I find the idea that the Clintons have “played the race card”—which is now established as one of the stylised facts of this election—hard to understand. It is never defended in detail. The case is advanced as a matter of deduction rather than fact. The logic seems to be that race has become a big issue in the Democratic primaries, and that this will mainly help the Clintons in future primaries; therefore, it is all a Clinton plot. I have no instinctive affinity with the Clintons’ campaign—but I think the accusation is wrong.
Consider Dick Morris’s analysis, “In Contrast to Obama, Hillary Plays the Race Card”—one of the articles that got this whole thing started. His only specific instance of card playing was this:
They embarked on a strategy of talking about race -- mentioning Martin Luther King Jr., for example -- and asking their surrogates to do so as well. They have succeeded in making an election that was about gender and age into one that is increasingly about race.
He goes on:
It does not matter which specific reference to race can be traced to whom. Obama's campaign has resisted any temptation to campaign on race and, for an entire year, kept the issue off the front pages. Now, at the very moment that the crucial voting looms, the election is suddenly about race. Obviously, it is the Clintons' doing. Remember the adage: Who benefits?
I can see why Morris does not want to go into “which specific reference can be traced to whom”. Specific references that prove the point are difficult to find.
Some commentators accused Bill of playing the race card when he called Obama’s account of his position on the Iraq war a “fairy tale”. How so? What did that have to do with race? And does Hillary’s comment about King, the only instance Morris bothers to offer, even qualify? She merely said that getting the job done required a can-do president as well as an inspiring and visionary champion. And so it did. I cannot see that this subtracts anything from King’s stature, or that it was intended to. Whatever its merits, this is the Clintons’ old theme, not a sinister new one: if elected, she would hit the ground running, whereas the inexperienced Obama would be out of his depth. It took a hyper-sensitive press to turn that comment into a racial slur.
By all means, do what Morris suggests and ask who benefits. Can it seriously be contended that the Clintons thought to advance their campaign (yes, “their” campaign) by alienating black support—that the crushing defeat in South Carolina is something, as Morris seems to believe, they actually sought? The idea is ridiculous. Obama’s remarkable gathering of solid black support to his cause is a big and unexpected setback for the Clintons. Of course, now that it has happened, they must make the best of it. It is a tactical imperative for them to play down Obama’s victory in South Carolina, and the only way to do that is to help the press notice (not that they needed much help) that Obama won there because of the black vote; therefore, things will not be so easy for him in California or New York. Again, this is true.
Yes, race is an issue in this election; self-evidently, it is an issue, and contrary to what Morris says, it has been from the beginning. And this is as it should be. The fact that Obama is black gives hope that he might help to heal America’s racial wounds. This is a huge part of his appeal to both blacks and whites. It is not racist to notice--and then welcome--the fact that Obama is black. When you accuse somebody of playing the race card, you accuse them of making an appeal to bigotry. That is an entirely different thing.
Granted, if the Clintons thought they could secure the nomination by appealing to bigots, I dare say they would. But so far as I can see, they have not, and to me that looks like good judgment on their part, certainly so far as the Democratic electorate goes. If there is an element of the Democratic Party that objects to Obama because he is black—an element likely to respond to an appeal to bigotry—those voters have already noticed, I suppose, that Obama is a black man, and will need no further persuasion to vote for Clinton or Edwards. As for the rest, black and white alike, the race card repels, and playing it would be a losing strategy.
What of the view that the Clintons are playing a subtler game--telling Democratic voters that Obama's race would put him at a disadvantage in the general election? On grounds of electability in the nation at large, they should go for Hillary. Might that be the calculation? Hardly. Obama is doing at least as well as Hillary in head-to-head polls against the leading Republicans. So far as the general election goes, Hillary is probably the bigger risk. I cannot believe that it helps the Clintons to have the primary electorate think that far ahead.
I think the press played the race card, not the Clintons.
"Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when Clinton's veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."
That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, "In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone."
The Clinton campaign's assertion that Latinos historically haven't voted for black candidates is divisive -- and false.
by Gregory Rodriguez
January 28, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez28jan28,0,1688217.column
"If a Hillary Clinton campaign official told a reporter that white voters never support black candidates, would the media have swallowed the message whole? What if a campaign pollster began whispering that Jews don't have an "affinity" for African American politicians? Would the pundits have accepted the premise unquestioningly?
"The Clintons attempted to make South Carolina a 'Black thing' they underestimated both the intellect and evolution of the southern state."
Remember, when the politically correct use the term racist, they simply mean white Gentiles who discriminate.
It is a kind of racial slur given selectively to white Gentiles.
"I hate racists" translates to "I hate honkys!"
I agree that the MLK reference though maladroit was not racist (but see below). Neither was Bill playing the race card with his fairy tale comment.
However, several Clinton surrogates (such as Bendixen, Robert Johnson, that guy she fired and perhaps Cuomo Jr.) have made troubling statements from a racial perspective. Then came Bill's comment about Jesse Jackson, a candidate from 20 years ago who shares virtually nothing in common with Barack other than race. At this stage, it seems very hard to believe that the Clinton campaign is not attempting to "remind" voters that Obama is black. I find it very troubling. I'm not sure what the political scheme is behind it, perhaps it is aimed at Latinos.
As a side issue re MLK, Clinton did not simply say "getting the job done required a can-do president as well as an inspiring and visionary champion." She accuses Obama of raising false hopes and then said, in essence, that MLK's dream was just a dream until LBJ made it a reality. Why? I don't know. Who wants to be LBJ to her opponent's MLK in a Democractic primary?
But when taken within the context of her larger argument that Obama is all show, no subtance, I think she clearly implied that LBJ was the critical actor. Not racist, but an underestimation of MLK and a political gaffe.
Chunche: Thanks, I should have mentioned the Jesse Jackson remark. That did jar. But it came after South Carolina was lost; it was not part of a premeditated strategy to win the nomination by losing a race-driven contest. I'm not sure whether the Clintons are now deliberately reminding people that Obama is black--beyond trying to play down the SC defeat, as I said in the post. What would be the rationale? For most people, it's good that he is black. And voters who object to his race presumably need no reminding of his color.
Dead on. Thanks so much for noticing this. Good to hear it coming from someone who isn't just a Clinton-pusher. But that's just what I was thinking today.
"The logic seems to be that race has become a big issue in the Democratic primaries, and that this will mainly help the Clintons in future primaries; therefore, it is all a Clinton plot."
Exactly.
Race is a part of this campaign.It is a fact! and people who strive to be politically correct at all cost are not being honest.However I have noticed WHO is playing what cards. Obama brought on Oprah, who choose to quote MLK at every opportunity( biggest women's celebrity in the world, black , quoting a black hero,no race card there!)Meanwhile Obama's wife is speaking to black groups and saying things like she wonders"how many little black girls will not see their dreams fulfilled", not little girls but little black girls.And the Clintons are accused of playing the race card???? Lets get real!
Thanks, Clive. I see the potential distinciton between a comment trying to spin a loss in South Carolina and those generally within a campaign. I also agree (or at least hope) that a racial strategy would likely backfire, in a Democratic primary especially.
However, not every political strategy is ultimately successful (see Rudy's "wait to Florida" approach or perhaps even putting race aside Bill as attack dog). And Benedixen has articulated at least one potential reason that the Clintons might seek to emphasize that Obama is black, to gain ground with Latinos. Perhaps a similar rational works with some whites, particularly in the South or among the lower working class. I am from a small town in Texas and can tell you that race remains a relatively big issue for a number of people, including Dems.
Given Bill's comments and the consistency of the surrogates statements, I can't conclude that this is simply a media-driven story.
Do you think it odd that, when Bill Clinton was asked after the primary about Obama's win, he referenced Jesse Jackson's win in 1988 and Sharpton's later good showing, but forgot about Edwards win in '04, Gore in '00 and, for that matter, his own wins in '96 and '92.
It seems pretty obvious that Clinton is trying hard to equate Obama's win to the large number of African American voters in S.C., i.e., he only won because he is the Black candidate.
The drug dealer comments were nasty and their unauthorized status is purely retrospective.
The 'shuck and jive' wasn't pretty, and was clearly racially evocative.
The Jesse Jackson comment was clear, and completely unnecessary.
How about Mark Penn wondering aloud on "Hardball" whether Obama "dealt drugs" as a teenager? How about Clinton surrogate Bob Kerrey talking about "Barak Hussein Obama" being educated in a secular maadrasa (whatever that means)?
This campaign have been blowing racist dog whistles for months.
How about top Clinton strategist Mark Penn wondering aloud on "Hardball" whether Obama "dealt drugs" as a teenager? How about Clinton surrogate Bob Kerrey talking about "Barak Hussein Obama" being educated in a secular maadrasa (whatever that means)?
This campaign have been blowing racist dog whistles for months.
Morris: "They have succeeded in making an election that was about GENDER and AGE into one that is increasingly about RACE." (emphasis added)
There it is in a nutshell: According to Morris and others, pointing out that Hillary is a woman is not sexist; pointing out that McCain is elderly is not ageist; but pointing out that Obama is black is racist.
I just assumed the subtext of Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment was clear. What Clinton was clearly saying was "any black guy can win this state -- it doesn't mean he'll with the 'important' (i.e. white) states."
It's truly amazing how people forget the last 25 years of Democratic Party politics. The original rationale for the DLC/Clinton axis (beginning in 1985) was to marginalize the grass roots of the party -- which at the time was personified by Jackson. Marginalize Jackson and you marginalize the social movements which supported him and his Rainbow Coalition.
BC was simply reverting to an old tic. Only now, the black man has changed and the organization of the Dem Party grass roots have changed. But, let's not forget that it is same story, different day.
Thank you Mr. Crook for your reasoned stance. But I also agree with Ellen that plenty of people don't hesitate to compare Obama to Martin Luther King.
Which, I can understand, from the Clinton's perspective, hardly seems fair.
Obama has certainly not risked life and limb, nor has he had to overcome overwhelming hostility in order to get where he is today. He went to a prep school in Hawii, is a natural born leader, went to Columbia, and was head of Harvard Law Review, and was paid to write an autobiography, all of which suggest that his abilities and talents were recognized and appreciated by those around him.
Bill Clinton's grew up in an environment that was decidedly more blue collar and less supportive than Obama's. The experience of growing up in a home with an alcoholic, violent person marks you for life.
Hillary has also faced discrimination in her life, growing up in an era when expectations for women were minimal.
So, some people will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, some people will vote for Obama because he is black. Each candidate is going to play up whatever they thinks benefits them. That's politics.
Thank you Mr. Crook for your reasoned stance. But I also agree with Ellen that plenty of people don't hesitate to compare Obama to Martin Luther King.
Which, I can understand, from the Clinton's perspective, hardly seems fair.
Obama has certainly not risked life and limb, nor has he had to overcome overwhelming hostility in order to get where he is today. He went to a prep school in Hawii, is a natural born leader, went to Columbia, and was head of Harvard Law Review, and was paid to write an autobiography, all of which suggest that his abilities and talents were recognized and appreciated by those around him.
Bill Clinton's grew up in an environment that was decidedly more blue collar and less supportive than Obama's. The experience of growing up in a home with an alcoholic, violent person marks you for life.
Hillary has also faced discrimination in her life, growing up in an era when expectations for women were minimal.
So, some people will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, some people will vote for Obama because he is black. Each candidate is going to play up whatever they thinks benefits them. That's politics.
It's an established fact that the Clintons have been playing the race card. It's their supposed version of hardball. The media is just reporting the facts.
I observe that a well-heeled corporate media has successfully distracted voters with 'race' and 'gender' canards, so as to further distract voters from the class warfare of the last seven years from which they have, to date, prospered. Many in the MSM are not about to rationally discuss candidates that will not serve their own economic self-interest, hence the enthusiasm for Republican power players even when 'disenchanted' with the current president. The MSM know it can shape these discussions in ways that serve them even if it does not serve the interests of its audience.
Obama, and his supporters are being played. Seeing an opportunity for self-promotion he reluctantly shies away from the disingenuous 'support'. It would serve the American electorate and the candidates to regard such 'support' cautiously.
I found this article from another link. Thank you for honest insight.
I find the idea of the Clinton's playing the race card as offensive as Obama is the next JFK/MLK. Please. Both are media driven and in Obama's case aid him the most. What's he going to do when he can't play the Hillary hate card anymore? If Bill Clinton doesn't campaign for him or does it half heartily, I know exactly the kind of whining we will be hearing. From both the Obama camps and the media.
Clintons not playing the race card? Sorry, they have, over and over. HRC: "He hasn't done the spade work" (maybe that's too subtle?) HRC: the MLK Jr. comment, followed by Bill's "clumsy spin" on Jesse Jackson? In the elegant words of WJC, "Give me a break." Barack's similarity to MLK Jr. and JJ is his skin color. How about Andrew Cuomo's "Shuckin' an' jivin'" remark? The Clinton's talk of the slumlord in Chicago. Sheehan's talk about cocaine (not heroin!) snorting and dealing. The Clintons injected and keep pumping the race and gender issues into the campaign, even when HRC says how wonderful it is that a black and a woman are competing. If she gets all the women and he gets all the blacks, who wins? She won't get all the woomen - by a lot, and he will get more than only the blacks. Jesse Jackson didn't win Maine as I recall.
Professor Krugman, I've written you many times in praise of your liberal economics and political stands. But on this one you're dead wrong.
On Krugman, since he seems to have disabled comments for today:
"What do we have here? MLK/LBJ — but that was totally innocent."
How do you know? You have a worrying certititude with no evidence to back it up.
Hardly convincing stuff for people who expect rational arguments, not declarations of faith.
Furthermore, just because the media "hates" the Clintons (another item of faith we must swallow without evidence-- they seemed to eat up her crying in NH), doesn't mean she's virtuous and can't be criticized.
Her shenanigans in the Michigan primary, for instance, or pandering on sacred first ammendment issues (flag burning) are truly disgraceful. I guess she gets a pass on these and we're supposed to feel sorry for her and she can do no wrong, all because the rightwing is 'out to get her'.
When people start talking about hating xxx it means that xxx is otherwise indefensible. Lots of folks talk about "hating" George Bush; I suspect Professor Krugman has been accused of that. Now there's so much talk about hating HRC. How about thinking about why GB and HRC are drawing that kind of sentiment? Could it be because they have been doing hateful things?
The blogs on the NYT hold many many entries that run, "I've been a Democrat all my life but I can't vote for HRC if she wins the nomination." I've posted a couple too. It's because her campaign has practiced a long list of low-down tricks that have been well-documented. I for one hate, really hate, being lied to, and Bush first and now HRC have done that repeatedly. It's pointless for me to hate them, and I don't think that way. But I do hate their lies, and I oppose both of them.
Prompted by Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece and blog today claiming venom from Barck Obama's supporters with regard to Hillary Clinton's campaign and alledged race baiting--which Krugman attributes actually to the media--I've just watched the YouTube video of the question and answer that started this conversation about MLK and LBJ. It is the reporter who picked the segment mentioning King, which was one of several illustrations of "hope" in Obama's stump speeches, to quote back to Senator Clinton. I see no racist intent in her response, nor do I see it as a deviation of her "experience matters" campaign stance. And strategically, one never wants to add complexity to an argument that would cede ground to one's opponent. But her response does echo a patronizing history of majority privilege. It does seem to reinforce the division of labor, that the marginalized should continue to campaign for their goals outside the system and that change is only achieved when an insider, a beneficiary of long established hierarchies decides to ratify the outsiders' ambition. Couple that with former President Clinton's mention of Jesse Jackson's wins in South Carolina, excluding mentions of his own win or John Edwards win or Al Sharpton's loss and you get a picture of Black leaders as marginal outsiders at the very least.
Is that playing the race card intentionally or does it speak to a deeper status quo mindset that views Blacks as inspirational figures but not worthy of consideration for administrative leadership? I don't believe that Hillary isn't sincerely inspired when she realizes that there is an African-American man next to a European-American woman on the stage next to her running to lead the nation. But I do believe that her drive for the office may blind her to the some of the slights people who are not European-American feel everyday. And I'm clearly aware that in my editing of this comment, I went back to insert the word "man" after "African-American" and I inserted "European-American" before the word "woman." Is it a given that a person running for President is a man? And is it a given that a woman running for President is white? Changing our collective assumptions about people in this world should be a vital project for the "Leader of the Free World." It should result in strengthening our international image as well as creating a climate for greater security for us domestically. I think all should avoid using "Missus Clinton" in reference to Clinton as much as all should avoid efforts to attach marginalized Black leaders to Obama, as Bill Clinton has done. Overall I believe that Senator Obama is better positioned to change collective assumptions. However inspirational is her potential to break the glass ceiling, Senator Clinton and her team seem too locked into past divisions of patronage based on race, class and other privilege to offer as effective leadership to a diverse nation and world. If you are baited, it's your responsibility as a leader neither to bite, nor deepen the divide by short sighted or misleading comments. Obama will be tested and baited by the media as the Democratic candidate for President. It is unknown how he will respond to the "Clinton Rules." But we do know that in her self-touted vetting process, Senator Clinton and President Clinton have both failed.
Are they race-baiting intentionally? Probably not initially. Are they trying to capitalize on racial politics? You decide. (Frank Rich seems to think so.)
Two comments for Jason.
1. Media Matters, which has been scrupulously neutral between Clinton and Obama, has debunked virtually all of the claims about the Clintons supposedly having played the race card. You may want to check them out. They have an excellent search engine which will let you research each of the supposed race card plays in depth.
2. Frank Rich's approach to politics is that it's little more than a branch of show business. While there is some superficial truth in this, accepting that equation the way Rich -- and Maureen Dowd -- does leads to the sort of narcissistic and personality/character rather than issues oriented writing. And it really is a canard or an admission of a lack of knowledge to insist, as Rich does explicitly, that there are only "marginal" differences between Clinton and Obama on some key issues: e.g., health care insurance reform being one of the more significant ones. By the way, Rich's issues-lite approach -- and Dowd's as well for that matter -- had him venomously snarking Al Gore back in 2000 and giving George Bush a pass. It's all there online for your viewing pleasure at nytimes.com. Now that really worked out well for all of us, didn't it?
I am, by the way, an Edwards supporter who has switched to Clinton primarily because of the health care issue. She simply understands what is at stake in this issue. Obama, unfortunately, does not have as firm a grip and has backed himself into a corner from which he will, arguably, not be able to emerge. And authentic health care reform will, as a result, be set back for another generation.
Responding to billyblog: Possibly Mrs. Clinton understands what's at stake in the health care issue. It's a pity she didn't understand sufficiently in 1993, after 20 of the 35 years' experience she's so quick to claim, to develop and sell the plan. "We will demonize" is not an attitude that succeeds; it clearly didn't then, and her "some of us are right and some of us are wrong" statements today show she hasn't learned much about how to be politically effective. Her campaign has swerved from "I'm strong enough" to "I'm sensitive enough" (complete with tears) to Bill is my attack dog to Bill is leashed and muzzled.
I'm for Obama. Sure I would be happier if he had another decade of experience, but I'm impressed as hell at how he has conducted himself and his campaign. I've watched Mrs. Clinton's campaign and I'm not impressed, but depressed, at the lack of moral base in this candidate.
Thanks billyblog and Mr. Attanasio. I appreciate both of your responses and my take falls somewhere in between the two views you express. I loved Frank Rich as a media critic and I enjoy Maureen Dowd's columns for their entertainment value as much as her political insights. My 80s educated EU styled socialist spirit believes that we should unquestionably have and work for universal health care. And my political experience as an elected official with a constituency of 20,000 at a major university leads me to believe that Clinton's leadership style--as evinced by her campaign's missteps--is counterproductive to a goal of unifying a diverse population. That same experience makes me fear for a naive sense of possibility for simply a positive message of hope.
But my point is not Mr. Rich's breakdown and cries of cynical manipulation on the part of the Clintons. It is in the deeper message of an uncritical view of racial codification in the way issues are framed in this battle. Like the announcer, Kelly Tilghman, on the Golf Channel who was recently reprimanded for suggesting players "lynch [Tiger Woods] in a back alley," public figures have a responsibility to know the power of words and symbols. Remember George Bush's "crusade?" That's why I say we should be conscious of using the word "missus" as we should be aware that associating dissimilar figures as Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama is offensive to communities that we would like to bring together. It also plays subtly on historic ingrained hierarchies which lead to disunity.
This is not a colorblind world. This is not a sexism free world. We have free speech. However the leaders of our nation must understand the weight of their own speech and symbolism if they are to lead us to a world where classifications of humans based on race and sex (and religion and sexual orientation) aren't subject to the hierarchy of power that has at its top the Anglo Heterosexual Male.
I never want to hear another round of "Why do they hate us?" throughout our nation. No one deserves to be hated for their ignorance. But I believe we can be a better nation if we understand and acknowledge reasons symbols of our cultural power, as individuals and a nation, can inspire ire in people historically marginalized. That's what I think the Clintons and Mr. Krugman are missing in their analysis of this conversation.
"Granted, if the Clintons thought they could secure the nomination by appealing to bigots, I dare say they would."
It's a good write-up, totally dead-on, but why should we grant that? I would consider it extremely unlikely no matter how much political benefit could come out of it. That sounds like a cheap or at least thoughtless token to match the cynicism of "the other side," and not to be thought childishly sunny.
Assemble the mass of evidence for this assumption, please.
Look over the comments on this post for the last three months and you might see a microcosm of the Democratic race thus far: A debate that wants to be about something specific and relevant ("Does the media dictate to us when we believe the race card has been played?"), then devolving into something general and meaningless ("Why do we like Obama over Clinton, or Clinton over Obama?")
Thanks, Clive, for your insightful comments about the race card. If you really want to see true examples of when the race card was played, see this interesting UC Berkeley report "Race Bait '08"
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/ewi/research_racebait.html
(full disclosure, I am a co-author, so this is a bit of a plug).
Compared to the "Dirty Dozen" cases of race-baiting we cover in this report, Clinton's comments might as well be her whispering sweet nothings to Obama.
When there is no real incentive for the Clintons to use race (any political observer worth his/her salt could see it would immediately backfire), if the "reasonable person" cannot see any real race-baiting just because Bill or Hillary happens to bring up a past or present African-American leader in a sentence, and if it was clearly the punditry that was waiting to pounce on anything remotely racial just to get people to keep watching/reading them, then what other logical explanation is there except that this "race-card" thing is a media-generated phenomenon?
No one is saying race is not a part of this campaign, of course it is. The question is whether either of the Democratic candidates have tried to use it for political advantage with public attacks (forget about pollsters and strategists, they are ALWAYS looking at the racial angle of votes and opinion, even if it blinds them sometimes). The answer to this questions is a resounding no. The media ought to be taken to task for this, but no one has had the courage to do so yet.