Matthew Yglesias (March 12, 2008) - Too Black for 3AM? (Miscellaneous)

"But Orlando Patterson's suggestion that the Clinton campaign's 3 AM ad was part of a crypto-racist ploy seems beneath the dignity of an important scholar."

Calling Patterson's dignity into question without dealing with his argument seems lazy.

Posted by sean | March 12, 2008 1:21 AM

The imagery of racism article in the Times may have strained credulity, but Ferraro's statement about Obama and the Clinton campaign's tepid denial is the height of cynicism.

I doubt the Clintons are personally racist, but they're more than willing to condone racist remarks made on their behalf as a means to an end. And really, isn't that the same thing?

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 12, 2008 1:21 AM

I need help with my new web experiment. If you know Robert Ethan, you should hit the link below. If you spend anytime over at the Atlantic websites, you know who he is.

http://robertethanisatool.blogspot.com/

I am hoping to create a database of his amazing comments. He is the most commenter I know. (that is the grammar I intended).

Thanks to all. Please feel free to copy and link elsewhere. Let's build this up!! Don't worry, I am not trying to make any money on this. I just want to spread the gospel of Robert Ethan and his commenting empire to EVERYONE.

Posted by swarty | March 12, 2008 1:28 AM

Where they've been guilty, I think, is that in their characterization of primary results they've tended to act as if black people just don't exist in the United States so Obama supporters are all highly-educated latte-sipping intellectuals or rich caucus-goers and states with too many black residents "don't count."

Patterson's claim is idiotic, and some people have overcalled the race-related issues. But, after Ferraro's comments, it's hard not to see race-baiting (distinct, here, from racism) as part of the Clinton strategy.

The original Clinton machine was built to win in the South. The DLC was built to increase the influence of the South. An important moment in Clinton's 1992 campaign was the Sister Soljah-ing of, well, Sister Soljah, and by extension, "black special interests." (Which, hell, may have been necessary to win at that time; I don't know.) It's not hard to believe that for a Southern machine, one of the ways that you pick up marginal votes is to race bait. And when under pressure, you turn to what you know and have done in the past. So we get Ferraro, among other things. Whether it still works, particularly in non-urban Pennsylvania, we'll have to wait and see.

Sort of sad, though, both to see the Clintons doing it and other Democrats defending it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 12, 2008 1:31 AM

The 3 a.m. ad? ehhh it's probably a big plus for McCain. In the immortal words of Will Ferrell "Stay classy Geraldine!!!"

Posted by John W McCan't | March 12, 2008 1:37 AM

the 3 am ad is so obviously geared to elicit feelings of racial fear, i think it is amazing that folks refuse to acknowledge that reality.
the subtext of the ad is clearly that the scary, unknown black guy who is also running for president can't be trusted to keep those vulnerable white children safe.
from what? maybe other scary, anonymous black folks just like him.
as someone noted, it looks like one of those ads for an alarm company.
it reminds me of those law-and-order ads that nixon ran, back in the day.
matt's refusal, and the refusal of most whites, to address the actual content of the ad, and the ad's real message, says more about our country's refusal to deal candidly about issues of race than anything.

Posted by frankie d | March 12, 2008 1:48 AM

Can anyone argue, after hearing Ferraro's statements and HRC's response, that they are any less racist (or any different) than the Southern strategy?

Posted by ben | March 12, 2008 1:51 AM

swarty, change the comment settings. I don't have a blogspote account. Anyway, here's two good ones:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/house_dems_in_florida_no_redo.php

Well, "Screw you Howard" is certainly justified, given that is what Fudd has repeatedly said to Florida, Michigan, and most of the other states in the union when they questioned his "business as usual" approach to the GROSSLY UNFAIR PRIMARY AND CAUCUS SYSTEM.

Now the incompetent and unbalanced little loser is CATATONIC. With his HANDS CLASPED TO HIS CHEEKS, HIS EYES GLAZED WIDE IN PANIC, AND HIS TWISTED LITTLE MOUTH GAPING IN A LONG DRAWN OUT "OHHHHHHHH!!!!!".

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 11:09 PM

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/gas_meet_fire.php#comments

Gee, Amblinders, bummer that you weren't able to offer an "opinion" on this matter when you blogged about it yesterday.

Time to TAKE THE MUZZLE OFF AMBLINDERS, I say. Let him say what he really thinks instead of forcing him to disguise his bias with SNARKY LITTLE ADDENDUMS to his blog posts.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 10:29 PM

Posted by Abe | March 12, 2008 1:52 AM

There's nothing racist about the 3AM ad, but the Ferraro stuff... cripes.

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 2:04 AM

We need to calibrate. The red phone ad was used by Mondale against Hart. And even Ferraro's comments are about 20% racist and 80% stupid -- remind me, how did this person become a major politician?

There are slimy things the Clinton camp *has* done, from Bill Clinton's SC remarks to HRC's "as far as I know."

Nice bit here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SDHxaYhqAo&eurl

Posted by Colin | March 12, 2008 2:16 AM

Obama's failure to include mandates in his health care proposal justifies any action to take him down. At least Ferraro didn't question the need for mandates.

Posted by Peetey | March 12, 2008 2:18 AM

Here is John McCain's upcoming response to Hillary Clinton's TV ad about the Red Phone in the President's bedroom ringing at 3 AM. It reassuringly details exactly what would happen if the U.S. military were ever to make The Call to Commander-in-Chief McCain's White House bedroom:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-mccains-3-am-red-phone-tv-spot.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 12, 2008 2:23 AM

It seems to me that the racial actions are part of a general campaign strategy. As you said, Matt, racial tensions are good for the Clinton campaign, especially when those racial tensions turn Hispanics away from Obama as well.

Thus, it is in Clinton's interest to occasionally make Obama's race more and more salient as a way of pushing on those tensions.

It isn't that these racial references are, per se, racist, but that they are part of a campaign strategy to emphasize and take advantage of the racism of others.

Posted by PTS | March 12, 2008 2:27 AM

I don't think it's just Ferraro going off the reservation on her own. Given Maggie Williams's own contribution to the shenanigans, I think this line of attack has to have been coordinated, and was timed to coincide with a Mississippi primary in which the country couldn't fail to note an extreme racial polarization in the voting results. It's just the South Carolina tactics all over again.

Here's the point of these tactics. You make some high-profile, racially provocative comments. Then if the Obama campaign responds in any way at all, you accuse them of trying to stir up race issues. The tactic might work with a certain percentage of white people who hate it whenever black people complain about anything related to race or racism in America. It's all part of the long-term Clinton strategy of trying to make Obama look more "black" to white voters, and less "transcendant".

Ferraro is the perfect surrogate for this attack moving into Pennsylvania. Her absurd performance on the conservative FOX news tonight seems designer-made to create the "mean, angry young black man mugs defenseless old white woman" tableau the Clinton campaign seems eager to carry into Pennsylvania. White women are Clinton's last bastion of hard core support, and she's pulling out all the stops to get them.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 12, 2008 2:27 AM

The Mondale and LBJ phone ads were significantly different, in that they were just ringing phones. They had and needed no other context: cold war fears did the rest.

But, as the TNR guys pointed out, the Clinton campaign was a bit more sinister. It recast the ringing phone ad as a home invasion, where Obama implicitly threatened sleeping (white) children. Like frankie d said above, if you know the slightest thing about cultural history, you'd be hard-pressed not to see racial overtones to the ad.

I don't think either the Obama-blackening or the subliminal "nig" on the 3am pajamas, two racial theories went made the rounds, had much merit to them. But, in this case, it seems rather obvious that the ad was playing with some pretty standard-issue racial tropes:

http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/brute/

I am aware that the Clinton campaign has since pointed out that the "other" child is African-American. But, let's be honest, she's barely in the ad, and is readily confusable as white in the dark room. And the little blonde Obama-voting girl is clearly the centerpiece of the ad.

Posted by Kevin | March 12, 2008 2:37 AM

If you think there was nothing racist in that ad, you are not considering the advertising industry very carefully. It's not a "racist" ad, but one that provokes racism in certain viewers. All people are qualified to say is that -- according to them -- the ad lacked or abounded in relevance to race. How did they visualize the attacker the ad posits? The danger? The visual language of advertising lands differently on different markets, as the industry discovers when an ad misfires and either offense is taken or product fails to move. All Mandy Grunwald had to know was how the ad might land in Texas, for which it was conceived. Believe me -- I grew up there, in the early post-Civil Rights era. Not much has changed. My mommy would have been scared by that ad. And she could have told you why. Better vote for the white lady in earrings, burning the midnight oil; she's your surrogate.

Posted by Elatia Harris | March 12, 2008 2:42 AM

If you think there was nothing racist in that ad, you are not considering the advertising industry very carefully. It's not a "racist" ad, but one that provokes racism in certain viewers. All people are qualified to say is that -- according to them -- the ad lacked or abounded in relevance to race. How did they visualize the attacker the ad posits? The danger? The visual language of advertising lands differently on different markets, as the industry discovers when an ad misfires and either offense is taken or product fails to move. All Mandy Grunwald had to know was how the ad might land in Texas, for which it was conceived. Believe me -- I grew up there, in the early post-Civil Rights era. Not much has changed. My mommy would have been scared by that ad. And she could have told you why. Better vote for the white lady in earrings, burning the midnight oil; she's your surrogate.

Posted by Elatia Harris | March 12, 2008 2:42 AM

I don't think the 3am ad was racist and i don't think that Clinton herself is a racist. However I don't think that any Democrat should try to rationalize away her campaign's efforts to bring race intot he campaign in a way that is intended to appeal to voters who are racists.

Clinton made Obama's color an issue. She didn't do this to help him. As a result many African American voters are angry and they have every reason to be.

It is a case once again of the Clinton campaign choosing short term gains over long term loses. how she can expect to win in Penn or Ohio without the black vote is a mystery to me.

Also I really think that all of us democrats, black or not, should state unitied agaiinst her campaign' effort to marginalize African Americans. They have as a group been one of the loyal and supportive members of our caolitioon. it is just plain wrong for Clinton to play up the race issue in order to get the votes of people whoprefer her because she iswhite.

Posted by wonkie | March 12, 2008 2:43 AM

If you think there was nothing racist in that ad, you are not considering the advertising industry very carefully. It's not a racist ad, but one that provokes racism in certain viewers and not in others. If you are not its target, you will miss its message -- viscerally. No amount of empathy and analysis will convince you of what your gut-check misses. All people are qualified to say is that -- according to them -- the ad lacked or abounded in relevance to race. How did they visualize the attacker the ad posits? The danger? The visual language of advertising lands differently on different markets, as the industry discovers when an ad misfires and either offense is taken or product fails to move.

Mandy Grunwald had to know how the ad might land in Texas, for which it was conceived. She didn't think it up, or rather adapt it, for us latte drinkers. Believe me -- I grew up in Texas, in the early post-Civil Rights era. Not enough has changed. My mommy would have been scared by that ad. And she could have told you why. Better vote for the white lady in earrings, burning the midnight oil; she's your surrogate.

Posted by Elatia Harris | March 12, 2008 2:46 AM

If you think there was nothing racist in that ad, you are not considering the advertising industry very carefully. It's not a racist ad, but one that provokes racism in certain viewers and not in others. If you are not its target, you will miss its message -- viscerally. No amount of empathy and analysis will convince you of what your gut-check misses. All people are qualified to say is that -- according to them -- the ad lacked or abounded in relevance to race. How did they visualize the attacker the ad posits? The danger? The visual language of advertising lands differently on different markets, as the industry discovers when an ad misfires and either offense is taken or product fails to move.

Mandy Grunwald had to know how the ad might land in Texas, for which it was conceived. She didn't think it up, or rather adapt it, for us latte drinkers. Believe me -- I grew up in Texas, in the early post-Civil Rights era. Not enough has changed. My mommy would have been scared by that ad. And she could have told you why. Better vote for the white lady in earrings, burning the midnight oil; she's your surrogate.

Posted by Elatia Harris | March 12, 2008 2:47 AM

I meant that she won't be able to get the critical 50% plus one the the general elelction in Penn and Ohio now that she has shit all over African American Democrats.

Stupid tactics.

Posted by wonkie | March 12, 2008 2:47 AM

Matt is right that there has been a consistent message from the Clinton campaign that black voters just don't count, that their choices shouldn't be taken seriously. And there's the condescension around the campaign's recent remarks that they might consider Obama for Vice President.

I just looked at the red phone ad again. It's weird -- exactly how the children relate to the hypothetical international crisis is left for the viewer to fill in. But I don't see a home invasion or the "brute" trope in the video or audio. It's true though that the sleeping white girlchild is a potent symbol, and you can argue that merely putting that symbol on the screen in this context causes certain synapses to close in the minds of certain viewers.

The other large point is that the Clinton campaign is really good at a certain kind of provocation and distration. They want to get the Obama campaign (and the rest of us) tied up in knots around this picture or that ad or exactly how foolish Geraldine Ferraro is. I'm tired of this: there's no end to sleazy ads and has-been pols.

Posted by Colin | March 12, 2008 3:35 AM

The ad feels to me like a Rorschach test in which something phallic was intentionally placed into the image: depending on your psychology, you can see anything us but genitalia or, if your mind automatically goes there, you see genitalia. A non-racist person watching this would probably just think it's a stupid ad. However, the use of white children there leave that interpretation open to people who automatically think "danger" = "scary dark people." It isn't automatically racist the way Helms's "white hands" ad or Bush's Willie Horton ads were racist in that the racism was explicit and the racist message was what everyone who watched it were supposed to take away from it. However, a racist person would probably see their racial fears justified in the ad.

That's the thing: the Clintons' racial strategy is based on deniability. It's not as explicitly racist as screaming the N-word at the top of your lungs or burning crosses. However, they are attempting to appeal to the same people who think these are the only ways to be racist. They are appealing to the people who start sentences with "I'm not a racist, but..." They are appealing to the people who think black people just like to complain when they point to something like the treatment of the Jena Six as racist. They are appealing to the people who think that the Duke lacrosse scandal was as a huge nationwide tragedy, yet when they saw the aftermath of Katrina, all they could do was complain about black people not being able to behave themselves. It's wrong when Republicans do it. The Clinton strategy seems to be doing whatever the Republicans do, right down to race-baiting and warmongering.

Posted by Reality Man | March 12, 2008 3:50 AM

If Sen. Clinton doesn't quickly take it upon herself to throw Ferraro under the bus, I'm going to feel pretty comfortable calling her a racist.

Posted by ML | March 12, 2008 4:11 AM

I'll just put this out here.

What if it's more xenophobic than racist. They've been somewhat overt in the "Obama is not a 'real American'" vibe. The threat in the ad is ostensibly foreigners. (Although I'd agree there is a "home security advertisement" feel to it) So possibly it's to give the message of "crazy foreigners want to kill us so get yourself a real American!"

When Texas seceded its document did something a bit different than the other such documents. It mentioned slavery of course, but it also went on about "Mexican banditi" and American Indians. The idea that the Union failed to protect them from "non-American" criminals or rustlers. So I could see that playing there pretty well. (Even with Hispanics who I don't think are necessarily comfortable with immigrants from Africa or the Mideast)

Posted by Thomas R | March 12, 2008 4:48 AM

There's another racial strategy that I'm quite sure that the Clinton campaign is pursuing: They know very well that Obama's hands are tied when it comes to responding to her negative attacks. If he shows any sign of anger, or "makes the first attack," then he becomes the angry black man trespassing the gated community. He knows this and is thus very good at keeping his cool---this may also be why he has chosen the inspirational delivery of outsider liberalism rather than John Edwards-style populism. At the same time, this situation has left him open to charges of not being a fighter.

That Obama is able to walk as well as he has the fine line between wimp and militant is to his enormous credit, and that he has been able to do so well within these constraints is the best refutation to Ferraro's comments.

Posted by matt | March 12, 2008 4:55 AM

"That Obama is able to walk as well as he has the fine line between wimp and militant is to his enormous credit, and that he has been able to do so well within these constraints is the best refutation to Ferraro's comments.

Posted by matt | March 12, 2008 4:55 AM"

Very true. If he was unable to do this, he would be losing enough middle-class white voters to lose him a lot of states he has won. That is to his credit.

Posted by Reality Man | March 12, 2008 5:01 AM

First, I have really lost patience with commentators like Matt who cannot be bothered to look at a freakin' map. Obama has been winning overwhelmingly in many predominantly white states, and has repeatedly won "working class" white voters (indeed every class of white voters) in those states.

Now, it is true that in certain regions (most notably Appalachia, the Northeast Corridor, and much of the South), Clinton has been winning working class white voters instead of Obama. But if Obama consistently wins them in some regions, and Clinton consistently wins them in other regions, then people like Matt shouldn't be making blanket statements about "working class whites", since they are not voting as a monolithic group.

Anyway, I am on the fence about the 3 AM ad. On the one hand, I do think the Clintons have been trying to push the idea that Obama is just "the black candidate" in an attempt to shore up support among the subgroups in which that might matter. I also think they have been trading on certain negative stereotypes of black men when attacking Obama (e.g., when they characterize him as just an entertaining personality with no real substance), and this ad broadly fits into that overall narrative.

But was this ad really supposed to directly invoke the black man lurking in the darkness hoping to harm white girls? I don't know about that--but unfortunately, at this point I am not willing to rule it out.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 5:22 AM

"Working class blacks and working class whites have voted in such radically different ways that it's clear that both candidates are securing a substantial racial solidarity vote."

Or maybe a large majority of working class whites are voting with their class interests and a large majority of working class blacks are voting against their class interests.

There is no racial divide for those earning over $50K/year or with a college degree. Unless you are arguing racism doesn't exist among higher earners and college graduates then examining the income, education, and economic outlook data may prove useful.

Posted by Wellstone weeps | March 12, 2008 5:26 AM

You know, I think Elatia Harris is right on this. When I first saw that ad, I remember feeling confused. The imagery really did seem like a home alarm ad, and I couldn't figure out what the heck it had to do with the sort of call the White House might receive at 3 am.

It's not racist, but it is designed to play on HRCs strengths as a white woman. Look at it this way. Imagine running the same ad and then at the end Obama picks up the phone. Does it feel as reassuring? Okay, why not? Because he never visited Kosovo with Sheryl Crow? Or because somehow it's just not as reassuring when a black guy turns out to be symbolically "in the same house" with the white mommy and daughter?

But you know, this is a weird election. HRC has a difficult game to play as a woman, and Obama has a difficult game to play as an African-American. I'd be willing to give them both a pass on subtle things like this, if the Clinton campaign weren't also constantly encouraging bullshit like Ferraro's latest comments every time there's a Southern primary.

It's not clear to me that HRC is still running to be the *Democratic* nominee. She's starting to feel more like some sort of third-party candidacy whose raison d'etre is to wreck the system.

Posted by Ted | March 12, 2008 5:38 AM

Jeez, Wellstone weeps -- how about actually making an argument instead of telling us to go look at the data? You've seen it, so tell us what you think it means.

Posted by AlanC9 | March 12, 2008 5:38 AM

He can't tell us, because if he did, we'd laugh at his absurd assumption that the two Democratic candidates in this contest represent fundamentally different "class interests."

Posted by Ted | March 12, 2008 6:01 AM

Wellstone weeps,

How do you know it isn't the other way around (that certain white working class voters are voting against their "class interests")? In fact, I would note again that which of the candidates wins white working class voters depends on which region of the country you are looking at, and accordingly it is necessarily the case that given your theory, in some regions white working class voters are voting against their "class interests".

So which white working class voters are voting against their "class interests": the ones in Mississippi, or the ones in Wisconsin? Indeed, which is more likely: the white working class voters in Wisconsin are voting against their "class interests" in order to vote for a black candidate, or the white working class voters in Mississippi are voting against their "class interests" in order to vote for a white candidate?

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 6:41 AM

Does Ferraro have a reputation to trash?

Posted by Ropty | March 12, 2008 7:18 AM

Matt, you do know Ferraro was on a ticket that lost 49 states, so what's with the 'wrecking her reputation' stuff.

Posted by Mike | March 12, 2008 7:53 AM

Ferraro's comments are a bit rich considering she is still notable mainly for being an affirmative action choice for VP by Mondale. Is she going for the "it takes one to know one" approach?

Posted by Doug T | March 12, 2008 7:57 AM

I read this blog daily and this is the first time I've decided to post...someone last nite on a comment section mentioned this is the baiting part of race baiting. It didn't hit me last nite but it hit me this morning(yes I understood but didn't grasp the potential reality)...whether you are an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter I think you have to admit this is a very dangerous statement by Mrs. Ferraro, not so much the first but the second. It was intentional and calculated. They want the reaction they didn't get with the first statement. I do believe the majority of this country is beyond the base racism they are trying to rile up, but if you think for one minute that there isn't going to be blood spilled somewhere due to this you truly are fooling yourself. This I think is where Obama shows the character, leadership and judgement to be president. To stoop to this dangerous level to win at all costs is disgraceful and very unpresidential to say the least.

Posted by redhd2di4 | March 12, 2008 7:59 AM

do not include charges that Geraldine Ferraro is being an ass

Right, because a Congresswoman from Long Island can not be racist. As far as Matt is concerned, racist can only apply to people from the South. That's why he doesn't recognize that the 3AM ad is racist. Mondale's ad showed only the red phone. Clinton's ad starts out showing white children sleeping in their beds. Without the sound it would be a Brink's Security commercial. Beware of the black intruder coming to harm your children!

With Ferraro's statements and the Clinton campaigns defense of them, it's now obvious that they have given in to their racist impulses. They need to win Penn, WV, and Kentucky and this is the only way they can ensure that they do. It's a cynical, scorched earth ploy that badly damages the Democratic Party. But, hell, she's a fighter, right. She needs to be forced out of the race before she does any more damage and the only way that happens is if superdelegates move publicly to Obama. The pressure needs to be applied in only place it can be effective. No more fence sitting!

Posted by Just Karl | March 12, 2008 8:00 AM

The Clinton campaign seems to have abandoned any hope of winning black voters back in January. After New Hampshire, before a single state with a large black population had voted, they started marginalizing South Carolina and their surrogates said some vaguely racist things. After South Carolina, they invoked "Jesse Jackson" and said the state doesn't count.

Everyone assumes that Obama was destined to win the black vote by 80-90% (depending on the State), but if the Clinton campaign had adopted a different strategy, maybe they could have made his lead significantly smaller. If Clinton was winning 30-40% of the black vote, she'd probably have a substantial lead today.

Basically, without the marginalizing of black voters, would Clinton be winning? Maybe.

The other truly fascinating thing -- I get the impression that many Clinton supporters think that she would be winning blacks overwhelmingly if Obama had never entered the race (probably true). I get the impression that many Clinton supporters feel that Bill's popularity with the black community meant that Clinton had "earned" their support, and that Obama was snagging it. It's a weird sense of entitlement. Notably, Clinton doesn't actually have a list of huge accomplishments or achievements to justify this expectation.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 12, 2008 8:10 AM

MDtoMN,

I haven't run the numbers, but I wonder if moving Clinton's support among black voters up to, say, 30% would have been enough for her to take over the delegate lead. Keep in mind that a lot of Obama's delegate lead has come from running up the score in predominantly white states in upper New England, the Midwest, and West. Clinton improving her performance among black voters would have gotten her a few more delegates, but maybe not enough to overcome Obama's other advantages.

And, of course, we don't really even know if all this has been a net disadvantage for Clinton. For example, if Clinton had not used these tactics, she might well be doing better among black voters, but worse among some non-black voters. How those numbers would balance out is more or less impossible to determine.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 8:22 AM

Listen to the audiotape of Ferraro's comments, and hear how she says the word, "blacks." I hear anger at the Other, and irritation that it's all about THEM again. Not an elegant turn of phrase, Gerry.

And yes, she was trotted out by the Clinton campaign to do this. Her whole crafted message is, "I was a token candidate and so is the lucky BLACK."

Adding this to the "McCain is qualified and Obama is not" line, we see Clinton being terribly destructive, toxic to our party's hopes.

Posted by putnam | March 12, 2008 8:26 AM

One thing that Jack Salzman taught us at the Center for American Culture Studies at Columbia was to think about how the history of race in America intersects with our culture in a non-accusatory way.

So, the "glee club" video of Clinton below with the predominantly white students singing "woot woot" and "putting their hands in the air" and swaying like gospel singers and even inflecting their pronunciation is, first and foremost, what it is (glee club, somewhat grating, predominantly white) but it's also clearly an artifact influenced by Black culture and appopriating it in evident ways.

That doesn't make it racist or racial, but it also doesn't make it "race or racism" free. Like most stuff, it's distinctly in between.

If it took multiple watchings of the "3AM ad" for Orlando Patterson to figure out a racial aspect of it that was troubling to him, then, clearly, we're not talking a level of race or racism that was readily apparent.

Since Clinton's team used stock footage of children sleeping there really wasn't any casting involved, they just took an advertising image and repurposed it.

That being said, without agreeing with Patterson, you can imagine a couple of scenarios that would make his point more clear.

a) would the ad have worked as effectively with an AfAm child and Mom, an Asian child and Mom?

b) how would that exact same ad resonate in the general if it were being run by McCain against Obama?

One of the things that frustrates me about some people who disagree vehemently with discussing the racial component of a cultural or political artifact is how adamantly they insist that race has "nothing to do" with the discussion when the more accurate and useful observation for most American cultural artifacts would be to say instead that race is not a relevant or useful lens to use.

But, yeah, race and racism are a part of American culture, they are woven into our history and how we walk and how we talk.

(And, yeah, this election bring this up in surprising ways...a photo of Barack at a diner in Mississippi isn't going to resonate the same way for everyone. For example. But that doesn't mean it doesn't resonate.)

Posted by kid oakland | March 12, 2008 8:27 AM

I don't find Geraldine's comments racist...she is bitter like Clarence Thomas. Appears both have spent the last 20 years blaming others for everything that went wrong in their lives.

Posted by jerri | March 12, 2008 8:49 AM

I thought pretending that black people don't exist and not counting their votes was the epitome of racism?

Posted by aleks | March 12, 2008 8:50 AM

We ought to let go of the word "racist" in this campaign. It's inflammatory, and it sets the bar way too low. We can do better than "not racist."

The question ought to be this: Are our leaders acting in a way that strengthens the Democratic party, and the country, or are they acting in a way that tears us apart into competing factions?

Ferraro's comments definitely lead us down the latter path. They don't *help*.

Posted by Ted | March 12, 2008 8:53 AM

Hey, can I point out that Bill Clinton wouldn't have been much of a Presidential candidate if he weren't a Southerner and he played off the interest that created?

Those people who get mad at me saying that are clearly anti-Yankee.

Posted by El Cid | March 12, 2008 9:07 AM

Here, here Ted.

I raise my glass to you.

Posted by Curtis | March 12, 2008 9:08 AM

"I think it's obvious that if you look at the Clinton-Obama primary, race has been an important determinant of voting behavior. Working class blacks and working class whites have voted in such radically different ways that it's clear that both candidates are securing a substantial racial solidarity vote. "

My question is do you think its not going to be that way in the general? How are those people going to vote in the general? I'd like to say it won't matter, but it has mattered. Obama isn't winning Georgia, the question is can he win Ohio and Pennsylvania. A white on white contest sets up better for Dems and a white on black contest in the general sets up very poorly for Dems. Obama is already behind in the national McCain vs Obama poll while Hillary is ahead of McCain. And the winner take all setup of the general favors Hillary and works against Obama.

Posted by Chad | March 12, 2008 9:26 AM

We need to start looking for a candidate for a primary challenge to The Monster so we can remove that filth from the senate.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 9:27 AM

And Chad, it's bad enough that you expose us to your stinking racist bile, but at least you could get your basic facts right. Both Obama and The Evil Monster are currently polling ahead of McCain, but Obama by a larger margin. Clinton's whoring for McCain has yet to hurt Obama in head to head polling.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 9:39 AM

Chad,

Once again, it should be noted that Obama is beating Clinton among white voters in many regions. Also, Ohio and Pennsylvania are not the only swing states, and many of the other swing states are in the regions where Obama is beating Clinton among white voters (and indeed all kinds of voters).

However, it is true that Ohio and Pennsylvania contain regions in which Clinton has been beating Obama (among white voters, and generally). But as many have noted, that doesn't mean McCain would beat him in a general election, particularly not if the Clintons actually campaigned for Obama.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 9:49 AM

Matthew,

I think you've nailed it. I agree that charges of racism have been somewhat overblown, but clearly the Clinton campaign has given people a lot of reason to suspect their motives in light of how many times they've run up to the line. And I agree that Ferraro has made an ass of herself and the Clinton campaign's unwillingness to either "reject" or "denounce" her comments is yet another black mark against it, so to speak.

Posted by Howard B. | March 12, 2008 9:54 AM

The CiC attack was dumb, since Clinton can't win, but ultimately posed questions Obama would have to answer, and which he did. Nice call out on the politics of fear, too.

Stirring up resentment among white democratic women against the nominee, on the other hand, really could hurt the party. I'm not sure if Clinton believes in anything except her own virtue, so it's hard to see subjective racism. All I can say is that to spring this when you've already functionally lost is pretty churlish. (And I think, in legal terms, Maggie Williams' comments about Obama playing the "race card" are "ratifying" Ferraro's actions after the fact, making GF an agent of the campaign.)

Posted by David B. | March 12, 2008 9:56 AM

The problem in identifying "racism" at work in our culture, is that race permeates so many levels of our conscious and unconscious psyche and actions. The use of "White" symbols and "Black" symbols, bot overt and covert has been honed to an art in the American culture. Sometimes we "see" them, sometimes they only evoke a disquieting but unidentified feeling. But any advertising savvy person can confirm their effectiveness.

The issue isn't whether the Clinton's are "racists", however you are defining that word, the issue is whether they are using race to divide and seek an advantage. I think the evidence is fairly clear that they are. What made the Clintons go from a 20% point lead over Obama in the Black community to a mere 10% of the total vote and an 80% loss in MS, was not race loyalty, as much as race familiarity with the subtle and not so subtle appeal to whites to think of Obama's race first. This tactic may not overtly register with White voters, but for Blacks it is not only clearly identifiable, it sets off alarm bells. It is this type of call that proceeded life threatening events for the Black population throughout American history.

For Whites this may be a political exercise, but Blacks are all too aware how such benign "exercises" can spin out of control and cost Black lives. This is serious stuff - and dangerous. I won't even ascribe bad motives to Ms. Ferraro, but she is playing with fire here. Racial violence is not far below the surface in American society - as even a quick perusal of recent history will demonstrate. Appeals to the "rights" or "entitlements" of Whites to this or that are often sufficient to set off a blaze in the mind/hearts of some hopefully fringe person who ascribes the misery in their lives to "the other".

Arguing what is - is not racist is meaningless, especially without a precise definition of the term. But understanding how race influences us, still, is important if we are to get beyond it and move to where we say we want to be.

Posted by plainbrown1 | March 12, 2008 10:06 AM

Reading through the comments in this and other threads and those of other bloggers, it strikes me as being worthwhile to remember that a series of tensions between ay least some black men and some white women goes back to the years immediately after the Civil War and the Constitutional amendment which gave black men, at least in theory, but not white women the vote. Those who are old enough to remember may recall something similar in the late 60s and early 70s. Is the white woman white (privledged) or a woman (not-privledged)? Is the black man a man (privledged) or black (not privledged)? More than racism, I think we see in many of the Clinton campaign's activities a kind of historic resentiment, in Neitzsche's sense, even more than we see a sense of entitlement (she's worked so hard, she deserves this) as such. Mostly, this makes me sad about and frustrated. Resentiment is a real force, but it is not of our better nature.

Posted by djeri | March 12, 2008 10:07 AM

I have no idea how it will play out in the long run, but it is important to recognize that -- initially, at least -- Ferraro's comments were not orchestrated by the Clinton campaign. They were made to an obscure news outlet on the Saturday before the OH and TX primaries, and clearly expressed the frustrations of a bitter and somewhat racist old woman witnessing what she thought was about to be the end of her friend's run to the Whitehouse. It may be the case that the Clintons' subsequent handling of the issue has been designed to exploit resentment over affirmative action and blacks who have such a sweet deal. But, if so, then it fell into their lap, rather than being deliberated put together.

Posted by pjs | March 12, 2008 10:07 AM

Is Mr Patterson applying for a postion in the Obama administration? His skill set seems to fit the requirements. Linked is a still photo of one of the children in the "3am ad". She is African American.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

Posted by demfromphilly | March 12, 2008 10:14 AM

Orlando Patterson's suggestion that the Clinton campaign's 3 AM ad was part of a crypto-racist ploy seems beneath the dignity of an important scholar.

Matthew Yglesias's raw assertion, without any evidence or argument, that the Clinton campaign's 3 AM ad was not part of a crypto-racist ploy seems beneath the dignity of an important blogger.

Posted by John Althouse Cohen | March 12, 2008 10:21 AM

The major theme of the Ferraro rant isn't specifically racist, (if she gets to that point they would dump her for that) it is anti-affirmative action. As we get closer to the Penn. primary expect Hillary to start hedging on affirmative action and/or other such questions in order to stoke up anger in blue-collar white demographics.

This kabuki dance Hillary is doing with the superdelegates is getting a bit nutty. By her campaigns actions she is signaling to delegates that she will do whatever it takes to win and winning is indeed the point. I guess the idea is that the more crap like this that she gets away with when attacking a democrat the more she will do against a republican. I don't think she can triangulate her ass out of hole she is digging though.

