Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Race Man - How Obama Played the Race Card

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 06:55 PM
Original message
Race Man - How Obama Played the Race Card
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304


The New Republic

Race Man
by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008

DISCUSS ARTICLE <404> | PRINT | EMAIL ARTICLE



After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.

Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.

The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.

Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, 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.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
theoldman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Welcome to the world of politics.
It appears you are new at this. Not to worry thought because you will be a lot smarter by November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Not sure what you mean
This article needs to be read by Obama supporters, especially those that have become Clinton haters because of their misguided beliefs about the Clinton campaign's alleged race-baiting. The man that wrote this article is a respected historian, not a political flack - like it or not. Perhaps you are the one that could learn something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Too bad it's not misguided
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IowaGirl Donating Member (539 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. Excellent article, thank you for posting this......
unfortunately, the train is already running away and we may not be able to stop it. I hate to think how disillusioned the many young people who have faith in this character are going to be.:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Thanks - Finding this article was a god send for me....
I have been an Obama supporter from the beginning. I live in SC and watched the racial politics up close and personal during the primary. I have been so thoroughly disgusted with the Obama campaign's use of the race card, continuously and shamelessly. I saw this man on MSNBC tonight talking about it and googled him and found this article outlining the history of it all. After reading it I felt vindicated and realized I wasn't going crazy after all! It documents everything, very clearly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IowaGirl Donating Member (539 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. This guy has real credibility....
being a professor of history and director of the American studies program at Princeton University according to his book info on Amazon. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. thanks, I had not looked him up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
36. No, actually, he doesn't. He's a male Taylor Marsh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
39. Yes, this writer is genuine, a longtime historian, not a newbie at all,...
Edited on Thu Feb-28-08 12:57 AM by libbygurl
...and well-recognised in the genuine liberal press for his ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. He was on msnbc?--really where when
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. Tucker Carlson on MSNBC Weds 2/27 6:00pm ( EST) n/t
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 10:16 PM by SayitAintSo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. thanks-i saw the post downstram also--but will look for a transcript later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. You can find the clip here from this link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #32
51. Thanks much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. I have been saying that for weeks....
I feel I am on a runaway train. And it's too late to do anything about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. several of us have--we have been duly smacked down
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. and after all this, they want us to rally behind Obama for the sake of the party!
Now, telling everyone they NEED to elect/vote for Obama or the next Supreme Court nominee will be conservative! What were these people thinking when they tore apart the party to put Obama ahead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. the media has convinced most it was Bills fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Jesse Jackson Jr. on Hillary's tears (katrina comment)--talked about in the article


http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfG-SxYCusQ&feature=related
Jesse Jackson Jr. on Hillary's tears
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. That got all over me......n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. i recall that so clearing . I was speachless. yet the media was sucking it up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
55. And the media did not play it up for what it really was - genuine race-baiting!
Yep, no anti-Hillary bias, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. "Sadly, it is what Barack Obama and his campaign gurus have been doing for months--with the aid of t


It may strike some as ironic that the racializing should be coming from a black candidate's campaign and its supporters. But this is an American presidential campaign--and there is a long history of candidates who are willing to inflame the most deadly passions in our national life in order to get elected. Sadly, it is what Barack Obama and his campaign gurus have been doing for months--with the aid of their media helpers on the news and op-ed pages and on cable television, mocked by "SNL" as in the tank for Obama. They promise to continue until they win the nomination, by any means necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. So who's really the one 'doing anything to win' in this race?
Time for the general media to wake up to the ruse being perpetrated upon them, with them willingly pulling the wool over their own eyes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. the media not only reports 'news'---It creates the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Yes, 'news' has become so distorted in the US anymore. Which is why...
...I look to outside sources like Canada and UK for a better perspective on what's happening in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. I try to do that also----a reality check!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IowaGirl Donating Member (539 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #60
76. What do you think about this article?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html Is the Asian Times a credible publication, do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. WOW.
The Asia Times Online is a very good publication. I have read stories written there about Asian countries that delve deeply into the 'stories behind the stories' in a way you rarely see in US journalism.

Wow! is all I can say. Will send you a PM soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. Oops...
...I was going to email you, but was told you can't receive PMs yet!

Anyway, was wondering if you were going to post this on DU. A very potent article, that one in the Asia Times!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IowaGirl Donating Member (539 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #79
92. Posting article...
I haven't had enough posts yet to start a new thread but feel free to post it if you like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #60
77. the problem is most Americans are either uninformed or misinformed by the media!
and this is who we have to decide our elections!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #77
93. yes, they do don't they!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IowaGirl Donating Member (539 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. Sadly, is right...
So if someone plays the race card when it is for completely mercenary reasons and is not really true, doesn't that just make it harder for people with genuine racist problems to be heard? Isn't it a little like the "cry wolf" scenario? People will quit sympathizing for those who genuinely need the sympathy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
87. That was particularly vile and unworthy
Edited on Thu Feb-28-08 11:13 PM by JoFerret
He lost my respect right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
27. says here that Bill Moyers had done a show on it at the time. I had missed that one:


…….Among those dismayed by Obama's tactics and his supporters' was Bill Moyers. In a special segment on his weekly PBS broadcast in mid-January, Moyers, who as a young man had been an aide to President Johnson, demolished the charge that Clinton had warped history in order to race-bait Obama. "There was nothing in quote about race," he observed. "It was an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious." Moyers rehashed what every reputable historian knows about how King and Johnson effectively divided the labor, between King the agitator and Johnson the president, in order to secure the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Moyers said was happy to see that, by the time he went on the air, the furor appeared to be dying down and that everyone seemed to be returning to their senses and apologizing--"except," he pointedly noted, "the New York Times." But this upbeat part of his assessment proved overly optimistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avrdream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 04:12 AM
Response to Reply #27
46. Shit, rodeo, how come none of this makes it into GD-P?
I have just discovered where the rational people on DU hang out. It's bloody amazing coming here to the Editorials. Reasonable discussion again. Restores my hope in DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. Someone finally posted it there-not getting to much attention. But yes, seems
we can have a discussion here without slime being tossed one's way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
73. Yes, ex-LBJ staffer Bill Moyers quietly mentioned the 'tempest in a teapot' character...
...of the fuss over Hillary's MLK remark, which he thought quite innocent, and also truthful.

But who wants the truth when you can turn something innocent into an attack on HRC, hey?

Moyers was on LBJ's staff (speechwriter, methinks), so he knows whereof he speaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyVT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #27
89. I saw Bill Moyers on Obama.
It was a great segment. You can probably find the transcript in Bill Moyers Journal website. The archives are there. Quite a lot has come up about Obama there, and Moyers seems to be flabbergasted (and not in a good way) about his "rise."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. I am not surprised. There never was a motive to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. no, never was. Bill would never be a racist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. And why would she alienate members of her own base? It is obvious it was Barak's solution to that
problem. He needed to use the race card to try and separate Hillary from many of her supporters. To call her or Bill racist is disgusting. That crap should be saved for the Rush Limbaughs of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I have asked that several times. It made on sense then or now--she lost that base. why
would people be so so so eager to blame them.!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Emotional responses. Just what they expected. Carefully crafted personna isn't he? Kinda scary.
It really is like a guru thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. Read this article when it was linked in another forum.
It is a must read for everyone who has been going a little crazy watching/understanding Obama's race baiting and feeling they are all alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. this is where it really started--that innocent MLK remark by Hillary


..First came the Martin Luther King-Lyndon B. Johnson controversy. Responding to early questions that he was only offering vague words of hope instead of policy substance, Obama had given a speech in New Hampshire referring to Martin Luther King, Jr. "standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial" during his "I have a dream" speech. (This rhetorical formulation was reminiscent of a campaign speech delivered in 2006 by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, another client of David Axelrod, Obama's message and media guru; in a later speech, Obama would repeat Patrick's rhetoric word for word.) When asked about it, Clinton replied that while, indeed, King had courageously inspired and led the civil rights movement, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act into law. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," she said, adding that "it took a president to get it done." The statement was, historically, non-controversial; the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, among others, later said that Clinton "was absolutely right." The political implication was plainly that Clinton was claiming to have more of the experience and skills required of a president than Obama did--not that King should be denigrated. But the Obama campaign and its supporters chose to pounce on the remark as the latest example of the Clinton campaign's race baiting. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, a black congressman--neutral in the race, but pressured by the Obama campaign arousing his constituency--felt compelled to repeat the charge that Clinton had disparaged King, and told the New York Times that "we have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics." Several of the Times's op-ed columnists, including Bob Herbert and Maureen Dowd as well as Rich, rushed to amplify how Hillary was playing dirty, as did the newspaper's editorial page, which disgracefully twisted her remarks into an implication that "a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change."

Clinton complained that her opponent's backers were deliberately distorting her remarks; and Obama smoothly tried to appear above the fray, as if he knew that the race-baiting charge was untrue and didn't want to level it directly, but didn't exactly want to discourage the idea either. "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement," Obama said in a conference call with reporters. "I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

Meanwhile, below the radar, the Obama campaign pushed the race-baiting angle hard, rehearsing and sometimes inventing instances of alleged Clintonian racial insensitivity. A memo prepared by the South Carolina campaign and circulated to supporters rehashed the King-Johnson matter, while it also spliced together statements of Bill Clinton's to make it seem as if he had given a speech that "implied Hillary Clinton is stronger than Nelson Mandela." (The case, with its snippets and ellipses, was absurd on its face.) The memo also claimed, in a charge soon widely repeated, that he had demeaned Obama as "a kid" because he had called Obama's account of his opposition to the war in Iraq a fanciful "fairy tale."And a few reporters, while pushing the Obama campaign's line that black voters had credible concerns about the Clintons' remarks, had begun to notice that the Obama campaign was doing its utmost to fuel the racial flames. "There's no question that there's politics here at work too," said Jonathan Martin of Politico. "It helps campaign to... push these issues into the fore in a place like South Carolina."

When asked about the race-baiting charges, Obama campaign spokeswoman Candice Tolliver roiled the waters: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?" Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., the Obama co-chair, as before, was more direct and inflammatory, claiming that the "cynics" of the Clinton campaign had "resorted to distasteful and condescending language that appeals to our fears rather than our hopes. I sincerely hope that they'll turn away from such reactionary, disparaging rhetoric." The race-baiting card was now fully in play.

Among those dismayed by Obama's tactics and his supporters' was Bill Moyers. In a special segment on his weekly PBS broadcast in mid-January, Moyers, who as a young man had been an aide to President Johnson, demolished the charge that Clinton had warped history in order to race-bait Obama. "There was nothing in quote about race," he observed. "It was an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious." Moyers rehashed what every reputable historian knows about how King and Johnson effectively divided the labor, between King the agitator and Johnson the president, in order to secure the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Moyers said was happy to see that, by the time he went on the air, the furor appeared to be dying down and that everyone seemed to be returning to their senses and apologizing--"except," he pointedly noted, "the New York Times." But this upbeat part of his assessment proved overly optimistic.

IV.

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Yep - that's when I began to follow it....
I just could not believe that the Clinton's would be that stupid... if nothing else, in playing the race card coming into SC. Clearly they didn't upon examination of the facts. What is really disheartening to me is that SO MANY dems here continue to believe the lie the Obama campaign spread very effectively resulting in many who formally revered Bill Clinton, to now revile him. That is is the ultimate tragedy. I don't think I will ever look at Obama the same again after this. Double tragedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. i know-so many were so eager to jump on the bandwagon--the media here:

i recall Herbert coming out--it was posted on GD-p--and ate up by the obamasupporters. It seemed to go in a downward spiral ever since.


III.

By the time Clinton and Obama (along with Edwards) debated in South Carolina, it was clear that nerves had been rubbed raw. Obama's supporters, including New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, had been making much of a lame, off-color but obviously preposterous joke that Martin Luther King's close friend and former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young had made back in December about Bill Clinton having slept with more black women than Obama. Supposedly, Young's tasteless quip--"I'm just clowning," he said, sounding embarrassed--was as part of some sort of concerted Clinton campaign. Likewise, also in December, former Senator Bob Kerrey's misinformed defense of Obama, in an interview on CNN, for having attended a secular madrassa in Indonesia (he did not) became twisted by the pro-Obama camp, including Herbert once again, into some sort of sneak attack orchestrated by cynical, race-baiting Clintonites. Kerrey is a Clinton supporter, but is notoriously unscripted. Once again, the Clinton campaign had to apologize. But the Obama campaign began ratcheting up the racial politics in earnest during the run-up to the South Carolina contest.

It has never been satisfactorily explained why the pro-Clinton camp would want to racialize the primary and caucus campaign. The argument has been made that Hillary Clinton wanted to attract whites and Hispanics in the primaries and make the case that a black candidate would be unelectable in the general election. But given the actual history of the campaign, that argument makes no sense. Until late in 2007, Hillary Clinton enjoyed the backing of a substantial majority of black voters--as much as 24 percentage points over Obama according to one poll in October--as well as strong support from Hispanics and traditional working-class white Democrats. It appeared, for a time, as if she might well be able to recreate, both in the primaries and the general election, the cross-class and cross-racial alliances that had eluded Democrats for much of the previous forty years. Playing the race card against Obama could only cost her black votes, as well as offend liberal whites who normally turn out in disproportionally large numbers for Democratic caucuses and primaries. Indeed, indulging in racial politics would be a sure-fire way for the Clinton campaign to shatter its own coalition. On the other hand, especially in South Carolina where black voters made up nearly half of the Democratic turnout, and especially following the shocking disappointment in New Hampshire, playing the race card--or, more precisely, the race-baiting card--made eminent sense for the Obama campaign. Doing so would help Obama secure huge black majorities (in states such as Missouri and Virginia as well as in South Carolina and the deep South) and enlarge his activist white base in the university communities and among affluent liberals. And that is precisely what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcwash Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
26. This article was written from an alternative universe
I am a news, blog and Tv hound. I watched these events unfold and one would have to completely suspend reality to believe this article. When I saw him this afternoon on "Tucker" I at first thought it was a joke, only to discover that the guy was serious! First of all you have to consider that he appeared on "Tucker", second you have to understand that people, like me, who watched; read and blogged about these events as they unfolded, came to the conclusion that the Clinton Campaign was "Race baiting." This is while simultaniously accusing the Obama campaign of "playing the race card." It is like smacking yourself upside the head when the teacher is not watching and yelling, WHO HIT ME?

Next consider that this is a tactic that many southern politicians are extremely familar with (Bill Clinton). My conclusion was that the Clinton campaign race baited to polorize the southern states. They would loose South Carolina but pick up the majority white votes in other states. Now that is only my spectulation. I think, however, they in the words of our current president, they MISUNDERESTIMATED the status of Americas current racial climate. I think people understand that we are all Americas and what you do to one you do to all.

Bottom line: This article is fantacy from the mind of an individual attempting to revise history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. no, I do not believe you--I watched it unfold and was stunned and still am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. When the Doris Kerns Goodwins of ther world cry foul it's no fantasy... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
37. This guy is a piker and a Hillary apologist:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
38. The problem is that it's an easy mistake.
Maybe 5-6 months ago there was a similarly pitched article dealing with the construction of theories and confirmation bias in the press. It took swipes at conspiracy theories, but went way beyond them. It dealt with the difference between social sciences and journalism.

The basic premise was that reporters--and bloggers, observers, scientists, and everybody else--will observe a set of facts and spot a pattern. I'm a linguist; humans are great at spotting patterns. The second most dangerous ones are patterns that are spurious, random blips in the data but which are perceived as something systematic (those waste a lot of time but eventually peter out as dead ends); the most dangerous ones are patterns that seem to be exactly what we expect, what we think, or what we want. We settle on them, we commit to them. And we overlook other, equally or more plausible patterns in the data, or explanations for the patterns we see.

Then, in step two, we get more data. We've committed to an explanation or theory, and often refuse to acknowledge that another theory could have handled all the initial data just as well as the one we went with, and can still handle all the data quite well; but when the additional data doesn't fit our theory, we have to add on to our theory or set the data aside. It's difficult to uncommit. Again we're working on a theory more complex than the data requires, sometimes at odds with the data, and we've rejected a theory that handles the data, to boot. So we've made two mistakes: After all, not having a theory at all is a perfectly fine possibility, so rejecting a better theory while accepting a bad theory counts as two mistakes.

We repeat the process, stipulating all kinds of curlicues in the behavior of the observed group and trying hard to ignore certain data to make sure our theory survives. After all, we know in our hearts that we're right.

Years ago, in a course that the teacher said used to be called "queers, peers, and perverts" (sociology of deviancy, which in the '70s included drug use and homosexuality) I read a study that dealt with the social dynamics in a rather large office; they had arranged for one volunteer employee, straight, happily married with kids, to have a rumor planted about him that said he was gay. This would never pass a human subjects review board these days, but it did then--in the '60s or early '70s. Quickly enough people revised their opinions of the man: In fact, in a matter of weeks people had not only accepted the rumor, most had found independent evidence--a look, something said, something done, some lack of an expected straight behavior or some behavior consistent with gay stereotypes--that the man really was gay. And not just gay, but obviously gay; how they overlooked it was a mystery to them. The guy was quickly ostracised. When the researchers came along and said, "No, no--just kidding" they weren't believed. The guy's co-workers had convinced themselves, and weren't about to reconsider their evidence. The people bought into a theory, they found evidence that fit their theory, and they rejected evidence that didn't fit their theory once they committed to it. They found it easier to believe that the man had somehow convinced or duped the researchers to cover for him, that he had duped his wife, he had duped them for years, and, if need be, he had duped himself. He had to find another job in the end, the researchers made no headway against the herd.

In the BO/HRC race-card/race-baiting case, there were two options: (1) HRC wasn't engaging in race-baiting; (2) HRC was engaging in race-baiting. (Leave out people for whom BHO is the Second Coming and those for whom HRC is the fulfillment of feminist dreams since Adam. Go with the uncommitteds among liberals and progressives--even among conservatives, for that matter. For them, (1) was just as plausible as (2), and given the actual statements in context, going with (1) would have shown the kind of good will necessary for healthy political discourse. However, it was contrary to many deeply held beliefs--that all or most whites are racist at some level (often unconsciously so), that as a black man Obama is set up for being a victim of racism, that Clintons are inherently vicious and self-serving, triangulating, divisive, underhanded and polarizing; counter to this was Obama as a virtuous victim, a man attempting to be post-racial and non-divisive, a uniter who, as a minority member, could not really be racist and who had renounced the race card so that we might hope in a bright, shining future. So (2) was the preferred option, confirmation bias all but dictated it, it fit the narrative that we were all set up for--expecting Obama to be the victim of racism and HRC "the bitch".

As things went on, we had the option of interpreting additional data as consistent with (2), or rejecting (2) and going with (1). So instead of dropping the idea early on, we had to come up with plausible scenarios--HRC was *trying* to polarize the electorate, having decided to write off the black vote in order to galvanize the majority of white Democrats in the rest of the country to voting against the "black candidate" on Super Tuesday--but did anybody seriously think this was true? (I read this logic on conservative and liberal sites, btw.) Having bought into (2), (1) was increasingly difficult to accept, it meant rejecting so many intermediate conclusions and so many assumptions, admitting that we were wrong. Such a quirky "cui bono?" analysis was preferable to the alternative--we was snookered, to have our analyses falsified would be to have our hopes falsified--and how can a hope be false? So now it's still easier to try to engage in ad hominem attacks, assume that we're still right, than change our views. Confirmation bias is more dangerous than spotting spurious patterns.

Such is the state of American politics, even for the post-racial non-divisive uniter.
Not a pretty picture.

Gotta sleep. Tschau.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #38
53. Thanks for your additional commentary - it helps me understand it all
Because so many good people have maintained the HRC 'race baiting' position. A simple way I look at it is we 'adopt' beliefs, treating them as fact. We then use them as the prism to view things. Altering the fundamental belief is like trying to remove a nail without a head..... damn near impossible. Especially so if the change in your belief causes 'hope', that you are so completely invested in to fall off it's pedestal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #53
62. I have faith that people can change "worldviews" If they choose to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #26
42. No. You are obviously not familiar with Mr WIlentz, who has written a book on the...
...American working class, on Andrew Jackson, is an editor at The New Republic, contributed to The New York Review of Books, etc. Not a lightweight, know-nothing at all - a history professor at Princeton U.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #42
50. History profs are good at details
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
33. K&R
And sending to my friends who know we've been hoodwinked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
34. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jlake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
35. I am glad that the obvious is beginning to get some coverage in the media.
Edited on Thu Feb-28-08 12:11 AM by jlake
K&R For the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #35
56. yes, past time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
40. K & R!
:kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
41. Kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
43. Kickety-kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qanisqineq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
44. a good read
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerstin Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 02:54 AM
Response to Original message
45. k & r. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
47. So I wasn't crazy - it really did happen - thanks!
Edited on Thu Feb-28-08 07:32 AM by robbedvoter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. I am relieved also:-)--and some brave soul posted it in gd-p here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
52. What a surprise that The New Republican is trying to sink Obama
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #52
63. Why did Obama get duped by DRUDGE--one of the slimest RW sites around?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IowaGirl Donating Member (539 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #52
75. Uh, that's New Republic, not "Republican"....
Not sure it plays quite the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #75
82. LOL! Need to read more carefully next time! Eh! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #75
91. It used to be the New Republic
but their neocon pro-war "New Dem" slant earned them a more descriptive moniker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
54. Kick, kick, kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
64. K!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
65. .
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #65
90. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
66. Obama's Swiftboating of the Clintons - Exposed!
Bravo! Let's Hope it's not too late for our Party to snap out of it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. !
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. denial has a strong hold on people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
67. Consider the source.
TNR is a DLC-loving, pro-war centrist rag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. BO had no problems talking the RW DRUDGE's word as sacred a few days ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #67
80. no response??????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. I wasn't sure what it was supposed to mean. The fact that TNR is a pro-war,
pro-DLC, centrist bucket of room-temperature piss somehow makes it okay for Hillary's campaign to try to smear Obama with a picture of Obama in a turban? Is that it?

Snowing here again. Kind of a lot. Ack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Drudge had no evidence--just heresay--and Obama believed that RW slim bucket!
try to smear Obama with a picture of Obama in a turban?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
69. !
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
72. !!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
81. .
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
83. Did you read the first comment - it was exactly what I felt after reading the article.
"Wow, this is paper thin. There's actually a debate about the content of the mailer. An honest article about the subject, especially at this late stage in the game, would acknowledge and respond to those arguments. For you merely to claim deliberate, GOPesque deception by Obama, without providing any supporting argument, is journalism at it's least professional. I'm still reading. But thus far my impression is that this is a long exercise in intellectual dishonesty."

I saw no supporting evidence of what he is claiming. With respect to accuracy of mailers (no race stuff there), the ex-President of NOW was so put off by mailers from the Clinton camp about Obama's support of women's issues that she changed her support from Clinton to Obama.

And Obama was correct on the NAFTA stuff - Clinton had written a few comments where she stated that NAFTA had been good - in fact, those quotes were brought up and read to her in the last debate. If she did not feel that way, she should not have written those words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. "The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so"-
this 2nd commentary sums up the article well.


2nd commentary:


......" 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." OK, class, this is what we call "argument by assertion." Here's what you do: make wild claims and never provide any support for them.
ralphnelle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. Where were they trumpeted by the Obama campaign?
Link?

I do remember Donna Brazille being angry as a Black - but she is not part of the Obama campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
94. !
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC