« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama's Race Baiting Speaks for Itself, as Josh Marshall Would Say
Oh my God! I can't believe he said THAT!!! Here's what Barack Obama said today:
"When Dukakis won the nomination, you know, Jesse (Jackson) was still running until the convention," Obama said. "When Bill Clinton was running, Jerry Brown was still technically in it. As far as I can tell, this is fairly standard fare."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Obama directly comparing Hillary Clinton to Jesse Jackson? Surely he is trying to smear Clinton by associating her with a figure likely to alienate her base of "hard-working white middle class voters".
This is race-baiting! How dare Obama stoop so low. I've supported him for months now, and he has rarely disappointed me, but this is just the last straw. As Josh Marshall would say, "this pretty much speaks for itself."
Advertisement
Comments (39)
good one!
May 29, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, good one.
Joe here just blew his credibility and hard-earned 'unity cred' to smithereens.
But, otherwise, good one!
May 29, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah shucks. Boys and girls, facts are given meaning only according to the political narrative they support. Hence, Bill Clinton gets the crap beat out of him on TPM for referencing Jesse Jackson, but Obama gets a free ride. Discuss.
May 29, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious?
May 29, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not gonna work. Nice try.
May 29, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding of race baiting is that it is invoked towards someone who is of a larger race group. But Hillary is not black...so how can it be race baiting? Am I wrong here and if so please explain race-baiting. Thanks.
May 29, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's simple. If a Clinton compares Obama to Jesse Jackson in any way, it's race baiting. If Obama compares a Clinton to Jesse Jackson in any way, it's not. Confused?
May 29, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My only confusion is if you understand the term "race baiting".
May 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Race-baiting" is using words or actions to incite a group with the intention to evoke a particular response, primarily one which is prejudicial in nature.
In other words, making remarks which would serve to marginalize or characterize a particular person with a particular stereotype, would be considered race-baiting.
Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment could be considered race-baiting because it marginalized Obama's win by suggesting any black candidate could do the same. Merely mentioning Jesse Jackson in the same breath with Hillary Clinton is not race-baiting. Suggesting that she is a modern day George C. Wallace, is.
Race-baiting is intended to trigger "racist" thoughts. I don't see it from what you've posted above.
May 29, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
She lost. Deal. It'll get better once reality sets in.
May 29, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
genius! thanks, joe.
May 29, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, No. Go back and read what Bill said and then read what Obama said. I think you will see the two comments are a bit more than different.
However did Bill deserve the massive pile on. Probably not. A good smack u the side of the head for saying something really stupid, most certainly.
May 29, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, my post LINKED to the Clinton comment (Josh's TPM post). For what it's worth it's at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw. Here's the transcript: ""Jesse Jackson won sC twice in '84 and '88 and he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's ran a good campaign. He's a good candidate with good organization." And for this, the Clintons have been villified within the Democratic party. Judge for yourself.
May 29, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You only reveal that you really don't understand the issue here.
The fact is that no politician is going to come right out and say, there's no point in voting for him because he's black and America will not elect a black.
At the time, there was a lot of talk about what a big deal it was that Obama was winning these primaries given that he's black and that maybe it signalled that things in this country had changed. Clinton was throwing cold water on that idea by saying that Obama had done no better than the only other black candidate to have run.
I mean, what do you want to be able to call it playing the race card -- for him to come right out and say, come on, elect my wife because she's white? How far do they have to go for it to qualify for you? Sounds like pretty far.
Can you understand that for African Americans the threshold is a bit lower than that?
May 29, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apples to oranges. It's not just the comparison in any way. It's the context of when they were compared. Bill Clinton was comparing Barack Obama's to Jesse Jackson's win with a predominately black electorate, if I'm not mistaken.
I don't think that was Bill Clinton the race-baiter either. That was Bill Clinton being stupid with a quick comeback smart-ass comment.
May 29, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing the snark. :) The point is, Josh Marshall was strongly pushing the "Bill Clinton is race baiting" storyline with such comments as "that speaks for itself". This post is about the insipid commentary such as Marshall's that dragged the primary contest into the dirt.
May 29, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So right, Joe. The Clintons never did anything to drag this contest into the dirt. I've seen the light.
May 29, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are shooting the messenger. It was Clinton's comments here which dragged the primary contest into the dirt, not Josh Marshall for reporting on those comments.
May 29, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh.......caught the snark than lost it,
It's simple. If a Clinton compares Obama to Jesse Jackson in any way, it's race baiting. If Obama compares a Clinton to Jesse Jackson in any way, it's not. Confused? sorry :(
May 29, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are joking right?
May 29, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
mcc: Not even Senator Obama himself bought the bullshit that the Clintons were race baiting.
May 29, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that this was the day the Steamship Empress of Ireland sank and 1,024 people drowned.
I just automatically think of May 29 as Empress of Ireland Sinking Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
That's just how I remember it's May 29.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up.
May 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did Jerry Brown stop being "A White
American"?
How is comparing the situations that Jesse Jackson
and Gerry, "White American" Brown's end of
campaigns status to Senator Clinton's current
one supposed to be "race baiting"?
When some one compares the campaigns of both a White candidate and a black candidate to another white
candidate, then that takes all racial considerations out of the comparison. Of course you already knew that, but the truth did not serve your purposeful distortions, so you opted to make it a black and white comparison.
Shame on you!.
May 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point.
The standard is how many words between Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama's name. Less than 10 words is race-baiting according to the echo chamber.
May 29, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see, Obama seems unconcerned about Hillary staying in until the Convention. He mentions Dukakis and Jesse Jackson. He also mentions Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown.
Barack isn't giving a brush off to Sen Clinton's campaign. Obama mentions a black candidate and a White candidate who stayed late in the campaign.
This is race-baiting?
Please step away from the keyboard and count to 1,000,000, then get some rest.
May 29, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch, Joe. And nice observation as well;
""Jesse Jackson won sC twice in '84 and '88 and he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's ran a good campaign. He's a good candidate with good organization." And for this, the Clintons have been villified within the Democratic party.
I was surprised at Josh's comment as I felt Clinton was gracefully acknowledging Obama's win in SC with compliments to the candidate and his organization. Since I voted for JJ in the primary in our state back in 1988, I failed to see how noting he had won SC twice diminished Obama in any way. If anything, I felt like the Obama campaign was dissing Jackson.
May 29, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, so why didn't Bill mention that John Edwards won the South Carolina primary in 2004?
May 29, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is that no politician is going to come right out and say, there's no point in voting for him because he's black and America will not elect a black.
And Clinton neither said that nor implied it. If you think he did, then the problem is with you and your fevered imagination.
Simple fact...black candidates are 3 for 3 in SC dem presidential primaries/caucuses. Is your problem just that you don't like that fact and wish it would go away?
May 29, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simple fact. So you agree Bill was pointing out that it was Barack's blackness that helped him do well in SC, just as it was Jesse Jackson blackness?
Just like Hillary was just pointing out the fact that it was Barack's lack of whiteness (or was it her abundance of it) that helped her win in West Virginia.
I mean it's as simple as black and white, right?
May 29, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you agree Bill was pointing out that it was Barack's blackness that helped him do well in SC, just as it was Jesse Jackson blackness?
Of course it was. Black dem prez candidates are 3 for 3 in SC with the voter pool being about 50% black. Do those facts make you uncomfortable? When someone is asked 'why it takes 2 Clintons to take on one Obama', facts aren't permitted in answering the question?
May 29, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be more pissed about being compared to Jerry Brown than Jesse Jackson
:)
May 29, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Sen Clinton has done is shown African-Americans a side of the Democratic Party that was not known. The circular arguments that we see around race-baiting and "racist" Blacks who only vote for Blacks is something that would have been expected from the GOP. The Geraldine Ferraro wing of the Democratic Party has been exposed.
The bottom line is that African-Americans have supported every Caucasian Democratic Presidential candidate in recent memory. The anger and venom coming from Clinton supporters directed at the Black community is surprising.
The CBC and African-Americans formed the foundation of support for President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Those who feel that Blacks have somehow betrayed the Clinton after "all the Clintons had done for Blacks" forget the deep support Clinton got during his impeachment.
The bottom line is that those who feel the need to attack Blacks for supporting Obama can just shove it. These Clinton supporters didn't complain when Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et. al. got 90% support from the Black community.
May 29, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make no mistake, Obama's choice of using Jackson in the comparison WAS racist--just as racist as Clinton's use was, with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor that the SAME condescending remark is NOW made in reference to the White WIFE of the guy who made the original remark. I'm reasonably sure that this was another "scratch-your-head-by-wiggling-your-middle-finger-while-mentioning-Senator-Clinton moment, but infinitely more subtle.
Bill Clinton made a not-so-subtle reference to Osama's race with a comparison to a second-string Black candidate of yesteryear, and Osama returned the favor by evoking the same comparison with the same second-string Black candidate.
AND, he did it in the context of Senator Clinton's subtly snide remark about how she should stick around because, after all, Bobby Kennedy was killed around this time 40 years ago.
AND, since he mentioned a second-string WHITE candidate as well (whose name happens to be Brown), you can't claim he was being exclusive in his comparison. One guy was Black, and the other, well, Brown.
Brilliant.
Obama is far more subtle and nuanced than both Clintons put together. Hope he wins this thing.
May 29, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gack and then I go and call him Osama.
May 29, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a really stupid post, though some of the commentary was good.
Of COURSE Clinton was race-baiting: he was trying to paint Obama black, knowing that if people started to see him as a color or a race, racist voters in other states would vote against him.
For Obama to compare Clinton to Jackson has no racial element to it at all.
May 29, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOt in isolation, but in light of Bill Clinton's original remark, it recalls that remark, which means it is "racist" by association, but too subtly to make a "real" case on, in the minds of most people.
Bil Clinton suggests that Obama is just like "another" second-string Black candidate, because he's Black, and second-string.
Obama responds by suggesting that Bill Clinton's wife is just like that SAME second-string Black candidate, because she is second-string and holding out to the end.
It recalls the original subtly racist remark, and turns the tables on the Clintons while doing so, which is STILL "playing the 'race card'" but in reverse, and in a way that Obama can't reasonably be denounced for doing (even by me, who thinks he sees the nuance).
Like I said, brilliant.
Of course, maybe I watch too much Japanese anime, where this kind of thing is normal.
June 1, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give it up Joe. Clinton's situation has you in denial. Yes the Clintons race-baited all the way up to WVA and KY and it wasn't incidental contact. Their mistake, they miscalculated the effect.
The result if you missed it was they lost their base of black voters who held them in high esteem. The difference between the Clintons and Jesse Helms is that from Jesse Helms race-baiting is expected.
While I understand the disappointment, I can't accept the strategy. I don't think that the Clintons are racists no more than I thought that Lee Atwater was racist, but they and their surrogates used a strategy I find deplorable. They used their black support as pawns in their endgame.
May 29, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was the first to play the race card
May 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that May 30 was the day Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.
I just automatically think of May 30 as Joan of Arc Burning on a Stake Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
That's just how I remember it's May 30.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up.
May 30, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment