The Clinton-Obama Race on Race
People from all walks of American life pay respects to the unassuming civil rights leader Rosa Parks in the US Capitol rotunda.
I'm not well positioned or exceedingly informed on the subject to comment much on the strange battle brewing between the Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama camps on race. In his comments on George Stephanopoulos' This Week this morning, Senator John Kerry in his broad endorsement of Barack Obama slipped in a line that seemed incongruent with other parts of his statement.
Kerry said something along the lines that when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he handed the pen he used to Martin Luther King. This had to be a clear reference to Hillary Clinton's comment the other day that "Martin Luther King's dream was realized when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act."
Stephanopoulos pressed Kerry on this wondering whether Obama's team was playing a race card against Hillary Clinton.
I think it's absurd for anyone to be engineering drama over the clear collaboration of effort and objectives that required both Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson -- but politics needs battles. One wishes that they were over real issues and not nuanced language.
But what I find really interesting IF indeed Senator Obama's team is trying to hammer Hillary Clinton for some subterranean racism is that Barack Obama in Iowa was trying to be the candidate who had finally transcended race in this nation -- not an aspirant to the White House who was highlighting the divisions between a white president who signed legislation into law and a black minister who helped inspire the need for that law and change.
Christopher Ames -- Provost and Dean of Washington College, a liberal arts college on Maryland's eastern shore founded in 1782, as well as a media expert -- wrote this note to me on Senator Obama's subtle sleight of hand in his Iowa victory speech that seemed to transcend race but still flirted with the concept without mentioning the word:
Steve,I enjoyed listening to your dialogue with Mark Schmitt on over-analyzing the primaries. I then took a few minutes to listen to the Obama Iowa victory speech.
It's quite something. Here's my over-analysis, informed a bit by our conversation at your house in D.C. about the very question of whether Obama can win with the degree of racism still alive in this country.
Here's what fascinated me about Obama's stirring speech: the unnamed referent. "They said this day would never come." "You [voters in Iowa] have done what the cynics said we couldn't." Now I think it is pretty clear to everyone what Obama means by "what" and "this day." I'd paraphrase it like this: Cynics said a black man couldn't draw enough white votes to succeed in a national election, but now, by winning the primary in very white Iowa, we've demonstrated that the country is no longer so racially divided for that to be true. Indeed, people voted for the candidate whom they believed could best turn around (or "change") the disastrous policies of the Bush administration regarding foreign policy, torture, health care, the environment, and corruption.
Now this is a powerful message and a smart one because it pats his supporters on the back for rising above vestigial racism with their votes for him. And it underscores, perhaps rightly, his electability.
In all, I think it is a fine message and a legitimate talking point after the Iowa victory.
What fascinates me is that Obama communicates this in a fifteen-minute speech that never mentions race, even though the electability of a black candidate is the unnamed and perfectly clear referent. Race is thus always present and always unnamed. Thus the appeal of Obama as the post-racial candidate, somehow so different from a candidate like Jesse Jackson, who espouses similar political positions. Thus Obama's appeal to whites who are "tired" of race, who complain of "the race card," who see racial politics as "special interests."
To me, it's a remarkable rhetorical move, almost a sleight of hand. And it just might make the difference.
By the way, I recall your friend recently returned from Russia responding that if I was right about Obama not being electable, he'd like to return to being an ex-pat. Fair enough. I share his frustration and disappointment with the lasting power of racial division. But I wonder what countries one would consider moving to if the criterion was a country that has proven its ability to elect a member of a racial minority to national office. Certainly not Europe?
But that is a genuine question.
All the best,
Christopher Ames
Provost and Dean of the College, Washington College
Ames' comments intrigue me, but perhaps that is because I'm just not as tuned in as others on race policy questions.
One of my first colleagues formerly at the New America Foundation and a person I admire greatly is Debra Dickerson who in the early part of this decade was exploring the politics of race in a post-racial environment. She was watching the collapse of affirmative action and the disaggregation of racial blocs and often spoke about what a post-affirmative action racial agenda might look like.
Given that she was making these comments in the late 1990s and early part of this decade, it seems clear to me that at least in the political benchmarks pols are using -- political machines aren't ready for candidates who are truly racially transcendent.
And one more quip before I close. I found it unbelievable that Senator John Kerry said on Stephanopoulos's show that Obama as a black president could speak differently to African leaders than Hillary Clinton could as a white woman (I'm paraphrasing).
Whoever is in that White House is going to have to talk to all sorts of global leaders, and Kerry's comment seemed racist to me, perhaps not intended by him, but still. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have both invested heavily in relationships with various African leaders -- and Kerry's comments slight them not on substance but for the color of their skin.
