January 13, 2008
Is Hillary About to Play the Race Card?
Via TPM Cafe, Marjorie Valbrun in the Washington Post?
Last month, William Shaheen, a political surrogate for Clinton, was quoted publicly peddling concerns about Obama's admitted past drug use and intimating that Republicans -- not, heaven forbid, candidate Clinton herself -- would raise questions about it if Obama was nominated.
Shaheen, who was co-chairman of the New Hampshire campaign but has since resigned, told The Post: "It'll be: 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."
What's harder to overcome is the idea that these patently insincere sentiments about Obama -- coming from an experienced political adviser working for a tightly controlled and heavily scripted campaign -- weren't part of a deliberate attempt to paint the Illinois senator as a stereotypical black drug dealer.
Clinton herself has made racially tinged comments that could be taken as either insensitive or patronizing. The most widely noticed was in her efforts to dismiss Obama's talk of "hope" and "change" as empty idealism. In doing so, she offhandedly diminished the important role played by Martin Luther King Jr. in pushing America to meet its promise of equality for millions of black Americans. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."
In other words, "I have a dream" is a nice sentiment, but King couldn't make it reality. It took a more practical and, of course, white president, Lyndon Johnson, to get blacks to the mountaintop. Of course no black man could have hoped to be president 44 years ago. And, for that matter, neither could any woman.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 12:27 PM | Permalink





Comments
It seems then that no matter what on e says, he or she is called anti-woman, or racist, or this or that. We are so quick to look for possible implications, and thus we assume Hillary is playing a race card but when a black uses race to his advantage, we claim he is using a race card. Hilary ciried: SHE GOT VOTES OF SUPPORT FROM WOMEN? OR SHE SHOWED HEREMOTIONALSIDE? OR IT WAS FAKED...underline one or all
Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 13, 2008 12:57:03 PM
Don't you just love it when an essayist uses the phrase "in other words" after quoting someone else? It's a hatchet job, a way to put into someone else's mouth unsavory words that they never actually said.
Posted by: Eric | Jan 13, 2008 2:21:14 PM
An excellent short piece on why the Clintons cannot be trusted not to play the race card this year, as well as on how they have played it up to now -- not just with innuendo, but with money.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 13, 2008 5:50:20 PM
I cannot help thinking this is just preemptive self-protection from Obama and his supporters. Why should Obama's drug usage, after all, be any more off-limits than Clinton's or Bush's?
Posted by: D | Jan 13, 2008 5:57:45 PM
Well, Bush's drug use was never discussed, was it? We only heard about Jim Beam.
I agree with Elatia. The Clintons already have and will use the race card. Hillary's patronizing comment about MLK & LBJ is a dead giveaway of what she really thinks.
Also, when she shed her now famous tears in New Hampshire, (“I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not.”) you'd have noticed that through her hushed tone and soft expression, she was still beating her own drum and putting down her opponent. She said that she didn't want to see the country which had given her so much " fall backward." What did that mean? She couldn't have been talking of the Republicans because at that moment her mind was on the primary and therefore on Obama. So Obama will take the country backward? Why didn't we see HRC shed a single tear in the last seven years when Bush-Cheney gleefully dragged the country backward and through the dirt?
Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 13, 2008 8:37:50 PM
At risk, as always, of sounding like a sister act, I must urge readers to think hard about Ruchira's analysis, above, of Hillary's words. If -- IF -- Hillary had not been cynically intending to play on white America's fears of "falling backwards" -- that's what minorities do, in their perpetual struggle to match the Euro-American standard of living -- then she would indeed have observed we had fallen backward enough, all of us, in the Bush years. Don't let the tears and the suggestion of an unscripted cri de coeur fool you -- that was race talk, clever, shameful, and deniable.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 13, 2008 9:02:49 PM
The teeth sucking she does at the intro and outro to that little tear-jerker is indicative at least to me of rehearsed speech made to look off the cuff. It's a very self-conscious and affected mannerism. Like calling in sick for work, telling so-and-so that you're ill and for some reason you've always gotta add in that little cough or sniffle. Anyhow, for those that heard about it but missed it here is the bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq9wAHk-S_A
She doesn't even really cry, it's just that the emotion of her fear of the country falling backwards and being led by incompetence like any working mother of a wayward teen falling in with the wrong friends. It's hard work people, the woman tries to work out, tries to eat right, but pizza and being the easiest of foods just you know... *sniff
What mother doesn't want the best for her kids... er I mean country?
Posted by: N Miller | Jan 14, 2008 8:34:29 AM
As an American living abroad, I would like to formally ask that Clinton, Obama, and the media stop the pointless bickering and get back to talking with substance. Amazingly, the real world continues to slowly collapse as they try and figure out who is offended more by relatively minor comments.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Jan 15, 2008 4:31:15 PM
I wish I could take the credit, but sadly the change in tone in last night's debate probably had nothing to do with my comment. Anyway, happy the candidates tried to get back to business.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Jan 16, 2008 12:12:27 PM
Stewart gets it right, as usual.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147886&title=the-race-card&byDate=true
Posted by: anon | Jan 17, 2008 3:52:23 AM
Bill Moyers too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFlXpoA-MQY
Posted by: anon | Jan 18, 2008 7:34:25 PM
Probably. She speaks out of both sides of her mouth.
She told Americans in 06 she'd cut back on outsourcing in India. Alarmed, the Indians addressed this when she went there. She assured them she would not cut back at all, but instead would actually increase outsourcing to India.
so, who is shy lying to ? us or them?
Posted by: MaxBe | Jan 19, 2008 4:43:48 PM
Anon:
Much as I like Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers, neither of them gets it in this case.
What Hillary said is true of 1965 and LBJ and MLK. In those virulent racist times, it was indeed only possible for a white male President to pass the Civil Rights Act. No one has faulted her on the facts.
The question is of innuendo. Is what was true in '65 also true now - in 2008? Does a black man or woman still need the patronage of a white person in power to right all wrongs? Moreover Obama is not aspiring to be an outside agitator, threatening to march in the streets like MLK did. He is running for president. So, it is a false analogy and yes, a sly one.
Don't worry, Clinton will win the nomination. There are just not enough older "liberal" baby boomers who can jump this last hurdle of their discomfort yet.
But give the Clintons credit. They not only can speak from both sides of their mouths, they can also posture from both sides of the power divide. Today in Nevada, even before the Caucuses were under way, the Clinton camp played the classic victim by accusing the Obama camp of voter suppression!
Another curious thing. Four Democratic senators from the very red states of S. Dakota, N. Dakota, Nebraska and Missouri and the governor of Arizona have endorsed Obama. Two of these five people are also women. They all know the two candidates and I doubt that they are on a suicide mission. What does that say about Obama? More importantly, what does it say about the Clintons who have been the stars of the Democratic Party for more than a decade?
Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 19, 2008 10:02:27 PM
Anon:
Much as I like Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers, neither of them gets it in this case.
What Hillary said is true of 1965 and LBJ and MLK. In those virulent racist times, it was indeed only possible for a white male President to pass the Civil Rights Act. No one has faulted her on the facts.
The question is of innuendo. Is what was true in '65 also true now - in 2008? Does a black man or woman still need the patronage of a white person in power to right all wrongs? Moreover Obama is not aspiring to be an outside agitator, threatening to march in the streets like MLK did. He is running for president. So, it is a false analogy and yes, a sly one.
Don't worry, Clinton will win the nomination. There are just not enough older "liberal" baby boomers who can jump this last hurdle of their discomfort yet.
But give the Clintons credit. They not only can speak from both sides of their mouths, they can also posture from both sides of the power divide. Today in Nevada, even before the Caucuses were under way, the Clinton camp played the classic victim by accusing the Obama camp of voter suppression!
Another curious thing. Four Democratic senators from the very red states of S. Dakota, N. Dakota, Nebraska and Missouri and the governor of Arizona have endorsed Obama. Two of these five people are also women. They all know the two candidates and I doubt that they are on a suicide mission. What does that say about Obama? More importantly, what does it say about the Clintons who have been the stars of the Democratic Party for more than a decade?
Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 19, 2008 10:03:10 PM
Astute analysis, Ruchira. Many boomers can't see the Clintons straight because they, too, are entitled, phony, mendacious and want to have it both ways without troubling over the implications of that. They too will "say anything" if it will result in a short term gain, quite as if telling the truth and having deniability when you lie are, functionally, the same thing.
Hillary's real base seems to be women who are not just older but on the cusp of elderly, leading edge boomers pushing 65, as well as some pre-boomers. They should know better -- and they probably will know better, a bit to late to change their vote. They are old enough to remember the nasty disappointments of the Clinton years, how an intellectually and politically gifted president was able to accomplish a tiny fraction of his agenda, not thanks to "a vast right wing conspiracy," which is there to bring down every progressive it can get hold of, but thanks to his own character.
Jon Stewart would have fun with a Clinton presidency, would have to be ever so careful with an Obama presidency. If the Daily Show sent up a President Obama for being , um, under-prepped, well -- it would be racially interpretable, would it not? If Hillary is now making herself out to have been the Queen Hatshepsut of Clinton I, with Bill merely the curious d--k-shaped "ornament" on her head gear, then how hilarious it will be for Stewart & Co. when Hillary finally comes into her own. And we will need the amusement, for the pressure will be intense as we watch a president who lies without knowing she is lying present the face of our nation to the world. It almost makes Nixon look good -- a man who was a liar and knew it. There's a joke in the Recovery Movement, that D-E-N-I-A-L is an acronym for Don't Even Know I Am Lying. Please, Give me a President who's ALREADY been to AA...
What kind of a victory for gender politics is this supposed to be? When I was in my teens, I was hoping Barbara Jordan would be the woman I'd vote into the Oval Office. And despite a few insuperable obstacles, it's still a very good idea.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 19, 2008 11:15:17 PM
Ruchira,
It seems to me that Obama could have made the very same statement. All it says is that the president is the person who has the most power to make change. You (and the media) are projecting, adding in and then emphasizing "white" and "black" to make an issue where none exists.
Posted by: anon | Jan 20, 2008 4:02:59 AM
More to think about:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011728.php
Posted by: anon | Jan 20, 2008 7:26:41 AM
Post a comment