Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Clinton Deals the Race Card Again
It's a sure sign of desperation that Camp Hillary has been putting her surrogates back to work trying to smear Barack Obama in the lowest possible way using race and religion to take whacks at him. This week Pennsylvania governor and Hillary supporter Ed Rendell put out a statement in the same supposedly innocent fashion that Bob Kerrey did when he tried to paint Barack "Hussein" Obama as a Muslim or a number of Clinton staffers and Bill Clinton when trying to deduce the now-front runner Senator Obama as simply the "black candidate."
""You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," said Rendell again trying to scare voters away from the Obama. Considering that in 2004 20% of the voters for John Kerry in Texas, one of Hillary Clinton's "firewall states" were African American, it's almost as if the Clinton campaign has a bit more of Rudy in them than simply trying his own ill-fated firewall strategy and are on the no-hold-barred ugly attack.
Obama's camp is staying true to their pledge of not taking the low road, unlike the Clintons. Of course Rendell's clumsy remark could easily be turned on Hillary by substituting the word "female" for "African-American" candidate.
There is also a bit of subtle racist tones in the charge made by Hillary and her surrogates saying that Obama is not tough enough, savvy or tested enough to withstand the Republican attacks to come. It lightly dismisses the African-Americans candidate as being simple, naive and childlike who should stay focused on keeping himself in his place and not poking his nose into something that he is surely not intelligent to enough to confront.
In Texas, the Hispanic community is watching and listening just as the African American voters did in South Carolina. They will not be taken for granted and let Camp Hillary get free racist cheap shots at Obama. Contrary to what the Clintonistas might think, we take issue with racism against other minority groups because that type of ugliness is part of the discrimination in our history too.
If the numbers of Hispanic voters who migrated toward Obama in the Potomac Primary were any indication, perhaps Gov. Rendell had a little bit to do with it. Also, Barack Obama is certainly no Lynn Swan.
Comments (14)
The Clintons will do anything, say anything, lie about anything, to achieve their goals. They've proven that. Remember the 90s?
February 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad irony here is that this pathetic blog is exactly race politics in a nutshell. If Hillary Clinton was getting 90% of the women's vote do you think we would be trying oh so hard to not offend women by saying she is a WOMAN and that is why women like her?!? The sad fact is that people who do try to read race into everything done and said are not doing anyone any favors with their hyper sensitive hypocrisy. In this case they are revealing that they hate Clinton and not much else. My friend Genghis says in his comment that 90% of black voters voting for the O bomb doesn't make them racist .... umm gee well I guess it doesn't mean they hate black people but I sure do think it appears that they were quite obvious in picking the one that looked just like them. Is that racism??? Picking your candidate based on his race??? Maybe it is just a coincidence..... I strongly back both Clinton and Obama whomever wins because I want to defeat the REAL racists in America who are happily camped out in the Republican party. There is a very good reason that blacks vote 90% Democratic in this country and it would be smart to remember that while this primary contest winds its way to a finish.
February 14, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Rendell DID NOT "put out a statement" trying to "scare voters" away from Obama. He was interviewed by the Gazette's editorial board, he was asked a specific question about it, and he answered the question.
This is just damned irresponsible blogging - look at the first comment you've generated with this nasty smear. It's like Pavlov's dogs, you hear a bell and you immediately start salivating.
YOU are the one playing the race card here, YOU are the one misportraying the remarks and YOU are the one furthering a dirty trick.
February 13, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with BevD. As an African-American, and an Obama supporter, I think Rendell's comments were stupid. At the same time, I also understand that he had a point, and he wasn't, himself, trying to be racist.
Let it go. When we get Obama in the White house, this kind of talk'll be moot, anyway. Keep your eye on the ball. :)
February 13, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize to Amber for being so rude, but Ed Rendell is a great democrat and a good man, and he was asked a question for which he gave an appropriate answer. The Clintons aren't playing any "race cards" and they're not playing any dirty tricks. It seems that democrats have short attention spans - it was Rove, Bossie, the rightwing machine and the republicans who have been playing the dirty tricks for the last fifteen years, not the Clintons.
February 13, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm another Obama supporter, and I agree with BevD and Woodrow. Rendell's comments were unfortunate, but it does nobody any good (least of all Obama) for Obama supporters to cry "free racist cheap shots" at the slightest, most tenuous, provocation. Enough said, I think.
February 13, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offensenitivity.
February 13, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an African American I am insulted by the fact that no one can make statements of facts concerning Sen. Obama that is not construed as racism. Give it up already. Trying to do this will turn him into an affirmative action candidate and he surely does not need that.
The governor made a statement of fact to a question he was asked.
Fact: Some white people will not vote for Sen. Obama.
Fact: Some men will not vote for Sen. Clinton because she is female.
Fact: Some female will not vote for her because she is female.
Fact: Some black people will not vote for a white candidate if a black candidate is is the race.
Fact: Some black people will not vote for a black candidate.
Fact: These people are mostly in the minority, but they can influence elections.
As Americans we have enough substantive challenges without trying to find them under rocks. Enough with the politics of destruction.
February 13, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intended or not, innocently or not, accidentally, it's still bad timing for the statement to be made by a Clinton supporter especially at this point in the contest. It's an ill advised strategy. The last time it was employed, it super-energized Black voters more than enough to offset any gains made in White and Latino voters. Message to Hillary, run a campaign based on merit. It's more effective.
February 14, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thi blog is nothing but BS. Sorry your garbage doesn't fly, Rendell was being asked questions and made an analysis. Obama and MSNBC started the race care in New Hampshire, he played it masterfully and whined, poor, poor, obama.
February 14, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gov. Rendell was asked, while being interviewed by an editorial board, to 'handicap' the candidates and their chances of success in the PA primary. As Sen. Obama himself has acknowledged, there are some people who will not vote for him simply because he is black, and there are some people who will vote FOR him simply because he's black. (And the same is true re: people voting against or for Sen. Clinton because she is a woman.) Those are just facts. It's insulting to both blacks and women to pretend you can't talk about reality because they are too 'delicate' or 'touchy' or whatever. And Gov. Rendell gave his honest assessment about that factor - among others (immediately offsetting that with mention of how many new voters Obama has supporting him, etc.). What's he supposed to do?
You know, if we want honest answers from public officials, we have to stop shrieking whenever we hear one.
It's the same (in the other direction) when Michelle Obama said she would have to think about whether she would be working for Sen. Clinton if she were the nominee ("work for" not "support"). She's campaigning for her husband non-stop; I'm sure she hadn't thought about whether she would do the same work for Sen. Clinton ...so what is she supposed to say???
February 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, "racism" and "race politics" are not the same thing. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. Race politics is politics based on racial demographic and identifications. You can exploit racial voting tendencies without believing that one race is superior to another. Heck, you can even vote along racial lines without believing that one race is superior to another. 90% of black Virginian voters chose Obama, but that does not make them racist.
There's no evidence to suggest that Rendell is a racist, but he may well have been exploiting race politics, and the fact that his statement was true does not mean that he wasn't doing so. When Bill Clinton noted that Jesse Jackson won SC, he also made a true statement, but the timing and context of the statement suggested that Obama is, like Jackson, a candidate who appeals to African-Americans but lacks broad appeal in other racial demographics. That's race politics.
In the recent interview of Rendell posted on TPM, he argued that he was just doing an honest assessment of Obama electoral strengths and weakenesses, and he went to pains to say that Hillary Clinton is similarly handicapped by her gender. Thing is (and I don't know because no one has the original transcript except for the race bit), I got the distinct sense that he didn't mention gender in the original interview, so rather than being a balanced analysis of the candidates' respective electability, the race comment was a jab at Obama. Again, it may be true a true statement, but in the context of a prominent Clinton supporter suggesting on the record that Obama's race is a liability, I conclude that Rendell was probably exploiting race politics.
February 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you would conclude that - even if there is an obvious, simpler explanation that makes sense, you have to conclude that Ed Rendell is exploiting "race politics" and there is a sinister plot afloat by the Clintons to piss off black voters.
February 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lynn Swann might have been a good candidate (I don't live in PA, so I can't say), but as a sideline reporter?? Argh! If he was as good a candidate as he was a sideline reporter, his campaign was curtains from the start...regardless of his skin color.
February 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment