments dismissed, as Ryan Lizza recently and sarcastically did in The New Yorker, as "mysterious"). Or they can expect to be greeted by ad hominem attacks which do not engage the evidence, and which can even stray (as I have learned directly) into attacks on the author as a racist -- the sort who, back in 1860, sneered at Abraham Lincoln as a "Black Republican." There is no honest dialogue on this issue: only constant reiteration by Obama's supporters of the undeniable truth of the charges against the Clintons, and the personal disparaging of any who dare call the charges into question.

Yet, there are, to be sure, some stray signs that the press may be catching on to what is going on here. After Rep. Clyburn's latest tirade, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times -- who has until now been consistently anti-Clinton and pro-Obama -- raised an eyebrow in her column about Clyburn's endorsement of what Dowd called the "Tonya Harding conspiracy theory," that the Clintons and their supporters were out to destroy Obama by the foulest of means. And playing the race-baiter card runs the enormous risk of deepening the racial divide that will make it more difficult for Obama to appeal to white voters, as it has in the past.

But there may not be time for the Obama campaign to worry about that, given the Pennsylvania results, given the possible outcomes in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky, and given the growing perception (deepened by the continuing outbursts by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright) that Obama may not be electable in November. Incensing black voters in North Carolina -- as well as college and university liberals in the Chapel Hill-Durham area -- would be one way to gain the large majority that Obama needs to regain his footing. And so, yet again, the by now routine charges against the Clintons as race-baiters reappear -- with Representative Clyburn of neighboring South Carolina happy to play his by now familiar part once more.

Comments

[Subliminability]

Sean Wilentz = the Lanny Davis of the Academic set.

What a joke.

[nk007]

Bravo! I am totally with you Subliminabilty. Sean Wilentz , Lanny Davis, and Bill Clinton, are masters at transmitting subliminal race coded messages and then turning around and blaming Obama. By the way I am so tired of the scrutiny paid to Rev. Wright. Surely Rev. Wright is not as outrageous as Revs. Pat Robinson, John Haggee, Rod Persley, or the late Jerry Falwell. I do not remember the media playing over and over again some of their despicable statements. I am sure if I read race into this double standards, Lanny Davis and Sean Wilentz will accuse me of playing a race card. Besides, why is Obama being crucified for what his pastor says, while Hillary Clinton is let off the hook for telling a bold faced lie? Also, why is she not held accountable for all the sins of her husband? Talk about hypocrisy!

[elusiveyo]

amen, thank you thank you, facts are facts no matter what the dittoheads and the obama press push, thank you thank you!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!

[lmatthe]

Yes..you'r­e right. Facts are facts. Bill Clinton did compare Obama to Jesse Jackson while in the south. He did it three times.

You're right. Hillary did say that as much work as King did, it still took a white man (Pres. Johnson) to get it into law.

Here's a newsflash. If not 4 King making it socially acceptable, Johnson would have not gotten it done.

FACTS ARE FACTS!!!!

[NCMan]

read your history. When LBJ pushed civil right legislation through the congress it WAS NOT socially acceptable. LBJ doing what was right when it was unpopular ended his political career and turned the southern dems into Dixiecrats, many of whom became republicans and created the republican's "southern strategy" that persists today.

Now go and read the entirety of what Hillary Clinton said. She didn't dismiss MLK, she praised him.

[lotuslike]

Gosh...a truly piss poor excuse for a blog. It's actually a rant. Full of histrionics and no cites to sources at all. Come on, Sean. If you want to convince folks other than those in your choir about any of the stuff that you're asserting here in this m a s s i v e article, back it up with facts that can be verified, links or something. Your drama queen venting is tiring and ineffective.

[MizFlagPin]

Lengthy article. Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?

Usual Clinton tactic of destroying who ever appear to bad mouth Missy Wannabe Commander In Chief From Day 1 The Damn Red Phone Is Mine.

She's a real fighter and will whoop anyone's behind that dare speak against her low-down, dirty tactics. Throwing back whiskey, chasing it with beer, she's a real billary-type dude. And now you want to paint her as some sensitive woman who's incapable of playing with road lizards?

Please.

[illus2003]

Who is using Rovian tactics by continually bringing up the Wright issue, but then stating that Obama is not a muslim as far as she is aware of (playing on Anti-Muslim fears) that Obama's claiming that lower and middle class people are "Bitter" is such a horrible word to assign to us because we are Optimistic and Resilient not Bitter. Calling a man who up until a few years ago was still paying off school loans an elitist? Claiming that Obama lied about Nafta when in fact her campaign spoke with the Canadians also and she supported it and her husband is being paid by the Colombian government to introduce CAFTA. Try to turn it any way you like it will not work.

[NCMan]

Continually bringing up the Wright isuse? Would you like to provide a count of the number of times Clinton has said ANYTHING about Wright? I believe it is THREE. She was asked a direct question about what SHE would have done a week after the initial controvery. It was asked about in the ABC debate. And, she was asked about it directly this week.

Please show me where she has CONTINUALLY brought up the Wright issue.

[feelfree]

Mr. Wilentz strikes again. I do so enjoy the FACTS of your article. I have said before that it is an obamanation to believe that comparing one black to another is racist. They say that Obama supporters are more educated, but this scurrilous attack makes them look like educated fools. It is not only divisive to do so, but it is a goddamn lie that the Clintons are racists.

[lmatthe]

Clintons are not racist. Just LOW DOWN< BACK STABBING..­.ANYTHING TO WIN PEOPLE..

[genoasail]

Dear Sean,

We have this thing in blogging called "hyperlinking". When you make an accusation, you "hyperlink" to the evidence you are using to gird your assertion. this allows the reader to review original source materials for themselves, and make their own judgement, and engagein fact-based debate with others.

When an author on a blog makes multiple accusations, or in this case, bases an entire post on a conclusion the author is drawing based on a number of alleged incidents perpetrated on another party by a third party, one would expect multiple links. Preferably, a hyperlink per accusation.

Sadly, there are none present in your story. So as a reader, that leaves me with rather serious doubts a to the veracity of any of your accusations, and no opportunity of my own to test your conclusions based on these unsubstantiated accusations.

At best, this is sloppy writing and shoddy journalism. At worst, it misuse your elevated position in a public forum to spread rumors, lies, and innuendo about a United States Senator, who is likely the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

I'd like to think you can trust your readers with the truth, and so will provide links. If not, i guess we can make our own conclusions about the veracity of your accusations.

[GlennFromCaryNC]

Dear genoasail, you forgot to put the hyperlink referring to the source material about "hyperlink­ing." Just a reminder.

[genoasail]

Hilarious. Great sense of humor to interject in this tense thread!

Unfortunately, I can't get the hyperlink to work in the comments section, even with correct HTML code, so I will just provide the web addy, and ask that if you know of some trick to make hyperwork link in the comments, as it does in blogposts, that would be a big help. Here's the hyperlink linky goodness: http://www.techterms.com/definition/hyperlink

Enjoy.

As for Monique: The onus is not on the reader, it's on the writer, to prove the case s/he asserts. Absent that, it just to me to be gossip, not actual fact-based argument. This link should help you understand the difference: http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ar/argument132220.html

[monique]

Gee, maybe he was hoping you had a brain and could think for yourself. Maybe he thought that if you felt compelled to dig deeper, that you could handle that research all on your own.

And just to be clear, when you use the word "we" you do understand that you are not speaking for all of us out here in the blogosphere -- right? Because some of us were able to read and comprehend Sean's piece just fine. I mean, it wasn't really an article that required a lot of scientific research or anything laborious like that.

To plenty of us, his points were as plain as a clear and sunny day.

Thank you Sean. Good piece. About time someone told the truth.

Obama's decision to belong to a divisive church, and listen to a racist, angry minister for twenty years has cost him. Maybe others will realize it does no one any good to cling to their anger and racial divisiveness.

One truly disgusting thing in this campaign has been to see how the Obama camp and his supporters have disrespected Bill Clinton. After loving and embracing the African-American community his whole life, it is truly depressing to see how he has been treated.

What, because Obama is black, Hillary and Bill are supposed to approach this campaign differently from how they would run against a white candidate? What, is she supposed to run a sorta strong campaign? And strive to kinda almost win?

[annawing]

Does Bill Clinton really deserve respect? I have to say I voted for him twice, and I do like the man; it is hard not to. But I don't respect him, and the reasons are part of his legacy, which I need not go into here since we are all aware of what they are.

What I would like to ask you is, why have so many people close to the Clintons, who worked on their campaign for a time, and who even were part of their White House years, jump ship and start supporting Obama.? (I say "they", because Bill is entirely too invested in his wife winning). And even with the crap in the MSM since the Pennsylvania election, he has continued to collect superdelegates, two more today, in fact.

I don't think Bill and Hillary are racists, but they will exploit anything, including race, if it gets them into the White House. It is possible to be tough without being vicious, manipulative or threatening to blow up Iran.

[cleffnote]

Sean, thank you for speaking the truth and doing it so well.

[GlennFromCaryNC]

Amen.

[lmatthe]

cleffnote and GlennFromCaryNC,

I assume that you also think that Black people are voting for Obama because he's black. Not because the Clintons played the southern strategy in South Carolina and stabbed African Americans in the back. Then again, maybe you don't care.

Want to talk facts...if what this idiot wrote is true, why have'nt Obama's people been leaving his campaign like their leaving Hillary's?

People of good conscience see what the Clintons are doing

[unitron]

"...why have'nt Obama's people been leaving his campaign like their leaving Hillary's? "

Because his campaign still has enough money to meet payroll? :-)

[GlennFromCaryNC]

lmatthe,

Your post is superficial, irrational and insulting. Sean Wilentz is not an idiot. He has a point of view and has expressed it with a great deal of supporting evidence. You don't have to accept his evidence and you don't have to agree with his conclusions, but to call him an idiot calls into question your intelligence.

Are you suggesting that you believe that 90+ percent of blacks are voting for Obama because they are all impressed with the proposals published on his campaign website? Of course many blacks are voting for Obama because they identify with him because he is black. The point of Sean’s article was to point out that the Obama campaign through surrogates like Clyburn are pushing that sense of identification and piling on top of it the charge of implicit racism against the Clintons. Again, you don’t have to agree with him, but you have done nothing to refute a single point of his.

[GlennFromCaryNC]

By the way, do you really want readers to think that the definition of a person "of good conscience" is someone that will abandon one candidate in favor of another for reasons that are not at all apparent to you? Maybe there was a promise of more money or a position in the mythical Obama administration. Maybe it was some petty hurt feelings because they thought they were supposed to be more important than they really were. Maybe they are complete lunatics. You don't know. You also don't know that superdelegates won't start deserting Obama in droves if he keeps losing primaries and the national polls turn even worse for him. Will they also be "people of good conscience" in your opinion or will they be treacherous scumbags because they don't agree with you?

As for my not caring about African Americans, I live in NC and have many, many black friends in the Democratic Party here. We work shoulder to shoulder to elect Democrats to offices at every level of government. Most of my black friends (and many of my white friends) support Obama, some support Clinton. We argue sometimes, we tease each other sometimes, we laugh, we hug, we shake hands and we go back to work for our respective candidates. We are all excited that, for once in our lives, our primary vote might mean something.

Vote Democratic in November.

[BlueAsh]

Huh???

I guess that's why African Americans started to go 80% for Obama after the South Carolina primary.

And Hillary saw with her own little eyes the sniper fire in Bosnia!

[Dmitriy]

Interesting enough, did white voters go 80% for Clinton because of Obama's elitistic remark?

And you probably didn't know that only 16% of black votes went to Clinton in Iowa on January 3rd (BEFORE S Carolina). But in the rest of the states except in NY, NJ, MA, FL and TN Clinton did not get more than 19% of black vote.

Here is the hyperlink.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/exit-polls/topics/race/d/

Interesting enough, did white voters go 80% for Clinton because of Obama's elitistic remark?

[lwfky]

I think this remark just shows where the true racial politics are playing out. When half of the white population feels either Obama or Clinton would be great candidates, but upwards of 80% of the black population feels only Obama is acceptable, where is race really making a difference?

[BlueAsh]

Actually, with Hillary, the telling part is the women's votes, which favor her, indicating strong preference of voting based on gender.

[urfree2speak]

I am in a very nice comfort zone right now about the Clintons, I am a Obama supporter, it is CLEAR that there is a SERIOUS RACE problem in this country. As a African American and a voter, I take comfort in now knowing who the REAL RACEBAITERS ARE..not just some conservative politicians . But also DEMOCRACTS, this whole thing has been a disaster, African Americans now know that every candidate white or black they support is taken for granted. So having said that I personally look to the day when we have a independent political party to support. As for Clinton..w­ell Obama needs this , but she piled on...I know it will not be hard for 8% of African American to stay home in Nov. Hillary and Bill will never get my vote...NEV­ER.

[CheeseNow]

Was Jeremiah Wright's speech set up by a Clinton supporter?

Well, here's a most interesting connection we just came across.

Everybody is talking today about how much the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's latest unrepentant militant remarks hurt his most prominent parishoner, Sen. Barack Obama, and his chances to win the Democratic presidential nomination and the general election. So much so that the Obama camp realized the latent danger overnight and the candidate was forced to speak out publicly a second time today, as The Ticket noted here earlier today.

There was little doubt left in today's remarks by Obama, who recently said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community. He pretty much disowned Wright today. Obama described himself as "outraged" and "saddened" by "the spectacle of what we saw yesterday.­"

But now, it turns out, we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at....

who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York Daily News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.

[MichaelDeane]

What a pantload. You Clinton apologists make me sick just like your candidate does. Like HRC, you seem to have a depraved indifference to the truth.

Clinton went after Obama in December 2007 with the "drug" question raised by Bill Shaheen. She's been using surrogates to do her dirty work ever since including Robert Johnson, Bill's demeaning racial comments in SC (we all know what he meant), the "plagiarism" accusation, the inflated resume (he's not a professor), the Kenyan garb, the unhinged Geraldine Ferraro, the Rev. Wright affair, the Rezko trial (now that is indeed laughable considering the Clintons track record--Norman Hsu or Johnny Chung anyone?), the William Ayers McCarthyism, the lamentable "bitter" controversy, the flag pin affair and the Rovian commercial featuring Bin Laden.

Clinton apologists defend her behavior with phony political excuses like, "it's politics, get over it" or her personal favorite, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". This is such crap. When Karl Rove did this or the neo cons were doing this to Bill Clinton, you were up in arms. Now that your candidate is doing it, it's okay.

Wrong. There are many of us left-of-center Democrats who will never vote for ANY Clinton EVER again.
They disgust us. If she manages to steal the nomination from McCain, just watch her lose in November when many of us either stay home or vote for all Democrats SAVE HRC.

[lotuslike]

thank you!

[PennP]

You had me with "pantload," and I agree all the way.

Was the last line a Freudian slip, or deliberate?

[unitron]

"...If she manages to steal the nomination from McCain..."

Now *that* I'd like to see. :-)

[Benton]

Who said; Hispanics will not vote for a Black Candidate?

[lmatthe]

With the help of Bill Richardson, it should get even better

[Benton]

You have got to be kidding me; you really must think black people are stupid. Most of you do not even know the coded language and style Bill Clinton has been using because you have no connection to the southern and that deep culture of racism. Do you really think Bill freaking Clinton former Governor of Arkansas does not know what he is doing. Do you really think you know more about what is going on then Clyburn of South Carolina? You are way out of your lane. You are as far out of your lane as I would be trying to understand the Turkish and Greek tensions.

[apoyo]

"Stunning defeats"? Getting more delegates out of Nevada and losing NH by 2 percent equal stunning defeats? Why does everyone have to be so dramatic?

[marryl]

All of this pro-Obama nonsense is simply over-kill. Is there a news outlet that is truly objective? I'm having to listen/watch FoxNews in order to get another point of view these days. Geraldine was correct and so is Wright on the issue of being lucky and political expediency. Obama's CFR backers have told him he'd better get out there and put Wright down since all the money and grooming cannot go to waste. Wake up and think for yourselves people. It really doesn't matter who gets elected.

[NCMan]

Actually FOX News was the ONLY news outlet that played Bill Clinton's "fairytale" remork in full to prove that he didn't call Obama's entire campaign a fairytale, but was only referring to his anti-war consistency.

It was the rest of the press along with Michelle Obama and Donna Brazile who intentionally distorted what Bill said to turn it into a racist comment.

The same thing happened when Bill Clinton appeared on the Charlie Rose show and said that a vote for Obama would be a "roll of the dice" based on his lack of experience.

The media, specifically Chris Matthews, called that a "coded" racist statement. It supposedly was intended to conjure up images of balck men shooting dice in urban alleyways.

What a load of cr@p

The media nad the Obama campaign are easiky able to make these charges by playing editted snippets of what someone says and at the same time not bothering to show the question they were asked and are responding to.

Now think of all the calls the Obama supporters have been making for context and hearing the whole statement before making judgement in the case of Rev Wright. But, they make no such calls when anyone accuses the Clintons of anything.