My hope if Barack Obama is elected is that he'll get his people and advocates to transcend this kind of positioning.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Comments for this post are now closed
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
Whatever happened to Obama is not Black enough?
You haven't understood what I said, which was entirely truthful about the actions and events which brought down legal racial segregation in America. Hillary Clinton said that "it took a president" to make these historic changes. In fact, only part of the achievements of the civil rights revolution required federal legislation. Before that happened, hundreds of nonviolent sit-ins, boycotts, marches and demonstrations had obliterated the ability of local cities and states to enforce racist laws, and both legal and customary segregation in public accommodations at the local level was on the way out, by the time Lyndon Johnson signed any legislation. The latter had to do with voting and political rights. By the time Johnson signed those laws, the change was inevitable, thanks to an enormous Democratic majority in the Congress, which was itself awed by the power of the civil rights movement and was fully supportive of what it was demanding. And why was the Congress convinced? Because the people who elected them were convinced -- because their hearts and minds were captured by the movement. That's how history is made in a democracy, and that's what Hillary Clinton did not appear to understand in her original remark on this subject. And that in turn is the vital difference between Clinton and Obama. She thinks change is from the top down. He realizes it is actually from the bottom up.
All Hillary did is finally prove her Democratic opposers right. All along many Democrats that don't support Hillary have argued that she isn't genuine and every move she makes is based on polls and market research. One (questionable) moment of emotion and on MEET THE PRESS she was back to the familiar territory of Clinton pandering. She has much to criticize Obama on that doesn't include race, but the reason she has debased herself to the issue of race is because her criticisms of Obama regarding the war and war funding simply highlight that they acted in exactly the same manner. Her current course is making Obama and Edwards supporters come out even stronger. If there isnt' much difference between Clinton& Obama politically, why not vote for Obama? She's saying "look he's a good looking light-skinned black guy, but in the end he is still black and we'll need a higher up whitey to get his "dreams" to come through. Forget her race-baiting, how about the fact that she's accused him & Edwards of giving the American people "false hope" instead of allowing HER to tell us what to believe. Her idea of false hope is exactly why she should lose this election: she's so used to the way things are done in Washington that she knows SHE will not be able to change much.
As we are nearing Super Tuesday in February, the political juggernaut has begun to debunk the insurgent campaigns and poise the establishment candidates to take the candidacy. Take the New Hampshire fiasco with the Clinton campaign two card play: "Hillary becoming human" and "Martin Luther King". With a brilliant political stroke, the establishment has positioned its candidate in a fireball of media discussion. This stroke has allowed for the corporate board rooms, leaders of the congress, and politicos to take their place on the airwaves and on the printed page to ignite anger and potentially long term strategic counter voting against the insurgent candidate, Barack Obama. This morning on MSNBC"s "Morning Joe", mogul Jack Welch squelched against both party insurgents claiming that Obama is not ready for 2008, but with a few more years of experience he may be viable in 2012. In addition, he prognosticated that the general election candidates will be McCain vs. Clinton, although he claims to be supporting Mitt Romney"s candidacy. From millionaire to millionaire, board room to board room this support is overtly obvious, but dances the establishment political waltz with the loose McCain endorsement. Then we have Bob Johnson, Founder of BET, a supporter of the Clinton campaign, stirring up doubt, and even more controversy insinuating that Obama was using drugs during his community organization days in Michigan. Although the Clinton campaign has claimed they would fire anyone who would use tactics like this, it is very doubtful that this will happen. The very mention of Johnson"s statements at the recent rally by the media is exactly what the Clinton campaign is working towards. But don"t be fooled, it"s not about Obama, it"s about Johnson and his established credibility in the African-American community. On the surface, it all seems to contradict itself, positioning Obama as the victim and tempting his campaign to retaliate. Fortunately for him, this has not happened.
So don"t be surprised to see more familiar faces from the establishment, using reverse tactics to plant the seeds of fear, anger, doubt, and proclaim their innocence in doing so.
That said, it's also true that Obama - with a Kenyan grandmother and numerous other relatives currently living in Africa, he will likely be able to connect and communicate in a diplomatic context with African people better than any of the rest.
You misheard Kerry on Obama, Steve - he didn't say "African leaders", he said Obama could say things to "African-American leaders" that a white politician couldn't say - implying that he would be less inclined to pander to an Al Sharpton and could have the kind of conversations with black people that are common WITHIN the community rather than the "outsider" relationship that white people inevitably have.
First of all there is only one MLK , one Gandhi.
And in future may be on Obama. If Obama is compared to MLK, what does that mean ?
It means , he is no there as yet. When and if he reaches that level, it will be only Obama standing alone by his own Merits and others will be compared to him trying to be just like him.
Lets give proper respect to Dr. King who stands alone, no one else is at that level !
Race, Gender and Ethnicity should be a non issue, it is only the qualifications required to run the Country .
"What is Race?" asked jesting Pilate, but would not stay for an answer.
I refer him, for starters, to the UNESCO Statement of Race. Oh, I forgot, Republicans hate the UN except when they can use it as their tool.
Obama calls himself a "bonehead" for getting help for a Chicago racketeer under investigation, subsequently indicted, to buy a home a couple of years after saying he had no money. I don't want a President who's a bonehead, by his own admission, or one who knowingly deals with crooks for his own gain or one who will deal with his errors, missteps, and deceits in office by sying, "oops, sorry, another bonehead decision." Obama is just another politico on the take when he needs it.
Edwards on labor is Jesse Jackson on race. Both are Progressive warriors, and both are very effective at losing those their message misses while rallying a hardcore base.
Obama is no less clear on race and class than either of these figures. He forced the police department to keep track of names and races when they pulled over drivers to ferret out racial profiling. His Progressive work on homicide interrogations is lauded by the police.
Obama's policy, while sound, well thought out, and firmly on the Left, is couched in terms of empowerment rather than conflict, in optimism rather than battlecries, which makes him the right man for the time. The irony is, he has more substance than Edwards and Clinton but none of the grandstanding, anger, or sense of entitlement.
This is a bizarre and lazily misinformed post.
Starting from the end, Senator Kerry did not say that Obama would be able to talk differently to African leaders than Hillary, he said that Obama would be able to talk differently to African Americans, particularly young people.
Do you actually doubt this, or find it another example of "positioning"?
Next, your entire thesis for adducing racial "positioning" to Obama seems to be that he IS, in fact, black, but that he doesn't make a big explicit deal about it.
How devilishly clever that Obama is, to realize that people who are more "tuned in" than you acknowledge being to race will notice that he is black. Wow.
For you to cast his words - and lament them - as cynical, racial "positioning" is to deny him the right to wholesomely say the very words that I assume by your analysis Hillary Clinton or John Edwards could completely legitimately say.
If they did, would you accuse Clinton of gender "positioning" or Edwards of well-coiffed trial lawyer "positioning"?
Not only the content but the context of Hillary and Bill Clinton's comments clarifies their racialist effects.
When Hillary references (and in the context of effectiveness, actually opposes) Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, she does so in the very clear and stated context of the dichotomy of "words" vs. "deeds."
Similar oppositions (and it WAS an opposition - go back and read (or, better, listen) to what Hillary said) could be made about The Declaration of Independence and the Continental Army.
Further, her "it took a President" to make it happen reference is screamingly ironic and unintentional "positioning" itself.
The rational extension of her comments is that Obama would be far better qualified to be President than she, because he clearly could fill BOTH roles, as inspirational leader AND governmental actor.
Just as her and her camp's righteous umbrage at being cast in a racialist light is the worst kind of cynical and divisive politics, so is your "I'm not tuned in" misrepresentation of this entire dynamic.
I read your bio... you know better.
You are taking Kerry's words out of context. He was giving credit to the civil rights activists (hardly surprising, since he's always had great respect for grassroots activism, going back to when he WAS an anti-Vietnam activist).
Watch the video yourself:
http://www.kerryvision.net/
Hillary stuck her foot in her own mouth and now she's blaming someone else ?
Play the victim Hillary.... again.
How hypocritical has Hilalry Clinton become? Its' indeed appropriate she comment on racial history, because she typifies one whose "Eye is on the Prize".
During the morning, on Meet the Press, deflecting comments that the campaign is not about race, she further commented "I don't think this campaign is about gender." She then commented at a Bistro function in South Carolina that "We still have too many women who are not being treated fairly in the work place," at a function of women only.
And least we forget before the Clintons, by and tyhrough surrogates, attempt to raise Obama's past drug use. As I recall, being a "Bill" supporter, so did he.
The hypocrocay and dounble speak transcends mere mud slinging.
Did no one find it interesting that HRC made her comments on Fox News? To suggest that this woman who is politically savvy didn't know who her audience was, is disingenuous at best. Perhaps she should not have raised the civil rights movement because her answer negates the achievements of blacks and whites who died to force change. Perhaps giving the lion's share of the credit to the person who signed the legislation into law, spit on the graves of those who fought and died for those rights. She was trying to play racial politics and she got caught. I am also really sick of people saying, context, context, context. The only people who win with this silly, destructive game are the Republicans.
Loading comments…
Posted January 13, 2008 | 01:55 PM (EST)