So. I've done my share of measured cackling at the fact that black folks have played a decisive role in the ending of Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions. I go back and forth on whether the campaign race-baited or not. As this thing winds down though, I begin to lean on the old rule that incompetence is more common than conspiracy. Racebaiting or not, I think the racist fool Geraldine Ferraro was/is poisonous, and I wish Hillary had said something close to that. I think her hard-working, white people remark was something of a slip and I wish she could have acknowledged as much. I think Bill meant what he said in North Carolina, but the worst part is his insistence that Obama was, in fact, race-bating him. I think her recent charge that sexism is widely accepted, while racism isn't, is, as I've said before, akin to a welder opining on carpentry. Like all competitors in the Oppression Olympics, she's unqualified. But in that, she's got a lot of company.
Still, in general I don't buy a campaign of race-baiting for a couple reasons: 1.) It's not a particularly great strategy in a Dem primary. You essentially trade blow-outs across the South, for single to low-double digit wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, which you likely would have gotten anyway. 2.) I know this is naive, but I give some credence to the fact that there are several black people supporting--and running--Hillary's campaign. I'd like to think they wouldn't go along with such a thing. My cackling is more based on black voters DQing someone who shared many of George Bush's worse managerial qualities--confusing loyality with competence, an inability to say I'm sorry, changing the rules to suit your needs. It almost redeems our shameful role in that 2004 roll-out of gay marriage bans across the states.
Alright so I'm rambling. My point is that there's been some speculation that Hillary's beef with black voters will follow her home. Black New York pols--most of whom back Obama--are claiming that she's going to have some bridges to repair here in Harlem, in Bed-Stuy etc. Let me be the first to step up and say that I don't see it. Begin with the fact Hillary doesn't even have to run again until 2012. I expect that she will, indeed, go all out and campaign for Obama. If he wins, than people will more remember her helping him get elected. If he loses, well she won't be running for Senate then anyway. Moreover, I just don't think the wounds are that deep. I desperately don't want her anywhere near the White House or the Naval observatory. But she's been a fairly decent senator. In fact, I'm more pissed at Schumer for rolling over for Mukasey. Call me daft, but I think the politics of the moment are just that. A year ago, no one expected Obama to be getting nine out of ten black votes.
And of course, peace to Matt for allowing me this platform to publish my various screeds, fulminations and love notes. I'll try not to lower your stock too much.
« Ixnay on the Ebbway | Main | $150 million is a lot of money... »
Hill Up In Harlem
27 May 2008 06:48 am
Comments (51)
I like the writing. Insightful with a sense of humor. Keep it coming.
I think it's naive to think that Hillary will exit gracefully. If she were gonna exit gracefully, she would have done so by now and wouldn't be ratcheting up the rhetoric. I don't think she's going to campaign for Obama. Or if she does, it will be half-heartedly.
And the longer she wages her campaign, the more incompetent I think she is as an executive. Maybe competent as a legislator, definitely not competent as an executive. So the longer she goes, the more we see that she should not be president.
And I agree -- she really needs to drop Geraldine Ferraro like a hot potato. This woman's toxic. But I don't think Hillary's operating on logic these days. And neither is her husband.
"A year ago, no one expected Obama to be getting nine out of ten black votes."
Well, some folks did indeed expect that.
-----
"I go back and forth on whether the campaign race-baited or not."
I don't think there is any question about it. Of course the Obama campaign extensively race-baited.
The Clinton campaign was in the tough position of trying to communicate doubts about sufficient appeal among whites for Obama because of his race while not sounding racist. I don't know whether the Clinton campaign held this position genuinely or cynically--I'm not demographer or political scientist--and I don't know whether the claim is sound or not. But Clinton's statements were sloppy. It's almost as if she had hesitated before saying "whites" in attempt to soften any reference to race with something positive or neutral like "hard working, blue collar." Or she meant exactly what she said without realizing how callous the Stone Cold Wonk Hillary can sound. Or she was race baiting, blowing that whistle, trying to scare up white voters or superdels.
In any case, I found her (and Bill's) style destructive and soooo twentieth century.
Petey, could you please give some examples of how the Obama campaign of course extensively race baited? Or is it just a white man's perspective?
I give some credence to the fact that there are several black people supporting--and running--Hillary's campaign. I'd like to think they wouldn't go along with such a thing.
Wow. Now tell us how awesome the Oklahoma Republican party is.
And Petey's right: a lot of people thought his African-American share would be huge if he could prove to be a credible candidate before they had to commit.
Petey, could you please give some examples of how the Obama campaign of course extensively race baited?
Engage a troll and you deserve what you get.
People think that those who support Obama have "drunk the Kool-Aid" so to speak, and see him as some kind of messiah. Perhaps the young 'uns do, but I don't think his African American constituency does, and I don't think the older adults who support him do. What I see is a man who has been cool calm and collected under pressure and a lot of negativity, and personal attacks on his character, who has run a brilliant, strategic campaign, has been a quick study (we need somebody who learns quickly), and who clearly has executive ability. Hillary has shown me she is tough and has a thick skin (unlike Bill), but the longer she has waged this campaign, the longer I have seen her divisiveness and lack of grace under pressure (not good qualities to have when you're in the presidential seat), and her unbelievable executive incompetence. We just had eight years of incompetence. I'll take my chances with Obama.
The crucial thing is that HRC just utterly abandoned black supporters after SC. I believe if she had been quicker to apologize for gaffes and kept appearing in black neighborhoods and churches and not ceded the vote over to Obama, she could have kept Obama's margin to 75-80% among Af-Ams, which could have helped her in close contests. The only way she even attempted to maintain a connection with black voters was through endorsements, which just didn't cut it.
maria,
I think Petey, and correct me if I'm wrong Petey, may be confusing two separate ideas: on the one hand, people not voting for Obama in large part because of his race which is deemed by society at large as negative and, on the other, Obama actively race baiting. But I hate to be presumptuous and rather hear from Petey. I'm interested.
"I go back and forth on whether the campaign race-baited or not. "
Wow. To me, all that was missing was the 'black hand' commercials.
I don't think it's unusual that any candidate's most eager supporters tend to view their chosen candidates as 'messiahs'. I've seen starry-eyed enthusiasts, young and old, back all sorts of candidates over the years, and THEIR CANDIDATE is wiser than anyone we've ever had and this is exactly the time we need him / her etc. etc. I mean, good grief -- look at the Ron Paul stuff!
I've seen people do the same with sports teams and bands and other stuff. And it's not like campaigns are going to discourage any of that type of groupie support they receive. But the fact that it exists is not unusual and doesn't necessarily tell anything interesting about a candidate or the program.
You don't see because you are not black. It is not just the Clintons but the Dem party. Black folks knew Rep don't like us but it has been an eye opening experience to see it so prevalant in the Dem party. We have been seeing it since Fla.2000. For most of us it is about the value of our vote. Black people we take that very seriously.We vote 90% plus together for a reason.That vote has usually gone against the Rep(after civil rights that is). But now most of us are starting to look real hard at the Dem party and question our support. Many of us are changing to Ind. We no longer are ok with the racism of the party that we thought was just of few "ignorant rednecks in the south". We see it goes much deeper and wider.
I dunno, it seems like the kind of things Matthew uusally says about Schumer could be said about Clinton as well-- that New York is a safe seat where the Senator should be taking stronger stances rather than continually positioning herself as a centrist for a national election.
What serves the interests of the Clintons rarely seems to serve the interest of their nation or their party, and I don't expect this to change.
"But I hate to be presumptuous and rather hear from Petey. I'm interested."
A number of folks have covered this territory pretty extensively. I'd recommend starting with this February Sean Wilentz piece, if you're curious. (Not that Team Obama's race baiting ended in February by any means, but this should give you the basic idea.)
Trust fund scumbag Matthew Yglesias' repeated assertion that Clinton won Ohio due to the "racist vote" despite exit polls pretty clearly showing that Clinton won due to downscale voters preferring Clinton on economics and healthcare by overwhelming numbers is another useful data point for understanding the basic strategy employed.
At the time, I thought there was some race-baiting going on in SC from the Clintons--I count that as the time I started referring to the candidate absentmindedly as "the Clintons" and also the time I decided I would never vote for either of them. I have seen "ooh, ooh, racism" from the occasional web Obamite, but not from the campaign itself: they clearly recognize that whining about prejudice, even when it exists, is the surest way to turn people off. As a feminist, I wish Hillary and her more over-the-top supporters could recognize this. As Noonan suggested, buy a box of Hillary nutcrackers and hand them out at events; don't whine about them. They are not Obama's fault in any case.
Theory at the time of SC: They tried dogwhistle tactics that worked in the 90s, figuring they'd lose a few votes from offended persons such as myself, but get them back by the general. It was the first time I noticed a narrative (explicitly spelled out by a few Clinton partisans at the NYT website) "the end--our restoration to power--will be so awesome that any means used to achieve it are justified."
Theory as Bill continued to be a loon, they failed to corral Ferraro, that sad little old Latina in TX who explained she was voting for Hillary because blacks only helped other blacks, and Hillary's "uhh--okay, never turn down any vote" reaction: Or it could be incompetence.
As for 2012: Memories are short. But there is certainly a will now to run a strong Dem challenger for her Senate seat. I fully expect that, come June 4th, she will declare that because of (some reason--MI, FL, her bitter supporters) she is taking it on to the convention. The DNC seems torn between fear of a backlash if they explain she has lost, and the tactic of letting her run off as many of her own supporters as possible. A long hard trudge through the summer would steadily shrink her base, and what's she going to do to get them back during the next 4 years?
Sorry Petey, you lost me at scumbag. Thanks for the link though.
I think her recent charge that sexism is widely accepted, while racism isn't
This is a statement many -- including some Obama supporters, and not just HRC -- make. Note, of course, the distinction between "accepted" and "existing". Racism might be as prevelent as sexism (perhaps even more so), but airing of racist opinions in the open is quite censured whilst one can say some pretty sexist things and polite society will just nod and ignore you.
I think she is susceptible to a strong primary challenger. The question is not only how well black people support her, but also what kind of money her primary challenger can raise. She has certainly revealed herself in a way that has alienated her from many NYers, not just the black folks.
That Sean Wilentz piece is a joke. He doesn't have any documentation to substantiate his claim that the Obama campaign was the one doing the racebaiting so to get the black vote. He mentions the memo but it is in actuality a listing of what took place. The underlying assumption is that blacks could not have voted for Obama unless they were told that the Clintons were racists.
That Sean Wilentz piece is a joke. He doesn't have any documentation to substantiate his claim that the Obama campaign was the one doing the racebaiting so to get the black vote. He mentions the memo but it is in actuality a listing of what took place. The underlying assumption is that blacks could not have voted for Obama unless they were told that the Clintons were racists is sheer fantasy.
"A number of folks have covered this territory pretty extensively. I'd recommend starting with this February Sean Wilentz piece, if you're curious. (Not that Team Obama's race baiting ended in February by any means, but this should give you the basic idea."
What Micheline said about the Wilentz piece. It's rather sad coming from a respected historian, but it appears his long personal friendship with the Clintons clouded his judgment. He confuses Obama supporters with the Obama campaign (is Petey the Clinton campaign? Nope). He also engages in a lot of lies of omission by ignoring the more egregious examples of Clinton campaign race-baiting. Petey, you have had it pointed out to you repeatedly that you are lying about what MY said in that post. If you really believe that's what it said, you need to go back to third grade and go through "Hooked on Phonics" again.
Also, the fact that you're still deploying "trust fund scumbag" is a bit sad. Is Edwards a trust fund scumbag? Trust fund scumbags do things like say mandates are what progressivism is today because they see nothing wrong with telling working people they have to subsidize major corporations even when they cannot afford to do so. There's a reason mandates started out as a center-right idea. Mandates are corporate welfare.
Wilentz also got torn a new asshole in the black blogosphere for that piece. Check out Jack and Jill Politics's archives to follow the thread if you're interested.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Black pols in New York support Obama. All the black Congressional representatives from New York have backed Hillary from the start as well as most of the city electeds as well. There's a pocket of enthusiastic support for Obama among Brooklyn electeds, like State Senator Bill Perkins and Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, but it's really a pretty small number overall and not the most influential group of politicians around.
Of course there are cracks in Hillary's armor here. Rep. Yvette Clarke is backing her but she went up to Obama on the House floor recently to ask for an autograph like some star-struck fan.
Bill Perkins is in Harlem, btw, my mistake.
By and large, African-Americans still like the Clintons. It's the white liberals who hate them--for some unknown reason.
Ah, so glad the fratri/soricide continues. Obviously, the best use of Democrats' time this election cycle is to accuse Hillary Clinton's supporters of being racist shills of the next George W. Bush and Obama's supporters of being misogynistic cultists who revere Reagan and deny AIDS.
Paul Krugman, Markos Moulitsas, we salute you. Because God knows if your chosen candidate doesn't somehow get the nod in August, the Democrats will be nominating the bastard political child of Warren Harding, Richard Nixon and Emperor Caligula.
John Petty,
There are a lot of people, liberals and blacks, who still like BOTH candidates. I know some older feminists who are Clinton supporters, HRC's cohort, who are upset about the process and are not crazy about Obama but feel that the media is more responsible for the mess than the Obama campaign.
From canvassing in North Philly, I came away with a slightly different impression from John Petty. First, it's no-doubt true that many African-Americans (like other democrats) like both Obama and Clinton. Second, it's beyond dispute that their standing has taken a hit based on the way they ran the campaign. The issue seemed less the expliticly racial comments from Bill and more the general belittling of Obama. Third, Bill seemed more popular than Hillary.
The way she's running the campaign as if Obama's either unelectable, or that it's unfathomable to nominate him even though he's won, and to get SO nasty SO late really does seem like white privilege run amok, so I'd think these trends to continue to push African-Americans away from the Clintons, including Bill.
The late-stage attempts to play the gender card, as well, seem like nothing more than an excuse or justification to play the race card. (There is no doubt sexism, but it's not coming from Obama, or anyone else who matters, and it's a net plus among the democratic party electorate.)
I dispute the idea that the Clintons ever played the so-called race card.
Begin with the fact Hillary doesn't even have to run again until 2012. I expect that she will, indeed, go all out and campaign for Obama.
Its so sad that you still don't get it.
She will publicly go through the motions in order to keep her friends in the party but she will privately tell her supporters to sabotage Obama to the best of their ability.
Hillary sees Obama and the half-of his supporters as traitors. She hates us with a passion. She will not simply make nice. We are her enemies and she will simply bide her time until she stabs us in the back and twists the knife.
Only a fool would trust her to forgive and forget and turn their back on her. You are a smart guy but you are very naive on this.
"It's not a particularly great strategy in a Dem primary. You essentially trade blow-outs across the South, for single to low-double digit wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, which you likely would have gotten anyway."
It's possible that the Clintons thought (rightly or wrongly) that they would get blown out in the Deep South anyway, and thus they implemented a strategy designed to boost turnout among racist hillbillies in Appalachia who might not otherwise turn out for a Democratic primary. The only real cost to that strategy would have been financial -- if Democratic donors got wind that the Clintons had put on their hoods and sheets, the money would stop pretty quickly. And that's precisely what happened.
Earth to Obama supporters: Do you guys really believe that crap?
The way in which Clinton introduced race was not an ex post way of saying vote for me or the Southern way of life is forever threatened, but rather after the fact, both in specific primaries and towards the end of the primary season, to denigrate or condescend to Obama, personally, and his strongest constituency. It's the root of "just because Obama has the nomination nearly locked, and is running no better or worse than Clinton in head-to-heads, let's question his electability." It's the root of saying some demographic support matters more than others, and that winning South Carolina doesn't prove anything because Jesse did it twice. It's behind the "as far as I know" comment and calling him an elitist, which are both none-so-subtle ways of pointing out that Obama's different. And it's behind the 3 a.m. ad, which used images of local crime for some reason in an ad about international terrorism.
Yes, a lot of these are subject to interpretation and judgment. But that's the way race plays out in the 21st century. I can't imagine Clinton speaking condescendingly to John Edwards, for instance. But with an African-American opponent, I think it's subconsciously easier for her to make arguments the effect of which are to advance the notion that Obama's not her equal on a deep level.
The most egregious one was Robert Johnson wondering allowed if Obama was ever a drug dealer. Not only was it stupid, but it came out of just about the worst black Clinton supporter's mouth possible - the founder of BET and one of the most hated men among the African-American community.
"Yes, a lot of these are subject to interpretation and judgment. But that's the way race plays out in the 21st century. I can't imagine Clinton speaking condescendingly to John Edwards, for instance. But with an African-American opponent, I think it's subconsciously easier for her to make arguments the effect of which are to advance the notion that Obama's not her equal on a deep level.
Posted by David B. | May 27, 2008 1:59 PM"
Very true. If I wasn't so lazy, I would put up the famous Lee Atwater quote. You can't just whip out the race card like a Klansman and go "he's a n*." You play the race card behind the mask of denialibility. Bush I could just say that he was pointing out a stupid program Dukakis had with the Willie Horton ads. The Clintons could say similar things with their race-baiting. The point is to say something the group you're trying to offend will find racially offensive while the majority group you're addressing will think the offended group is just over-sensitive and being PC and wanting special treatment. Basically, a race-baiter in 21st-century America on some level once to unleash a similar dynamic to what happened in this country right after the OJ verdict.
The only reason to start yelling "I was robbed" before the game is over is to try and raise doubts about the legitimacy of your eventual loss. Her rhetoric all but explicitly claiming that this election has been "stolen" from her belies any idea that she is just trying hard to win it. She is trying to convince half of the Dem. party that Obama's victory was fundamentally illegit in order to depress turnout. It really is that simple.
that winning South Carolina doesn't prove anything because Jesse did it twice. It's behind the "as far as I know" comment and calling him an elitist, which are both none-so-subtle ways of pointing out that Obama's different. And it's behind the 3 a.m. ad, which used images of local crime for some reason in an ad about international terrorism.
I don't recall Bill Clinton saying that SC didn't "prove anything." He mentioned Jackson on the same day of the primary--not much of a "dog whistle" if he says it when the people have already voted. Besides, it was a statement of historical fact. The only people in the last 40 years to win SC convincingly are Clinton himself and Jackson. (If he'd mentioned himself, we'd have to hear about how conceited he is.)
Read the "as far as I know" comment. She roundly disavowed the claim that Obama is Muslim several times, but Steve Croft kept pushing her on it. You might have said "as far as I know" under the circumstances.
By the way, thanks David B for your interesting post. I don't know what libarbarian is talking about.
And thus John Petty goes on to prove the deniability part of my thesis. Watch the video of Clinton angrily bringing up Jesse Jackson for no reason to really get the full impact.
"not much of a 'dog whistle' if he says it when the people have already voted."
Seriously? Are you really this thick?
Blowing the racist dogwhistle doesn't really work when 50%+ of the voting electorate is African-American. They can hear that thing just as well as white people can can.
There are tons of voters throughout the country who will vote for a candidate who is black, but not The Black Candidate. Clinton was trying to paint Obama as Jesse Jackson II (maybe III, depending on whether you count Sharpton) to these voters.
Having burned her bridges behind her with the AA community in New York, Hillary Clinton blames Barack Obama over her RFK remark. Coming only weeks after Teddy Kennedy’s endorsement of Mr. Obama, and days after Mr. Kennedy’s disturbing medical diagnosis, Hillary says the unfortunate utterance was taken out of context. Hillary was quick to made hay on Mr. Obama’s “bitter” comment. Now hoisted on her own petard, it looks as though she can dish it out better than she can take it. Besides, wouldn’t yet another Kennedy (JFK Jr.) have been a shoe-in for her senate seat? Before the Clinton’s made manifest their political fugue, with an end-run around the 22-Amendment, both of them knew there was a fatal flaw. Again, the mere mention of a Hillary Clinton nomination should send paroxysms of moral indignation up and down the nation’s collective spine: http://theseedsof9-11.com
"I expect that she will, indeed, go all out and campaign for Obama. If he wins, than people will more remember her helping him get elected."
I disagree. I believe Clinton will work untiringly to get Obama defeated in November. She will fight all the way to the convention, and then file lawsuits about the rules, if there is any sort of legal grounds she can make up. Even if she can't file lawsuits, she will campaign against Obama from the sidelines and try to keep her supporters from voting for him - without actually appearing to do so, of course.
If the DNC caves and offers her the VP slot, she will either continue to screw Obama's chances for election this year, OR campaign for Obama and if he wins, undermine him for the next four years until 2012.
"She is trying to convince half of the Dem. party that Obama's victory was fundamentally illegit in order to depress turnout. It really is that simple."
libarbarian has it right.
The real problem is the Dems blew yet another election when they allowed Clinton to be in the race at all. Combined with a Bush war on Iran coming up, giving McCain a "war bounce", I predict Obama will lose in November, thanks to Hillary.
It's more complicated than simply "did she race bait or not" though. I don't think it's clear at ALL that Clinton had any explicit plan to flirt with racism and pick up all those "hard-working" white people. But she certainly did not seem to mind when her supporters did so. And she never expressed any public doubts or misgivings about the fact that people who were explicitly voting based on race were overwhelmingly voting for her. After seeing right wing pols use exactly these tactics to soar to victory on "I'm not a racist, but..." votes, I can't blame minorities for being very, very concerned to see these tactics popping up in a Democratic primary.
The fact is that if any of Obama's surrogates had said anything as disgustingly retrograde and misogynist as the things Geraldine Ferraro said about race, he would have had to spend the rest of the contest apologizing. Clinton barely acknowledged it -- in fact, she echoed Ferraro's major theme in later days. That may not be "race baiting," but it's certainly ugly, and it certainly deserves to be harshly criticized.
As for her future service in the Senate, I dunno. Frankly, as much as her supporters have been playing with this idea, she's not Ted Kennedy. She is a junior senator without all that much experience or seniority in the Senate and she is just as replaceable as any other Senator in that position. Clinton has not exactly used her position as a representative of one of the most liberal Senate seats in America to do much anyway. I have to say, if the right candidate was running, I might be willing to kick in a couple bucks towards a primary challenge.
The point is to say something the group you're trying to offend will find racially offensive while the majority group you're addressing will think the offended group is just over-sensitive and being PC and wanting special treatment.
The truth is sometimes people are offended too easily due to over-sensitivity. The so-called majority group is sometimes rightfully irritated when it becomes impossible to have a frank discussion because someone might taken offense. The Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson fake controversies are illustrative.
I think Obama racial identity could be a net plus for him, if he is able to return to having that image of the post-racial candidate: the first black candidate to "transcend" questions of race. I think a lot of White voters would like to cast a ballot for the first African American president, and in so doing feel they are transcending questions of race themselves.
On the other hand, I think there's a risk of alienating people. I don't think many White people will appreciate being told that if refuse vote for Barack Obama it shows they are racists, or at least are demonstating some kind of deep-seeded racial intolerance. I think people could grow to resent that.
I think her hard-working, white people remark was something of a slip and I wish she could have acknowledged as much.
I don't think Hillary was being racist as much as she was being clumsy. Her entire campaign was managed on a spreadsheet - dividing states, voters and interest groups into "significant" and "insignificant" stacks. This Mark Penn style parsing of the electorate extended to ethnicity (blue collar whites vs. inner city blacks) and they stupidly thought nothing of stating it publicly.
Obama's team was never foolish enough to counter that Hillary would be losing convincingly if only so many women weren't voting.
NS:
Nobody is going to challenge Hillary in a New York primary, except maybe an anti-war loon like in 2006.
"The truth is sometimes people are offended too easily due to over-sensitivity. The so-called majority group is sometimes rightfully irritated when it becomes impossible to have a frank discussion because someone might taken offense. The Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson fake controversies are illustrative."
The person who was crying the most over the MLK flap was John Edwards. However, a lot of black people were upset over things like the drug dealer comments, the Jesse Jackson comments, etc. The fact that you don't see what's wrong with these things just shows how clueless you are and how little you actually know about the US and American society.
The most glaring example of racial politics was
Congressman Jackson asking why Clinton did not cry for the black people of New Orleans before the South Carolina primary.
"The most glaring example of racial politics was
Congressman Jackson asking why Clinton did not cry for the black people of New Orleans before the South Carolina primary.
Posted by skeptic | May 28, 2008 7:28 AM"
Really? That was more glaring than asking Obama if he was a drug dealer?
That brings up the question: why did Clinton cry for herself but not for the people of New Orleans?
There was a "dog whistle" all right, but it wasn't a shout out by Clinton to white voters. This is the Democratic Party, after all, and that would not be a winning strategy, as the Clintons well know.
The "dog whistle" was used by the Obama campaign which hollered "racism" when Hillary referenced LBJ, of all people. White liberals, ever ready to call someone else a racist, promptly jumped on the bandwagon.
There was a "dog whistle" all right, but it wasn't a shout out by Clinton to white voters. This is the Democratic Party, after all, and that would not be a winning strategy, as the Clintons well know.
The "dog whistle" was used by the Obama campaign which hollered "racism" when Hillary referenced LBJ, of all people. White liberals, ever ready to call someone else a racist, promptly jumped on the bandwagon.
Comments closed June 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
First of all, welcome. Good post.
You might also be interested to know that your personal website seems to be blocked in China.
Anyway, I'm not sure that the Clintons, Solis Doyle, Robert Johnson, Penn, Ickes, etc. got together and had an explicit plan to race-bait. I do think these things where each said individually without being coordinated by the campaign. However, a gaffe can still be race-baiting. After all, a gaffe is often said to be when a politician accidentally says what they really think. I always heard stories that never really made it to the press passed along from people who knew Bill in his Arkansas days that he liked to tell jokes in private that used the n-word. I often took those anecdotes with a grain of salt and still do, but today it's a much smaller grain.
Posted by Reality Man | May 27, 2008 7:41 AM