Is the Race Card in Play? (US Pres. Race)

[Pangloss]

A lot of talk since the New Hampshire primary has been about whether race is now a factor in the Democratic nomination race. Last week Hillary Clinton got upset over an out-of-context quote in which she was talking about the importance of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (making it sound like she thought it was more important than MLK's efforts). Her husband got into some trouble when he was misquoted over comments about the Obama campaign.

 

And I've also heard some comments from observers of the New Hampshire primary asking whether race might have been a factor there (i.e. people voting against Obama because he's black; NH is overwhelmingly white).

 

I guess it was just a matter of time before we started to see this sort of thing begin to happen. One thing that concerns me is Obama's contribution to it. If he's not behind any of this, fine, but he needs to reign in his campaign staff. We don't need another Swiftboating deal.

[iNow]

The Obama camp are not the only ones making a big deal out of Hillary's comments. Even those who are pretty much neutral, but who are leaders in the black community, found her remarks offensive. She has a good record of civil rights, but she clearly stuck her foot in her mouth on this one. I think the Obama campaign has every right to exploit her mistakes.

 

I don't think there was a big "anti-black" contingent in NH. Since it is such a white state, it would have been much easier to see, and the election analyses just don't show it. Meet the Press and This Week this morning had some really good coverage on both issues.

 

 

To the thread subject... no more than the gender card is in play...

[Pangloss]

The Obama camp are not the only ones making a big deal out of Hillary's comments. Even those who are pretty much neutral, but who are leaders in the black community, found her remarks offensive. She has a good record of civil rights, but she clearly stuck her foot in her mouth on this one. I think the Obama campaign has every right to exploit her mistakes.

 

The lesson here seems to be "two wrongs make a right". I.E. it's not okay when Democrats get swiftboated, but as long as we live in times when Democrats ARE being swiftboated, we had better make sure that black candidates get to participate in the swiftboating! Is that really the right message to send here?

 

iNow, I think you're showing your partisanship a bit early. It's a bad idea to support Obama when he makes mistakes. We need to take these opportunities to show him the errors instead of surrounding him with "yes men" like George Bush did in '99-'00. I watched that happen in that election cycle, voted for him anyway (dismissing the criticism as partisanship), and I feel like I cheated myself out of the better candidate as a result. I am not about to make that mistake again. (And I say this as someone who is increasingly an Obama-over-Clinton guy, in spite of his moving away from substance during the New Hampshire run-up and in spite of these racism-based attacks on the Clintons.)

 

This would seem to speak against the notion that Obama is the candidate of change, would it not? Remember, this is the guy who's supposed to be the one man who can bring people together. Do we really want ANOTHER president who tosses people out of the White House and then assaults them when they go on a book tour? Do we really want ANOTHER president who surrounds himself with ideologues and doesn't listen to important counter-arguments?

 

 

I don't think there was a big "anti-black" contingent in NH. Since it is such a white state, it would have been much easier to see, and the election analyses just don't show it. Meet the Press and This Week this morning had some really good coverage on both issues.

 

That's what I've read as well. I hope that holds for the other primaries.

 

 

To the thread subject... no more than the gender card is in play...

 

Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Reaper]

I don't think there was a big "anti-black" contingent in NH.

 

Don't worry, there wasn't.

[iNow]

Pangloss - I completely agree with your sentiment, but to associate this week with swiftboating is a bit premature (IMO). There were few comments from the Obama campaign on Hillary's comments. As I mentioned, most came from otherwise neutral insiders with experience on these issues, and they too were offended. However, I completely agree with you that we cannot let him off the hook for mistakes. I anxiously await how he learns from these events and what he does/how he does it these next few weeks.

 

Hillary had the full hour on Meet the Press this morning. Russert got her really agitated... noticably so. What stood out to me is how she was slinging more mud than she was building with mortar. She's clearly a women who has been fiercely attacked, and she's learned to handle it. What concerns me is that she's also learned how to attack others through this experience on the receiving end.

 

I'm interested to see what Obama does these next few weeks, and how he does it, but he still has my support over Clinton... for now. Watching Clinton this morning for an hour just reinforced what I already felt, but I remain open minded.

 

More to come... Cheers.

[ecoli]

There could be something of a Bradley effect that's affecting the polls. This could hurt Obama, since the polls will show him as getting more support than he actually will.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

[Pangloss]

Pangloss - I completely agree with your sentiment, but to associate this week with swiftboating is a bit premature (IMO).

 

Google News lists 513 articles on the subject. It's been the lead story for most major news outlets for several days in a row. I think it's a lesser swiftboating, but a swiftboating nontheless.

 

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1126248145

 

 

There were few comments from the Obama campaign on Hillary's comments.

 

Yeah that's exactly what Karl Rove used to say.

 

 

As I mentioned, most came from otherwise neutral insiders with experience on these issues, and they too were offended.

 

Yup, that was the case with the Swiftboating campaigns as well. They worked because although they were twisted, they were twisted in just the right way to strike a nerve in certain quarters. That was the whole point.

 

 

Hillary had the full hour on Meet the Press this morning. Russert got her really agitated... noticably so. What stood out to me is how she was slinging more mud than she was building with mortar. She's clearly a women who has been fiercely attacked, and she's learned to handle it. What concerns me is that she's also learned how to attack others through this experience on the receiving end.

 

This is really a different subject, but I can say that her deterioration into mudslinging has had a very deliterious effect on my desire to vote for her.

 

As you know I lean a bit to the right, and I've spoken in favor of Clinton on these forums. But I have to say right now that the only two candidates I can see myself voting for are John McCain and Barrack Obama. My desire to see "camelot" is strong, and his talk about change and middle ground is compelling -- that really had an impact on me going into Iowa.

 

But IMO he should focus on the issues and continue to sell his idea of America, even when he's ahead in polls. Maybe BECAUSE he's ahead in polls. Tell me WHY I should move left on immigration, on taxation, on helping the poor. Like most of moderate America, I can be sold on new ideas. And I'm a firm believer in 90% of any success being motivation and hard work, not ideology. Obama may be a liberal, but he strikes me as a hard-working, motivated person, unhindered by ideology. I'll take that over a right-wing slacker in the pocket of special interest groups six times a week and twice on Sunday.

[Sisyphus]

I'll definitely keep an eye on it (thanks for bringing it to our attention), but there's no way this is like swiftboating, at least not yet. For one thing, I think hardly anyone will actually believe the Clintons are racist (except the Limbaugh crowd, who will believe absolutely anything about them as long as it's negative, but they're not voting in Democratic primaries!). Second, I believe that Obama has been able to achieve such broad support specifically for NOT playing the race card. He and his advisers must be aware of that, mustn't they?

[iNow]

Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press discussing this subject yesterday:

 

 

 

I thought she responded quite well, until... of course... she started attacking Obama herself (which may not be included in the clip I shared above).

[Pangloss]

Edwards weighed in on Obama's side today.

 

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/14/edwards-takes-sides-in-clinton-controversy/

[JohnB]

From the outside looking in and admittedly not looking closely.

 

Clinton somehow gives me a gut feeling that she's more interested in what the Presidency will do for her than what she would bring to the Presidency. (If that makes sense.)

 

If you had Obama you'd have someone who while being a lesser politician, might be a better President.

[john5746]

Some "feelings" about the candidates:

 

 

McCain - War hero, good politician - but does he need viagra to get a rise from the people?

 

Romney - Businessman, Presidential - but is that grease in his hair for looks or to squirm out of the truth?

 

Huckabee - Honest manager - but can the scarecrow find his brain?

 

Guiliani - Great Director - but does the Tin man have a heart and morals?

 

Thompson - Good Actor - but will he be an action hero or sleeping zero?

 

Paul - Many Ideas - but can Quixote accomplish anything?

 

 

 

Clinton - Smart, Experienced - but is she still looking for the 101 dalmations?

 

Obama - Smart, Mesmerizing - but will he and his friends need their pacifiers?

 

Edwards - Good VP - but Good VP

[Pangloss]

Cute, I loved the literary references. John5746 on the Presidential Race -- an Opera in 3 Acts!

[john5746]

thanks, in regards to the OP, looks like they tried to bury the hatchet on this topic, but there will be some hard feelings for awhile.

[iNow]

In last night's debates, Hillary opened by saying how it shouldn't matter, and how they should be judged according to personal merit and ability, but then later used the race/gender issue to "place Edwards at the little kids table" when a question was directed at him. She wants to have it both ways.

[Pangloss]

How does that phrase bring the race/gender issue into play? It sounds like a comment about his popularity.

 

I also didn't understand why you felt her earlier comment was a mis-step (putting her foot in her mouth). It seemed like an accurate statement to me. If it wasn't then why did we renew the voting rights act?

[iNow]

How does that phrase bring the race/gender issue into play?

My quote above was not something she said. I put it into quotes to express the idea I was trying to convey. In my mind, her comment sounded like she was putting John Edwards at the little kids table. That was just my interpretation, not words of Hillary Clinton. Sorry for the confusion there.

 

It was something she said under her breath, "Ohh... poor John." It seemed condescending and belittling, hence my comment about her putting him at the kids table.

 

She also said it in a way that suggested she and Barrack were better because of their involvement in the race/gender discussions, hence my comment about her trying to play it both ways. "We shouldn't talk about this race gender thing..." "We're better than Edwards b/c we have to deal with this race gender thing...."

 

 

 

I also didn't understand why you felt her earlier comment was a mis-step (putting her foot in her mouth). It seemed like an accurate statement to me.

 

I think she did put her foot in her mouth, and had she said it differently, it wouldn't have become the story it did. The statements accuracy isn't really relevant to how it was perceived. That was the bigger point I'd hoped to make.

[Pangloss]

Ok, I see both of your points there. Thanks.