G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
"Black Candidate," Blue Voters, White Heat - And a Troubling Silence
By RJ Eskow
Created Jan 27 2008 - 9:50pm
I don't know what makes me sadder or more disappointed: The gutter politics
we've seen over the last few weeks, or the apparent willingness of some
Democrats to tolerate it in hopes of a victory in November. Maybe that's
"naive," as some will undoubtedly argue. But I don't think so. A dirty
Democratic primary season will help the Republicans in the long run, no
matter who wins the nomination.
Most of my criticism, especially in recent weeks, has gone to the Clinton
campaign. But the others have been inappropriate at times, too. While others
thought that attack ads from both Clinton and Obama last week were
acceptable hardball, I thought they were errors in judgement. And
yesterday's two-pronged racial attack by the Clinton campaign created a new
low in Democratic sleaze.
The Clinton radio ad cut and pasted audio from Obama in mid-sentence to
alter the meaning of what he said. It was part of a coordinated "outrage"
campaign at Obama's purported admiration for a Republican - during the the
same week that Bill Clinton co-authored a Wall Street Journal editorial with
one Republican [1] and talked about how how "close" Hillary is with another
[2]. And you know what? Good for him. Any Democrat who gets elected will
need to work with the GOP, so why not reach across the aisle occasionally?
(The Bill/Arnold proposal was a good one, too.)
Let's be clear: Attacking Obama for being too GOP-friendly while doing some
cuddling yourself may be disingenuous or hypocritical, but it's par for the
course in hardball politics. The Clintons cross the line when they stoop to
deception.
Obama crossed a line, too, when he ran an ad that states "Hillary will say
anything and do nothing." Here's a simple rule of thumb: Don't create sound
bites that the opposition can use if your opponent gets the nomination. The
line is also personal and nasty. It was a mistake, and I'm glad he seemed to
be backing off from that strategy in his victory speech.
(Note what I just did here: I criticized a candidate I like, because he did
something I thought was wrong. I did that with Edwards, too, when I was
leaning heavily in his direction. It's an exercise I recommend to supporters
of all the candidates. The end result might be a better nominee.)
I wrote earlier that I felt the Clinton campaign had engaged in a set of
coordinated race-related comments, any one of which might seem innocent but
which seemed deliberate when viewed as a whole. Although I mentioned the
possibility that I was wrong (and that they might have just suddenly become
"accident prone" on the topic), I had misgivings. A number of people I
respect said this was a false, media-made accusation, and I worried I might
have some serious amends to make if I was eventually proven wrong.
Sadly, I haven't been. Bill Clinton's comments equating Obama to Jesse
Jackson - while another, unnamed "Clinton advisor" was saying this victory
makes Obama "the black candidate" - is as overt a pitch to racial
stereotyping as any Democrat has made in many years. Of all the South
Carolina primary winners in the last forty years, why pick Jackson? Why not
John Edwards, who won in 2004? Why not George Wallace, who won in 1976?
Why not Bill Clinton, whose 1992 victory in South Carolina led to his
nomination and election? Cooler heads than mine, like Glenn Greenwald [3],
have drawn the only reasonable conclusion. This was a race-based pitch, and
a shameful one. Imagine if the Obama campaign had responded to the New
Hampshire results by saying that Hillary is merely "the woman candidate." I
would have slammed him. So why aren't we seeing a backlash from Clinton
backers?
Some of his defenders will say he made the comment to point out that Obama
can only win black voters. But guess what? Obama won with women, too - and
Edwards won the white vote! If the racial mix in South Carolina had been
that of voters nationwide (11.6% African American in 2004), this primary
would still have been a devastating rejection of Hillary's candidacy. But
somehow Bill didn't manage to mention that. Still think all the racial
comments are just an innocent mistake?
All this talk about race-baiting is probably serving a larger Clinton
strategy. It's distracting us from a stunning defeat, one in which Hillary
lost almost all demographic segments in a state where she once led the polls
by 20 points. But isn't it profoundly unethical to use race for such a
partisan purpose?
And it's odd: When Edwards campaign advisor Dave "Mudcat" Saunders seemed to
imply early in this race that a woman or minority couldn't win, he was
showered with criticism. Yet some of the same voices that skewered Saunders
are strangely silent now. Why? Have some Democrats decided winning is
everything? How far down that road are they willing to go?
Hillary supporters - and closet Hillary supporters - should be especially
outspoken in their rejection of this kind of politics. These kinds of
comments will only add to her negatives. And if South Carolina's results are
any indicator, they won't help her win any new voters.
Even if winning were everything, this isn't the way to win. If independents,
disaffected Republicans, and moderate Dems perceive enough ugliness behind
the eventual nominee, they'll go elsewhere. And if stalwart Democratic
progressives believe their candidate won by using dirty tricks and cheap
shots, they won't work very hard for the party in November.
That's something to think about now, before it's too late. It would be
ironic if frustrated Democrats, eager to win back at any cost what was
stolen, wind up sowing the seeds of another defeat.
A Night Light [4]
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog [5]
Future-While-U-Wait [6]
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post [7]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By RJ Eskow
Created Jan 27 2008 - 9:50pm
I don't know what makes me sadder or more disappointed: The gutter politics
we've seen over the last few weeks, or the apparent willingness of some
Democrats to tolerate it in hopes of a victory in November. Maybe that's
"naive," as some will undoubtedly argue. But I don't think so. A dirty
Democratic primary season will help the Republicans in the long run, no
matter who wins the nomination.
Most of my criticism, especially in recent weeks, has gone to the Clinton
campaign. But the others have been inappropriate at times, too. While others
thought that attack ads from both Clinton and Obama last week were
acceptable hardball, I thought they were errors in judgement. And
yesterday's two-pronged racial attack by the Clinton campaign created a new
low in Democratic sleaze.
The Clinton radio ad cut and pasted audio from Obama in mid-sentence to
alter the meaning of what he said. It was part of a coordinated "outrage"
campaign at Obama's purported admiration for a Republican - during the the
same week that Bill Clinton co-authored a Wall Street Journal editorial with
one Republican [1] and talked about how how "close" Hillary is with another
[2]. And you know what? Good for him. Any Democrat who gets elected will
need to work with the GOP, so why not reach across the aisle occasionally?
(The Bill/Arnold proposal was a good one, too.)
Let's be clear: Attacking Obama for being too GOP-friendly while doing some
cuddling yourself may be disingenuous or hypocritical, but it's par for the
course in hardball politics. The Clintons cross the line when they stoop to
deception.
Obama crossed a line, too, when he ran an ad that states "Hillary will say
anything and do nothing." Here's a simple rule of thumb: Don't create sound
bites that the opposition can use if your opponent gets the nomination. The
line is also personal and nasty. It was a mistake, and I'm glad he seemed to
be backing off from that strategy in his victory speech.
(Note what I just did here: I criticized a candidate I like, because he did
something I thought was wrong. I did that with Edwards, too, when I was
leaning heavily in his direction. It's an exercise I recommend to supporters
of all the candidates. The end result might be a better nominee.)
I wrote earlier that I felt the Clinton campaign had engaged in a set of
coordinated race-related comments, any one of which might seem innocent but
which seemed deliberate when viewed as a whole. Although I mentioned the
possibility that I was wrong (and that they might have just suddenly become
"accident prone" on the topic), I had misgivings. A number of people I
respect said this was a false, media-made accusation, and I worried I might
have some serious amends to make if I was eventually proven wrong.
Sadly, I haven't been. Bill Clinton's comments equating Obama to Jesse
Jackson - while another, unnamed "Clinton advisor" was saying this victory
makes Obama "the black candidate" - is as overt a pitch to racial
stereotyping as any Democrat has made in many years. Of all the South
Carolina primary winners in the last forty years, why pick Jackson? Why not
John Edwards, who won in 2004? Why not George Wallace, who won in 1976?
Why not Bill Clinton, whose 1992 victory in South Carolina led to his
nomination and election? Cooler heads than mine, like Glenn Greenwald [3],
have drawn the only reasonable conclusion. This was a race-based pitch, and
a shameful one. Imagine if the Obama campaign had responded to the New
Hampshire results by saying that Hillary is merely "the woman candidate." I
would have slammed him. So why aren't we seeing a backlash from Clinton
backers?
Some of his defenders will say he made the comment to point out that Obama
can only win black voters. But guess what? Obama won with women, too - and
Edwards won the white vote! If the racial mix in South Carolina had been
that of voters nationwide (11.6% African American in 2004), this primary
would still have been a devastating rejection of Hillary's candidacy. But
somehow Bill didn't manage to mention that. Still think all the racial
comments are just an innocent mistake?
All this talk about race-baiting is probably serving a larger Clinton
strategy. It's distracting us from a stunning defeat, one in which Hillary
lost almost all demographic segments in a state where she once led the polls
by 20 points. But isn't it profoundly unethical to use race for such a
partisan purpose?
And it's odd: When Edwards campaign advisor Dave "Mudcat" Saunders seemed to
imply early in this race that a woman or minority couldn't win, he was
showered with criticism. Yet some of the same voices that skewered Saunders
are strangely silent now. Why? Have some Democrats decided winning is
everything? How far down that road are they willing to go?
Hillary supporters - and closet Hillary supporters - should be especially
outspoken in their rejection of this kind of politics. These kinds of
comments will only add to her negatives. And if South Carolina's results are
any indicator, they won't help her win any new voters.
Even if winning were everything, this isn't the way to win. If independents,
disaffected Republicans, and moderate Dems perceive enough ugliness behind
the eventual nominee, they'll go elsewhere. And if stalwart Democratic
progressives believe their candidate won by using dirty tricks and cheap
shots, they won't work very hard for the party in November.
That's something to think about now, before it's too late. It would be
ironic if frustrated Democrats, eager to win back at any cost what was
stolen, wind up sowing the seeds of another defeat.
A Night Light [4]
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog [5]
Future-While-U-Wait [6]
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post [7]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson