'Among the Gasbags'

Because sometimes you just want to say Digby:

Question: Do I agree that Hillary Clinton is a racist and why haven't I disavowed, renounced and rebuked her?

Answer: No I do not think she is a racist and I haven't disavowed, renounced and rebuked her for the same reason I didn't disavow, deplore and rebuke Barack Obama for saying that white working class voters cling to God and guns because they are bitter.

Why?  Because they are ridiculous, MSM-style trumped up controversies.

Candidates speak imprecisely from time to time, particularly during presidential campaigns which are superhuman, exhausting efforts. They are human beings and they get tired.

[snip]

Again, do I think Clinton should have said what she said? Of course not. I'm sure she agrees. Neither do I think that Barack Obama was happy with himself for saying that voters he needs to win in the fall are bitter. Partisans on both sides may think each of these candidates are racists or snobs, but neither of them are stupid. Both Clinton and Obama were clumsily repeating observations they'd heard, oh --- a million times --- about"what the white working class voter really wants." It's a non-stop topic among the gasbags...

I can't put it any better than that.

Comments

[Pat Johnson]

Oh Tom, if they could all reason like you and Digby we wouldn't be as divisive as we are today. Instead they make this out to be either a horserace or a vote for home room rep. They are pathetic.

[Pat Johnson]

Oh Tom, if they could all reason like you and Digby we wouldn't be as divisive as we are today. Instead they make this out to be either a horserace or a vote for home room rep. They are pathetic.

[kateNC]

The critics all get to correct themselves by commenting again, editing, or writing a diary. Candidates never get a second chance. They have to try to back out of clumsy phrasing without every critic being able to call them a flip-flopper.

Some of the slicing and dicing done by the blogosphere this year to make points is right up there with micro-surgery

[Slappy]

I agree with you Tom W.

Is anyone concerned that this would have a negative effect on the election should she be the nominee? These petty controversies for both candidates are meaningless and should be treated as such. Equally.

Iraq. The economy. Iraq. Healthcare. Iraq. Katrina. Iraq. Thats how the Dems will win, not by focusing on each other's inconsequential flaws or missteps.

[Tom K]

I agree. As I've been saying since the absurd overreaction to the Wily Horton ad, nothing is gained by marginalizing honest discussion regarding race, such as the kind candidate Clinton inadvertently engaged in.

[Slappy]

Willy Horton a slip of the tongue? That's quite a slide.

I'll be the decider of what is worthy of controversy Tom K. Thank you very very much.

[Ralph]

The wife of America's first black president should get a break. Of course she is not racist. Do candidates sometimes phrase things badly? Yes. Should we be talking about this for more than a minute? No.

[Cm Sinclair]

Oh c'mon. The media waged a disgusting sexist war against Clinton. The Clinton campaign employed (usually with some subtlty--documenting Jesse Jackson campaign wins aside) racist discourses to bolster their campaign on a daily basis once Obama took the lead (this doesn't imply they are racist...tho, arguably, this makes the tactic more offensive). Rather big difference--and comparing this to Obama's alleged slur of the gun totin' white males who have never lacked for a voice or representation in American society is intellectually if not morally repugnant.

[Tom K]

I have no idea whether she is racist, but see no reason to think that she is, based on anything she has said or done previously or on this occasion.

What she said clearly was what she thought -- not a slip of the tongue, not racism, but straightforward political strategizing, analysis spun to her favor.

Now that we're all agreed this is not racism, remind me: why was Bush 41 presumptively racist for employing a political strategy of pointing out Dukakis's policy releasing dangerous criminals on the public?

[Cm Sinclair]

That was not Dukakis's policy. Simply youtube the Willy Horton commercial they ran. If you cannot see with horrifying clarity the race baiting at play there you really have a serious problem.

[Slappy]

The Horton ad said: The black man is going to get you.
Clinton said: Racists arent going to vote for a black man.

Both are unpleasant but big difference Tom K.

[Tom K]

I guess I need to understand the objection -- is it to the specific commercial that included Horton's picture, or to the raising of the issue and the race-neutral ad (eg, showing a disproportionately white convict population) that ran nationally?

I saw the YouTube ad. If you assume the people behind it were racist, it certainly looks racist. If you assume they weren't, then it looks like an issue ad. In that respect, it resembles HRC's comments -- the key difference being, you all assume Bush 41 was racist and HRC isn't.

Slappy -- the difference you cite makes sense only if you assume that the ad was racist (eg, the message is "the black man is going to get you"), rather than an issue ad that focuses on an example that happened to involve a black criminal (something within the range of reasonably probable results on a race-neutral draw).

[Esoth]

TW, part of what has been so disheartening in HRC's campaign has been the way the Clintons have dragged their most loyal supporters down with them. It is positively sad to read and hear the excuse making on Hillary's behalf, after her careful and crude crafting of her latest offensive remarks, timed for the West Virginia primary. Hillary's Rovian coding, "working, hard working Americans, white Americans" was expressly designed to ensure that her victory in WV will be exclusively be reported and discussed in terms of racial polarization. I know why the Clintons race-bait, given who they are running against, but from where among her supporters does this sudden blithe tolerance come from?

It may well be soon said of the Clintons, that they WERE two Democratic leaders, and it will be their recasting of the party's support for and from the African American community as some sort of millstone or astigmatism that will place them in the past tense. It is true that Hillary has heard this theme of the white voters resistance to Obama a million times, as it has been the subtext of her campaign since Iowa, and has been present like white noise in the background of everything her campaign has done or said since.

My Democratic Party is proud and unafraid of its historic ties to the African American community, and its a pride that we will carry together into the future, despite the Clintons' fevered attempts to delegitimize the binds of loyalty.

The attempts by the Clintons supporters and enablers to cite to the Clintons past acts of good will toward the African American community are futile and pathetic, because it is the Clintons themselves that have cashed in their capital, and who want to redefine and reposition the Democratic party to be able to compete, on an even footing, with the very worst elements of the Republican party, for the votes of the last angry men and women, who hearken back to a time when every race knew their place.

[Tom K]

I see no reason to believe that the Clintons' attitude toward black Americans has changed, apart from a little pique at not getting the expected support.

They were always reasonably sympathetic, I imagine, but any such sympathy was certainly secondary to the political calculation involved in locking up the support of a key D constituency. With that possibility now gone in the current race, they are probably still sympathetic, but it just so happens they have to to do what they have to do to advance themselves.

Not only is HRC fighting for her life re: the nomination, but I think she appreciates that, should she pull it out, Obama will have played "Souljah writ large" to prime her for the general election.

That the cynicism of this should surprise anyone about HRC seems odd to me. I mean, I think she's a hard case, but most any politican would do the same thing if they thought it would serve their interest. She differs from the pack, if at all, only in making a bolder calculation.

[reg gibbes]

Does everyone agree that Barack Obama is a misogynist-- otherwise why hasn't he disavowed, renounced and rebuked the sexism directed at Clinton in this campaign?

If he wants to be leader of the free world, shouldn't Barack Obama stand up for women's rights? Shouldn't he take the lead on this?

All I hear about is race, race, race. But not a peep from Obama, his supporters, the DNC, Pelosi, Kennedy, Dodd, etc. condemning the sexism in this campaign.

I guess they don't care about women's votes. Because they certainly aren't going to get mine, after all of this silence.

[donna darko]

Violet had a couple paid Republican trolls trying to conquer and divide too. The language is too precise.

[Tom W.]

I'm sure CM and Esoth are not Republican trolls and that they're in earnest, but I have to say this strongly - I find the suggestion of race-baiting by Senator Clinton or President Clinton offensive.

My Democratic party is also unafraid of its historic ties to the African-American community - and it's ludicrous to suggest the Clintons don't honor that association (and as Tom K. correctly suggests, have courted it and benefited from it). The "racial" strain from the Clinton camp, so arduously argued by Obama supporters, is the thinnest rhetorical gruel possible - there's nothing there.

Let me say it bluntly - they are are not racists and have not used race in an overt or offensive manner for the entirety of this campaign. They employed no "racial discourses." I can't be any more straight up than that.

Hillary's remark about demographics with inelegant and ill-timed, but no more offensive than the over-hyped "bitter" remarks by Barack.

[donna darko]

I meant reg above me.

[donna darko]

Tom, you're getting Obamamania! Everything about race race race! :)

[Judith]

" I find the suggestion of race-baiting by Senator Clinton or President Clinton offensive."

Thank you, Tom.

[mojave_wolf]

I was concerned about the comment at first, because I heard about it out of context when I was very tired. Even once I saw the context, I figured it was just a gaffe but was worried that others would respond horribly--things I don't think any reasonable person could construe as even vaguely racist have been portrayed as racist in this campaign, and the phrase taken out of context sounds bad (even in context, I still wish she had said it differently). But even some bloggers who were upset at Bill's comments seemed less so about this, and I seem to be the only person I know in real life who thought it was a problem, and more than half of my friends are working class Latino (all but one Hillary supporters, which is actually much more lopsided in her favor than among white people I know) who would have been among the people who most easily could have taken offense, so I'm thinking my initial "wtf?" reaction was from paying too much attention to the MSM, and being hypersensitive from reading too much craziness over the last few months.

Also, I completely agree that the Clintons have *not* engaged in race-baiting, or been the ones to inject in this campaign. On the other hand, I'm *livid* at a lot of the media coverage of West Virginia, and in particular democratic party types who keep trying to blame results they don't like on racism. It's bad enough coming from the Obama camp; when it comes from people in the democratic party, I keep wondering why they want to fix the outcome so desperately and if they really don't get how incredibly destructive it is to the party's chances in November, regardless of who is the nominee, to keep repeating this junk or allying themselves with corporate talking heads who keep trying to demonize someone who over half the democratic party and an ever greater number of independents and Republicans genuinely like and/or admire.

[mojave_wolf]

The first sentence in my second paragraph above should have read "been the ones to inject race into this campaign". Apologies.

[Tom K]

*they are are not racists*

Agreed.

*and have not used race in an overt or offensive manner for the entirety of this campaign.*

Depends what you consider "overt" or "offensive". Some of their statements have been overtly racial; I don't accept that the reference to Jesse Jackson was anything but, for example, but I don't see why anything racial is necessarily offensive.

They employed no "racial discourses."

I don't really see how you can say that. How is saying, "he can't get the white vote" not "racial discourse"?

[CmSinclair]

"Let me say it bluntly - they are are not racists and have not used race in an overt or offensive manner for the entirety of this campaign. They employed no "racial discourses." I can't be any more straight up than that."
Um...ok. First, I certainly don't believe they are racists and I'd be positively giddy at the prospect of HRC in the Whitehouse--that said, its time to get rid of the false binary that suggests that observing the fact that HRC's campaign has exploited offensive and well established American racial discourses in an attempt to bolster their support is akin to saying they are racist. It's your hospitality we're enjoying here so I suppose you're entitled to strolling down the tubes with these kind of absolute pronouncements of "truth" but, as is so often the case, the boldness of the statement suggests its fundamental weakness--to my ears its roughly akin to media friends who say: "I know him, Chris Mathews is not sexist and has not used sex in an offensive manner. I can't be any more straight up than that."
You could trot out any number of clips and/or direct quotes to contradict that statement (dude would take each one individually and note that it was an unfortunatly worded statement that was blown out of proportion--because I straight up KNOW he's not sexist, remember).
I'd have many more clips and direct quotations that show the Clinton machine's use "racial discourses." On balance isn't it better to hold them to account for what they've actually said rather than dismissing criticisms based on a belief in their inherent goodness? And absolutely hold Obama to account for his "bitter" statement--obviously I don't think they are equally bad. If we look at the factual and ideological underpinnings of these two discourses i'd have to believe that Obama would welcome the comparison.

[Tom W.]

I guess my main gripe is with the false charge of "use" of racial discourse - sure, they've talked about race - everyone has, from Obama to Clinton and everybody in between. But I find the suggesting of racializing the campaign or race-baiting to be entirely without merit.

So, Bill Clinton certainly talked about race and voting patterns in SC - but it was no strategy to win votes (some strategy, by the way). He figured wrongly that he'd be given a pass, especially with his history in the black community. Obama's surrogates called him on it - loudly, and with the assistance of a prominent campaign memo - and here we are.

[Tom K]

If they're saying it, it's part of a strategy to get votes. The "they" in that sentence may well be any politician, but certainly includes Hillary "Gas Tax Holiday!" and Bill "the Era of Big Government is Over!" Clinton.

[donna darko]

Back in December:

The campaign for Mr. Obama, an Illinois senator, has been using the Shaheen comments as part of a fund-raising appeal, keeping the issue alive because Obama advisers say they believe it will backfire against the Clinton campaign.

Race-baiting or bringing in race is the central Obama campaign strategy. You're racist if you criticize him, if you don't support him, if you criticize the campaign's sexism, and if the DNC and Party do not support him.

[Esoth]

The Clintons are racists only when they absolutely feel they have to be. More accurately, they race-bait only when they are forced to do it, or face losing. If Hillary had been comfortably ahead, none of these coded statements and veiled messages would have been uttered. None of them. Under the terms of the original plan as drawn-up, the Clintons would've maintained deep support in the African American community. I don't doubt that they sincerely wished things had played out in that way.

Historic events (the emergence of a front-running African American candidate) intervened and instead caused the Clintons to choose between taking the high-road, low-probability-of-success approach, which would have been consistent with, and respectful of, their own previous record of mutual support for and from the African American community, or the low-road, still long-shot approach of undermining that community and that relationship for a perceived gain in the campaign. The Clintons clearly chose the latter. I don't deny that the Clintons benefited in the past from African American support, or that their ties to that community were real, but they have breached that relationship.

Since February, Hillary and her surrogates have continually sounded themes that were developed by Republicans (Nixon's Southern Strategy), and internalized by Reagan and the Bushes over the last few decades (karma now dictates that the GOP is rotting from the inside). By the time this is over, only Hillary's staunchest supporters will remain willfully blind to what is painfully obvious to everyone else. Obama's supporters may be biased, but Republicans know their own game when they see it played, and so do the journalists and media. The Clintons are among the smartest, most savviest politicians ever anywhere, yet we are to pretend they have made a string of eerily similar errors, due to lack of sleep or from an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato.

Over and over again, Hillary and her surrogates throw the one-two combination -- working-class whites are for Hill, -- and Obama is mysteriously "unelectable", despite his remarkably effective campaign.

All of this has been difficult because WJC had built up a depository of deep good will, and its painful to see it squandered in a losing effort. And to see Hillary, as the first woman front-runner for the Presidency, behave so badly has been hard to accept. But then there is something off-putting to the idea that Hillary's only chance at the spot is a product of her star-power and her husband, rather than the qualities of any man or woman running for office, which should entitle them to be judged on the merits. But for the initial sense of supreme entitlement among Clintons' supporters, Hillary's campaign need not have been viewed in such stark, desperate, last-chance terms, and could have served as a strong foundation to build upon for the next time, whether it would be Hillary herself or another woman.

[Tom W.]

Esoth, what I can I say - I think you've got it all wrong.

[Tom K]

Tom:

I would criticize the lameness of your response, but I don't think there's really anything better you could have written. I think you have dealt with unanswerable arguments more effectively in the past, though, by ignoring them.