Why Race Matters in South Carolina
Back in 1992, in one of Bill Clinton’s many exhibitions of his masterful grasp of spin, he called out Sister Souljah by criticizing her extremist comments during the Democratic primary season in 1992. In doing so, then-Governor Clinton signaled to moderate, undecided voters that he was a centrist, like them, and he’d be an acceptable alternative to the incumbent, President George Bush (No. 41).
In an inverted echo of the Sister Souljah moment from her husband’s first Presidential campaign, Senator Hillary Clinton recently opened the door to the issue of race – but without such positive results. In making the case that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have happened but for President Lyndon Johnson, she essentially disparaged the crucial role of every civil rights leader of that era. But for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., The Hon. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and many others, the pressure required to make voting and civil rights legislation a reality wouldn’t have existed. By the time she stammered her way through this explanation, though, it was too little, too late; Barack Obama’s campaign had fashioned the issue just enough to get the attention of a critical segment of South Carolina’s Democratic primary voters.
Senator Clinton’s poor attempt to illustrate her leadership qualities opened the door to the issue of race. Senator Obama smartly stepped through that door and made the tactically correct decision to appeal to minority women in Nevada and South Carolina (with the emphasis on the Palmetto State). Senator Clinton won New Hampshire due to women voters turning out in force and Senator Clinton now leads among women in South Carolina. Senator Obama’s campaign is wise to keep the New Hampshire results top of mind: while Senator Obama enjoys a wide advantage over Senator Clinton among black voters overall, Senator Clinton’s slight advantage with women would be all she needs to win South Carolina and begin to put the Democratic presidential nomination away. Therefore, Senator Obama had to throw the chalks under Senator Clinton in South Carolina by putting race in play and compel black women to choose between their gender and their race. Senator Clinton gave him a fantastic opportunity.
Senator Obama is a savvy candidate and likely had a sense of how inflammatory this issue could become. It would help him with a core group of voters, but it wouldn’t be in his interest to allow the issue to dominate the contest. So once he got the utility he needed from Senator Clinton’s original comments, he let it drop. Senator Clinton was not about to complain, likely relieved to have the issue dissipate from the news cycle. So Senator Obama succeeded in deftly manipulating this issue to reap the benefits going into the South Carolina primary, while avoiding raising the issue further, which could have dimmed his positioning as a candidate who transcends race. If Senator Obama were to stay with the race issue, there would be a real risk of alienating white voters and making his candidacy about race rather than hope and change.
Senator Clinton served up a softball to Senator Obama and he took full advantage, demonstrating an agility and, equally important, a calculated restraint. This is the kind of performance Senator Obama needs if he is to beat out Senator Clinton for the presidential nomination.
Despite Sista Souljah and getting irritated at Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton got the African-American vote. Hillary, in using her surrogates to try to block Obama voters in Las Vegas is letting the race issue fester. If the teacher's union suit is upheld, Hillary will have won a battle, but may have lost a war.
Black talk radio and other African-American media sources, that MSM remains oblivious to, will trash her.
It will be interesting to see what effect the above scenario will have on Hillary's campaign in South Carolina.
January 17, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the general if she is the nominee... Can you just imagine yet another setback, after eight years of Bush rule, the chance for a Democratic sweep of both branches and all the minority voters stay home?
January 17, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton's statements about Sister Souljah were made in June 1992. If I recall correctly, he had the Dem nomination pretty well sewn up by then. The comments were directed to the general voting population (non-black) to assure them he wasn't overly beholden to African American interests.
In the general election, who were African Americans (mostly Dems) going to have to vote for anyway - Bush I or Perot? Not likely.
It will be interesting to see the impact of all of this race talk when we get to primaries in more diverse states like CA, NY, NJ in February.
January 18, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, what's interesting to me is not the merit of Hillary's statement-- technically true, but also revealing that she thinks the real changes happen in government, when government in fact tends to ratify and codify what's already changed-- but just the stupidity of saying it.
The girl grew up near Chicago, for Christ's sake-- yet somehow she didn't get that you don't go into Avondale and insult Pulaski, you don't go to Taylor Street and mock Columbus, you don't go to Pilsen and suggest that Juarez was a bad guy. You suck up to them. You say you'd be proud to be the handmaiden to Martin Luther Kings of today, like the rev'run Jackson, in passing their agenda and dolin' out the jobs. She's got Daley machine people all through her campaign, and she doesn't get that?
Hillary, sorry, but we don't want nobody nobody sent. Downtown said to give that Obama fellow a job (he's got Daley people all over his campaign too), and it's his people's turn.
January 17, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like Roosevelt's New Deal? Rural electrification? The interstate highway system? The economic rebirth of Japan?
Lovely how MgMax insists on inserting some idiotic ideological propaganda point into every post. What is that? Subliminal warfare? Lie often enough and people will believe it? Who was it that said that originally? Goebbels?
January 17, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
But FDR was all about change and convincing the public to trust him, that he had their interests at heart. The nature of the New Deal programs kept mutating, and the whole effort was only partially successful. It was the willingness to experiment, and FDR's leadership skills, that mattered.
Hillary, you're no FDR.
January 17, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Hillary Clinton isn't FDR. Barack Obama isn't JFK, John Edwards isn't TR, John McCain isn't HST and Mike Huckabee isn't...well, I don't know who he's supposed to be - Henry Ward Beecher without the charm, I guess, but the point is that if you're waiting for second comings forget it. These people are who they are.
January 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's core message seems to be that change comes from the top down, not the bottom up. That is consistent with a monoarchy not a democracy.
Well in fairness to Hillary she set out to draw the distinction between words and actions following up from her assertions on false hope during the debate. Where she erred was in her choice of leaders. Hillary did not see herself as demeaning MLK she saw herself as saying that MLK 's dream (words) became reality with LBJ's enact of legislatiion (action). What she did not count on was how it was going to be perceived by the black media and community who became enraged. It would be no different from someone trying to make an analogy and they use the Nazi's or Hitler in any way other than to say they were scurrilous you will get outrage from the Jewish community. No matter if the Nazi's did amass a movement..the only thing of paramount importance would be that they were given recognition in a manner inconsistent with the totality of what they achieved. That was how the black community responded to MLK's name being invoked without the totality of what he achieved. Hillary believed that her record on civil rights would save her from that perception. HA! Not to the black community where MLK is an icon and even nationally recognized by America as the father of civil rights. She stepped in poop, inadvertently.
Lol lol, let's not forget Hillary is a Goldwater girl and was President of the Republican's club as a freshman at Wellsley...she did not listen to Daley then even if she should be now.
January 17, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Following up in fairness to Hillary, she's not running to be a grassroots organizer in this case, but for a top position. The work she can do as president will of necessity be top-down. And the only way to avoid the "monarchy problem" is to make herself useful as the person in power who listens to people who need good things done, and does what she can on their behalf--kind of an uber-wonky public servant.
I think she genuinely sees herself fitting in the way LBJ did for civil rights: certainly no rock star, but somebody who can make things happen for rock stars and the people who adore them. (Heck, she did it for Bill for most of her adult life and it turned out pretty well for him.) In this context, her remark was no insult to Dr. King: she saw LBJ as delivering the justice that King and his movement had boldly envisioned and quite rightly demanded.
Hillary has a very hard time making this case for herself (it's pretty hard to whip up a crowd by explaining how essentially boring you are) but if she were able to deliver this kind of presidency, we'd all be the better for it. It wouldn't be the most glamorous four years ever, but for those who genuinely love good government, there'd be plenty to talk about.
I'm unconvinced that this is what she'd actually do--her votes on Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman make me question her ability to discern the difference between real progress and business as usual, but if she could she'd get a lot done.
Personally, I see the president more as a person who sets the tone, tries to bring out the best in everyone, embodies a bold-but-fair agenda, and lets the details get worked out by organizers, happy as long as the result fits into the big picture and moves in the right direction. (Of course, the president also needs to be smart, well-educated and kind, a leader not a figurehead like certain current presidents.)This view makes Obama the most presidential of all the candidates still standing. (IMHO)
It's too bad we couldn't have a president with Hillary's brain/guts, Obama's heart, and Edwards' policies, but the resulting person might be pretty funny-looking.
January 17, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. What a penetrating insight from a Republican operative into the inside campaigns of those noted Republicans Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Republican Stalwart Barrack Obama.
Might be interesting to hear how race baiting was used, oh say against McCain by Bush... but what would Raymond know about that?
I dunno. Maybe a little bit deeper insight into South Carolina? Is it really wall to wall racists there? Are South Carolinans all ignorant and bigoted, or is it just a crucial minority. Do Whites vote automatically against any candidate favoured by blacks, or is it vice versa. What about the effects of immigration to the state? What the hell is the South Carolina dynamic, and why the heck has it been given such a crucially plum position in the primaries?
So, Raymond was part of that big Clinton hating machine in the Republican smear factory, and now he's here hating the Clinton's surprise surprise.
Raymond, you wrote a book. You seem dedicated to talking about everything but the book.
January 17, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron,
Isn't Allen Raymond an ex-Republican now?
What more do you want?
I'm sure he'll do a separate post on the GOP SC race; it's his area of expertise. I thought this piece on the Dem contest wasn't that bad. Clinton did slip.
Maybe you're just impatient for the juicy bits. LOL.
January 17, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I thought it was a pretty nuanced explanation of the back-and-forth. I thought the outcome was all bad for Obama, but now I can see how it could have a potential upside with some voters.
My question is what do you do to respond to lying mailers that go under the media radar, like the ones Hillary has been sending distorting Obama's record on Social Security and choice? I think those mailers really hurt Obama in NH.
January 17, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think Obama and Edwards aren't sending out "lying mailers" too?
Here's something you might consider - Clinton had an experienced campaign team in NH, she campaigned there the earliest and most often and worked day and night to get the vote. Her original strategy was to skip Iowa and not campaign there and was at a disadvantage going into Iowa - Obama had the opposite strategy and guess what? It worked for both of them. So maybe, just maybe, all this bullshit analysis, parsing and examination is just that - bullshit. All these armchair strategists are bullshitting, they're yakking and bloviating and doing a CSI which they've all solved by the end of the show. Politicians aren't that cunning - it always comes down to organization, money and the hard work of going out every single day and pounding the pavement and asking people for their votes.
January 17, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
BevD has an interesting point. It's entirely possible that we're focusing too much on certain things, and ignoring other relevant factors. It's tricky.
Yes, organization, money and hard work count for a lot. Yes, the media's favourites count for a lot. Yes, campaign strategics and tactics count. Policies count. Dirty tricks count. What counts more and most, and how, what are the balances, that's tricky.
In some ways, one of the things I've found most disturbing is the utter disinterest of the reporters covering the campaign in the actual nuts and bolts of policies.
Respectively, Dana Milbanks, Chris Matthews, John King and Ted Koppel, discussing policy issues. This was culled from Digby's Hullaballoo by the way. I think if I'd had to watch it, I would have put my foot through the television.
But its terrifying to listen to the condescension and indifference from the media.
'Yucca mountain' who cares? Maybe those rubes in Hillary's audience cares, but Chris Matthews is too cool for that. Why would anyone care about Yucca Mountain? Except that its the proposed disposal site for a significant chunk of the nation's nuclear waste and is extremely problematic. Except that its a cornerstone of future nuclear energy policy, which itself is a cornerstone of future energy policy.
But who cares about that, let's see Hillary and Barack mix it up, the Darky and the Dyke, toe to toe, slugging it out. Let's get some blood.
Even Ted Koppel can't be bothered to feign interest. What are those numbers? Billions? Percentages? What? What? What? Hillary has an economic recovery plan for the recession? Who cares about the recession, that's for little people. It doesn't affect Ted Koppel.
I don't know. I'm getting fairly impatient with the whole thing. It seems to me a fairly serious thing. Electing a candidate for President of the United States should be a serious thing. But instead, all too often, it's treated as some sort of high school gossip contest.
Yes, let's have nuanced analysis of snarky remarks about Martin Luther King, or denunciations of failures to denounce someone for not denouncing Farrakhan, etc.
Seems to me that this is just more of the problem.
January 17, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should our millionaire press corp care? None of these issues affect them - except lowering tax rates. It's like Matt Taibbi said, "Candy Crowley is sitting there with cookie crumbs falling out of her mouth talking about how ugly Dennis Kucinich is." That's our press corp at work.
January 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron:
Those asinine comments you quoted remind me of the Monty Python sketch Archeology Today in which talk show host John Cleese interviews two Archeologists and immediately starts comparing their heights.
-Dave Adams-
January 17, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the connecting point between Valdron's dark warnings about Mr. Raymond's character, our horror at what the the Republicans have done to our government, and our disgust with the MSM is this: that people who are not interested in government and good governing should not get involved in politics.
January 17, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said this before, but it bears repeating:
Putting anti-government Conservatives in charge of a national government makes about as much sense as putting Marxists in charge of a major corporation.
-Dave Adams-
January 17, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough is enough Val. This is a progressive site, we favor rehabilitation, not endless punitive vengeance. The guy has moved onto another topic and is making valid points, cut him a little slack, huh? :-D
January 17, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is it that you folks manage to cross the street without being mugged by little old ladies and boy scouts.
Okay, he's an expert on Republicans and Republican dirty tricks and gutter politics. Fine with me.
I'd enjoy it if he brought that expertise to the Republican campaigns, which he'd presumably know something about.
I'd enjoy it if he tried to give us some deeper understanding of the way racial politics gets played to or played against in places like South Carolina, a seamy underbelly which we all hear about, but which we understand relatively little.
What we get is warmed over Republican Clinton bashing. It's all very nice, and certainly when it comes to bashing Clinton properly and improperly, there's no shortage of it on this site.
But by the same token, this means that Raymond's Clinton bashing is neither particularly unique nor especially insightful.
Mostly what it says is that he's still Republican at heart. Good for him.
I dunno. It's an improvement over his previous foetid posts, wherein he essentially argued that selling crack to children didn't make him a bad person, and the democrats did it too.
On the other hand, its not about his book, and certainly doesn't sell his book.
January 17, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What could he possibly say after making the tragic admission that he is amoral?
January 17, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could somebody take the time to read this guy's book and post a review?
I feel like we're being had.
January 17, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, no thanks. That's what Raymond is supposed to be here doing.
If he's not going to stay on topic of his own book club visit, I don't know why he's here, and why TPMC staff are allowing him to remain. It makes TPMC staff look like they can't even run their own site when they invite a convicted criminal and winger to discuss his supposedly tell-all book, and he starts playing politcal pundit on the Democratic field.
Was Davai not available for the book club to pontificate on Arab/Israeli relations?
TPMC staff: get Raymond back on topic, or boot his phone-jamming, winger, ex-con, flabby ass.
January 17, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, someone has to talk about his book, if he won't.
January 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allen Raymond said:
"Senator Clinton served up a softball to Senator Obama and he took full advantage, demonstrating an agility and, equally important, a calculated restraint."
It seems like only last week Hillary was being blasted all over the media for being "calculating."
January 17, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Valdron.
Raymond is here because of his GOP campaign experience. And while he may no longer be a member of the GOP, he has much in common with them, as he has said. I'm not very interested in what he has to say about the HRC/Obama race flap.
I'm tired of Republicans analyzing our campaigns and trying to pick our candidate.
All I'll say about HRC/Obama is that the Clintons should abandon forever their attempts to drive media coverage. All such attempts will be used against them. This "attack" was so mild, the vast majority of people had to have it pointed out to them.
January 17, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Obama campaign probably meant for this tactic to play out much more "under the (mainstream) media radar"-- in the African American community rather than in the mass media (such as on Meet the Press). But, as they have done consistently, they misunderstood how the media's animosity toward the Clintons would fail to benefit them -- by, in this case, giving the story legs beyond their target market. And, causing them to lose control of their message.
That's why they had to spend a few days back peddling.
It would be a mistake for a candidate whose major opponent is a woman to take Raymond's praise too seriously. He is, remember, an operative from a party that has had lots of trouble courting female voters over the last 30 years.
January 17, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am unaware of facts to support this assertion you keep making. Would you please provide support for your claim that this was a tactic of the Obama campaign?
January 17, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider the idea that often political consultants are just that, political consultants. It's not unknown for them to be paid to try to interpret the situation for their client without bias, so the client can use the information to win.
Here for example are two that seem to love each other:
the full article here.
Yet you would like to shut your ears? Good luck with that "echo chamber" approach.
Likewise, shame on Josh Marshall for being so interested in the Mitt Romney candidacy? What does he know about it anyways, he's a Democrat?
January 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet you would like to shut your ears? Good luck with that "echo chamber" approach.
Likewise, shame on Josh Marshall for being so interested in the Mitt Romney candidacy? What does he know about it anyways, he's a Democrat?
When Josh guestblogs on Republican blogs, you may have a point. However... there is no such reciprocity, which your point would seem to presume(to make sense anyway).
The media is saturated with Republican views. It's not an echo chamber to have our own sites with our own discussions.
I don't care if Raymond blogs or not, but if he blogs here at TPM I for one would prefer it to be in the context of his book and/or his experiences as a cog in the GOP dirty tricks machine.
January 17, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I totally agree. I also find artappraiser's comment rather odd.
We'd have an "echo chamber" by excluding the political commentary of Raymond, RNC operative convicted of phone jamming to supress democratic turnout. Really?
That's just a little bit absurd and rather apologetic for literally criminal extremism that has no place in politics.
btw, I initially hoped Raymond would actually discuss his book, and tell about his crimes. Since he's not doing that, he's just another unrepentant criminal as far as I'm concerned. May as well buy OJ's book as Raymonds.
January 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sad that while Obama used "hope" and "the end of divisiveness" to appeal to white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, his campaign felt it appropriate to use paranoia to appeal to African Americans in South Carolina.
Far from seeing this as a smart strategy, I think it was a strategic mistake -- one that his campaign has been back peddling from, furiously, for most of the last week.
That doesn't mean I think he won't win South Carolina. But when he does, if he does, it will be because of his message of "hope" and a natural desire on the part of African Americans to support his historic campaign. Not because of his campaign's crude and tendatious attempts to convince African Americans that Clinton is a racist, or, the more passive-aggressive charge, that she is "racially insensitive."
The first problem with this strategy, one his campaign realized belately and that Raymond recognizes, is that it undermines his message of "change" and "ending the politics of the past" and makes it look cynical. But there's another problem too, that may prove to be the bigger problem; while indulging in this strategy for South Carolina he was doing absolutely nothing at all to help himself with the demographic that contributed to his loss in New Hampshire. The demographic in which Clinton has some advantages, that is most hotly contested between them, and that will most likely decide this primary season's outcome (and the general election). That is, women, especially working women aged 40-65 (and most women in this age group are working), married and unmarried, elite and working class.
Spending your time and resources making a questionable appeal to a group in which you already enjoy a natural advantage, while undermining your message to the broader electorate and ignoring the voters that actual voting has already revealed you may have some problems with is not smart campaigning.
The most recent national polling from Pew, by the way, reveals that "Gender is more of a benefit for Clinton than race is for Obama."
January 17, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
esmense said:
It's sad that while Obama used "hope" and "the end of divisiveness" to appeal to white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, his campaign felt it appropriate to use paranoia to appeal to African Americans in South Carolina.
---------------------------
Analyzing the tactics being used by the Clinton campaign in Las Vegas is not paranoia. Voter suppression is what you would expect from the GOP, not the Democratic Party.
You may have missed Hillary's early behavior in South Carolina, strong-arming her way into an African-American conference that Obama had previously been invited. She then enlisted supporters who made threatened political reprissaals to Black SC legislators who did not bend to her desires. Some AA SC Clinton supporters had an interesting world-view
----A prominent African-American leader in South Carolina, who endorsed the presidential race of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this weekend, broached this subject when announcing his endorsement. Democratic state Sen. Robert Ford told the Associated Press that Obama as the Democratic nominee would "doom" every other Democrat on the ticket because America would never vote for a black presidential candidate.
(Reason Magazine 02/16/2007)
"Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose because he's black and he's top of the ticket," Ford said in comments he later disowned. "We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything."
That comment led to this satire that you won't see in MSM.
http://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/category/robert-ford/
Among Black voters,in the battle of Black billionaires, Oprah trumps Robert Johnson. The differences in the images the two media moguls promote on TV (positivity vs thug life ) does send a subtle message about differences between the candidates the two support.
The African-American community isn't paranoid, we're just looking at behavior patterns
January 17, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
State Senator Ford's reasons for not supporting Obama may be foolish. But that doesn't make the Obama campaign's tactic look any smarter.
If the biggest problem for Obama in the black community, as reflected in Senator Fords' statements, is the fear that an African American can't win because of racism, how does implying that even those white Democrats who have shown the most commitment to the African American community in recent years are really racists at heart help change their minds or make them feel more confident in his chances?
It doesn't.
This tactic was a distraction, not a help.
January 17, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
esmense
regarding calling peeople racists, no one on the Obama team has said anything close to that. People have questioned her campaign's tactics
1) Blocking votes on the Vegas strip
2) Pimp and thug-life promoter Robert Johnson in the forefront of her SC campaign
3) Strong-arm tactics in SC via her supporter Rep Robert Ford
Which suporters are calling Whites racists? here's another gem from Rep Ford.
----Did state Sen. Ford reconsider his position after Obama won the Iowa caucus? Ford remains unmoved. "Of course you're going to have white liberals in a Democratic primary vote for Obama," said Ford. "That's why I'm concerned. You've got people in this country who wouldn't even vote for a black for dogcatcher, and now you want to ask them to vote for one for president of the United States?"
I do not believe that Hillary is a racist. Rep Robert Ford is an idiot, but in SC, he's hilary's idiot. I do believe that the African-American community is bewildered by some of the Clinton campaign's behavior. Sen Clinton has to be aware of how her tactics in Las Vegas following the recent dust-up with Obama will appear. How does her Nevada tactic differ from what we would expect from Guiliani or GW Bush? (Oh, by the way the teacher's union lawsuit just got tossed according to TPM). The voters won.
People with children have a negative view of the negative African-American images Mr Johnson used to build his wealth. How could she not have realized this?
Finally I want you to think about some terms you used regarding the African-American community, "paranoia" and "fear". Those terms set off alarm bells inmany African-Americans despite the fact that you are just stating an opinion. The initial reaction will be that you are being "paternalistic". That is just how the brain works.
Let me tell you how this happens, because it's one reason that Republicans have won arguments with Liberals. When you say "tax and spend" or "cut and run", an automatic (negative) image is created. If you respond that you are not "taxing and spending" or "cutting and running", you are giving validity to your opponent's point of view. The GOP terms become even more solidified in the public mind. You will lose the argument. The only way to win is to create your own terms. So you argue that you are relieving the "tax stress of the middle class" or "fighting terror intelligently". You control with your own terms. You cannot counter the power of "tax and spend" or "cut and run", but you gain control with your own terminology.
I am going to give you that "paranoia" and "fear are words found in the King's English, but if you made those statements about Obama vs Hillary to an African-American audience, you lose the argument hands down. It may be frustrating, but it's a large part of the reason the GOP was so effective. The GOP knows the value of words and phrases.
Negative responses to words are a universal phenomenon. Dr George Lakoff wrote a summary of this topic in his book "Don't Think Of An Elephant". The premise is that the mind is geared to go into certain modes in response to certain phrases. For example, if I tell you not to think of an elephant, what is the first image that comes to mind? An elephant. Tricks like these are why "tax and spend" and "cut and run" are effective. I'd find something to replace "paranoia" and 'fear"
January 17, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have spent a lot of time reading about this 'race issue' between the campaigns. I was unable to find evidence that Obama's campaign intiated any discussion of race. When you say he used paranoia what are you referring to? Are there incidents or remarks that Obama made or that his campaign made? What I have noted is that Hillary and her supporters made numerous remarks and that the black community not Obama's campaign were rightly outraged about the frequency and consistent racial bias of the remarks coming from Hillarys camp and supporters. I am also hard pressed to believe this was a tactic of Obama's campaign as race is such a divisive issue in America and thus Hillary had far more to gain by instigating solidarity on the basis of race amongst whites. Do you have facts to the contrary to support your assertion above?
It seems far more plausible that it was not a strategy of the Obama campaign and rather a tactic of Hillary's campaign and that the Obama campaign has had to put the fires out of the race-baiting coming from fast and furious from the Clintons, for the sake of party unity. Race baiting offered no benefit to Obama. It offered much benefit to Hillary and was part of her strategy to offset the loss of black votes.
I hope you will have the honesty and integrity to respond with some facts to support these sweeping false allegations on your part. I would especially like to hear any commentary or remarks from the Obama campaign that crudely or tendenciously painted the Clintons as racist or racially insensitive. Please provide the remarks from Obama or his campaign that made any such assertions passive-aggresively or not.
What you are asking us to do is suspend reality and beleive that a politican who built a political organization from the ground up in less than six months to compete with the biggest and most daunting political machine on the left, run by a popular former President with his wife, that has not once ever mentioned his race, all of a sudden veered off into racial politics despite his message being one of unity and hope? A politician who vaulted on the political scene with the message that we are one people, not white, asian, black or hispanics but Americans leaving in one country the United States of America...alll of a sudden made a gross strategic error and started race pandering. Does that even sound rational to you?
Is it reasonable to expect us to believe that you could figure this out in advance and the Obama team couldn't despite them running neck and neck with the Clintons who have been on the political scene for over 16 years? Do you believe that Obama being competitive is just a fluke?
Do you think that Obama was this short sighted? After all, Obama was raised by a single female head of household. He speaks directly to that demographic in many of his campaign stops. Obama has not pitted any groups against another. Hillary has. It is a signature feature of how her and Bill campaign. They seek to eek out a win with a 1-2% margin in order to triangulate between all the groups.
I do not think Obama needs a poll to tell him that. He lives it. Obama knows full well that America identifies far more with the 'suffering/disadvantages' of being a woman than it does with the "suffering/disadvantages" of race and racism in America.
Which is why your assertions that he would have had race pandering as a strategy does not hold water. He and Michelle know full well how race and gender play out in America.Here is a discussion on how gender and race are playing out in this campaign? Listen here to this discussion between Steinem and Lacewell as Lacewells remarks clearly demonstrate that Obama and Michelle both would not have needed a poll to understand that race pandering offered no advantages to the Obama campaign.
January 17, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that the campaign veered off into this divisive tactic may not sound rational to you, but, nonetheless it not only did so, but Obama has acknowledged that it did. (And, of course, Mr. Raymond is acknowledging that it did, and congratulating the Obama campaign for doing so, in his his post.)
January 17, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, the campaign did not veer off. You need to make clear what facts you are using to support that it was a strategy or tactic of the Obama campaign. The only thing that Obama acknowledged is that his staff put together a list 4 pages long of remarks made by Clinton on race. That list could not have been compiled without Hillary and/or her surrogates making the divisive race baiting remarks.
There is no list of the Obama campaign making racial remarks. So, how are you saying that it was their tactic?
January 17, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Esmense will ignore your arguments and simply repeat his initial assertion that Obama introduced the race issue. If you haven't noticed yet he is here to promote the Hilary campaign, not engage in any rational discussion. He is a bit more subtle than Larry Johnson in his shilling but not much.
January 18, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that. The facts say otherwise.
Looks like Hillary has a track record of racial insensitivity and race-baiting tactics when it comes to political campaigning:
January 17, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just plain unadulterated bullshit.
January 18, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prove it.
January 20, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't make the allegations, you prove it. Fulani's a fruitcake.
January 21, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You made the assertion it is BS...prove it.
January 22, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This piece contains the sort of strategic thinking I appreciate.
Would you post your opinion on a really key issue, such as what strategies the Republicans might employ to try and take down the Democratic nominee in the general election?
I'm not a Republican political strategist, but I imagine they might do what they can to encourage media to make sure the public keeps their eye OFF the ball (ball=issues that face the country and the substantive differences between the republican and democratic candidates). If the media continues to divert public attention with their blow-ups of the Democrat's disagreements, this could cause the public to become a bit tired of all the Democratic candidates. Will they also look for a spoiler, since the dems have three strong candidates and they have none?
How do you think the buzz about a possible Bloomberg "Independent" run fits into this picture? (he dropped his Republican affiliation to win in ny, right?)
Seems likely one of the three Democrats will win the GE unless there is some unforeseen incident. So I'd have to wonder if Bloomberg is a closet Republican if he stepped into the race as an Independent. It's doubtful he would win, but he could help candidates to the right by taking more independent and left votes than he'd ever take from the Christian right, right?
And if Bloomberg stepped in after the public is weary from months of media drumming on tiffs between Democrats, Bloomberg would be a fresh face; he might take some votes just for that reason. He might have some media behind him, too? (Murdoch's new york post front page said, "run, mike run," and others have promoted his candidacy, too.)
After 8 years of Bush, it seems no too-right Republican is likely to win unless an independent comes along to take moderate votes from the moderate candidates favored in this race.
What do you think?
January 17, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've read all this same analysis before elsewhere...we don't need Republican -- even so-called reformed ones -- strategists rehashing Democratic politics.
We have that in Rove's WSJ column. That's enough plenty of friendly advice for us.
What I wanna hear is more about Republican dirty politics, so we can think even less of them than we already do now.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
January 17, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have slightly different tastes. :-) I want to hear both analysis and about dirty political techniques. What I really really am NOT interested in reading is sermons on morals. (Second least favorite: lectures about who is the most angelic candidate/party, who is the most evil....)
January 17, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's right, see below. Recommended to read the whole thing, not just my clips. Where a lot of you are erring is that you think it's all been about racist white votes. That's not it at all. (For example, Hillary bringing up the issue of how MLK's action got put into law is not going to get her racist white votes.)
Obama's the one that had the tougher task from the moment he lost in NH. He really needs to get SC at this moment in time for the boost, but at the same time it might work against his big picture message of inclusion and unity.
January 17, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Allen Raymond you say
Would you please tell us how the Obama campaign fashioned the issue just enough? What was said and done by the Obama campaign to fashion the issue?
January 17, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't blame a lot of the posters here for their initial distrust of Raymond's motives. He is, after all, an admitted Republican operative--with all that entails-- but I think that if you've read his book, or even excerpts from it, you'll understand the distaste that he now has for the party at the national level. He was never an ideologue, and always had a disdain for the "Mayberry Machiavellis" and Bible- thumpers who hijacked the party away from the country club. He put up with them until they threw him under the bus. Now it's clobberin' time.
So I would say take what he says with a grain of salt, because, if he can be said to have political views, they proceed from different assumptions than most of ours do, but don't assume that he is a secret agent for the evangelicals, the neo-cons, etc. He isn't. Ask yourselves if Josh Marshall would give a platform to Secret Agent Man.
Raymond is here to provide insight into how the other side thinks and acts. It's a gift.
January 17, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell you what: Will you meet me halfway and acknowledge that the responsibility is on Raymond to persuade us that his book is worth reading?
There's lots of books out there. There's lots of hack books out there. There's lots of hagiographies, apologias, self boosterism, self-serving tomes, propaganda, etc. A lot of it just isn't worth reading. The fact that Josh gives someone a platform to push their book doesn't prove the book is worth reading.
It seems to me that its up to Raymond to justify his book.
I don't see him making that case yet. I don't see him making any case at all.
Maybe you see it? Fine. Explain. Show us what he's written which would justify taking a chance on a thirty or forty dollar hit to buy his book.
January 17, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
My God, after all this, after all your pronouncements about Raymond's character and all your sodden generalizations about the phone-jamming case, which I am still not sure you understand, you still haven't even taken the time to go to your library or local bookstore and leaf through the book you've been pontificating about? Do you go to libraries or bookstores at all? It's been all week. And what planet do you live on where this book could possibly cost $40? I am sorry for my intemperate tone, but you seem to be deliberately "low-information" on this issue, as if it's all too obvious to justify a little research on your own.
Go to the library or bookstore and see for yourself for free. I can't cut and paste an entire chapter. It isn't available online. I guarantee you that the book is a very entertaining eye-opener on all the shenanigans and ethical shadings that characterize the political process behind the scenes.
January 18, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey douchebag,
I live in northern Manitoba, Canada. Books in Canada are sold at a markup of over 30% above the American price, notwithstanding the equivalence of our dollars. The closest bookstores are respectively 450 kilometers due west and 620 kilometers direct south. The community I live in has a library with approximately 10,000 books, and their purchasing budget allows for 200 books a year, divided equally between fiction and nonfiction, with no particular priority given in purchasing for ex-Republican hacks. So take your moral outrage and shove it up your ass.
In terms of Raymond's contributions, I have not and have never discussed his book. What I have discussed are his posts, which are singularly lacking in ethics and merit.
Now, if you'd like to ejaculate messily all over that's fine. But I am getting tired of you. If you've got something meaningful to say about his book beside "I liked it, it was funny and had lots of words. I liked the pictures too." Then I would invite you to say it and say it in detail.
It should be obvious by this time that Raymond doesn't seem to feel like talking about his book at all. What he talks about mostly, is his rationalizations, and trolling the usual Republican talking points. Sorry, not excited.
January 18, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Okay, Douchebag was probably unnecessarily rude, and I considered withdrawing it.
On the other hand:
I acknowledge that he's 'sorry for his intemperate tone'. But still and all, I think one good turn deserves another.
January 18, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
To quote Bugs Bunny (another U.S. institution with which you are probably unfamiliar, as you are with our books and our politics), "What a maroon."
January 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
My undergraduate degree was in American politics. Did quite well thank you. And I'm a great fan of Bugs Bunny. This isn't a quote:
"Go lick my balls, Michael."
January 30, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Must have been one of those classy institutions you hear so much about. I had to make do with Harvard. I did pretty well, too. Someone on another thread suggested I send you a copy of Raymond's book so that you could finally have no excuse for your ignorant ramblings. I was tempted, but now I think I'll let it slide.
The sad thing is, we probably agree on a lot of issues. You didn't like it when I pointed out that you were relying solely on your "feelings" to attack Raymond and actually had no clue what he had been convicted of, what the context was, and what his book was about. And then you chose to make it personal. Too bad. With progressives like you, who needs neo-conservatives? You make us all look bad.
January 30, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, and did Harvard teach you to be an asshole? Do they have special programs for that? Or do you come by it naturally?
Oh and you've gone from Harvard to working in a bookstore. Well hello Mister Overachiever. We're all impressed. Couldn't luck into that 7-11 position?
Buckley, here's the deal. Raymond never bothered to talk about his book, not once. You want to talk about Raymond's book, go start a thread. Quote some passages, throw out some ideas he develops. Fish... or cut bait. But always remember, Raymond had the invitation, and he couldn't be bothered.
So what did Raymond write about? Raymond spent his first two posts writing about how he wasn't actually guilty. Sure, he got convicted, but the judge was farked in the head. The guy was wacky, talking about morality, which doesn't enter into Raymond's world view at all. As far as Raymond was concerned, the guy was speaking swahili.
Now here's the thing. I don't need to read his book to know he's bullshitting on us right now. Maybe its a good book, maybe its not, but right now, this very moment, in that post... it was bullshit. I didn't need to know all that much about the details of his crime, to see the classic evasion and denial strategies used by everyone from drug dealers to child molesters to shoplifters. The recalcitrance, the denial, the refusal to come to grips.
That's the heart of it all. You've said yourself that Raymond's posts were 'unexceptional'. That was the word, wasn't it? That's your whole thesis? Book was terrific, posts were terrible? Do you wonder why? This was a guy who was incapable of dealing with the issues. These were the posts of a man who was utterly incapable of discussing his own book.
His third post? What a joke - textbook Republican spin colour commentary on Democratic politics. Here's a guy who according to you has so much to say, and he spent three posts avoiding his own topic.
Doesn't this cognitive dissonance bother you at all? Apparently not.
And you accuse me of making it personal?
You're such a douche.
January 30, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a guy without a career as he's now untouchable due to being convicted for phone jamming. So he's hawking a book and miffed at the Republican party for throwing him under the bus. I guess he thought there was some loyalty among thieves or something. Boo hoo for Raymond.
Sorry if I don't suddenly feel the need to read his screed on the Democratic field.
Did he become a political genius while in jail, while not reflecting on his crime or how he got busted, or why he sided with people so willing to throw him to the dogs. That must be it.
I'd just as soon read OJ Simpson's ramblings as Raymonds. Unrepentant scum of the earth.
January 18, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, what the hell?
Raymond isn't even discussing the supposed topics:
1) his book
2) his phone jamming for the RNC
3) his criminal conviction and sentence
Instead he's just using TPM to troll Rt Wing talking points and smear his stench around. WTF? I could get this "analysis" from Free Republic, or the Rush Limbaugh show.
Overall, what's going on at TPMC?
Has the growth been managed and handled well? Quality control and the fabled "signal to noise ratio" (remember that discussion prior to the ramp up, a few years ago?) have taken a pretty big hit.
January 17, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you enable your private message capability?
January 17, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would I? ... It's always been enabled.
January 17, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This column quite self-consciously spins the issue of the HRC camps SYSTEMATIC and PATTERNED race-baiting, which Obama went to the lengths of insisting falsely that she was innocent of any such thing -- Obama indeed had little to win from this controversy, as the 'black vote' was already consolidating behind him, something the HRC camp experts well knew.
And Raymond's notion that Obama cleverly exploited an opportunity to racialize the campaign is based upon the false premise that, on the other side of the ledger, HRC had nothing to gain. Poppycock! There are indeed white voters who like Obama but who are extremely leery of the likes of Jesse Jackson, let alone Al Sharpton. (I am not a devoted fan of Sharpton myself, but not because he's too 'radical'.) Obama has shown a demonstrated ability, not only in Illinois but in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as in national polls, to appeal to PRECISELY those voters. These voters MIGHT vote for a black candidate, but not one in the "Jesse Jackson mold", not given the negative atmosphere of black leaders supposedly (in this world view) crying "victim". Obama has been very careful to steer between the kind of 'joining in with the enemies of the black community' of folk like John McWhorter and, even more egregiously, Clarence Thomas, on one hand, and sounding to mainstream voters, who he recognizes that he needs to win, like 'another Jesse Jackson'.
I don't know where this notion that race-baiting couldn't work, in not-all-too-subtly changing the atmosphere of the campaign in such a way that would result in many white possible supporters for Obama either voting for HRC or staying home.
As for Raymond, I have nothing against reading the opinions of thoughtful Republicans who are not merely trying to 'justify the lying'. Nor is this practice limited to Republicans or even to those Democrats who are proclaimed supporters of the DLC. I call Democrats, including at TPM Cafe, on such practices, as well as those from the GOP.
But this post of his is pure spin doctory of the most obvious sort. TPM readers, many of whom might indeed be confused about the "dog-whistle" politics of tempting a discussion about race and causing offense in some circles to be expressed, that others will see as just whining -- which is precisely why the race-baiting of HRC and her husband Bill (the Shill) and Andrew Cuomo had and indeed still has every chance to succeed.
I would also note that Margaret Carlson at Bloomberg news, not exactly the cutting edge of authentic progressivism, at least got the general outlines of the race-baiting issue right:
January 17, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Raymond,
The posting about Democratic race-baiting was at least about politics, although not my personal cup of tea. I'm still waiting to hear about Republican dirty tricks around GWB's military service, (or in general) and the Alabama politics in the Siegelman/Scrushy case.
I realize you're probably not all that thrilled by the way posters here feel about you, but that said, the best Tables for One provide information and insight on subjects requested by those who post here, often with a real-time back and forth.
If you don't want to hear or talk about your moral fibre, don't read or respond to those posts. But it would be good if you would respond to the others.
Just thought I would lay it out for you. You still have tomorrow and probably have information to share, and those who populate this board can add their grains (or shakers)of salt to taste. Thank you.
January 17, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Is it Saturday yet?
~OGD~
January 18, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, so what roll did Kennedy's death play? Johnson had quite a large bankroll of sympathy political capital afterwards right?
I mean, wouldn't it have been tough to oppose something if it came out that "Kennedy wanted it" before his assassination?
January 18, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink