The race war between Whitey and the Uppity Negro is getting out of hand, don't you think? Especially when you consider that the entire thing is yet another edifice built out of nothing, a media-driven "scandal" to make the Democratic primary "interesting" according to the perverse rules of the DC Village.
Greg Sargent has most of this, and Paul Krugman weighs in with some sanity as well. (Pre-emptive strike for the comments: "Of course, Krugman hates Obama with the burning passion of a thousand white-hot suns, so discount everything he says.")
The problem I'm seeing is the same one as Krugman, namely that no matter their political leanings, people are simply too willing to assume and believe the worst about the Clintons. Consider Bill's "Jesse Jackson" comment. What, exactly, was racist about mentioning the completely correct historical example for Obama's win in South Carolina? Perhaps coming from someone else a stronger case could be made, but Bill Clinton is the biggest politics nerd in the world, and you can bet that he was watching the presidential races in the 1980s extremely closely as he prepared for his own run in 1992. President Clinton was famous while in office for being detail-oriented; predictably this was used against him to paint him as a micromanager. Nor does he tend to forget things, as his Republican counterparts are so wont to do. His remark is only racist if you want it to be racist. It's exactly the same situation with the "fairy tale" remark, unless that's a dogwhistle for a particularly southern type of fairy tale consisting of "Hey Cooter! This here Negro thinks he's agonna be like a white man! Haw haw!"
Next, let's look at Bill Shaheen. Did you even know that his "drug dealer" comment was in the context of talking about what Republicans would say in a general election? How is it racist for him to say that if a person who admitted trying cocaine is nominated that the Republicans will make hay with that and try to paint him as a dangerous criminal? Don't you think that as a longtime Clinton associate, Bill Clinton's dumb dance with his past marijuana use was on Shaheen's mind? The real problem with Shaheen's comment is that he's right, and we'd better be ready for the onslaught. That the Republicans will use something to attack Obama is a dumb reason to vote for Hillary Clinton of all people, but I fail to see how it's racist to correctly predict what Republicans will do.
Do people really think that Bill and Hillary Clinton are so stupid as to believe that alienating African Americans is a winning strategy for a Democratic politician? There is no case of projection as clear as the one in which certain Democrats are suggesting that two Democrats with as much experience as the Clintons are going to campaign with the Republican playbook.
Mark Penn, of course, is not someone I want around any Democratic candidate, anywhere, ever. But was his cocaine comment racist? He didn't just inject it into a discussion about something else. It's not like Axelrod and Trippi were talking about the best way to reduce the poverty rate when suddenly, Penn's eyes grew to the size of dinner plates and he started screaming "Axelrod's darkie is a cocaine addict!!! Beware the black man!!!!"
Obama's drug use is and will be a problem. It's not an insurmountable problem, but it does exist, it will be used by the GOP, and it should be fair game for Clinton's campaign. After all, how many arguments against Hillary have been predicated on how "polarizing" she is, how she isn't "likable" enough, how a currently demoralized GOP will be able to mobilize its members in droves if she is the nominee? Either arguments based upon perceived GOP attacks are valid, or they aren't.
Then there's the fact that the Hillary campaign has called Obama "the black candidate." Terrible, terrible stuff. Who said it? We don't know. When did they say it? We don't know. What, exactly did they say? We don't know, though we can certainly hope that David Espo has enough journalistic integrity to only place words in quotes when they are, in fact, quotes. But as the Daily Howler said, though, a 3-word quote from anonymous sources should raise suspicions, because "[w]hen strategists do say colorful things, you’ll likely see their full statement."
The establishment press desperately wants to make Hillary's campaign a referendum on Bill's Presidency, because those articles are already written. They want to make the Democratic primary narrative to be one of those ever-divided Democrats vs. the always-united Republicans, because those articles are also already written. They want to incite a race war, because one of their favorite storylines is pointing out how much trouble the "black vote" always is for Democrats. Oh, and those articles are all already written.
It's frankly astonishing to me how willing progressives are to buy into all this bullshit. It's like the radical change in Bill Clinton's reputation among progressives; a few years ago he was the Big Dawg, the man we all recognized was still an obsession to the critters on the right. Now, at least in the comment threads here, DailyKos, Eschaton and other places, Bill Clinton is a reviled "Republican President" who was singlehandedly responsible for every loss by every Democrat since 1992. I wouldn't mind having someone explain to me how Clinton could have made 1994 a year of Democratic victories in defiance of all historical precedent. For that matter, it would be interesting to see how it was Clinton's conservatism that elevated the rabidly rightwing GOP to power, especially since the key elements of Clinton's first two years in office were the extremely progressive attempt to integrate the military and establish universal healthcare.
We Democrats need to take a step back, breathe deeply and ask ourselves just what it is we're doing. Apply any cliche you want - sniff test, Occam's Razor, just plain old common sense - and it becomes obvious that the very people who have devoted the last several years to opposing DC Village-driven media narratives are flat-out being played like fiddles.
Vote for Obama, oppose Hillary, fine. Just do it on the basis of preference and policies, not because Hillary is an evil racist Republican murdering Clinton who associates with drug dealers and is a frigid lesbian man-hating bitch who wants to remove children from their homes and put them in government-created villages to raise them. Make the Democratic primary about Democrats, not the GOP's pipe dreams.
Oh, baby, thank you, thank you, thank you! When I read Krugman's piece this morning, I threw a few Bravos his way. Now that I read yours, I throw them at you tenfold. Too many right-on points to highlight; if I quoted them all, I'd just be repeating your post.
I do have one question, though, and I'm sure you can enlighten me. I often feel as if I've been dropped down the rabbit-hole and acknowledge that I'm not nearly as in tune with what's going on politically as my lovingly obsessed co-bloggers, but:
"Then there's the fact that the Hillary campaign has called Obama 'the black candidate.'"
Huh? I thought he was the black candidate?? Am I missing something (yes, probably; I'm down the rabbit-hole again). Please explain.
P.S. And Clinton was right to talk about LBJ and how he pushed through civil rights legislation. Those of us who were around then and rememeber it realize that. Historical fact is historical fact. Not everything is some damn conspiracy.
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | February 12, 2008 at 06:19 PM
I don't think the media is claiming the Republicans are united this cycle (although I don't watch Fox News). The talking heads at CNN and MSNBC are constantly talking about how McCain hasn't consolidated his base among conservatives. I am listening to that narrative right now on MSNBC while waiting for election results.
Moreover, I think you are conflating the liberal/progressive critique of the Clinton Presidency, the MSM critique of the Clinton Presidency, and the Right Wing critique of the Clinton Presidency. They are distinct. The liberal/progressive critique is that the Clintons failed because they move significantly to the Right on certain issues causing a loss of the Democratic base support and a loss downticket for Congress, State legislative seats, and governorships in the 1990's.
The MSM critique is that the Clintons are personally distasteful. Andrew Sullivan and Marty Peretz find and found the Clintons arrogant. Sally Quinn and David Broder find and found the Clintons "low class." They also are offended by Hillary Clinton's refusal to accept traditional gender roles (See Chris Matthews and everything he's ever said in regard to Hillary Clinton). This attitude permeates the DC Press Corps. The Clintons' personal behavior is what is important to the Village which is why they made such a big deal of the Lewinsky affair. Most of the Country didn't find the Clintons' personal behavior relevant or deserving impeachment, which is why impeachment went nowhere.
The Right Wing critique is that the Clintons are and were evil. Those critiques were based on a belief that the Clintons are totally left wing and that the leftism of the Clintons personally corrupted them utterly (which is why the Clintons were accused of being murderers, drug dealers, rapists, etc.). This critique has no basis in fact, but it did leak into the MSM discourse.
I think the progressive blogosphere and progressives generally have attacked the MSM critique and Right Wing critiques of the Clintons but continued to make the Progressive critique of the Clintons. Moreover, for Hillary on foreign policy, progressives have a point when you look at Hillary's performance as senator.
I don't think that Bill Clinton was responsible for Democratic set backs in the 1990's. However, Hillary's right leaning votes on Iraq have been disastrous. She voted for the Iraq War and supported the Iraq War for years. Her advisors suggest that she will be much less likely to set a course to leave Iraq quickly. Moreover, Hillary's whole campaign is based upon her experience and the judgment that supposedly comes with that experience.
But during her tenure in the Senate, she has shown terrible judgment as to the most important issue of this decade. The problem with her judgment is that she makes right wing decisions in regard to foreign policy. Her tacks to the right on foreign policy are bad for the United States and bad for the Democratic Party. Progressives are right on this point- and they are right to make that point in the primaries.
Posted by: Joe | February 12, 2008 at 06:52 PM
Obama's drug use will not a be a serious problem. His church will be a serious problem. At least that is how I would think if I were an amoral Republican strategist. Drug use when very young just plays into Obama's narrative of becoming a Christian as a young man despite his upbringing. Same basic deal as W's drinking (and rumored drug use) which didn't hurt him at all - or wouldn't have if he weren't possibly covering up prior arrests.
My father (who is to the left of me) has been saying that Clinton was "the best Republican President of his lifetime" for years now. This isn't a new phenomenon.
Bill Clinton could get a pass on the Jesse Jackson comment if HRC's campaign wasn't shoping the same garbage to the press on the same day (Obama is now "the black candidate"). You can close your eyes to this if you want, but it isn't a product of Clinton derangement syndrome. Kevin Drum switched from Clinton to Obama largely because of this. Context matters and the context isn't pretty.
Posted by: ikl | February 12, 2008 at 07:04 PM
For the record, I doing think that anything sinister was going on with Billy Sheehan or Bob Kerry. Bob Johnson is another story . . .
Posted by: ikl | February 12, 2008 at 07:11 PM
Should have read "I don't think"
Posted by: ikl | February 12, 2008 at 07:12 PM
Stephen,
Wow, I hadn't read your post before I posted my anti-Krugman screed above.
I don't hate either Clinton and would enthusiatically support Hillary if she gets the nomination. I did find Bill's "Jesse Jackson" comment to be patronizing and dismissive and slightly ugly. I also thought his role in South Carolina was inappropriate given his position.
I thought Krugman's piece yesterday was really ugly and totally lacking in facts. He seems a bit over the top to me in his attacks on Obama.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 12, 2008 at 08:00 PM
I did not read anything in Krugman's piece as anti-Obama or an attack on Obama (whole 'nother story, maybe a post someday if I have the energy, but the word "attack" is bandied about way too easily all over the place).
I can only attest to what I've heard on talk radio -- public radio -- on both local and national shows, to wit: self-identified Democrats who support Obama saying that if HRC gets the nod, they will vote for McCain. I have heard this not once, not twice, not three times, but more times than I can count. Yes, they are delusional. Yes, they are scary. But they vote.
I have also heard a few, not as many, but a few, self-identified Republicans who support anybody-but-McCain say that they will vote for Obama.
So do all these people cancel each other out? God only knows.
Upshot: I found Krugman's piece rational and straightforward.
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | February 12, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Interestingly, I hated Frank Rich's piece on Sunday, because it struck me as an example of high Dowdism, an attack on the Clintons that was over the top as well.
I guess I'm in a plague on all your houses mode with respect to the pundits.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 12, 2008 at 09:44 PM
The liberal/progressive critique is that the Clintons failed because they move significantly to the Right on certain issues causing a loss of the Democratic base support and a loss downticket for Congress, State legislative seats, and governorships in the 1990's.
The move to the right wasn't until after the disasterous 1994 midterm elections. In subsequent elections Democrats did better than 1994, especially in 1998 when the President's party bucked tradition and gained seats in Congress. The liberal/progressive critique has no basis in actual events. I have lots of problems with the Clintons' policies and actions and I'm well to the left of either of them. But events do not allow me to think that it was their conservatism that made life hard for the Democrats. Good grief, doesn't anyone remember the 1990s anymore? The whole decade was one long propaganda push about how the Clintons were the most radical leftists since Marx himself.
I don't think the media is claiming the Republicans are united this cycle
Right after Super Tuesday there were articles in the NYT, WSJ and a few other places about this.
But during her tenure in the Senate, she has shown terrible judgment as to the most important issue of this decade.
I thought Krugman's piece yesterday was really ugly and totally lacking in facts. He seems a bit over the top to me in his attacks on Obama.
Krugman's a good guy, but he's also a print journalist unused to blog comments and high email volume. His initial "attacks" on Obama weren't anything of the sort, but the response was pretty strong. To him I'm sure the response seems over the top.
Yes, I agree. But the reason Obama wants to make this about Hillary's judgment is because since arriving in the Senate he hasn't done one damn thing about the Iraq War - and symbolic gestures like Jim Webb's and Jack Murtha's legislation are important. I'm glad that Obama was right about Iraq six years ago, but what has he done for us lately?
Bill Clinton could get a pass on the Jesse Jackson comment if HRC's campaign wasn't shoping the same garbage to the press on the same day (Obama is now "the black candidate").
An unsourced 3-word "quote" is good enough for you? Really?
Posted by: Stephen | February 12, 2008 at 11:06 PM
It's a hell of a thing when you can't post a comment on your own blog. Here's trying again:
The liberal/progressive critique is that the Clintons failed because they move significantly to the Right on certain issues causing a loss of the Democratic base support and a loss downticket for Congress, State legislative seats, and governorships in the 1990's.
The move to the right wasn't until after the disasterous 1994 midterm elections. In subsequent elections Democrats did better than 1994, especially in 1998 when the President's party bucked tradition and gained seats in Congress. The liberal/progressive critique has no basis in actual events. I have lots of problems with the Clintons' policies and actions and I'm well to the left of either of them. But events do not allow me to think that it was their conservatism that made life hard for the Democrats. Good grief, doesn't anyone remember the 1990s anymore? The whole decade was one long propaganda push about how the Clintons were the most radical leftists since Marx himself.
I don't think the media is claiming the Republicans are united this cycle
Right after Super Tuesday there were articles in the NYT, WSJ and a few other places about this.
But during her tenure in the Senate, she has shown terrible judgment as to the most important issue of this decade.
I thought Krugman's piece yesterday was really ugly and totally lacking in facts. He seems a bit over the top to me in his attacks on Obama.
Krugman's a good guy, but he's also a print journalist unused to blog comments and high email volume. His initial "attacks" on Obama weren't anything of the sort, but the response was pretty strong. To him I'm sure the response seems over the top.
Yes, I agree. But the reason Obama wants to make this about Hillary's judgment is because since arriving in the Senate he hasn't done one damn thing about the Iraq War - and symbolic gestures like Jim Webb's and Jack Murtha's legislation are important. I'm glad that Obama was right about Iraq six years ago, but what has he done for us lately?
Bill Clinton could get a pass on the Jesse Jackson comment if HRC's campaign wasn't shoping the same garbage to the press on the same day (Obama is now "the black candidate").
An unsourced 3-word "quote" is good enough for you? Really?
Posted by: Stephen | February 12, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Yeah, when the Guardian had the "imaginary black friend" quote from a Clinton aide and Clinton's pollster was on record saying that Hispanics won't vote for black people (in fact he even prefaced this by saying that he wanted to say this really carefully!), this is a pretty clear pattern.
Accusing the AP of lying isn't really adequate here. The quote wasn't exactly unsourced - it was sourced to the Clinton campaign. Did the Clinton folks dispute the accuracy of the story? If not, why not? Your explanation makes no sense. The simplest explanation is that these were the talking points and the whole point was to get the AP to print them. But, of course, you can always get around inconvinient data if you are willing to believe without any particular evidence that the journalist just fabricates quotes.
I think that some of the criticisms of the Clinton team were a bit unfair - Obama is running for President, so you have to be allowed to criticize him without being labeled a racist (even if an uncharitable observer could see racial subtext). But trying to paint him as "the black candidate" is pretty unacceptable. And that was clearly the strategy around the time of South Carolina.
This isn't rocket science. If people vote along racial and gender lines, Clinton wins rather easily since there are way more whites and Hispanics than blacks and significantly more women than men in the Democratic primary. Good thing it isn't working!
Posted by: ikl | February 13, 2008 at 01:30 AM
There's a clear pattern of statements from the Clinton campaign dismissing Obama and his victories based on race. You can ignore it if you want, but it's quite clear. One statement taken in isolation could be interpreted charitably but after month after month of repeated dog whistles denial is pointless.
Posted by: Ron | February 13, 2008 at 07:38 AM