If you have "no place to go," come here!

Sean Wilentz is not on the Obandwagon

Via the oddly hesitant Avedon, this from the excellent Sean Wilentz in TNR:

The Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.

Wilentz systematically demolishes Obama's entire disinformation campaign, including slime from the Drudge Report, but I'd like to quote just one incident with major implications for the general: the attack on Bill Clinton.

By the time the Obama campaign backed off from agitating the King-Johnson pseudo-scandal, it had already trained its sights on Bill Clinton--by far the most popular U.S. president among African Americans over the past quarter-century. Not only were Bill and Hillary supposedly ganging up on Obama in South Carolina--"I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama complained during the South Carolina debate--the former president was supposedly off on a race-baiting tear of his own. Yet, once again, the charges were either distortions or outright inventions.

The Obama campaign's "fairy tale" gambit was particularly transparent. Commenting on Obama's explanation of why he is more against the war in Iraq than Hillary Clinton, and disturbed by the news media's failure to report Obama's actual voting record on Iraq in the Senate, the former president referred to what had become the conventional wisdom as a "fairy tale" concocted by Obama and his supporters. Time to play the race-baiter card! One of Obama's most prominent backers, the mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin, stretched Clinton's remarks and implied that he had called Obama's entire candidacy a fairy tale. (The mayor later coyly told a reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that she had not intended to criticize Clinton: "Surely you don't mean he's the only one who can use the phrase 'fairy tale,'" Franklin said, in a tone that the reporter described as "mock indignation.") Appearing on CNN, one of its pundits, Donna Brazile, hurled the wild charge that Clinton had likened Obama to a child. "And I will tell you," she concluded, "as an African American I find his words and his tone to be very depressing." With those kinds of remarks--"as an African American"--the race card and the race-baiter card both came back into play. Although Brazile is formally not part of Obama's campaign, her comments made their way to the South Carolina memo, offered as evidence that Clinton's comment was racially insensitive.

On January 26, Obama won a major victory in South Carolina by gaining the overwhelming majority of the black vote and a much smaller percentage of the white vote, for a grand total of 55 percent. Although the turnout, of course, was much larger for the 2008 primaries than for any previous primary or caucus, Obama had assembled a victorious coalition analogous to that built by Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 South Carolina caucuses. (Bill Clinton won the 1992 state primary with 69 percent of the vote, far outstripping either Jackson's or Obama's percentages.)

When asked by a reporter on primary day why it would take two Clintons to beat Obama, the former president, in good humor, laughed and said that he would not take the bait:

Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice in '84 and '88 and he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign. He's run a good campaign everywhere. He's a good candidate with a good organization.

According to Obama and his supporters, here was yet another example of subtle race-baiting. Clinton had made no mention of race. But by likening Jackson's victories and Obama's impending victory and by praising Obama as a good candidate not simply in South Carolina but everywhere, Clinton was trying to turn Obama into the "black" candidate and racialize the campaign. Or so the pro-Obama camp charged.

Clinton's sly trick, supposedly, was to mention Jackson and no other Democrat who had previously prevailed in South Carolina--thereby demeaning Obama's almost certain victory as a "black" thing. But the fact remains that Clinton, who watches internal polls closely and is an astute observer, knew whereof he spoke: when the returns were counted, Obama's and Jackson's percentages of the overall vote and the key to their victories--a heavy majority among blacks--truly were comparable. The only other Democrats Clinton could have mentioned would have been himself (who won more than two-thirds of the vote in 1992, far more than either Jackson or Obama) and John Edwards (who won only 45 percent in 2004, far less than either Jackson or Obama). Given the differences, given that by mentioning himself, Clinton could have easily been criticized for being self-congratulatory, and given that Edwards had not yet dropped out of the 2008 race, the omissions were not at all surprising. By mentioning Jackson alone, the former president was being accurate--and, perhaps, both modest and polite. But Obama's supporters willfully hammered him as a cagey race-baiter.

And much, much more.

Let's step back. I keep hearing all this bullshit about Unity, and Change, and Transformation, and how Obama's going to campaign for a broad mandate, and a super-majority, and a landslide, and yadda yadda yadda.

Yet Obama just slashed-and-burned one of the most popular Democrats in the country--and a proven campaigner--with the most toxic, the most incendiary charge that there is: Racism.

How does jibe with Unity?

Answer: It doesn't.

How does that jibe with Change?

Answer: It doesn't.

How does that jibe with Transformation?

Answer: It doesn't.

If Obama really wants that landslide mandate his supporters claim, then smearing The Clintons so badly that they'd be a liability in the general is not the way.

No votes yet


Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

...not to discredit the Clintons.

I just posted this in the comments at Balloon Juice... basically, after Iowa, it was obvious that Obama was going to win, and win big, in SC on the strength of black support. After New Hampshire, the Obama campaign knew it had to make the "race issue" radioactive to prevent him from being labelled 'the black candidate'.
The “race card” didn’t lead to the Obama victory in SC, nor is it responsible for the problems in the clinton campaign.

The reason that the Obama campaign played the race card was to prevent his victory in South Carolina from being credited to his support among blacks—by making the race issue radioactive, his campaign managed to keep the media from telling the truth that Bill Clinton told—that his victory looked just like Jesse Jackson’s.

If you look at's chart of SC polls, you will notice that Obama had opened up a substantial lead in SC well before the ‘race card’ controversy took off.

Now lets compare four polls from the same company Survey USA

Nov. 9-11, 07 —Clinton up by 14 pts statewide
Statewide (C 47% E 10% O 33%)
Blacks (C 39% E 3% O 52%)
Whites (C 55% E 17% O 15%)

Dec 7-12, 07—Clinton up by 4 pts statewide
Statewide (C 44% E 11% O 40%)
Blacks (C 39% E 2% O 56%)
Whites (C 51% E 23% O 19%)

Jan. 4-6, 08 (Jan 3 Iowa primary)—Clinton down by 20 pts statewide
Statewide (C 30% E 16% O 50%)
Blacks (C 23% E 4% O 69%)
Whites (C 38% E 28% O 29%)

Jan 16-17, 08 (after NH..and ‘the race card’ controversy bloomed) Obama leads by 10
Statewide (C 36% E 15% O46%)
Blacks (C 20% E 3% O 74%)
Whites (C 50% E 26% O 22%)

Jan 23-24 (right before SC primary)
Statewide (C 30% E 24% O 43%)
Blacks (C 18% E 6% O 73%)
Whites (C 38% E 38% O 21%)

This looks to me that Clinton was fading in SC well before the Iowa caucus (between Nov and Dec)... but among white voters, not black voters. Obama took the lead right after he proved he was “for real” by winning in the Iowa caucuses—13% of black voters shift from Clinton to Obama, creating a commanding lead among black voters for Obama. 10% of white voters also shifted from Clinton to Obama, but she still held the lead there by 11 pts. Then New Hampshire happens, and the “race card” starts getting played… noting much happens in terms of black support, but Clinton rebounds in terms of white support, while Obama loses 25% of his white support. Then the “race card” controversy fades after Obama finally says there was nothing “racial” in Clinton’s comments on (Jan 20th, IIRC)

Now, if you look at those Jan 4-6 numbers, what you are seeing is the impact of the “Iowa bump”. You are also seeing an Obama win, and a big win at that, based on 3-1 support over Clinton among blacks.

And that’s why Obama had to play ‘the race card’. Not to win—the controversy didn’t have much impact among the black vote, but clearly hurt him with white voters—but to make it impossible for people to point out that he won in SC because of the black vote.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

victory. I'm sure everyone is aware for the reasons he did it and his reasons were racist. He was diminishing the importance of his support in the African American community, simply because that community is African American. He didn't want white Americans to be aware that he had won that constituency overwhelmingly - he threw African Americans under the bus for the fact of their race.

It's so sad. Kinda like Clarence Thomas' sister whom he repeatedly insulted to distance himself from her - condemning her for waiting for her welfare check while not pointing out that he and his brother, unlike the sister had been taken from their parents home and put in private schools in New Orleans. And further, pointing out the reason for the welfare check is that she was stuck at home caretaking two elderly relatives that would have cost the county far more to put in a home.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

BA, I wasn't trying to excuse the Obama campaign's behavior -- I just happen to think that Wilentz's explanation for why it was done is flawed.

My analysis of the available data suggests that the controversy didn't hurt Clinton all that much at the polls -- maybe she would have won Missouri by a small margin without it. The most significant wounds to the Clinton campaign are self-inflicted -- ignoring what Obama was doing in the caucus states, and the states in the week after ST.

What the race-baiting did accomplished was making it impossible to question whether race remains an important enough factor to have a significant impact on the General Election campaign, and ensure that no one

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

The facts, including numeric ones, are that after painting the Clintons as racist, they became in the media and otherwise the only obstacle between Obama and paradise. Following the blogs, for instance, one can see the turning of Drum, Kos and other into strong supporters of Obama. Many of them started to decry Bill's rudeness and unacceptable language.

The fact that Hillary's campaign did little after ST, doesn't imply that she would have won otherwise. The margins would have been smaller, but the so called "consensus" was, and is, that the Clintons are beyond the pale.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Gregory was definitely NOT bashing the Clintons; he was taking the black community to task. Bill Clinton never said he was "the first black president" and has demurred every time he's been asked about it. That came out of the black commentator community and got picked up by the MSM because it is one of those cutesy catch-phrases they can't resist. And it was that same black commentator community that questioned whether Obama was "black enough." How bizarre. White is black, but black is not? What is in that Malt Liquor?

Gregory's point, as always, is that the black community needs to take care of their own business if they want it to be taken care of, and with the Malt Liquor hyperbole that the power structure - in this country, a white power structure - is not only going to be unwilling to help but will actively conspire to hold black people, all poor people, down.

This is not news, but it some how still needs to be repeated because it doesn't ever get heard by those who need to hear it the most. Malt liquor is a poison in the black community, the money spent goes to the white power structure and not back into the black community and the effect is drunkenness, irresponsibility and violence. Gregory is saying to spend that money on something that benefits yourself, your own family, your own community, and stop squandering hard-earned cash on poison.

Dick Gregory tells the truth, even when he goes over the top to do it. Thanks OxyCon, for the link; I laughed my ass off.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and can't be a help to him in the General--which is a giant mistake whether intentional or not.

It's damaging to all Democrats--one of many actions by Obama that hurt the entire party. He's a movement of one, for one.