Obama's Sad Victory

After Iowa, I felt good about Barack Obama and his campaign, even though my candidate lost. I loved his speech that night, and believed he was good for the progressive side of American politics. But after the last week, Obama's victory in South Carolina tastes like thin, salt-less gruel to this hopeful Democrat. It nourishes no one except the hard-core partisans, and its audacity - to use the favorite word du jour - was evident only in its cynical partnership with the rabidly anti-Clinton, race-baiting media.

It was a great political victory with a terribly sour after-taste, as Craig Crawford notes this morning:

The Obama camp was smart to gin up any plausible rationale for sidelining or ridiculing the former president. For the most part, he is an asset for his wife, the New York senator.

It was certainly brilliant for Obama’s team to enlist the aid of the news media in stirring up racial resentment against the Clintons – going back to New Hampshire when reporters and pundits promoted the bogus notion that Obama lost the state because of racism. That still unproven charge had to help Obama’s forces get the attention of African-American voters in South Carolina.

But it was sad to see so many in the news media become tools for one campaign’s agenda.

When you watch the likes of conservatives Joe Scarborough, Bill Bennett, Byron York, Andy Sullivan, George Will and Peggy Noonan "worry" about how the racial divide will split the Democratic Party, a slow burning rise of bile burns the throat. Digby:

So, this ugly race is over and it looks like all the racial talk was overblown and overplayed. The voters, once again, made their voices heard and the politicians will have to heed them.

I would hope that the media will take a little breather as well. Watching the concern trolling about Democratic racial divisiveness among people like Peggy Noonan, Joe Scarborough and Bill Bennett is enough to make me sick and should give progressives pause. As I wrote last night, I don't think this helps Senator Obama any more than it helps Clinton.

Twice now, the Obama camp has been too smug and too clever by half - early on, they enjoyed the vicious and openly sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton, until the "likeable enough" backlash cost them in New Hampshire and forced an on-air apology from Chris Matthews. In South Carolina, they cleverly played the race card - and I mean cleverly with all the sincerity of a reporter who once covered the mean streets of Bronx politics. They demonized Bill Clinton (who did a pretty good job of helping out, it must be said) and assisted in making the Clinton campaign seem racist - even though not a single racist statement has ever been attributed to either the Clintons themselves or to any of their bungling surrogates. They allowed the media to claim that the use of the word "fairytale" and any mention of Obama's youthful drug use was racially-tinged, even if the words came from black men who'd fought all their lives for civil rights. Why? Because they know the villagers (as Digby calls them) hate the Clintons, and always have. Lance Mannion:

The story is arising out of the same old prejudice against the Clintons.  The bullshit about Hillary being so goddamn ambitious, as if no other politician in American history ever actually wanted to an election, is a legacy.  It was Bill who was originally the ambitious one, the one who would do anything to win, like read polls and find out what voters wanted and then give it to them, the snake!

If they'd thought of it they'd have begun calling her Slick Hilly a long time ago.

They, of course, are the insiders' insiders of the Washington Insider establishment, the royalists and their journalist toadies, who have always been appalled by the Clintons' presumption.

For me (and I suspect for many other Democrats who feel silenced by the sexist anti-Clinton media onslaught), Barack Obama wasn't knocked off his pedestal by Bill and Hillary Clinton. He climbed down himself, with David Axelrod holding his hand. And he'll never reclaim that lofty position again.

Sadly, many normally sane observers bought into the national media lines. Hell, even Al Giordano - who claims he's pretty "hardboiled about politics" but fairly melts under the chosen one's gaze - actually says, "Obama became inoculated against the most powerful plays in the Clinton playbook." What plays, Al? What playbook? You actually think the Clintons took billionaire Bob Johnson aside and said "hey Bob, can you slyly inject race into this contest by  appearing to clumsily refer to Obama's drug use?" It's patently absurd, and guys like Giordano and Bob Herbert at the Times - who used a single anonymous comment from an unattributed blog to cry racism this week in a shockingly juvenile column - ought to know better. So should the Josh Marshalls of the world, who actually have the temerity to claim that President Clinton's comparision of Obama and Jesse Jackson as pioneers to African-Americans was a racist ploy. Hey Josh, my second presidential vote went to Jesse Jackson, pal. The man was a pioneer. Inoculated? As if the Republicans won't dig up the very dirt the Obama campaign itself sent out regarding a racial divide that didn't actually exist?

The morning after Iowa, I felt pretty good about the future of the Democratic Party. This morning, I need a shower to wash away the slime of Obama's not-very-subtle partnership with the sickening race-baiting media.

Sour grapes, you suggest? Hell yeah. Not at the primary win, but at the sheer dishonesty openly employed by the Obama campaign and its media enablers. And there are millions and millions like me - Democrats who once thought they could happily vote for Barack Obama as a decent second choice. If it comes to it, I'll still pull the lever against any Republican, but I'll know what I'm getting now.

UPDATE: Once again, Barack Obama is singularly ungracious in victory.

UPDATE II: Big Tent Democrat, always a cynic (though an Obama supporter), absolutely nails it over at TalkLeft:

Regarding the Media coverage of this primary season it now seems clear that there is a new rule that objectivity and appearances thereof are out the window. Certainly at NBC this is true. From the far right commentators like Joe Scarborough to the liberal newscaster Keith Olbermann and Establishment columnists like Eugene Robinson and Margaret Carlson any pretense of not openly rooting against the Clintons has now been discarded. NBC's performance last night was unlike any other I have seen outside of Fox News. Olbermann, who likes to trash Fox, properly in my view, should pause for a moment and consider how much his broadcast last night resembled Fox.

But Barack Obama has an opportunity here to make these new rules, as they pertain to him, lasting. And so does the progressive blogosphere. I have long stated that Obama is a Media Darling, and indeed it is one of the main reasons I tepidly support him for the nomination.

He then lists a bunch of rules that basically boil down to: any criticism of Barack Obama is now to be considered "vaguely racist."

UPDATE III: It's incredible to me how supposedly liberal commentators are eager to smear Jesse Jackson, and ignore his record as Presidential pioneer. Do they forget that in 1988 - the famed "Year of Jackson" proclaimed by Times political writer R.W. Apple - Jesse Jackson won 11 primaries and caucuses, and racked up seven million votes? He won a majority of Hispanic votes in New York, and 14 percent of the white vote nationally. He was the first crossover black candidate for President, and he seriously challenged Michael Dukakis from the left. Yet according to Josh Marshall and this poorly-informed DailyKos diarist, the invocation of his name by President Clinton (who is close to Jackson) is some kind of racist smear against Obama. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

UPDATE IV: Jesse Jackson weighs in.

Comments

[Allienne Goddard]

Yeesh. I'm glad I don't have a preference in the Dem primary. I would hate to be consumed by such wanktacious feelings. Do petulant posts like these actually drum up support for the candidates? Doesn't it just make everyone more pissed off?

[JoeCHI]

Bravo.

[carissa]

You nailed it Tom. I am also left with a bad taste in my mouth after what I've seen happen in the last couple of weeks. The bitter divide that this is creating in the Democratic Party will reverberate through November 2008. I am an activist. I walk precincts, staff phone banks, donate money, train precinct captains, etc. If Barack is our nominee, after what I have seen come down, I will be hard pressed to do any of that for him. And that makes me want to cry.

[JoeCitizen]

Hmmm, I'm sitting here wondering why it is that this well written, seemingly intellegent analysis, seems so out of whack and confused to me.

I think one issue might be the word "racism". What a horribly overused word, whose meaning seems to be corrupted by its constant use as a bludgeon in the rhetorical wars.

Racism of course, refers to the attitude of racial superiority. The Clinton's seem to me to have not a racist molecule in their bodies. So any defense of them against a charge of racism will be extremely well grounded.

The problem though, is that no one is really accusing them of racism. What they are being accused of is playing the race card - which is something very different. It is playing off the latent racism in the voting population, in order to advance their own political prosepects - that is the charge brought against them, and I think it is a valid charge.

The MLK-LBJ issue was the start. I agree with those who find that whole episode bizarre - the reactions were very inappropriate. The Clinton's had no intention of insulting or minimizing Dr. King, so those charges really were bizarre.

But they most certainly did intend to insult and minimize Obama. The not-so-subtle (but I guess way-too-subtle for a lot of folks) message was: I (Hillary) am a presidential-level politician, you (Obama) are an inspiring speaker fighting for the rights of your people.

This is the frame that the Clintons have been laboring to build, and Bill's comments of the last few days have made it about as obvious as it could possibly be.

Obama is not to be taken seriously as a contender for the presidency. Like King, or Jesse Jackson, he is a crusader for black equality, his campaign might, at best, serve to advance the notion of a black man being a national player, but no one should imagine that he could actually be, or should actually be the actual president of the United States.

Its a Rovian gambit. Go after your opponents strengths, not his weaknesses. Obama is not, of course, the black candidate. To the contrary, everything about his campaign and his persona make clear that he is a candidate who happens to be black.

And there is such a hunger in the country, especially in the Democratic party, for a transendance of that type. That Obama, or any black person, can actually run for the presidency and be taken seriously, and evaluated on his merits, just like JFK was able to transcend his Catholicism.

This is the notion that the Clinton's have set out to undermine. This is why so many of us Democrats who have so many scars from our fights to defend the Clintons, are so absolutely disgusted with them now.

They have had a chance to run this campaign as an object lesson to America, in terms of how to run against a serious black candidate. Treat him like you would any other candidate. Of course you know, in the back of your mind, that he will enjoy some extra advantage in the black community, just like he will in his home state. Just like Hillary will amongst women, or New Yorkers. But take that in stride, and engage the candidate on his merits.

But no. They have set out to use his race against him, by framing him as the "black candidate", ala Jackson and Sharpton. Someone to be patronized, someone to be given a place on the stage to make his special plea for his own people, but not to be taken seriously as a potential president of all the people.

No good Democrat, no good liberal can allow them to succeed in this.

[Al Giordano]

Since you asked - "What plays, Al? What playbook? You actually think the Clintons took billionaire Bob Johnson aside and said 'hey Bob, can you slyly inject race into this contest by appearing to clumsily refer to Obama's drug use?'" - my answer is "yes!"

Obviously they didn't tell Johnson to be "clumsy" about it. But in big league politics you simply do not have anyone introduce you without vetting (or writing) his or her words first. Maybe a lapse is possible on the part of some campaigns but never from the control-freak Clinton method of politics.

You mention having covered politics in the Bronx. That's my hometown. How you can say with a straight face that any Democrat or liberal is above playing divide-and-conquer racial politics, given that experience, is mystifying. I cut my teeth on politics as a kid when the first-ever Hispanic congressional district was created for the 1968 elections in the South Bronx (disclosure: my dad was the campaign manager of one of them, Louis Gigante). There were five candidates in the Democratic primary. Herman Badillo won. There was also a significant swathe of African-American voters in the district. They voted heavily for Gigante, who, despite the hispano-sounding name, is Italian American. Black-Latino tensions existed then as now. In New York, they were exploited by Giuliani against David Dinkins and by Bloomberg against Freddy Ferrer.

A week ago I watched, in Las Vegas, that same cut-throat dividing politics at work in the Nevada caucuses, perpetrated by the Clinton campaign. I wrote about at CounterPunch. What the Clintons attempted in recent weeks could set progressive movements - electoral and not - back 40 years by exploiting racial divisions.

Even last night, Bill Clinton's cracks about Jesse Jackson as explanation for losing the South Carolina primary, were acts of political arson against black-Latino solidarity. Talk about "melting under a gaze"!

If you choose to put on blinders and ignore the parade of race-baiting moves out of the Clinton camp: Billy Shaheen's drug dealer smear (and even after that, Bob Johnson's, from the knowledge that they wouldn't have to disassociate themselves similarly if another African-American was the messenger rather than a white politician), Bob Kerry's "secular Madrassa" act (and the Clinton Iowa people getting caught forwarding those ugly emails), the insincere "apology" by HRC on the tarmac of Reagan airport only to then go and bait the hook again and again with her High School Student Council candidacy statements about Martin Luther King, and then trotting Bill out there for the last week to hit, again and again and again, on the same themes, and you want to say that somebody other than the Clintons is responsible for jumping into the race-hatred mud pit?

Well, it's anyone's prerogative to play the victim card after opening that Pandora's box. Just as it's my prerogative to identify it and speak out about it when it happens. But something interesting happened yesterday in South Carolina: when more voters that said Bill Clinton's efforts there were "important" to their vote cast theirs against Senator Clinton. White and black alike rejected those Jim Crow politics soundly.

One thing about being from the Bronx: We're under no illusions that Democrats or liberals are any less racist than Republicans or conservatives. In many ways they're worse because at least on the right, for all their faults, at least they're not such whining hypocrites about it.

Anyway, many of them got the memo delivered by rank-and-file voters last night. If you didn't, so be it. But many of us see something much more grave than the mere Clinton-v-Obama horse race at stake. We either acknowledge that divide-and-conquer racial politics exist and work to bury that chapter. Or we deny it's existence which is the same as perpetuating it.

Outside of this primary election, the cause of bringing working people - black, white, Latino, Asian... Americans all - to fight together rather than against each other simply has more priority for many of us than this year's electoral passions. The Clintons tried to set that cause back decades and it blew up in their faces. And no amount of spin can wipe the self-inflicted stain off of them now. For many of us, what they have attempted in recent weeks is as unforgiveable as George Bush Sr.'s Willie Horton ads.

[Tom W.]

Hey Al, did you know Walter Diamond at all - he of the "Brillo for Badillo" gambit, aimed at convincing white Italians in the north Bronx that Herman was from the old country?

Well, we were both raised on the same thing - and we see this entirely in different ways, what can I say. The Clinton campaign, in my view, has not taken a single race-baiting action, not one, nada. Did they burned by a couple of surrogates, yeah. Are those surrogates racist - or race-baiters - nah, I don't buy it. They're just inelegant. To suggest that the "Clinton machine" had some kind of secret plan - and yet pulled it off so clumsily, with the aid of the right-wing media - seems like pure fantasy to me.

And I say that as a New Yorker who lived through all the race-baiting here. Indeed, race has hardly been a factor in this campaign - it's all media-driven - there's been no overt racism, although there has been tons of over sexism.

BTW, Hispanics were with Jesse Jackson in NY in 84 and 88 - I covered those campaigns.

And Willie Horton? Well, that's being as unreasonable toward a liberal fellow Democrat as you can possibly get.

[btw, I like your stuff]

[Tom W.]

Joe, you say - "This is the notion that the Clinton's have set out to undermine."

In my view, that is simply a straight-out untruth - I'm amazed you can type those words.

Oh, and by the way, go to your previous sentence and type in "woman" instead of "black person" - then see how good you feel. The sexism in this campaign has been open and overt - not Obama personally, but his supporters on the right (why so many?) and the media. Racism? Again - show me.

[stellaa]

Today I delete Josh Marshall from my Bookmards, and you will replace him.

From my 23 year old daughter: "Democrats these days are about as critical as a 14 year old girl going home with a hot senior"

[Ronzoni Rigatoni]

Jeebus! I liked what Jesse Jackson had to say in both elections you cite, but knew he could not win. These days I like what John Edwards has to say, but I fear the same results. Alas, America. We've truly forgotten FDR, haven't we?

[JoeCitizen]

Tom,

How on earth can you say it is untrue?
Have you heard Bill today, yesterday, the day before?
What kind of absolute denial are you drowning yourself in? He constantly is trying to put Obama in the Jesse Jackson frame. The campaign came out and explicitly claimed that he is now the "black candidate".

And the woman thing? Give me a break. Tell me one thing that the Obama camp, or the candidate, has ever said that could in any possilbe way seek to stoke some notion that a woman should not be seriously considered for the presidency because she is a woman.
It aint there, and I find it inconceivable that you dont know it.

"Racism? Again - show me."

Now this shows me some real bad will. I began my comment by explicitly defining racism, and explicitly laying out how the Clintons are completely innocent of the charge. The issue is playing the race card, not racism. You seem intent on defending them against a charge not being made. That is evasion, not honest discourse.

[Tom W.]

Joe - do you have any idea what Jesse Jackson accomplished as a candidate? How many Hispanic votes he got? How many white votes he got?

I saw Jackson at the Clinton Global Initiative - the Clintons view him as an elder statesman of African-American politics. So to suggest Bill Clinton was going negative by comparing Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson - a personal friend of Bill's - is entirely disrespectful.

Secondly, no ill will - but why divide a cynical race-based strategy - as you suggest - from racism. I don't see a divide there. Accusing the Clintons of that cynicism or, as Al promotes, actually asking Bob Johnson to play the race card is pretty much calling them racists. Hell, we called Pat Buchanan a racist for similar stuff. Let's own up to it: Obama supporters are calling the Clintons racists.

[Tom W.]

On sexism, it's all over the Obama media strategy of refusing the repudiate a sexist press corps - silence, pure silence as conservatives tee off. So the campaign might not be actively sexist, but damn if the strategy don't work for 'em.

And it's sad. You can still be openly sexist in our society, and get away with it. (See all of Obama's right fans, from Andrew Sullivan to Bill Bennett).

[Linda]

There has definitely been open sexism in the Obama campaign, and very obviously in the press. What do you think Obama's statement about Hillary just having tea parties with international leaders was all about? How well would it have gone over if Hillary had said Obama was out eating watermelon with leaders?

I find it very depressing that absolutely nothing can be said about this man without it being racist. It's racist when his record is mentioned. It's racist when his associates are mentioned. How, pray tell, is one supposed to campaign without being able to make those points, which are definitely being made against Hillary?

I agree with you, Tom. The people I see playing the race card are the Obama campaign. When Jesse Jackson, Jr. gets on all the talking head shows and criticizes Hillary for supposedly crying about her appearance and not Katrina, I think that's playing a race card, to say nothing of being insulting. How the hell would he know whether Hillary cried about Katrina or not? Most of us did. Did he follow her around every minute for months watching? And if he watched the tape, he knew damn well it had nothing to do with her appearance. Sounds like a bit of sexism to me.

I think the media played the race card, and the Obama campaign took it and ran with it. They started out by running clips of Bill and the "fairy tale" statement by taking it out of context of what he was talking about. They also took what Hillary said about LBJ totally out of context. You can make anyone a racist by lifting one sentence out of a whole speech and then playing it over and over again ad nauseum. The fact that the Obama campaign took this stuff, even though they had to know better, and tried to make gravy out of it is really repugnant to me.

Unlike you, Tom, I am going to have an extremely difficult time pulling the lever for him if by some miracle he makes it to the general. I have no confidence in him winning a general against the republican slime machine. And I have no confidence in him cleaning up the government and getting it back on the right track. Right now, Obama is only a couple of points higher in regard to me than Bush.

[athyrio]

TPM has been deleted after proving how biased they are...I fail to see the difference between their biased reporting and the Fox News ....I have added your site to replace them...thanks for being here...

[Whitecat]

"Tell me one thing that the Obama camp, or the candidate, has ever said that could in any possilbe way seek to stoke some notion that a woman should not be seriously considered for the presidency because she is a woman."

For starters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA

I've got more - lots more. But this should get you started, and give you some idea of the Obama campaign's - and the media's - continuing misogyny and sexism.

BTW, Obama never condemned this or apologized for it.

[Freefall]

Sexism? Easy to see. Consider the Obama attack to which Bill Clinton replied with his comment about Jesse Jackson -- and his compliment to Obama's campaign right after it, but that gets edited out.

Yes, it was in response -- again -- an Obama attack: the "two Clintons" remark (same as his first shot in the SC debate).

It is sexist because it says that a woman can't compete on her own. Got it? No? Well, women do. . . .

We also can see the "two Obamas" at work, if the media can't. Consider that Michelle Obama was the one who raised race way back in Iowa. And we know how to read "The Woman Behind Obama" (Chi Sun-Times, 1/20/2007) in which we find out that she had to take along her husband on a job interview before he would let her take a job with the Daley machine.

Yep, before he would "let her" do so. Fighting words for a lot of women, and we're talking about it, even if the media aren't doing so.

[ghost2]

Thanks, Tom.

Yes, it's a very sad commentary. I am really mad at the left in America. They don't seem to know what shit (discourse, I mean) they are peddling.

Here is a thought. The media enticed bloggers with support of Obama, and they took the bait. They were longing to join the slimy crowd of MSM and now they have. That goes for Josh Marshall. Markos was always about business first, even though he may not know it. His blog is his baby, he doesn't care much for what is on it. Marshall really wanted to be a younger version of E.J. Dionne (analogy curtesy of DailyHowler). The circle is now complete.

It's a very sad day for the truth. I wish Billmon still had his blog (what happened to him?)

[Ralph]

The Clintons should have learned from what happened to Mark Green's 2001 mayoral run in NYC. Green ran a negative campaign against popular Bronx borough president Fernando Ferrer even though he was way ahead in the polls. The result was he alienated many of his minority supporters he needed to win against the ex-Democrat, Bloomberg. I am afraid that, regardless of Obama's questionable tactics, Clinton should be running a smarter, more positive campaign. Rove has infected us all, something we hate to admit.

[Jonesy]

Obama IS in the Jessie Jackson frame. They both used race to win South Carolina. Obama wasnt that before New Hampshire, but when he lost there and it looked like he might lose the nomination thats what he became. Bill is right.

[Tom W.]

Ralph, I actually agree with you that some of the tactics in SC weren't smart - for instance, the lack of a real ground game and the ad hoc nature of Bill Clinton's campaigning.

The Green-Ferrer comparison may be apt, but it's going to cut both ways in '08 - because many women will be alienated by a nasty Obama win.

[LatinoVote]

Al Giordano,

I saw racism in Las Vegas too and in was from the Obama support team. The ad they ran against Hillary saying she didn't respect Latinos was absurd and racist. I've seen the race card played since IA and NH where JJ jr went on tv and compared fighting against HRC with OJ Simpson. I saw him say after NH that Hillary didn't cry for victims of Katrina. I've seen the race card played and it was done by Obama surrogates since IA.

[techinvestor]

Craig Crawford is a Clinton Shill and isn't always objective when covering the political races...Obama has run an outstanding campaign with integrity and he's the only candidate who can unite our country and create a new working majority for change...Caroline and Ted Kennedy realize this too...

Ted Kennedy embraces Obama

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BCD77237-3048-5C12-003B0005FE714F31

Kennedys to Bill Clinton: You Are No John Kennedy

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2792

[Temple Stark]

Thanks for that point about Jesse Jackson being at the CGI. Pretty much negates any "race card" criticism that follows; trouble is no one - even sensible people - seem to be listening.

- Temple

[Judith]

really well written, as ususal. looking forward to the book.

[Muataman]

Hey Tom, thats the best thing you ever wrote.

[Nathan]

Thank you for your writings. I'm a bit taken aback by the outrageous bigotry launched at Senator Clinton. I was originally an Edwards supporter, but even I couldn't believe how the press nimbly exploited the false issue of race (something the Obama camp clearly pushed an in an ugly starting with Jesse Jackson, Jr., his national co-chair) as cover for their misogyny. Even if people wanted to vote for her they now see her as a racist.

[Slappy]

Here is what Ive gathered from all this:

1. Both candidates are willing to fight dirty and are willing to take the ship down with them. If your fellow Dems' remarks are so offensive to you and have caused your chosen candidate so much harm, you dont deserve to be in the race. The Republicans will not play as fairly and cordially as Obama and Clinton have. I don't care for either of the two at this moment.
2. A lot of people really, really hate the Clintons. The surprising part is that so many of these people are Democrats. For all their faults, the Democratic party was held together by the Clintons for a good long while. Where would we be without them?
3. I cant believe I am saying this but, we might be in trouble. The fucking media, (including this blog) are fighting over race and sex as Rove and Co. laugh their asses off in the back room. The candidates should be arguing over who will pull out of Iraq the fastest. But we are left with this. Are we really all so stupid? Very, very little separate these candidates politically. The only real difference is their race and sex. Congratulations to all for pointing this out the best way possible.

[Tom K]

*The candidates should be arguing over who will pull out of Iraq the fastest.*

Slappy:

It won't be Hillary, no matter who the other guy is. And that includes McCain. 'Cause he and she are in the "hundred year club' together.

The mere possibility that Obama might not be as hawkish is part of what fuels HRC's talking point that, unlike her, he won't be "ready on day one". Maybe she can push that button enough to get him to say something else really stupid (like, "I'll invade Pakistan"). Even if it doesn't, the tactic contributes to deterring meaningful debate on Iraq, which can only help Hill.

Obama's a politican, and they're all in significant ways unprincipled. Those who aren't are weeded out by our system before we ever hear of them. But in the HRC-Obama matchp, it seems like he's brought boxing gloves to a knife fight.

He has, effectively, no chance at this point in my opinion. The question in my mind is, will he be as willing as John McCain was in 2000 to swallow hard and stay on board with a Clinton presidency? I think he will -- he'd be foolish not to, given his age and prospects within the party. But the HRC campaign has a lot of repair work to do in the black community, and I'm not sure they can get over themselves enough to do do it.

Whatever their public positions on all this, I'll bet my bottom dollar that you can add the Obamas to the long list of people whose politics or interests align with the Clintons' and yet who, after dealing with them, develop a deep personal loathing for them, jointly and severally.

They must all be jealous. What else could it be?

[Tom W.]

TK - Obama's more of a passive-aggressive type, but he can play dirty too (witness the anti-Hispanic stuff in NV and the race memo in SC).

I agree that he'd accept the VP slot - silly not to, fastest path to presidency.

You seem to ignore their positions on Iraq (or rather, you instinctively disbelieve hers out of personal rancor) but they are almost exactly the same, as indeed is their voting record on Iraq allocations in the Senate.

Finally, Obama has a 50-50 chance of winning, up from 40-60 thanks to SC and Kennedy.

[Tom K]

I wasn't talking 'bout the VP slot (note the McCain reference) -- just the maintenance of some measure of party civility.

I guess he would accept VP if offered, but I think she is more likely to look to balance her ticket the other way for the general. That depends on a number of open factors, tho, including the R nominee.

I don't ignore their positions on Iraq:

On her, I rely on her voting record on the war, her refusal to commit to anything meaningful in terms of getting out, her continued beligerance re: Iran, and the WJC admin's extremely aggressive policies toward Iraq.

On him, I say he *might* be less hawkish because, well, he CAME OUT AGAINST THE WAR AT THE TIME THE DECISION TO GO IN WAS MADE. That seems to me rather more important than what he said in the context of the 2004 pres. election (where Kerry needed cover), or how he votes on funding once we had gone in. Each of those things may be important, but the first of them seems more than sufficient to justify saying that he "might" be less hawkish.

Can't agree about his chances. She's got him wondering what to do; complain and be whiny, stand by and look like he can't handle the back-and-forth? Meanwhile, she has the confidence to forego the most basic courtesy of a concession speech -- which, if done by a R would have people talking about Hitler not shaking Jesse Owens' hand at the '36 Olympics -- and stand by while WJC compares him to Jesse Jackson, secure in the knowledge that those in the media who complain will be lumped with Matthews as Hillary-haters, and otherwise sensible people will argue that it isn't racial to compare Obama's campaign to Jackson's, because, clearly, the one thing they have in common is -- they won South Carolina.

It is a tribute to the stength of the written word that it can convey such absurdities without breaking apart on the page.

[Tom W.]

TK - they have the same Iraq policy, but yes Obama did oppose the war as a state legislator, for whatever that's worth. Mssrs. Edwards, Biden, Dodd, et al did not. Yet they're anti-war, apologies or no.

"Those who complain" means virtually the entire media en masse, which took one snippet (complimentary toward both men, I might add) and said it was racist. The episode is sickening.

With Obama and Jackson, there are a lot of similarities when you look, though certainly they represent different eras.

Both liberals (Jackson much more so), both attracted multi-racial coalitions heavily laced with students, both built their careers in Chicago, both Christians who talk publicly about their faith (one a minister), both grew up without fathers (a happenstence shared with Bill Clinton), both passionate/highly-regarded orators who gave great convention speeches - and you'd have to argue both are ethnic pioneers in an America formerly closed to their candidacies.

Obama's people shouldn't be trashing Jesse Jackson - Obama stands on his shoulders.

[Tom K]

Tom:

I have read you last post with interest. I will repeat myself -- It is a tribute to the stength of the written word that it can convey such absurdities without breaking apart on the page.

[Tom W.]

Huh? Are you saying a Jackson-Obama comparison is absurd?

[Tom K]

Here is exactly what I am saying is absurd:

The idea that the comparison is not part of a tactical program to disparage Obama in the eyes of mainstream voters -- however piously the Clinton camp will declare that anyone who considers such a comparison less than complimentary is a racist or a sell-out to the cause of black poltical empowerment.

All very clever, but it's yet another case of "too cute by half". To the extent ethnic voting blocs can be said to have an identity, the black voting bloc is not remotely stupid enough to fall for this. HRC can nail down the nomination with these tactics, but if she's counting on the black vote because they "have no place else to go", she's taking a big risk. There's other things to do on election day than vote, as tens of millions of americans show every year.

[Freefall]

Tom K, on just one of your . . . points. On the facts. Where did you hear and buy into the line that HRC didn't give a concession speech? Would that be the incredibly biased CNN and MSNBC after the SC primary?

They lied. Shocking, I know. But they lied. And if you had not bought into it but kept watching, you would have seen . . . her concession speech. And as usual, as it has been every time, it was very gracious.

But maybe it is you that is biased here, as you must know by now but are ignoring that it was OBAMA who did not give a concession speech after the Nevada caucus. Nada, nothing. And because the media are so biased, they decided to then show only clips of HRC's VICTORY speech. So Obama's gracelessness cost Dems, repeat, Dems crucial air time . . . as they switched to GOPs, instead.

Ask yourself this, check transcripts -- has Obama ever, in either victory or concession speeches, even acknowledged Clinton? No. Yet in every one of her speeches after Iowa, NH, Nevada, and now SC, she has acknowledged him, congratulated him -- and others running as well.

This has been the nail in Obama's coffin for me, showing again what I thought I detected before: He is arrogant, he actually is running a third party here, but dishonestly within the Dem party to use its resources and recognition -- and he is not getting my vote when my primary comes.

And guess what? Because enough of us have seen this in him, he has not done well so far . . . so my vote, soon after Super Tuesday, looks like it will matter, after all. My vote for Clinton.

[Tom W.]

Actually, "a tactical program to disparage Obama in the eyes of mainstream voters" is patently absurd, if you're saying there's something involved.

Has Clinto tried to show that Obama is a weaker candidate, has faults worthy of point out? Yes.

Has there been some centrally-controlled "race card" plan from the Clinton campaign? The suggestion is ludicrous.

[Slappy]

Concession speeches? Are you guys serious? This is what matters? What planet are we on again?

[Tom K]

Freefall:

If you are right, I stand corrected. I would appreciate a link showing that, if you have one, because I didn't intend the "concession speach" angle to be a major part of my point, so it was not something I researched. I did go to bed having seen HRC speak after Obama's victory was announced and I didn't hear her concede, but she may have done so later, and/or Obama may have set the tone through his earlier primary night speeches.

That might lower my estimation of Obama, but it would only marginally affect my major point about the Clintons: that the comment in question was racial, and was intended to disparage Obama by comparing his candidacy to Jackson's.

That Tom W can find no basis to dispute it apart from his personal vouching for the Clintons (who I imagine he does not know very well) is interesting. Or maybe he's just saying that the comment wasn't made pursuant to "some centrally-controlled 'race card' plan".

That is possible, I suppose, but it's also a much less interesting point. Because if Bill's freelancing, that's still coming from the heart of the campaign in a way that statements by lower level staffers aren't.

[Tom W.]

Well, there we agree - he was freelancing, no question. He's been doing that all along, and sometimes it hurts and sometimes it helps.

But of course, you present no evidence at all to counter my personal vouching - just your personal feeling about the Clintons.

[Robbedvoter]

Thanks so much for this.
I too celebrated Iowa. Then celebrated women slapping the media in NH. Then celebrating Reagan losing to Nevada unions.
And after watching the media circus on MSNBC, I pledged my vote to Hillary. (mind you, I voted for Johnatan Tasini in the last senate primary, and protested at her offices with Code Pink before)
Other fellow anti-war protesters let me know - as a result of this, they were voting for her too.

[Kathleen Maher]

Tom, You convinced me. The articles I keep reading make me queasy, which I generally assume is only politics as politics.
But when politicians call other politicians slick and ambitious, I have to wonder, do they think that somehow their own political careers occurred accidentally? Do they believe they've achieved national candidacy and experience without a shred of ambition?
If so, they can't possibly have a clue into their own nature. For real now, does only of the people running for office deserve the adjective, slick? If so, quite possibly the USA will chose the craggiest, most rough-hewn (I'm thinking Mt. Rushmore for some reason),and utterly unambitious person whose name by pure happenstance shows up in the mechanical booth.
Is Dreamworks working on a red, white, and blue holograph?

[Tom K]

*But of course, you present no evidence at all to counter my personal vouching - just your personal feeling about the Clintons.*

Tom -- The point at issue is my contention that WJC's comparison to Jesse Jackson was intended "to disparage Obama in the eyes of mainstream voters."

I've summarized my reasons for thinking that. To me, they are so self-evident that I find it almost comical to be debating the point.

But even if you don't agree with my conclusion, the arguments for it are not difficult to follow. A black candidate who can draw mainstream white voters is stronger than one who does not; Obama was emerging as the former, which Rev J never did; by doing so, Obama threatened HRC; as Obama and Rev J are both black, it was in HRC's interest to see mainstream voters associate them; WJC's comment foreseeably increased the chances of that happening. Also, Obama and Rev. J are not the only two people in history to win a SC primary, but they are the only two blacks to win any major party primary, so far as I know. So claiming that they are being associated on the basis of winning SC, rather than on the basis of their race, is patently absurd. (BTW, I have heard that SC didn't even hold primaries when Rev J won, which would further prove my point, but I haven't checked it.)

You, on the other hand, say the Clintons wouldn't "play the race card" -- "the suggestion is ludicrous" -- without offering a single argument.

Whichever of us is right, your argument that we are both just vouching for or against is surely wrong.

[english teacher]

tom k:

you would actually have to be able to read bill clinton's mind, and read it correctly, to know what he intended. i agree with the blog host. it is an insult to jesse jackson, whom i greatly admire and have seen speak twice.

further, what is absurd is your attempt to distinguish between "winning in s.c." and being "black". it equally applies to both, as they are both black and both won s.c. you are making a distinction to support a conclusion not warranted by facts and which can only be validated as true, as i stated above, by the powers of clairvoyance.

[english teacher]

you didn't mean the concession speech angle to be a major part of your point? you just got bitch slapped when it was pointed out to you that you completely swallowed a bogus media narrative simply because it jibed with your predetermined sentiments about hillary clinton. i mean her craven pursuit of power is just so obvious and all... facts be damned!

[Freefall]

Hey, thanks, English Teacher. (Is that, um . . . E.T. for short?:-) I had only enought time to point out one of the reasons why credibility was lacking in the Tom K comment -- as once I saw that, it told me that the rest was not reliable but no doubt also just furthering the media memes.

And then . . . thud, and the thread did not go near the sexism discussion again. So it goes, but it is good to know someone saw it, and maybe read the rest of it, too. Cheers.

[Tom K]

FreeFall/ET:

Were you among those who criticized GWB for not admitting mistakes? Because saying that someone who admits even the possibility of error loses all credibility isn't exactly the way to encourage honest & public self-examination.

I said that that I didn't see her give a concession speech at the time & place where I expected it, but that if she did it elsewhere, or Obama didn't, then I am happy to stand corrected in attributing this to her as an ungracious act.

I asked if you had a link to show me your point, but I didn't get one, so I don't know if you are right or not. It was incidental to my point, and I imagine the Clinton camp could make a doctral thesis arguing over what constitutes a "concession speech", so I'm not going to try and track down the proof that what I heard on the news was wrong, even though supported by the (limited) speechifying I saw.

While I am all for doubting the media, the conservative sites I respect usually provide some support when arguing that the media is guilty of misrepresenting something. Apparently, when arguing that the media is just smearing the Clinton's, you feel there is no such burden of proof.

If you wanna say you trounced someone (to modify your characterization a bit), you have to actually prove them wrong, not merely say they are wrong. Even then, I don't know how much it proves when it's on a collateral point -- but if you are right, good for you and bad on me. So far as it goes. Doesn't make you right on all things disputed forever more.

[Tom K]

Separately for ET:

If you have never argued that the motives of a politican in speaking certain words are apparent from the cirucmstances in which they are spoken (including how they stand to serve that politican's interests), they you can criticize me for presuming "clairvoyance".

The motive here is so obvious that only a complete ban on such interpretation could make it improper in this instance.

[Tom W.]

"Apparently, when arguing that the media is just smearing the Clinton's, you feel there is no such burden of proof."

Well, you haven't been reading this blog very much - or opening the paper, or watching television. The anti-Clinton bias (much of it blatantly sexist) is everywhere. A few points:

- We've covered MSNBC and Huffington Post, two big places for progressives that have been virtual newswires for Obama and anti-Clinton machines for a year. But Dan Abrams, who runs MSNBC's political coverage, blasted back last night against some of his own people. Here's MyDD's take:

"Dan Abrams went after the MSM and Washington pundits tonight for ignoring Hillary Clinton's win in Florida. He also pointed out that the polls for the biggest states coming up on Tuesday show Hillary leading by healthy leads. He pointed out that the media is obsessed with its dislike of Hillary Clinton. He posted an interesting chartL: more people voted in Florida than in Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC combined, yet the media continues to focus on Obama. The media can't get enough of the Obama story, and is promoting Obama. In short, Obama is the media darling, and Obama is getting a free pass from the press."

- The Times, wich endorsed Hillary, nonetheless shows a clear bias for Obama in its coverage. Well, look at today - they assigned a front page story on President Clinton to Don van Atta, who made thousands and thousands from his anti-Hillary biography. What a shock. More on the NYT's anti-HRC bias in its news coverage from journalism professor Jeff Jarvis:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/30/what-does-the-times-have-against-hillary/

- A bevy of well-respected lefty blogs and bloggers, from Open Left to Talking Points Memo to Al Giordano's blog, have become propaganda bureaus for Obama, spitting out anti-Clinton stuff on an hourly basis. (You might suggest that I'm the same on the other side - not in volume or tone, I'd answer). DailyKos has become one massive hit job on Clinton.

- I'd point you to ths study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs that documents the anti-Clinton bias in the media:
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

- Jonathan Tilove of Newhouse wrote a great story about the sexist Hillary hatred in the media here:
http://www.newhouse.com/hillary-hatred-finds-its-misogynistic-voice-8.html

- The right-wing needs no introducton: Limbaugh's reference to the "testicle lock box" in reference to Senator Clinton is merely emblematic of the rampant sexism and vicious anti-Clinton anger on the right.

[Tom K]

Tom:

I wasn't talking about proof for the general proposition that the media is "smeaing the Clintons" (though I concede that what I wrote can be read that way quite reasonably).

Rather, I intended to ask for proof that the media was smearing the Clintons by failing to report or misreporting on two discrete ways: (i) by reporting that Hillary had not given a concession speech after her SC loss, when, assertedly, she had and (ii) by failing to report that Obama had not given one after one or more of his earlier losses.

Those things are more likely to be amenable to proof than "Smearing the Clintons", which is probably too laden a term to be proven or disproven. BTW, I agree that there is visible hostility to her. For a long time, there has been visible support, but the criticism does seem more prominent now. So it goes.