Posted by blank_stare | March 12, 2008 10:40 AM

Question for Mr Patterson - is the child in the 3am not black enough? Can I see the color of your paper bag?

Posted by demfromphilly | March 12, 2008 10:41 AM

People are operating with an oddly subjective and moralistic definition of "racist." It doesn't matter what is in a politician's heart. Some reduce racial polarization and some deliberately inflame it. The latter are really dangerous.

Compare a Palestinian politician who was trying to reduce polarization but had a few anti-Semitic streotypes in his head with one who deliberatel and cynically tried to increase hatred for Israel and anyone who would deal with it. Which is the force for good and which for evil?

Posted by Pithlord | March 12, 2008 10:44 AM

I'm sure someone has made the same comment; but I think Clinton is guilty of exploiting racism. But as she would say, "there is no evidence" that she is racist. And I doubt it, because racism implies believing in at least something.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 12, 2008 10:54 AM

blank_stare, while being a bit too charitable to Ferraro, does a good job in his/her second paragraph of bringing us back to the big picture.

Whatever you think of the details - whether Clinton is a racist (probably not), is actively race baiting (probably), or is merely taking advantage of other's race baiting (that, at a minimum) - the big picture is that she is in essence a hostage taking terrorist, with her gun to the head of the Democratic party, saying "give me the nomination or I will off the fuck." Even if one believes the increasingly incredible narrative that she is indeed the better and/or more electable candidate, those sorts of tactics cannot be allowed to succeed. What we need now is the (metaphorical, of course - no, I am not advocating political violence) police sniper who kills the hostage taker before she can kill the hostage.

Mind you, my own ambivalence about the Democratic party (almost as evil and corrupt as the Republicans) makes me almost wish that she succeeds in wrecking the party. But Obama, with all of his many manifest flaws, may be the only hope of avoiding a horrible disaster in the next 4 to 8 years.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 10:58 AM

That we now know Ferraro made the same comments nearly verbatim two weeks ago, and as far back as 1988 (about then candidate Jesse Jackson) makes it clear that a)she is she a bigot and b)the Clinton campaign is very deliberately and strategically race baiting. This is simply an indisputable fact. Period. Ferraro was deliberately deployed to shore up racist sentiment and white solidarity among Pennsylvania's white ethnic voters. She is also a warning shot to delegates on the fence that if Obama can not bring white working class democrats into the fold he stands no chance against rabid racists in the Republican party. But most importantly, I think we are seeing the beginnings of what the Clinton campaign (and it seems very likely the Democratic establishment, since Clinton's tactics have not been publicly repudiated by party leaders) hopes is a a strategic realignment of some white working class voters across party lines.

Remember many of these voters abandoned democrats in the first place due to latent or overt bigotry. In a time of immense economic anxiety and deep displeasure with the Republican party establishment, if Clinton can convince some of these voters that she is not beholden to the interests of African Americans (and has no qualms about saying so publicly, albeit via surrogates) she is well positioned for November. Clinton, in other words, is campaigning for the general. Her camp has done the math. Yes, they will lose black voters, but if they gain enough Latino and working class white voters across party lines, this may not matter. Keep in mind Wolfson has also stated he fully expects black voters to come back to the fold in November after a brief period of "hurt feelings." All this is to say that the emergence of Latino voters as an influential voting bloc, and the economic perils we face have shifted the political landscape considerably, and the Clintons are exploiting this in the most reprehensible way possible.

Since a poster above mentions the 19th century, it is worth keeping in mind the Reconstruction era and the Hayes agreement which essentially threw newly enfranchised black citizens "under the bus" for national solidarity. There are many parallels one can draw between the late 19th century and the present moment- extraordinary cultural and economic anxiety, and a heated debate over the meaning of American citizenship are certainly among them.

I say all this as an Obama supporter who can not under any circumstances support a Clinton nomination due to her nefarious race baiting tactics, and more importantly what she represents for the future of the Democratic party. I will vote downticket in the Congressional races if she is the nominee, but not for Clinton. I have come to the conclusion that four years of McCain hamstrung by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress is preferable to eight years of Clinton. Zip zero, finito. And there are a lot of others like me.

Posted by Molly | March 12, 2008 11:12 AM

In Matthew's defense--which I hardly ever do--the Patterson article compared "Birth of a Nation" with the 3:00 a.m. ad.

I've seen "Birth of a Nation"--the D.W. Griffith silent movie from about 1905 or so--and it is overtly racist, literally glorifying the KKK, and portraying black people as hedonistic and crazed.

I can't think of any connection between "Birth of a Nation" and the 3:00 a.m. ad. What Patterson seems to be saying is that getting a call at 3:00 a.m. must mean trouble--the Darkies are lurking in the bushes!--or something like that. I just don't see it.

Posted by John Petty | March 12, 2008 11:12 AM

I'd really like to get this straight.

What exactly is the demand that Obama supporters here have?

Can we only avoid being called a racist by pretending 90% of blacks are voting for Barack Obama because he has such great policies and is a good speaker? As long as we pretend it's some kind of coincidence then we aren't racist?

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 11:49 AM

Tim K,

You obtuse troll. You know damn well that that isn't what Ferraro said. You have to change the subject because even a piece of shit like you can't defend her actual remarks.

What the Obama supporters want - well, not just Obama supporters, but decent human beings everywhere - is simple - (1) in terms of this specific incident, that disgusting senile racist Ferraro has to resign her position with the Clinton campaign; and (2) the Clinton campaign needs to stop its race baiting tactics.

(Of course, those things happening won't make Clinton any less of a monster - it will just mean that this particular issue will be closed.)

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 12:01 PM

LarryM:

It was certainly part of what she said, if you saw the interview with Diane Sawyer. She said that the reason he is in the position he is now - the Democratic front-runner for President of the United States - is because, in additional to all the other wonderful things about him, he happens to be African American as well. That, alone, make his candidacy historic. And it has inspired a lot of solidarity from black Democrats. That's what she said and it was 100% accurate. She never said his race was the ONLY reason.

Obama supporters cannot expect anything of anyone else as long as they are using language like "disgusting senile racist" or calling anyone a "monster." As long as you use those characterization nothing else you say carries any weight at all.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 12:12 PM

Tim K,

You make a basic mistake of thinking I'm trying to reason with you. I'm not. I think that Clinton supporters at this point are beyond reason, I see no point in engaging them at that level, and I think that confronting them with invective and trash talk is entirely appropriate.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 12:15 PM

I agree Orlando Patterson was way over the top, but I think it's important to point out that he speaks only for himself and not for Obama--I don't think anyone in the Obama campaign has ever agreed with what Patterson believes the ad implied. Geraldine Ferraro, on the other hand, does speak with the tacit approval of the Clinton campaign.

Posted by ChuckE | March 12, 2008 12:19 PM

LarryM:

How do you think Clinton supporters feel when we read all this nonsense about "new politics" and a "politics of hope." If that isn't beyond reason I don't know what is. If it's not beyond reason to blind oneself to the obvious racial polarization that has gone on in this election - not caused by the Clinton campaign but as a product of an historic candidacy - then I don't know what is. Anyone who feels using invective trash as part of this kind of discussion is not deserving of being part of this discussion.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 12:23 PM

Clinton would do better among African-Americans if she didn't insist on diminishing Obama and his appeal on racial grounds. Remember when Clinton thought that Obama was going to be too fru-fru to win working class black votes and that they'd all remember fondly Bill Clinton? Once Obama showed some staying power because of his (non-racial) gifts, then we got the Johnson, Cuomo, Shaheen, Bill Clinton, Rendell, and Ferraro comments. Once that battle was joined, there's a certain percentage of African-American votes Clinton could have had but drove away. In contrast, Obama actually *wins* among younger women because he is defining the election not in terms of race or gender but in terms of past versus future.

If the race were still competitive, Clinton could attempt a positive case for herself. While there was one to be made, she never once tried to make it. Obama went and built a coalition. That's why he'll be the nominee.

Posted by David B. | March 12, 2008 12:28 PM

Once again, it should be noted that Obama is beating Clinton among white voters in many regions.

Only in caucuses, Connecticut, New Mexico, and Vermont. That is, when all voters are involved, he's only beaten her among white voters in three extremely liberal states.

In caucus states, it's very unlikely he would have prevailed in all of them.

And to Tim K's comment, the answer appears to be that yes, you are racist for observing that Obama wouldn't have won the southern states he'd won as white candidate.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 12:30 PM

Tim K,

If you are referring to Ferraro, the issue is not why Obama is getting those margins among black voters, although I also think that issue is more complicated than you suggest.

The issue is that Ferraro claimed that Obama would not be in a position to win the nomination if he was not a black man (which was stupid, because in this counterfactual world he might well have found a different way to end up in this same position), claimed further that "the country is caught up in the concept" (whatever the heck that means), and finally claimed that anyone who criticized her for saying these things was guilty of reverse-racism.

I'm not sure if all that means she is a racist, but it sure is crazy.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 12:30 PM

Tim K,

The short answer is that I don't care how Clinton supporters feel.

And as for "not deserving of being part of this discussion" - I don't even know what that means.

And really, in a sense you still don't get it - I am not interested in engaging you in any meaningful way.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 12:32 PM

Oh, and one last thing - I don't blame you for not realizing this - I am not so self regarding that I think that anyone makes a note of reading and remembering all or even any of my prior comments - but I've made it pretty clear on these threads and elsewhere that my somewhat reluctant support of Obama as the least of three evils does not include buying into the "politics of hope" horse shit.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 12:36 PM

Tim K,

You should ignore LarryM. He is himself a troll who never tires of calling other people trolls. He pretends to be a liberal Obama supporter only so he can act like an utter moron and make actual liberal Obama supporters look bad.

For example LarryM says this, and this says it all:

You make a basic mistake of thinking I'm trying to reason with you.

Too true. His function is to pick fights and act like an idiot.

Posted by Rob Mac | March 12, 2008 12:43 PM

Cal:

So it's racist to tell the truth? Obviously Obama would not be getting the near unanimous vote of African Americans were he not black. That's just a fact. You can live in fantasy land if you wish, but that doesn't change reality. If he were white and running against a candidate with the last name Clinton, there is no way he would be winning the black vote. At best, it would be closely divided. The rest of Obama's core coalition of young people, Democratic-leaning independents and affluent, white liberals would not be producing these victories in states like South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. That's not racist to point out the obvious reality.

DTM:

I don't think it is more complicated. Besides his ethnic identity, Obama's candidacy most resembles the past candidacies of Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, and Paul Tsongas. This has been observed by countless analysts and commentators if you want to do some checking. They all lost the black vote to their opponents: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Walter Mondale. The reason Obama has been so successful is he has been able to capture a key part of the traditional Democratic coalition past front-runners have used to win - African Americans - and add that to his pre-existing base on affluent, white liberal, young people and Democratic-leaning independents.

You could argue Barack Obama could have found another path to the nomination, but then you have to say the same about Hillary Clinton. You can't suggest that she is only where she is because she married Bill Clinton, because she easily could have moved to New York or DC after Yale and entered politics herself as many of her friends thought she would do.

Obviously a lot of people are caught up in the historic nature of his candidacy, not just blacks but also many whites. And it's only historic because he is black.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 12:43 PM

Cal,

Wrong-o. Obama also beat her among white voters in Virginia and Wisconsin (and for all practical purposes, Utah held a primary). What you forgot to add to your Venn diagram is "Democrats", meaning you only get to your shorter list if you restrict it to white Democrats who do not live in any of the many caucus states in the Midwest and West, nor in Connecticut, Vermont, or New Mexico.

And to forestall further discussion, here is the end result of your analysis:

Obama did not beat Clinton among voters who voted for Clinton.

Great point!

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 12:46 PM

blank_stare, while being a bit too charitable to Ferraro

Yeah probably too charitable but there is a difference between saying what she said and saying black people are lazy and shiftless as a for instance. I personally think really does need to distance themselves by having her "step down" or whatever you wanna call it.

Whatever you think of the details - whether Clinton is a racist (probably not), is actively race baiting (probably), or is merely taking advantage of other's race baiting (that, at a minimum)

Yeah the last point accurate. Clinton is digging another hole along with the "McCain is a better CiC" meme that she now has to somehow climb out of. It is a lock that republicans are going to use this against her or any democrat in general election. Repugnalican talking point "If she thinks that obama is really something of a token how can she support affirmative action, blah blah blah. She is trying to gain tactical advantage and in doing so risking the white house. She is rolling up whatever coat-tails she might have had before this. There is another branch of government ya know.

Funny a "monster" comment said off the record and under duress is met with quick action. Ferraro takes out a bullhorn and calls black people racist and nothing really comes of it. Both Hillary and Ferraro are stubborn (need to be since sexism is more flagrant than racism in this country) but they are completely tone deaf on this issue and it is hurting and will continue to hurt the chances of a democrat taking the white house.

Posted by blank_stare | March 12, 2008 12:50 PM

I think the comments by Molly at 11:12 AM are pretty dead on.

"She is also a warning shot to delegates on the fence that if Obama can not bring white working class democrats into the fold he stands no chance against rabid racists in the Republican party."

I concur and I think Clinton is right.

"Clinton campaign hopes is a a strategic realignment of some white working class voters across party lines."

Yep. Again I think she's right.

"I have come to the conclusion that four years of McCain hamstrung by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress is preferable to eight years of Clinton."

Considering that Obama won't get crossover whites in key states, yea, that's your choice. It looks like 4 more years. Note you recognize that she will get the job done and be reelected. She's a real bitch, but she's smart and a winner.

Posted by Chad | March 12, 2008 12:50 PM

Tim K,

Actually, Obama more resembles a hybrid of Bradley, Paul Simon, Frank Church, and Mo Udall. The latter three help explain why he is romping through the Midwest and West. And a coalition that includes "only" liberals, independents, young people, and people in general in the Midwest and West is still a winning coalition, even if the person in question is splitting black voters. In fact, if Clinton wasn't running up her score among white voters in certain regions, this would be even more obvious.

By the way, maybe Clinton could have found an alternative path--we will never know. What I do know is that she has never shown any real talent for politics, so I am somewhat doubtful. And that of course is what you can't seem to wrap your head around: Obama is much, much better at politics than Clinton, which is why he is beating her.

Which is what is driving Clinton supporters like Ferraro crazy. This is nothing less than the Emperor has no clothes moment: the candidate they were sold, and were selling, turns out to be a poor politician. The dead-enders simply cannot accept this fundamental truth, and so are grasping at any conceivable excuse for why Obama is beating her. But the truth is that there is no external excuse: she just isn't very good at this.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 12:59 PM

DTM:

Affluent liberals, independents and young people certainly could be the basis of a winning voting coalition, but that has never been the case in a Democratic primary (with the possible exception of George McGovern). Did either Frank Church or Mo Udall ever win substantial numbers of black votes? I doubt it. The main point I was making is that winning the substantial majority of the African American vote (and consequently taking them away from Clinton, who would have won them) has been the key to his success in my view. Again, it's not the ONLY reason for his success, but it has been decisive. There is no doubt in my mind that if Obama were white that Clinton would be winning a large majority of the black vote, would be carrying most of the southern states (or splitting them with John Edwards), but would still be winning states like NJ, California and New York.

What you can't seem to "wrap your head around" is that Clinton has consistently out campaigned and out-fought Barack Obama whenever a defining moment came. In New Hampshire, on Super Tuesday, and in Texas and Ohio. She has consistently shown him up in debate after debate after debate. What Obama's campaign has done is out-organize her in the caucus states... and as if that was his idea. That was all David Axlerod and his advisers. That's been the only place where he's really out campaigned her.

I know this reality upsets and disappoints you but it's the reality.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 1:13 PM

Rob Mac,

Hey I never denied trolling. But your "pretends to be a liberal Obama supporter" comment is bullshit. I never pretended to be more than a reluctant Obama supporter. I also don't really self identify as a "liberal" (and certainly haven't so identified myself here), more as a left libertarian, but, more to the point, as an anti-interventionist. And, trolling aside, I've been pretty straight up about that.

Chad,

You're wrong about Obama in the general (though of course The Monster is doing all she can to make that come true), but, as I think I've made clear above, I'm not in a reasoning mood right now, so let's leave it at that.

But that isn't an argument for Clinton in any event. Her general election chances were going to be slim under the best of circumstances; after the events of the past week, and their alienating effects on Obama supporters, and if you add in the scorched earth tactics that she will need to pursue if she is going to have any chance of getting the nomination going forward, she will be completely unelectable in November should she somehow get the nomination. She may lose 50 states. And, of course, in contrast to Obama, she will be poison for the down ticket races.

But even if you were correct - do we really want to start making the argument that Obama should be denied the nomination for racial reasons (that's in essence what you are saying), even if we claim, truthfully or not, that it's the "other guys" racism that we are concerned about? That is a repulsive position, and it deserves all the scorn, and more, that it has received from myself and others. Just think for a moment how you would feel confronted with the following "Clinton stands no chance against rabid misogynists in the Republican party." I don't even want to imagine the firestorm. (I'm not making that argument, I'm merely saying that it is the equivalent of yours).

And you wonder why, confronted with crap like that, I resort to invective?

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 1:22 PM

Oh and btw DTM:

Here's a Gallup poll out today that shows both Clinton and Obama with a 2% lead over McCain in a general election match-up.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104938/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Competitive-Obama-Clinton.aspx

I'd just love to read you trying to spin this into great news for Obama.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 1:24 PM

I'd just love to read you trying to spin this into great news for Obama.

It's not great news for Obama. It's no great shakes for Hillary either. She hasn't improved her position. It is, in fact, great news for McCain.

That's why I've been trying to make the case for Hillary to leave the race. As I've said, she has no chance to catch up to Obama, but she can damage him and ruin our chances in the fall. So far, she's doing a great job.

Congratulations are very much in order, Tim. Thanks to Clinton, McCain's numbers are up! And you get to be her Sancho Panza--cheerleading a six week tilt against progressive politics that will achieve no sane purpose.

Posted by southpaw | March 12, 2008 1:35 PM

cheerleading a six week tilt against progressive politics that will achieve no sane purpose.

If she gets to run again in 2012, she will have achieved her purpose.

Posted by blah | March 12, 2008 1:43 PM

southpaw:

Yes, everything that happens that is negative is Hillary Clinton's fault. That seems to be the only hard and fast rule on this blog.

I suppose you couldn't possibly imagine that Obama's numbers are coming down to earth simply because they are coming down to earth. As he became better defined as a his negatives became better known it was inevitable that his number would decline.

I don't understand how otherwise intelligent people could be so ignorant as to not realize that his phenomenon could not last forever.

She's staying in to win, because she still can.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 1:43 PM

Yes, everything that happens that is negative is Hillary Clinton's fault. That seems to be the only hard and fast rule on this blog.

I suppose you couldn't possibly imagine that Obama's numbers are coming down to earth simply because they are coming down to earth.

If I didn't live on earth, I suppose I could "possibly imagine" that. But since I do, I'm aware that the Clinton campaign waged a sustained "kitchen sink" attack on the man. Is it now your contention that it had no effect?

If she gets to run again in 2012, she will have achieved her purpose.

This is fair enough. I just don't see her getting out of the paddock in the '12 race.

Posted by southpaw | March 12, 2008 1:56 PM

Tim K,

First, you omitted "people in general in the Midwest and West" from my list, which was part of the point of my including Simon, Church, and Udall. That is a pretty significant omission, seeing as how quite a few delegates come out of those regions--as Clinton is discovering, apparently to her surprise. Conversely, it is true that none of Simon, Church, or Udall could quite put together a winning coalition on their own. But you take all three together, toss in Bradley, and voila.

Second, I find it interesting you noted Clinton might be splitting the Southern states with Edwards if Obama was not black. Umm, exactly what sort of human being is this non-black Obama? Why wouldn't he just step into Edwards' shoes in your scenario?

Third, your point about "defining moments" only makes sense if you allow Clinton to choose which moments are defining, and which are not. So, apparently the contests in Virginia and Wisconsin don't count (both primary states in which Obama won among white voters after Clinton campaigned heavily), apparently because Clinton said so. The same goes for caucuses, apparently, including the Iowa caucus (not a defining moment, because Clinton says so). Further, it appears your point about winning "defining moments" only counts if you allow Clinton to define victory. So, you have her winning Super Tuesday and Texas, even though in both cases Obama got more delegates.

Finally, I am also not surprised that after Clinton has essentially been campaigning for McCain and against Obama, the national head-to-head polls have closed in McCain's favor. But, the national head-to-head polls are pretty meaningless, and I expect all that to change once Clinton graciously concedes defeat and starts campaigning for Obama instead of McCain. And I am actually relatively sanguine about when she does that.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 1:56 PM

Hillary should leave the race when she's been beaten, but she hasn't been beaten yet.

Obama has a small lead in delegates, and that lead will likely change at least somewhat in the direction of Hillary over the next month or two.

By the time we get into summer, Obama's lead--if he still has it--will likely be in the fairly low double digits. Most people will look at that and call it a wash.

Posted by John Petty | March 12, 2008 2:10 PM

Tim K, Obama's number aren't "coming down." Obama's up in delegates for the month of March. All that happened is that Clinton won two states she was expected to win by less than she needed to compensate for getting her ass kicked in states from Virginia to Washington.

All of these electility arguments are directed at superdelegates and how they'll use their superior "wisdom" and "judgment" etc., but their silence is deafening. Actually, what's pretty amazing is how Obama's narrowed the SuperD gap from 200 to about 30 while increasing his lead in popular vote, states won, and, most importantly, pledged delegates.

It's all over but the shouting.

Posted by David B. | March 12, 2008 2:11 PM

DTM:

As you correctly pointed out, if Obama weren't black he would be a mid-western liberal. By an historic precedent he wouldn't be appealing to southerners or the African American community in any significant way. If the race were Clinton vs Edwards I would expect Edwards to win the white male vote in the South, to split white women in the South, and lose blacks overwhelmingly to Clinton in the South. It's a counter-factual, so we could never know. But I'm pretty confident that would be what would have happened. Obama would have been a distant third in the South.

You can't count the Potomac primaries because Clinton never had a chance. Obama had an absolutely huge structural advantage in those states due to their much larger than average African American populations. I'm not saying they "don't count" but Clinton never had a prayer once Obama began winning blacks by 80-90%. Wisconsin is a different matter, I will grant you that that was a fair win in a state Clinton could have been competitive in. Although it couldn't have exactly helped her that Wisconsin was at the end of 10 consecutive wins by Obama in very friendly territory. Wisconsin was the only state in February after Super Tuesday that was neither caucus, or had a huge black population.

I love how the national head-to-head polls are so significant and evidence of Obama's electability when he had an advantage over Clinton, but pretty meaningless when Clinton is doing just as well as Obama. I wish you would be a little bit more consistent and a little bit less blindly effusive of all things Obama.

Both Clinton and Obama's levels of support versus McCain are converging for a simple reason: this is going to be (and always was going to be) a close race if the nominee were McCain. The contest is simply reverting back to an equilibrium.

And this race isn't over, by the way. Clinton can still win this thing.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 2:14 PM

All together now:

Why is it race-based when blacks vote for the black candidate and not race-based when whites vote for the white candidate?

Why can't certain interests be defined by race in the same way that gender seems to be for HRC's consistent block of older female white voters?

"He/She is like me, is going to understand my/my community's needs. He/She will support policies that help us."

Jeeeeez. I'm tired of this shit.

Posted by anon | March 12, 2008 2:25 PM

Are 90% of women anywhere voting for Hillary Clinton? Are 90% of white women voting for Hillary Clinton? Are 90% of older white women voting for Hillary Clinton? No, no, and no. It's one thing to win a group by 10, 20 or 30 points, and and it's quite another to win a group by 70 or 80 points. That's a big difference.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 2:29 PM

Tim K

It is pointless arguing with the obtuse, but it's my employer's time, so here goes:

Ferraro and the Clinton campaign have not "said" that Obama has an advantage because he appeals to black voters. Ferraro and the Clinton campaign have complained that Obama has an advantage because he appeals to black voters. And they have tried to make that complaint a reason why non-black voters should vote for Clinton.

Posted by Pithlord | March 12, 2008 2:45 PM

Tim K -- a Democrat has won a plurality of the white vote in a Presidential election exactly once since the end of World War II.

And blacks routinely vote 90% for the Democratic candidate in Presidential elections.

That's right, the Democrats are an illegitimate political party and it's time for them to disappear.

Posted by Barbar | March 12, 2008 2:47 PM

So it's racist to tell the truth?

The point whizzed right by your head. What do you need, neon signs? I've been posting the exit poll analysis pointing out the data behind your argument for two weeks now. Go work on people who need convincing and while you're at it, tune up your sarcasm detector.

Obama also beat her among white voters in Virginia and Wisconsin (and for all practical purposes, Utah held a primary).

White voters, yes. White Democrats, no. Virginia and Wisconsin had 25 and 35 percent independents/Republicans and that's what carried Obama over on the white vote. He has only won white Democrats in Connecticut, New Mexico, and Vermont. He didn't win them in Utah, either.

Exit Poll Analysis

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 2:53 PM

Cal, there has been one election in 64 years where the Democrat won the white vote. Given this fact, can you explain why the Democrats even bothering to put forth a candidate this year?

Posted by Barbar | March 12, 2008 2:56 PM

Tim K @ 2:29

So? As I stated, I think people are well within their rights to use a candidate's race and/or gender (in addition to other factors, of course) to judge whether he or she has their best policy-related interests at heart. That doesn't mean they're going to be correct in the long run, but given that we've never had either an African American or a woman as POTUS, I think that people are even more likely to subscribe to certain expectations without proof.

And this is fully a double edged sword. Both candidates must also face people who believe that a candidate's race and/or gender will prevent him/her from pushing the right policies/speaking for "all". So it goes, until someone actually breaks the ceiling.

BTW, what does it say to you that Clinton isn't winning a "bloc" female vote? That Obama sometimes makes inroads into blocs with whom he shares nothing, identity-wise? Why can't HRC steal any of HIS core voting blocs sometimes?

Posted by anon | March 12, 2008 2:57 PM

Tim K,

First, don't let the sometimes-accent fool you: Clinton isn't from the South either. In fact, she is from Chicago.

Second, I don't see how you are entitled to assume that while non-black Obama would do worse among black voters in the South, non-black Obama wouldn't do better among non-black voters in the South.

Third, Obama won white voters in Virginia.

Fourth, exactly why aren't caucus states a good test of who is better at politics? It's not like she didn't try in states like Iowa, Maine, Washington, and so on. She just got beat.

Fifth, I have been citing the SurveyUSA 50 State polls, and indirectly other state head-to-head polls. For somewhat obvious reasons, those are a little more relevant than the national polls. That said, the head-to-head polls are indeed only one piece of information, and we have a lot more other reasons to believe that Obama is the stronger general election candidate.

Sixth, you'd think a Clinton supporter would know by now not to count on polls before Obama starts campaigning in earnest. Guess not.

Finally, Clinton can't win the nomination. Even the superdelegates saving her is a pipe dream: her superdelegate margin is already way too low, and shrinking all the time.

So, at most she can wait for some external event to intervene in her favor. But that wouldn't be winning the nomination: it would be losing, but then getting the nomination anyway because of this external event.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 2:58 PM

I'm a newbie here. Can anyone tell me what's up with that Tim K guy? He sounds like some sort of deluded idiot. Either that or he's some sophomoric high school student practicing his debating skills. Poorly.

Posted by Nelly | March 12, 2008 2:59 PM

Whoops in my last post--he won white Democrats in Illinois, not Connecticut.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 3:02 PM

Cal,

Um, I already corrected your talking points for you in that same post (and it is a sad commentary on both of us when I know your talking points better than you do). Anyway, once again I suggest that rather than using the arbitrary Venn diagram approach, you go with one simple principle:

The only voters that count are the ones that vote for Clinton.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 3:06 PM

Cal:

Sorry, I get attacked so often it's hard for me to distinguish at times.

Can anyone tell me what's up with this Nelly bitch?

DTM:

1) Clinton lived in Arkansas for 18 years, 12 years as First Lady. Obama has never lived in the South, and has no connection to any southern state.

2) You think there's even a chance that non-black Obama could get anywhere close to 90% of the black southern vote? That's too stupid to even respond to. Running against somebody with the last name Clinton, no chance in hell that would happen.

3) Yes Obama has occasionally won white voters in primary states... I think it's been twice.

4) Caucus states bear no resemblance to what the general election is going to be. They are all about organization, enthusiasm, and the ability to get others to band-wagon behind a single candidate. General election votes are no weighted on the basis of enthusiasm and are a secret ballot. I wonder how many women would have voted for Hillary in some of those caucus states had they been able to cast a secret ballot. I suspect many ended up voting along with their husbands and children at caucuses. To me a secret ballot is a key part of any legitimate democratic voting system.

5) How are State polls any more likely to predict the state popular vote 8 months before an election than national polls are likely to predict the nation-wide popular vote 8 months out? They are both based on the exact same statistical rationale of random sampling. (a poll of a population of 3 million is not significantly more accurate than a population of 300 million).

What are the other reasons to believe Obama would be a stronger general election candidate? Describe them in detail, don't just assert that they exist.

6) I would think Obama supporters wouldn't count on polls at all: think New Hampshire and Texas.

7) If Clinton wins the popular vote she can win the nomination.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 3:15 PM

Might as well point out that Hillary's core constituencies, old people, latinos and racist white working class voters generally vote Republican whereas no one wins on the Democratic side without Obama's draws.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 3:21 PM

Here is a interesting article.

http://www.attytood.com/2008/03/geraldine_ferraro_and_hillarys.html

To add to these issues there is the idea that Clinton needs Obama to make a mistake to have a greater chance at wooing super-delegates. So inciting him to anger (angry black man) or having her campaign using rhetoric that his cannot use ( She is only here because she is a woman, How many "Shame on you"s do you think she would get way with ). His message is one of inclusion and she is more likable to Democrats when she seems under attack so she can hit him with near impunity or so the logic goes.

When is the next debate ?? Obama and Hillary are going to have to make up before then in SC.

Posted by blank_stare | March 12, 2008 3:26 PM

If anyone believes Obama is going to win without latinos, seniors and white, working class voters they are dreaming in Technicolor.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 3:26 PM

Tim K,

(1) Well, what has non-black Obama been doing with his time? Maybe he does have connections with the South.

(2) When did I say that? What I said was that if you are assuming non-black Obama would do worse among black voters in the South, you should also be assuming he would do better among white voters in the South.

(3) It has been more than twice. I could give you the number, but you would probably remember it better if you have to look it up.

(4) Primary states also don't look like general election contests. I do appreciate, though, that you think women are incredibly weak-minded.

(5) Actually, I'd point out the national polls never really matter, now or later. By the way, I've described all the evidence in question to you in great detail in prior conversations. I'm not going to keep repeating it just because you demand it.

(6) Sure, polls are imperfect, and not strongly predictive of future events even if conducted well. I honestly don't know what you are trying to prove anymore--I thought you were citing the polls as proof of some theory you had about these races with McCain inevitably getting closer. If you are now admitting the polls aren't strongly predictive, then we agree.

(7) First, explain how you think she can win the popular vote, including a description of the metric you intend to use, while keeping in mind that there are many superdelegates from caucus states who probably would not take kindly to their states being ignored in this calculation. Second, explain what pledged delegate deficit you anticipate Clinton facing, with details for the remaining contests. Third, explain why you think the requisite number of superdelegates--again keeping in mind that many are state officials in states with caucuses--would accept this hypothetical argument.

Finally: Clinton won't win without liberals, young people, black people, and people who live West of the Mississippi. What's your point?

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 3:45 PM

Special K, I'm typing this slowly so you can comprehend it easier:

We Obama folks want to include EVERYONE, even you latent racist fucks. My comment was intended to get you to see the absurdity of deciding which voters count and which don't count and worse, which ones count more and which ones count less.

And in regards to your comment that if Hillary can win the popular vote, she can the nomination, let me just set you clear on one point: you've already lost. Right now, your only choice is whether you are going to stop with the loss of the nomination or continue and lose the party.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 3:49 PM

(7) First, explain how you think she can win the popular vote, including a description of the metric you intend to use, while keeping in mind that there are many superdelegates from caucus states who probably would not take kindly to their states being ignored in this calculation.

I understand the current popular vote total does not include five contests, four that Obama won. Why do Clinton folks want to disenfranchise voters?

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 3:52 PM

LarryM: I love you.

Nelly: Tim K is a troll of the first order. Ignore him. He'll punch himself out eventually.

Posted by C.Michol | March 12, 2008 3:54 PM

DTM:

(1) He has connections with southern blacks. Namely, he is the first mainstream, serious black candidate to be president of the United States, that's the connection.

(2) No I don't think he would do better with white voters in the South for two reasons... a) His non-black support is based among Wine-track affluent, white liberals Bradley/Hart/Tsongas voters, not the sort of voters who vote in the South and, b)He would still have John Edwards taking up the southern white vote, so he'd probably be doing worse among that group.

(3)Connecticut, Wisconsin and Virginia all have something in common. A large population of affluent white liberals who Bradley, Hart, Tsongas, or even Eugene McCarthy could have won over.

(4) The general election is basically one big, concurrent set of open primaries... with a demographic much more favorable to Hillary Clinton.

(5) Yes and I countered all your so-called evidence with evidence that leads to the exact opposite conclusions. There's nothing water-tight about your argument.

(6) I think the polls are more strongly predictive of Hillary Clinton's performance because she is better known and because they have been very consistent for her all along: she's been competitive with McCain for over a year... either slightly ahead, even or slightly behind. I would expect it to remain fairly tight for her if she becomes the nominee but for her to prevail slightly in the end.

(7) I think she can win the popular vote by winning a roughly 300,000 vote plurality in Pennsylvania, a 350,000 vote plurality in Florida, and a 150,000 vote plurality in Michigan (once those re-do primaries take place in June). I think the rest of the states plus Guam and Puerto Rico will just about cancel each other out. Obama has about a 702,000 vote lead right now excluding Florida and Michigan... if she can do what I described she will win the popular vote by roughly 100,000 votes.

Pledged delegates are not a metric of success if they don't reflect the popular will of national Democrats. The rules state that pledged and super delegates get to choose the winner because it's the candidate who has the majority of total delegates who becomes the nominee. Are super delegates going to go against the expressed will of the majority of voters?

Finally, because of the schism that exists within the Democratic coalition (both candidates have strong, durable, voting blocs)... either candidate is going to have some trouble in the fall with unifying the party and turning out the entire Democratic coaltion.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 4:01 PM

Tim K -- the Democrats have won Presidential election legitimately since the end of the second World War. That was 1964 and Lyndon Johnson, and it shouldn't really count because it was right after JFK was shot. In the other 14 elections, they've LOST THE WHITE VOTE. Why don't they just go home?

Posted by Barbar | March 12, 2008 4:04 PM

C Michol:

What's a Troll of the First Order? Is that some kind of nobility? Like the Knights Templar?

Go write an adoring letter to Barack Obama. You know you want to. Maybe seal it with a kiss.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 4:05 PM

Babar:

The difference is the Democratic Party has won black votes based on the issues, not by nominating black nominees.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 4:09 PM

Tim K,

(1) I asked you about non-black Obama, not real Obama.

(2) First, that is wrong in many regions for real Obama. Second, he is now non-black Obama, so it might not be true in the South anymore either.

(3) Obama won every income group in Wisconsin. Generally, I don't think you know jack about Wisconsin--it ain't Connecticut or Vermont.

(4) Wow, this explains why you are wrong about so much. For one thing, turnout is MUCH higher in the general election. For another, even in "open primary" states, the other party is holding its own primary--it isn't one big election. I could go on, but ... wow.

(5) Actually, you didn't. You cited your feelings, and history that turned out to be wrong.

(6) And, more feelings. You do know that sitting Presidents have seen their poll numbers change, right? You don't think they were well-known?

(7) Good luck on her winning Michigan at all, let alone by 150,000 votes. That is enough to ruin your scenario.

On pledged delegates: many of the very same state officials who decided to hold open primaries and caucuses are going to be superdelegates. You may only like closed primaries, but you have no reasonable expectation that they share your preference.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 4:26 PM

Hmm.. that was weird. Let me try again.

(louder)

I understand the current popular vote total does not include five contests, four that Obama won. Why do Clinton folks want to disenfranchise voters?

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 4:26 PM

Tim K,

Oh, and you didn't explain your popular vote metric. For the reason Face The Music notes (among others), this matters if you are trying to make a persuasive argument to superdelegates.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 4:32 PM

DTM:

(1) Non-black Obama would be non-southern John Edwards, and there would already be a John Edwards in the race.

(2) Can't remember what that point was about.

(3) Wisconsin has always been the home of white liberals and the anti-war crowd in the Democratic primaries. It's no Ohio.

(4) Um yeah turnout is higher in the general election... more whites and less blacks, which isn't good for Obama.

(5) No, I cited facts.

(6) Obama's numbers aren't going up, face it.

(7) I was conservative on Florida... she might even be able to get a 450,000 margin out of that state. I think she'll still win Michigan by enough.

I'm confident that if she wins the popular vote she will be the nominee.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 4:32 PM

Obama does well in the midwest, no question about that. That's the major reason he won WI. That, plus the fact that Democrats in WI are VERY liberal.

Posted by John Petty | March 12, 2008 4:34 PM

Tim K,

(1) So what? Why can't non-black Obama do better in taking white voters in the South from Clinton and Edwards than real Obama? I'm not saying he wins all of them, just more. Also, who says non-black Obama is actually entirely non-Southern, meaning with no ties at all to the South? Maybe his dad is now from South Carolina. Maybe he grew up there. When you take his current father away (which is what you did when you made Obama non-black), you have to replace him with a new farther, not a blank spot.

(2) Again, the point is your non-black Obama has no new advantages to replace the ones you took away from him. Of course that hurts non-black Obama relative to real Obama.

(3) Yeah, Wisconsin is the famous liberal bastion which gave Kerry his closest victory in 2004. Try again.

(4) First, again, Obama has won more white voters than Clinton in many regions. Second, more than anything else, the general election has fewer Democrats, which isn't good for Clinton. I guess this is part of you not getting that the general election is not just an open primary.

(5) No, you didn't. You made up facts, which turned out to be false.

(6) Right, Obama's numbers never go up when he campaigns. He is doomed.

(7) Her margin in Florida was under 300,000. This with Obama never campaigning and Clinton announcing after SC that she had reconsidered, and she believed the Florida primary should count after all. You weren't conservative when you named 350,000, you were wildly optimistic.

And you end with ... more gut feelings.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 5:12 PM

John Perry,

Obama handily won every ideological group in Wisconsin. Nationally, he has won both liberals AND conservatives. Clinton only keeps it close among moderates.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 5:18 PM

I understand the current popular vote total does not include five contests, four that Obama won. Why do Clinton folks want to disenfranchise voters?

I was thinking maybe the reason I couldn't get an answer was that teh intertubes got blocked or something. Or maybe the Clinton campaign hadn't released any talking points about the fact that the popular vote is not a valid measurement of national support for a variety of reasons, namely because it doesn't even count five (or more) contests.

But then I looked at my watch and realized the Clinton supporters are already lining up for the early bird dinner special..

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 5:28 PM

DTM:

(1) Take Mississippi. Barack Obama won 26% of the white vote in a two person race with Hillary Clinton. If it had been a three-person race with John Edwards, a white southerner, I don't think Obama could have managed more than 26%.

(2) My whole point is exactly that non-black Obama would have the same support except for his over-whelming support among blacks. That's my entire point. In terms of of demographic groups this race comes down to the black Gary Hart vs Walter Mondale in a dress.

(3) Wisconsin is liberal IN THE PRIMARY, not the general election. Try again.

(4) Take away the caucuses and Obama has not won more white votes than Clinton in very many places. I've already explained not only my problems with caucuses as a format, by why I think Obama has done well there (ie he out-organized here there).

(5) Wrong.

(6) You have way too much faith in Obama's campaigning abilities. Way too much.

(7) Florida in not a good state for Obama. Let me be blunt: there are more latinos than blacks there, that means he will lose the state. Plain and simple. 350,000 is not "wildly" optimistic... thinking Obama will win Michigan IS overly optimistic though. She'll win by at least 50,000 votes there. She can probably count on healthy margins in Indiana, Kentucky, Puerto Rico and West Virginia to offset any Obama wins elsewhere.

You're just threatened by this because you know I may be correct that it is very possible.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 5:29 PM

If everybody's voting for Obama, why does Hillary have 1500 delegates and 12 million votes?

Posted by John Petty | March 12, 2008 5:31 PM

Ferraro just resigned from her position in the Clinton campaign. What a ridiculous show of weakness; man, she is going to get so rolled by McCain if she somehow wins the nomination.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 5:37 PM

If everybody's voting for Obama, why does Hillary have 1500 delegates and 12 million votes?

So now your forced to make up things to rebut? How about answering my question about the popular vote instead of inventing your own strawmen to knock down?

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 5:43 PM

(1) How the heck did Edwards survive until Mississippi? He was basically out after Iowa, and your analysis doesn't really have him increasing his share in South Carolina. Indeed, I think he does worse in South Carolina with non-black Obama in the race: he didn't win many black votes to begin with, and now there are three strong non-black candidates in SC not just two.

(2) I know it is your "point", and I am pointing out that your "point" is based on a classic example of poor counterfactual reasoning. Again, the simplest way to put this is that non-black Obama must have a different father. So who is this counterfactual father?

(3) Liberals made up 48% in Open Left's composite national exit poll. They made up 46% in Wisconsin.

(4) Even simpler: take away states Obama has won, and he hasn't won more votes than Clinton in many places. Problem is, they all count. And since when was organizing not part of being good at politics?

(5) No, you had nothing but your erroneous assertions about history.

(6) It's not "faith". You, I, and everyone else has seen him close the gap from his starting position in every single contest where he has campaigned. And I've been watching him do this since his Illinois days. It actually takes an enormous leap of faith to believe this will NOT happen.

(7) Florida will never get more favorable for her than it was the first time. Michigan is Wisconsin with more black people. Indiana is downstate Illinois. I'll give you Kentucky and West Virginia, but they'll be more than balanced by Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. And that still leaves North Carolina. Puerto Rico, I have no clue. Generally, she'll be lucky to keep it even outside of Florida, even assuming a solid win in Pennsylvania.

Finally, who says I'm threatened? It just isn't going to happen--not even close--unless some external event intervenes.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 5:50 PM

John Petty,

There is no inconsistency between Obama beating Clinton in every ideological category and Clinton having 12 million votes. That is because Obama has more votes, and they happen to be spread across the entire ideological spectrum (although she does keep it close among moderates).

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 5:55 PM

DTM:

(1) Absolutely Obama would have come in third in South Carolina behind Clinton and Edwards. The so-called white Obama may have gone the way of Dodd and Biden.

(2) Counterfactual father? What are you talking about?

(3) I'd have to examine the precise demographics of Wisconsin before being able to respond further (in terms of income).

(4) Organizing is great, but there's a big difference between organizing a caucus in North Dakota and organizing a general election with over 100,000,000 voters. I don't think his success in caucuses says anything about his ability to win in November.

(5) There have been plenty of baseless assertions thrown around here and you are hardly innocent of that.

(6) You mean in Illinois when he won his state senate seat uncontested? In an safe Chicago district? Or do you mean when he won the 2004 Democratic primary because Blair Hull's divorce records were unsealed? Or do you mean in the 2004 general when he was running against Alan Keyes because his credible opponent likewise imploded. This is the first competitive election he has EVER faced. Barack Obama was so impressive at campaign in Ohio that despite winning 11 of 11 contests leading up to it and out-spending Clinton 4-1 he only closed the gap there from 15 to 10 points in a month. Wow, what a closer!

(7) Florida will be a 10-15 point win for Clinton, and that may be enough. In Michigan Clinton has the governor on her side and will win. Clinton has Evan Bayh in Indiana, and it's a pretty conservative state. Lot's of downscale white folks, the sort who are cool to Obama. Puerto Rico is (obviously) heavily latino... and Obama has never won a state with a large latino population. It's far from a certainty that she can catch up, but it's hardly mathematically impossible.

You're obviously threatened because you keep declaring the contest over even when it clearly isn't. You're desperate for the game to end when your player is ahead.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 6:10 PM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/rasmussen_markets/obama_wins_mississippi_both_campaigns_look_to_pennsylvania

Interesting article from Scott Rasmussen about the candidates' favorability ratings.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 6:47 PM

You people will squeal like stuck pigs when McCain wins this thing.

Stuck pigs, I tell ya.

And all because you cannot tolerate views of others, even those in your same party. Amazing. Sad, pathetic, and amazing.

Posted by Beer Here | March 12, 2008 7:20 PM

Exactly. Because the right wing never said anything bad or mean about their own party member McCain so he will never be the nominee and now he can never win the election KTHXBAI.

Posted by El Cid | March 12, 2008 7:25 PM

Hey, I just had another crazy thought..

I understand the current popular vote total does not include five contests, four that Obama won. Why do Clinton folks want to disenfranchise voters?

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 7:32 PM

which five? and why aren't they included?

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:38 PM

Troll Tim K writes:

The difference is the Democratic Party has won black votes based on the issues, not by nominating black nominees.

Absolutely hilarious. You've made 752 comments on this blog, and 0 of them have been about actual issues. Every single one of them has been about experience, 3am phone calls, and white voters. And yet you pretend that you're deeply concerned about issues.

Posted by Barbar | March 12, 2008 7:46 PM

Babar (as in the francophone cartoon elephant):

I've been party to many discussions on this blog concerning public policy issues ranging from health insurance mandates, diplomacy with rogue regimes, foreign relations with Pakistan, and the Iraq war. So your statement is simply wrong on the facts.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:51 PM

which five? and why aren't they included?

You mean to tell me you've been touting the popular vote as the be-all-end-all standard of success for the Democratic nomination, EVEN THOUGH IT ISN'T, and you have no idea how it's calculated and that it isn't accurate or fair?

Unfuckingbelievable. And you wonder why Obama supporters sound "bitter, defensive, and ungracious."

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:01 PM

Face the Music:

Neither are pledged delegates. And the reason they sound that way is because they (and you) are that way.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 8:06 PM

Tim, why are we having a primary if the rules don't matter? Seriously, why are the candidates spending 200 million dollars to amass as many pledged delegates as possible if none of it means a damn thing? Is the rest of the world all screwed up or what?

The reason the popular vote isn't accurate is because a handful of states don't report popular vote totals. The reason it isn't fair is because it automatically diminishes caucus states who are holding a nominating meeting instead of having a "turnout" election.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:28 PM

Face the Music:

Show me the rule where it says that pledged delegates alone determine the nominee.

And I have no problem diminishing the value of caucuses because I think they are absurd anachronisms. Maybe next time they'll hold primaries where everyone who wants to can participate.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 8:39 PM

And I have no problem diminishing the value of caucuses because I think they are absurd anachronisms. Maybe next time they'll hold primaries where everyone who wants to can participate.

Are there any other rules you'd like to change in the middle of the game, Calvin? It would be really nice if we could get all the rule changes you need done at one time.

Why don't you take 24 hours to figure out exactly how many and what rules you need changed to allow your candidate to win and we'll change them all at once. My concern is that whatever rules you decide on now may wind up not being enough for your candidate to win, so do the math carefully so we don't have to keep changing the rules after this. (At some point, some bitter or defensive supporters of another candidate will start unfairly implying shady things.)

Follow up with a detailed list of the rules changed you need. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking you need MI and FL as is, caucus states invalidated or diminished, rules changed from pledged delegates to some other standard that favors your candidate.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 10:03 PM

I wish I could share with you this Jpeg of Hillary Clinton, flashing the peace sign – the look on her face. I was waiting for that to happen, because my contention is that Hillary Clinton, is, Dick Nixon in a pantsuit. Unlike Nixon though, Hillary has no intention of ever leaving the political limelight. Like Russia's Vlad Putin, who only moved laterally before installing his own man, Hillary is here to stay. But the stepping down of Ms. Ferraro from Bill & Hillary's campaign, for a racist remark, and the resignation of Mr. Spitzer, for violating the very laws he fought to install, is more bad news for the dynamic duo. The sheer irony; the poetic justice! It all makes my head swim. And, just when you thought it couldn't get any better: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 12, 2008 10:54 PM

Seriously, why are the candidates spending 200 million dollars to amass as many pledged delegates as possible if none of it means a damn thing?

Because usually, the primaries build momentum and at a certain point, consensus builds behind one candidate. That hasn't happened here, and odds are extremely high that it won't. The superdelegates will have to make the choice. By normal metrics, Clinton has the better case for electability.

On Wisconsin: Clinton won white Democrats. Wisconsin had the highest independent/Republican participation of any primary except New Hampshire. Obama's dominance in the income categories was due to that overwhelming influence of the independent/Republican vote--and we don't know why they voted for Obama. Wisconsin also had a fairly high percentage of liberals which means that a lot of the independents were liberals.

Posted by Cal | March 13, 2008 12:38 AM

Professor Patterson wrote said in his article that if there had been one black child in this add it wouldn't be racist....Professor Patterson you were wrong..there is a black child in the add. You should really check your facts. What ever you may think of the Clinton's, they are not racists!

Posted by sevyn9 | March 13, 2008 12:51 PM

By normal metrics

No, using normal metrics, she is losing. She is being beat about 2-1 on state count, by about a million popular votes and by an insurmountable pledged delegate lead, the currency that is used to purchase the nomination.

Again, you have it exactly backwards, as usual. And since you are a registered Republican, it should come as no surprise that you support the division of the Democratic party since the Republican party has crashed and burned.

By normal means, the means used every four years, Obama has secured the nomination. If Hillary had the same kind of honor and character as the other six Democrats that ran she would, like they, acknowledge that she cannot come in first place and suspend her campaign. Then Obama would accrue the last necessary pledged delegates to make it to 2025.

Sounds crazy, I know. But it's exactly how we got from eight to two. And it's the only way to get from two to one.

Only by breaking previously agreed-upon rules AND seeking more rule changes can Clinton prevail, even though doing so will be a pyrrhic victory in which EVERYONE loses, not just her. No honor, no character, must be a Clinton.

Posted by Face The Music | March 13, 2008 7:46 PM

Re:"Can anyone argue, after hearing Ferraro's statements and HRC's response, that they are any less racist (or any different) than the Southern strategy?"

Do you even remember the real Southern Strategy? Geraldine Ferraro made a stupid, offensive comment and Hillary not only denounced the comment, but fired Ferraro. If there was a Southern Strategy, or any racial strategy at work here, the candidate would have defended Ferraro and hit the campaign trail with her.

Obama has been in the Senate for three years, and missed 40% of his votes. Yet he will probably become the Democratic nominee. He has had an undeniably fast, easy ride to the top, in part because the powers that be detest his opponent.

So many of you hurl accusations of racism that are based on your own projections and nothing else. It's paranoind. And it does nothing to help Obama in November.

Posted by Michelle | March 13, 2008 10:21 PM

Geraldine Ferraro made a stupid, offensive comment and Hillary not only denounced the comment

Wrong. She rejected the comment. For some reason HRC didn't reject AND denounce it.

but fired Ferraro

Wrong again. Ferraro resigned. For some reason HRC didn't fire her.

If there was a Southern Strategy, or any racial strategy at work here, the candidate would have defended Ferraro and hit the campaign trail with her.

Since HRC didn't fire Ferraro, are you suggesting there is some sort of Southern Strategy going on here?

Obama has been in the Senate for three years, and missed 40% of his votes.

He has had an undeniably fast, easy ride to the top,

I betcha Obama would think he worked hard to get where he is. If he was less politically correct, he might even make the argument that he worked for everything he got while OTHER candidates - no names - get credit on their resume for babymaking and a shot at the Presidency because of who they married.

in part because the powers that be detest his opponent.

HRC and her establishment machine candidacy ARE THE POWERS THAT BE. A lot of Obama supporters support him because he inspires them, gives them hope, has shown great judgment, opposed the Iraq war prominently, organizes and builds coalitions phenomenally and plans to run in all 50 states in the general. We actually don't need to hate HRC to glom onto this sort of thing. The HRC hate is just a nice fringe benefit.

So many of you hurl accusations of racism that are based on your own projections and nothing else. It's paranoind. And it does nothing to help Obama in November.

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face when you Clinton supporters keep bringing up race.

On a personal note, I understand the pain and frustration of being a middle-aged-not-real-comfortable-with-black-folks-female Clinton supporter and losing this thing to a black guy. Especially when you feel like the rest of America is just like you and won't vote for a black man.

I felt the same way when Obama first announced. He wasn't my first, or second, or third choice and it seemed like suicide to nominate a black guy when we can't even when a general without two white southerners on the ticket and a third party spoiler running. All my black friends felt the same way.

But Obama won me over with the strength of his candidacy, for many of the reasons I listed above and for running a phenomenal campaign. If his campaign is any indication of how he will govern, he'll easily be one of the best Presidents ever. (If, of course.)

I understand he can lose the general. His downside is that he can do just as poorly as HRC - or the last couple Democratic nominees - in the general. But the upside he offers is so much greater than all the others. He provides lift to every red-state down-ticket Democratic race. He can lose the general and STILL usher in a huge blue majority. No other candidate can do that.

Posted by Face The Music | March 13, 2008 11:40 PM

Solutions: #1. HRC reveals she has "one drop" by way of her great, great wet-nurse, Essie-Mae Washington-Williams, who was a Indian-N-word.
#2. Invite Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and his acolyte Patterson to write a "Ed-Op" piece on the matter for the New York Times entitled, OUR NIG HILLARY.
#3. Call in plagiarizing pimps Ann Althouse and Drew Westen and Banaji to "hustle" HRC, now considered a "Nig" and front-runner with 55% of the N-word votes, and with Al Sharpton by her side, a super-spades-egate.
#4. Keep blaming, "racializing," and criminalizing each other for lack of seminal and scholarly knowledge about subliminal messages in the media. Invite "Jayson Blair" to party on down with other "race card" skunks! OR? Shut up and listen and READ "in the name of thy Lord!"

I coined the term "subliminal racism" from my 1980 UCSD dissertation, "The Manichean Leitmotif." I wrote "Subliminal Racism Essays" 2005 and "Discrete Silence Essays" 2007.
Please visit my website for more vital info:
http://www.subliminalracism.com/G5SubscribersClub-JiveTurkey.html

See Arthur J. Graham on "The Book Beat" (32 min) youTube interview for the seminal "tetranalysis" coverage of the movie, "Schindler's List," and read our Image Coverage(tm) on the movie "Cape Fear" by Serita Coffee, as reported in the "Wave" newspaper, Los Angeles, 1992.
http://www.subliminalracism.com/Archives.html

For inter-facing opinions, do a web search[ ] enter exactly:

subliminal racism ... Manichean Leitmotif

http://www.azauthors.com/2005.html
Habakkuk 2:2
Thanks for listening.

Posted by Arthur | March 16, 2008 10:25 PM

No, 90% of the blacks are not voting for Obama because he's black, it's because they like his elephant ears.

Posted by Like It Is | March 18, 2008 1:51 AM

Sean (#1):

You'd be right, if Patterson had actually made something amounting to an argument. Instead, he made a lot of insinuations. Arguments require evidence from the subject at hand, not allusions. Patterson name-checked Birth of a Nation, Nixon et al without any explication of how they were linked to the text of the ad. It was just an "uneasy feeling" that led him there.

His claim that the ad was fearmongering was obvious. His claim that it was race-baiting was never substantiated even in his own column. It was speculation, musing, and guilt-by-free-association with some pretty nasty characters. That's not an argument.

Posted by Brad R | March 18, 2008 1:00 PM

Too Black for 3AM?

Comments (152)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories