It seems simpler than that to me. They were in a desperate place after Iowa and so they adopted the only plausible strategy available to them: throw everything they could find at Obama and hope some of it stuck and raised enough doubts among voters to make them return to the safe choice (Clinton).

Most all of your commenters have soft-pedaled the influence of race in this campaign since it began. It's an unrealilstic assumption considering this is the first black frontrunner. There will be many blacks that will blindly vote for Obama because he is black. If you don't believe that, you've been living on some other planet.

I think the insinuation on the part of Obama that he is akin to JFK and MLK reflects the craziness of his campaign. How dare people try and reveal that this is nothing more than a campaign narrative? Ezra, you would do well to question Obama's original assertion that he was a continuation of the "hopes" that JFK and MLK brought to the country. However, as Clinton, expressed, his record is in no way similar to that of those great Americans. And Clinton did not try to assume their mantle either. She was assuming the mantle of Johnson, the more boring, more political personality who helped bring change by working the government machinery with the finesse and grit that only he knew.

All she was saying was that you have to work together, and you have to work hard with a certain amount of expertise to get sweeping change to take hold in America, and that Obama should think twice before he comparws himself to the great heroes of modern America, because there really is nothing there to back it up. Now she's a racist. And when a campaign surrogate gets excited and implies that there really is NO SUBSTANCE to Obama's aggrandized self-image, they're racist, too.

Give me a break. Is this the kind of identity politics that Obama was supposed to have been leading us out of? Or is he taking advantage of it just as much as the Clinton team might be. Of course he is.

I'm partial to the idea in an email that Josh Marshall posted at Talking Points Memo: Hillary saw how ineffective it was to play the "feminist card" in response to attacks from Edwards and Obama. Now her attacks, and those of her surrogates, are designed to force Obama to play the "race card."

It's not just that his campaign will have to go off-message. It's that if he spends time talking about race more explicitly, it reminds Americans that he's Black. That could rekindle all those "Is American ready for a Black president?" questions.

It depends on how it plays in the media, but I don't see it helping her much. Her most recent tactics scream of desperation. I can acknowledge it's kept the media narrative from being "Obama rallies from down 15+ points in a month." But if her candidacy still depends on inevitability, then such belie the truth.

Beyond that, the "tearful" moment may have played in the NH Democratic Primary, but even if it gives her the Democratic nomination, it probably ended her general election campaign.

Facing someone like McCain who won't hesitate to play the fear card, how will she be able to credibly argue she's fit for leadership? She'll be facing ads playing her being choked up in response to a friendly question from an American voter. That'll be juxtaposed with images of fedayeen marching in the streets and nuclear bombs going off in our cities. They won't even need a tagline like "Clinton: Tears in the face of Terror."

And ya know what? American voters will eat it up.

Obama and Edwards aren't going to run her out of town on that rail, but you think the GOP has such scruples?

I don't think there's enough evidence to demonstrate that Hillary's campaign has decided to try to use Obama's race against him. There's no obvious advantage. Maybe if she had lost New Hampshire, it would have made sense out of sheer desperation. Now, the potential backlash is so great that I have a hard time believing they would risk it. Think about it: Hillary would risk not only losing the Democratic nomination, but going down in history as a racist in the process.

All we really have is a handful of statements, some by people fairly peripheral to Hillary's campaign, which if construed uncharitably might be seen as racially insensitive. This is a massively important campaign; everybody's got something to say about it, everybody has some public forum in which to say it, so it's not really surprising that a few remarks might leak out that cause a raised eyebrow. I think we need something more than that before we accuse Hillary of instigating a race war.

We are heading down a dangerous road here. Media figures have an obligation, I think, not to impose a racial narrative on this campaign unless it is truly warranted. If Hillary Clinton wins this nomination, and the conventional wisdom is that she won by waging a racist campaign, the results for Democrats could be catastrophic.

Do you think African-Americans will continue voting Democratic at a 90% clip for a candidate who prevailed over a black man by using his race against him? Will African-Americans continue to support a party in which a racist campaign would work?

I'd agree about the crying, except she wasn't actually crying. It was rather absurdly shorthanded as "crying" in the press coverage, but few people watching it would actually see it as a breakdown.

It would not play well in a McCain commercial--we already know it turned Democrats out to vote for her, and I think it's likely that further play of it would improve her image among independents.

As to the substance of this post, I'm very unhappy with where the Clinton campaign is going. We weren't supposed to have to go here, but we are, and thanks ever so fucking much, New Hampshire. Hopefully we'll settle on a candidate quickly enough to prevent this horror from doing real damage.

El Viajero,
Interesting you say that since there have been a slew of articles over the last year that deal with blacks being skeptical of Obama. If you look, there is some very harsh commentary from blacks (I saw some at Black Commentator) because they see Obama as bi-racial and thus unable to fully "get" what African-American have had to go through. You also have a lot of blacks, who, until recently, were torn because they knew and loved Bill Clinton and they were unsure of Obama. That last part might have changed some, but I can't say so with any degree of certainty. Also, black women are largely conflicted...a female or a black male? Tough choice. The black electorate isn't unified right now on a candidate and while I'm sure some blacks will vote for Obama because he is black, it's not going to be the majority that some thing it will be.

On one hand, this is really loathsome stuff, and I'm personally insulted by it.

On a less personal level, this shows that Clinton is ready to fight, as Kos put it "in the gutter," where the last two elections have been decided. It's nice to see fight by somebody, even aimed at one of our guys.

I think loathsome is winning out on the internal scales, though.

I wouldn't blame Clinton for Bob Johnson's comment in itself--Johnson seems like a first-class blowhard.
But when Bill Clinton claims that we should take Johnson at his word when BJ says he wasn't talking about drug use... doesn't do a lot for the campaign's credibility.

love the simplistic discussions of race above. next up, several will post blacks love watermelon, fried chicken, and gansta rap.

love the simplistic discussions of race above. next up, several will post blacks love watermelon, fried chicken, and gansta rap.

What has anyone said that was racist? That's a pretty serious accusation.

Even Fred's comment isn't, strictly speaking, incorrect. I imagine there are some African-Americans that will vote for Obama because he's black. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to end the monopoly that white males have had on the presidency since the beginning.

Ezra,

Don't be a dupe...or a shill

If Hillary was going to be using race consciously she would not be doing it before the SC primary, why hand the black vote to Obama?

Any set of words by a white person addressing a black person can used as a sign of racism if the audience is SENSITIVE ENOUGH...true too of man, woman & misogyny.

Obama's surrogates are using the race card to garner votes in South Carolina, heighten the contrast between two identical voting records, race discussions prevent discussion of the recently publicized fact that Obamma is the same as Hillary...Line on Line...and it's working.

Ezra, don't be a dupe...or a shill.

"There will be many blacks that will blindly vote for Obama because he is black. If you don't believe that, you've been living on some other planet"

and yet, repubs could render this phenomenon meaningless if they were only to nominate a black American too; they don't seem that close to doing that though, for some reason.

Obama's surrogates are using the race card to garner votes in South Carolina

Andrew Cuomo and Bill Shaheen are on the Obama payroll? I bet it'd be news to them.

Cut me a break.
"Beyond that, the "tearful" moment may have played in the NH Democratic Primary, but even if it gives her the Democratic nomination, it probably ended her general election campaign."
Bush was reported as tearing up not once but twice in the course of touring the Holocaust Museum the other day. Romney brags about tearing up. It is a hell of a world where men get praised for being sensitive enough to cry and women get slammed for the same thing. You drop a hanky and Commander Codpiece will rush to pick it up. And use it to wipe his own tears away. Do the misogynists have any sense of self-awareness at all when they play the tear card?

Somewhere we passed a weird threshold in this country. When I was a kid nobody would have dreamed of saying 'I love ya man' to another guy, and boys didn't cry. Yeah it was a bunch of machismo infused bullshit but at least we were consistent, boys were supposed to be boys and girls supposed to be girls. Now we are in a world where men can be Metro and show a soft side while woman have the choice to being either Calculating Bitch or Weaker Vessel with no room in between.

Either Bush's continual weeping episodes makes him not fit to be Commander in Chief and Hillary's two second moment validates that. Or not. But lets not try to have it both ways, when did the narrative shift to 'Only tough men cry'?

The almost insidious way you've outlined the inclusion of race seems pretty plausible to me. We all knew it would be brought in someway, somehow. The only question is, how do you do it without risking harm to your candidate. You make key supporters or people with high records on race issues your hitmen/hitwomen. How do you respond... the same way. What has happened and what will happen is that it'll get spun 24 hours a day in the news cycles until it's pounded into the average joe's head. In the end, it's not about the words that are used or who says them, it's about causing doubt in their opponent. The sad thing is, is that this sort of distractive tactic hurts everyone. One candidate gets nominated, not because their plan or policies but because the other one failed in the name-calling. Also, it opens all the doors for their true opponent, The Republican candidate, to attack them. If this is truly the tactic of the Clinton camp, let's hope they end it quick.

I started off this campaign being happy with all three major candidates running.

Now, count me as a person who loathes the Clintons. They both make me sick. Bill, to me, is a little more despicable than Hillary.

Surrogates are rarely on the payroll. They're generally prominent politicos who've endorsed the candidate.

"If Hillary was going to be using race consciously she would not be doing it before the SC primary, why hand the black vote to Obama?"

Clinton doesn't care about SC, she wants the February 5th states which probably will decide the nomination. And boxing Obama in as the "black candidate," the frame Obama has spent his whole political career trying to transcend, will go a long way to ensuring her victory. It's an incredibly cynical and shameless strategy--almost beautiful, even, I have to confess.

Count me with Boyblue.

Watching the Clinton's campaign the last month has been nauseating. And, yeah, Bill Clinton is really a wretched piece of work on the trail this year.

Women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, blacks will vote for Obama because he is black, evangelicals will vote for Huckabee because he is an evangelical, people from Michigan will vote for Romney because his old man was governer, people will vote against Romney because his old man was governer, some men will vote against Hillary because she is a women, rather oddly some women will vote against her for the same reason. Any number of people will vote against Obama because of his middle name, any number of Kansans will vote for him because his mom is from Kansas, and I bet among the tiny demographic represented by naturalized registered Kenyan-Americans that he sweeps the board.

The whole thing is absurd. Of course identity is going to play a role, it is why it is conventional wisdom that you have to balance a northern liberal with a guy from the south. Which generally doesn't include any recent mayors of Atlanta. When campaigns openly talk about having to appeal to Nascar Dads and Soccer Moms everyone know what they mean, in order to win national elections you have to gain a substantial portion of the white vote and a very solid share of the white male vote. When Edwards appeared in hunting attire on the cover of a hunting magazine he was practically shouting 'I am a white male guy not afraid to shoot things!' You don't get any more pandering identity politics than that.

Because God knows that white male protestants have never caught a break in this country, never got a vote based on who they were as opposed to who they were not. White male privilege is like air to most of those inside the envelope, which is what happens when you allow one group to define the Other as anything but them.

People vote based on all kinds of reasons rational or not. But please lets not ignore the fact that a lot of white men vote for white men based on the fact that they are white men and not the Other. This whole notion of 'Identity politics for thee and not for me' is simply blindness to human nature.

Did Fiorello LaGuardia outpoll his opposition among voting Italian-Americans when he ran for mayor? I'll bet good money he did. Did Indian-Americans from around the country donate money to Bobby Jindal even though his views were substantially to the right of most Indian-Americans? Damn right and there is nothing wrong with that.

In an ideal world everyone would balance out all voting decisions in a nuanced policy wonk wonderland. Which I guess would make us all Ezra Klein. In the real world people vote for co-workers who run for school board-or against them-simply on that ground alone.

Does it make any rational sense to decide your vote on the basis that a candidate shook your hand or signed an autograph? Hell no. Do candidates work rope lines and sign autographs trying to gain votes? Hell yes. And it works.

There is no such thing as post-identity politics, you can only hope that you score as many identity points as you can. And being a white male historically gives you a leg up on the identity scale. People who think otherwise need to get outside the conceptual box they are trapped in.

"Clinton's campaign the last month has been nauseating. And, yeah, Bill Clinton is really a wretched piece of work on the trail this year."

Best reason yet to vote Obama...

...yeah...I'm inspired

They vote the same, but Clinton's "nauseating".

Wait 'till we get to the general and the same press that forced us to choose between two pro-war status quo candidates will rip the winner a new one.

...yeah...I'm inspired

You have it as backwards, any time Clinton says anything to Obama him or his surrogates run around saying "SEE, SEE, SHE'S HATING ON THE BLACK."

People like you suck it up and spit it out to the rest of us . . .

You forgot the Clinton campaign staffers that were forwarding the E-mails claiming Obama is a secret Muslim. Or Bob Kerrey saying Obama went to a Madrassah.

At this point, the fundamental premise of Obama's campaign, "unity," has indeed been exposed as a fairy tale.

On the flimsiest of evidence, the Obama campaign has been willing to assume the worst about their opponent - or even worse, they don't even care whether it's true or not, but they are willing to hurl one of the most serious accusations you can make against Hillary regardless.

The Obama campaign has made a list available to the press of supposedly racist statements. One of his campaign surrogates went on television and criticized Hillary for "crying" the other day, but not crying over Katrina. Gee, think that might have been an attempt to play the race card?

They have jumped at the opportunity to cast this campaign in terms of black vs. white. Which, whatever. But let's not pretend that Sen. Obama is anything but another politician who's perfectly willing to engage in an ugly, personal smear campaign. In a way, it puts to rest one concern about Obama - that he's not willing to run a ruthless campaign. Clearly, he is.

I know some of you can't hear the whistle. That's how it's supposed to work. It should be enough for you that the black community hears it loud and clear. Do you think you know more about the state of racism in America than they do? Do you think they are stupid, that they need you explain these remarks to them? Or do you think that perhaps they could explain those remarks to you?

That outrage you feel was always the point of the strategy. Clinton has her people say vaguely racists things so that the Black community responds. Thats what they want, they want you to see Obama and his campaign as 'race agitators'. They want you to blame THEM for the fact that you have to confront racism.

All of this 'believe me, not your lying yes' bs is just that. It doesn't matter that you never thought the Clinton's would resort to going to race if they got desperate. Hell, even I didn't think they were this kind of bad. It doesn't matter how stupid it may have been to do this right before South Carolina. The sad fact is that they did do this, and it wasn't stupid unless WE-- the white moderates-- make them pay a price for it. Otherwise, they got what they wanted no matter what happens in South Carolina and Nevada.

MLK said it a half a decade ago and it remains every bit as true today. The real enemy of progress is not

I'd agree about the crying, except she wasn't actually crying. It was rather absurdly shorthanded as "crying" in the press coverage, but few people watching it would actually see it as a breakdown.

That's why I called it a "tearful" moment. Media shorthand holds sway. Might as well acknowledge that fact. Even if I do so in scare quotes.

Perception, not reality is what matters. People thought that moment, real tears, fake tears, or no tears, showed her as being more human. It may be one of the reasons she did so well in NH.

It is a hell of a world where men get praised for being sensitive enough to cry and women get slammed for the same thing.

Remember, this is the same world where Democrats get slammed for saying we have to be sensitive and Republicans get praised when they say they're sensitive.

It's our reality and it's not fair.

I didn't say getting emotional actually indicates she is a weak person. Other people will say so. And the people they say it to will listen. The GOP will make sure of that.

Worse, there's no direct rebuttal she can make. She can't say "But Bush cried!" The same way Kerry couldn't answer the flip-flop allegations by pointing out Bush's flip-flops.

The laws of the playground hold sway in politics. Get called emotional? You'd better have a devastating counter-attack ready to go on a different flank.

But what does Hillary have to offer that can counter the fear card? Nothing. She's an establishment Democrat with high negative perception in the party and higher negatives outside the party.

Obama may get tagged for lack of experience, but he can trot out a vice president or cabinet member to address that.

This whole race story won't go away, it's too interesting for the media to drop, but it's not going to settle the race.

The real shame about Hillary's campaign is that she's got Bill shilling for her and going negative against Obama. If Hillary doesn't win the nomination that makes him [b]utterly[/b] useless in the general election.

It'd be one thing if he just campaigned in support of her, highlighting her positives. It's another for him to step into the gutter against a fellow Democrat. Bill just cashed the check on his political relevancy.

Do you think you know more about the state of racism in America than they do?

Yes, they do. They always think they know more than us about being black. That's part of the problem. It's not just being black by the way. The majority always thinks it knows the minority. Regardless of what minority it is.

Do you think they are stupid, that they need you explain these remarks to them?

Again, yes they do believe this. See we have chips on our shoulders and are incapable of logic like higher life forms who have passed the IQ tests.

Or do you think that perhaps they could explain those remarks to you?

No, we can't. See, we are closeless about racial politics. we can't see how a black person is treated differently either because he or she is the 'magic negro' or because they "niggers" in all but word. To mention this is to talk to the individual white person rather than the entrenched belief systems that propectuate the two choices. And emotionally integrated black person who is neither a) or b) would be confusing. Hence,having white people this election cycle (as I have had) question my 'blackness.'

Thats kind of the point Jason C. Obama is damned if he doesn't make an issue out of this, the low key racial appeals will ruin his campaign and it won't cost Clinton anything. If he makes a big deal, people like you will yell 'RACE HUSTLER!!!!' at the top of your lungs and go into incoherent rages about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I've seen it too many times to listen to denials.

What choice does Obama have, though? He has to make Clinton pay a price for her attacks, both as a practical political matter and as a moral one. He needs to make up some ground lost to whites among the black community. More importantly, how could Barak Obama not say anything about this? How is the one of most visible black man in America supposed to hold his tongue? I guess 'shuck and jive' is hardly an outdated survival strategy after all.

The fun part is watching the liberals call each other "racist" for any small thing that could be interpreted that way. It's a technique that the left developed and has used for decades against Republicans.

Now, with the first frontrunner black in the race, this bomb is being lobbed amongst their own, back and forth.

Fun Stuff

She was assuming the mantle of Johnson

Oh, the irony. And Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

Soullite, the key is that Obama has to address the issue without seeming to address the issue. The same we he attacked Clinton for months without mentioning the name of the candidate he was attacking. Everyone knew exactly who he meant, but he didn't have to say it.

And yes, it's easy to summarize it like that. Harder to figure out the logistics of it. That's why I'm not a paid campaign manager.

For all of those who nuance the race issue......from the drudgereport.com

"RASMUSSEN: Clinton leads Obama among white voters 41% to 27%...
Obama leads Clinton among African-American voters 66% to 16%...

Yeah, it doesn't matter (snicker...)

She was SO obviously comparing herself to LBJ and Obama to JFK, not MLK. It wouldn't even make sense to compare Obama to MLK, as Obama is running for President, not "Charismatic spritual/racial leader".

I don't recall there being formal elections for that title. If there were, Al Sharpton would have lost and he wouldn't be on TV all the time.

The problem with your theory, soullite, is that it's completely unfalsifiable. A total lack of evidence becomes an inability to hear the dog whistle. Questioning the existence of Hillary's racist strategy just shows how well it's working.

If an African-American tells me there are racial undertones to a comment even though I can't see them, I'm willing to defer. But it's a huge inference from that to get to the claim that Clinton is intentionally waging a racist campaign. You don't have any evidence for this. You might believe just because you think she's evil or craven enough, but that's not enough.

Again, we are talking about a handful of statements which might be questionable. Unless they can back it up with something more, it's a smear, plain and simple.

This is a terrible and pointless thing to do to the Democratic Party. A lot of us have been gloating over the mini-civil war going on in the GOP between the Jesus Freaks and the party establishment. But that will look like child's play if we continue down this road and tear the party apart along racial lines. The end result, no matter who wins, is going to an unparalleled intra-party bitterness that might compromise our ability to win in November.

If Clinton really has decided to run on racism, then Obama should of course call her on it, and she should be scorned. But this is not an accusation to be made lightly, and there's a standard of proof here that requires something beyond dogmatic table-pounding.

Ezra, you left out one that has been reported, but for some reason not commented upon as widely: the Florida-based pollster for Clinton who said the campaign was counting on the Latino vote in some key states due to the alleged reluctance of Latinos to vote for black candidates. Even if that's true, it does show that if nothing else the Clinton people are not above appealing to those uncomfortable with a black nominee.

In my opinion, Clinton brought the entire thing up when she mentioned MLK and LBJ. She opened this can of worms and started playing a very dangerous game. There was entirely too much to risk with that soundbite and nothing to gain.
"Wait, your telling me you think Obama doesn't have enough experience. Get out of town, I've never heard that before."
If she never makes that soundbite I doubt alot of this goes forward, because none of the other statements are coming directly from her. She directly injected race into the discussion, otherwise what exactly is she trying to say with her soundbite, that she's blacker than Obama?

But that will look like child's play if we continue down this road and tear the party apart along racial lines.

Lawn chair, popcorn....and 'don't forget to bring a towel!'

"yeah...you're nice enough"

Barak responding to Clinton saying "I think Obama is a nice guy"

Pretty condescending and pretty typical of Obama Kool-Aid drinkers to see racism, but to ignore Barak's misogyny/homophobic remarks.

One thing Barak Obama is not:

A Unifier.

One thing both he and Clinton have...they both have awful Senate voting records.

Akaison,
I've always found myself in agreement with you here and I'm sorry to find myself not in agreement. Here's my take on this flap:

Obama was running himself as a post racial candidate--and not only post racial but post partisan politics. He told all of us that he not only wanted votes from progressive voters and liberal voters and traditional democratic voters but that he wanted votes from former republicans, centrists, and independents. One of the ways he brought all those new people into the fold was through refusing to take a strong stand on what he would do with power after he got it and by definitely refusing to take a stand on the abuses of power under Bush. Obama's support among white voters was premised on his *not saying uncofortable things to them* about *lots* of aspects of american political history--not just race but especially race. personally, that always ticked me off. I felt there was no use having the first black president if he were going to run as though blackness didn't have a definite political agenda just as there was no use voting for a democrat who wouldn't come out in detail for a progressive agenda. I felt that he was making too many compromises now and that his "mandate" such as it was was going to end up including too many voters with a vested interest in forgetting the past, not learning from its mistakes.

One of the things Obama's campaign has tried to do was to allow people who were actual or at least voting racists to join the campaign. The campaign doesn't ask you to renounce your previous opposition to affirmative action, your previous affiliation with the GOP or the independent/centrist movements, or to rethink your previous support for racism or sexism or militarism it says "we can all get past that stuff together."

All of a sudden, though,the Obama campaign, whether through provocation or to score points, is throwing all that "everyone can reach higher ground together" stuff out the window. In accusing Clinton and HRC of out and out racism--of having failed the black community over Katrina, of lying about and misusing MLK's memory, and of whatever other sins of racism they are accusing her of the Obama campaign is implicitly telling the rest of white america *and the very voters they were trying to reach* that *nothing is good enough* when it comes to anti racist behavior or history.

And that is a point that el viajero and the other trolls here are lapping up. It has long been a contention of the right wing that a) everyone is a racist but only republican racists are at least honest enough to make it public policy; b) white liberals and progressives *and also* black people are racists and would admit that they all hate each other except for political necessity; c) that when white liberals and progressives realize that black people are never satisfied even with good intentions or careful language whie liberals will turn on blacks and blacks will turn on white liberals.

They've been making that argument for years--and they are about to have their basic world view validated. Every time Obama and his supporters and surrogates insist that mere words are as serious as the worst racist acts; that known liberals and anti-racist actors like clinton and HRC are identical with stone segregationists the ability of Obama to appeal to a post racial mixed race electorate diminishes. To the extent that HRC and Clinton stand in for well meaning liberals who have spent a lot of their lives trying to do the best they can in the context of Race and politics in this torn country you are, essentially, saying that *nothing is good enough* and *no amount of history protects you from the charge of racism.* If that is the case what is in it for Obama's supporters? What really is he offering? I don't recall any specifics but I recall a lot of windy words about all moving forward together and getting past our racist history. But if people who've actually been working for a better racial future are to be cast out of the promised land, what about the rest of the white population who have either been indifferent, uninvolved, or downright hostile to racial equality?

Its an obvious problem and not one that anyone can be blamed for but Obama and his advisors.

kpkkst

I absolutely agree with you in this analysis, Ezra. I thought I was the only one with this opinion, but I am relieved to see I am not that paranoid after all.
The Clinton campaign is trying their best to make Obama talk about race, thus appearing as the black leader (ergo, not the leader of all americans).
Anyway, I believe Obama knows better. He won't be fooled and, as a consequence, Clinton will be crushed in the south. If Obama resists the temptation to engage in white /vs/ black false dialogue, he may have a huge chance to be the democratic nominee.

1. Aimai needs a column
2. Ezra is still the sexiest thing ever even if he succumbed to peer pressure and posted a flimsy Clinton bashing article

Aimai:

I am making my comments w/o regard to the right. Of course, they are going to say shit that's self serving- fuck them. You could see that over in the diary about the U.S. being dead last in healthcare outcomes. I look at conservative honesty like this- you maybe honestly yelling to me that you are stabbing me in the back as you are stabbing me, but at that point I don't much care about your honesty. So again, fuck them- wrong priorities, wrong thinking and don't give a shit to play into their b.s.

But, this isn't about circling the wagons so that we aren't able to look in the mirror. Of course, Obama has been playing the "magic negro." That doesnt excuse the insinuation by Clinton of the opposite that "he's nothing but a nigger" either.

Both are wrong. They both lead to the same results of values and issues being glossed over.

the only reason why the conservatives relish this is that they get to live another day (in their minds) because in actuality that don't have much else. their eyes are proving morally and substantively bankrupt. the bad side of identity politics gloss the discussion over.

identity politics is necessary as a discussion about how race, gender and other issues leads to discrimination against historically discriminated against parties. but it can also lead to glossing over failures. thats not accept either. one doesn't make the other right (part the pun).

I'm not willing to replace this complexity with the simple minded constructions that self serving conservatives want for us. I hope you do not either. sadly too many aren't willing to look in the mirror about these things. they are complicated.

what is in it for obama supporters?

we know we can be lotuses and not bottomfeeders.

Hate to be a little crass but your post was somewhat crazy aimai. First, name one Obama surrogate who claims that what Hillary and Bill said was one of the "worst racist acts". That's pure fiction. No one has called Bill or Hillary racists at all. I'm an African American who actually supports Edwards, but I can't lie and say that I haven't heard the dog whistle from the Clinton's. Do I think there racists? No, I don't. But do I think that they are willing to use Obama's race against him? Yes.

Quite frankly, I don't think Bush or Rove are racists, but were they willing to use a story about McCain's dark-skinned child to help win the nomination in 2000. Hell yes. Your analysis seems to be exactly what Ezra's post talked about. By injecting race in the equation, now Obama somehow hates white people because he won't just do a Tiger Woods and act like it didn't happen.

I saw the length of aimai's post, and just scrolled to the end. Amazingly, the conclusion was: it's all Obama's fault.

I could have skipped directly to the poster's name and reached the same result.

Despite my typos and haphazzardly written posts, I hope that others understand that I am seeking to make similar points as Derrick. This is a debate about narratives that are well worn in the US electorate about race. I don't think Obama with his "magic negro" campaign (positive racism) or Clinton with her dog whistle appeals (negative racism) have clean hands here.

You've had Andrew Cuomo accuse Obama of "shucking and jiving," and the mini-furor over Hillary Clinton's controversial claim that she was Lyndon Johnson to Obama's Martin Luther King Jr.

Before we conclude that it is "worth wondering" whether such incidents are part of a "coordinated strategy," it might be worth asking whether they are being characterized accurately.

The full text and context of Andrew Cuomo's remark can be found here:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/01/ag_cuomo_on_nh_no_shuck_and_ji.html#more

Please read it for yourself, if you have not already done so, and come to your own conclusion about whether or not Cuomo was "accusing Obama" of anything in this passage.

The full text and context of Sen. Clinton's remark is here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801120003?f=h_latest

Please read it for yourself, if you have not already done so, and come to your own conclusion about whether or not Sen. Clinton, in the course of analogizing herself to Lyndon Johnson, was also making an analogy between Sen. Obama and, specifically, Rev. Dr. King.

Perhaps you will conclude that Ezra Klein has characterized both remarks accurately. But please look and see for yourselves, before coming to that conclusion.

Obama responds:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-damps-dow.html

Whatever the Clintons were trying to do, Obama didn't take the bait. His response was classy and above the fray, returning the debate to the issues at hand.

Whether this defuses the controversy remains to be seen. I thought it was a classy move on his part, providing a nice contrast to what's been coming out of the Clinton camp lately.

Derrick and Akaison,
I do think this is all very complicated. Derrick, I don't and didn't accuse any obama surrogate of making the accusation that what the clinton's have done is racist. I was actually reflecting on Oliver Wills' saying that what they were saying was racist, serious, and that there "would be no democratic party if it weren't for blacks." I was also reacting against the continued argument from bloggers and posters that this is a trap that clinton has set for obama that he had to fall into. I don't agree.

That being said I know I come across as anti obama and that is my own fault. Actually, I've vacillated throughout between Edwards and Obama. Clinton is way too centrist/moderate for my tastes. It is also the case that I'm a yellow dog democrat and will not only vote for the nominee but work for the nominee when we get there.

I'm sick and tired of both the clinton and obama camps--more sick of the obama supporters who flood every thread and accuse (and yes, they do) every non obama supporter of implicit and explicit racism. I'm afraid of what its going to do to the party and i wish both obama and clinton could find a way to rise above this and return to discussions of policy.

aimai

Fox's post up above points to Obama's very smart and thoughtful move to defuse this disasterous policy of tit for tat. I hope it works, I hope the clintons respond appropriately, and I hope we can all move forward with an actual campaign of ideas.

aimai

Unfortunately, if most Obama supporters are like Fox (and thanks for the good news about Obama's remarks) this controversy is far from over. Fox can't resist implying that despite what Obama said, he still believes that the HRC campaign was trying to play some sort of racist game.

As for the question of dog whistle politics--I think some people on this thread misunderstand the term. A dog whistle appeal is indeed supposed to be understood by some particular subgroup in an election. But that subgroup is supposed to be among your supporters and they're supposed to be happy with what you say. How would it make sense to insert a dog whistle racist attack into your comments that is understood by African Americans but not by whites? To be an effective dog whistle it would have to work the opposite way, wouldn't it?

My hat is off to Senator Obama, though, for not joining so many of his supporters in the gutter on this.

"And, whether it's a coordinated strategy on the part of the Clintons or not"

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...

Whatever the Clintons were trying to do, Obama didn't take the bait. His response was classy and above the fray, returning the debate to the issues at hand.

Talk about a double standard. Obama hasn't been any further above this fray than Hillary herself.

His campaign was the one that issued a memo to the press detailing all of the Clintons' supposed racist statements. He was the one whose official surrogate went on TV and criticized Hillary for "crying" on the campaign trail but not for the victims of Katrina.

The last few days have destroyed any remaining plausibility to the idea of Obama as the great unifier and bringer of hope. Hillary hasn't acquitted herself well in this campaign either, but at least she's not running as someone who's anything but a typical politician.

ONCE AGAIN, bring a clothespin into the booth with you in November. Sheesh.

It's seemed to me race has been a feature of Clinton's campaign since calling Obama naive. This is the theme of casting Obama as a child amongst adults, which most certainly has racial overtones. The idea that Obama is too youthful, and thus inexperienced, to lead is particularly odd, given that he is roughly the same age as Bill Clinton was when elected. Yet it succeeds as an effective attack nonetheless.

I've been trying to sit a lot of this out - I have to admit I don't entirely understand the point of Ezra's post, and the interplay of commentors hasn't improved the clarity of the discussion for me. For a number of reasons, I'm inclined to say I agree most closely with akaison, but I suspect I'd say it a little differently (he is, though, as he has been, dead-on about Obama as the "magic negro" in our culture).

What I did want to add was that, having read Obama's "can't we all just work together" remarks in that link, I'd agree he's trying to walk around his own actions, as well as those of his campaign. He's realized, I suspect, that he set himself up for major trouble by suggesting that both Clintons, or either one, are bad for the black community; there's just too much history for that kind of rhetoric to fly. So now he says that his only problem is that Clinton thinks "inside the Beltway" and that's the problem with suggesting that lbj had a major role in the Civil Rights Act. That, too, I think, is not particularly going to wash.

As well, I would point out that the bigger problem here is any assumption that we have a "national conversation on race" - we don't, and we need one, desperately. The problem, I think, is that Obama - as with most mixed race Americans (I'm one too) - sits in an odd place to talk about race; not quite one, and really not quite the other. That reality, I think, is what has made his "magic negro" presentation possible, but it's also been a bomb waiting to blow - at some point, Obama was going to have come down, one way or another, on race, now he has, and that bell can't be un-rung. And I think he may not have come down in a way that helped him with the black community.

As I said, though, I am leery of this whole topic, and it's not my goal here to offend.

Calling anyone a "magic negro" is a damn sight more patronizing and explicitly racist than anything that even Clinton has so far dared to come up with. Try the idea of calling yourself a magic honky or magic gook for size! Don't like it? Well, tough, because you just earned it by using racial terms for someone of another color.
Everyone has been trying to force Obama into one definition or another of himself in racial terms, either so they feel he has paid his dues, or so they can have a "gotcha" moment and get rid of the unifier that many true democrats have been waiting for. Can't you see the plain fact, that Hillary's surrogates have been playing this for all its worth, calculating that scaring away those nice white housewives will save her campaign? Aimai, please, don't try the tired defense that Clinton is a well-meaning liberal. This is a pair of triangulating, manipulative, selfish people, who have done nothing except parade their appalling marriage, commit perjury, abuse young women, and generally damage the Democratic party! Well-meaning liberal? This is Hillary, who has distorted Obama's record, who has the support of a rightwing pornographer, whose supporters are trying to stop people voting in Nevada, who has basically done nothing for anyone, but herself - and talks about achievements! What achievements? A handful of minor bills? Being Clinton's much-adulterated wife? Being "inspired by MLK"? Can't you see the end result of the Clinton scorched earth strategy - even if Clinton gets the nomination, real progressives and yes, many black people, will be so appalled by the tactics she and her surrogates have used that they will stay home and accept four more years of the Republicans? Is it really asking too much to see the disaster that is heading towards us, and picking up speed every time Hillary and her advisers make these little remarks with racial code words? if there is a split in the Democratic party, it will be brought about by the selfish Clinton mob, who don't understand that destroying your own party for selfish gain after eight years of Bush II is a profoundly selfish, dishonest and unpatriotic act. And now I have to listen to their apologists yapping out racist crap about magic negoes! If these people are Democrats, Rudy Giuliani is the next Saint Francis!

Judging by some comments on this board, I have to imagine that if Jesus actually went around preaching about love and forgiveness and not killing people, some of you would accuse him of being a "magic Jew" or "trying to talk around the implications of his own actions". I don't see Obama as the Second Coming, but trying to reduce what he is saying to opportunism is ridiculous. He has spent so much time talking about the good of America, not about racial issues, not about pretending to be something he isn't. Surely, in the Democratic party, of all places, it should be possible for a politician to run without making it a racial issue, without having to proclaim that he belongs to one tribe or another. Must we force candidates into ever more narrow and reductive definitions of who they are, simply so we can feel that we have them acceptably labelled? This is ridiculous. Obama has tried not to become a racially divisive politician, and here the Democrats - yes, the Democrats - are trying to make him into one! As for the talk about being a "magic negro" and making him come down on one side of the fence or the other, it sounds like good ol' boy talk at the country club. the whole point is that we shouldn't be building fences in the Democratic party. We should accept that candidates are white black Jewish Asian Hispanic - and look at their policies and their merits. The minute we start trying to define them through race, we might as well say that we are not liberals, just centrists who are willing to play the racial quota game to look good. That's an ugly prospect for any genuine Democrat, and if we do that way, we deserve to lose this, and every successive election. Whether we like Hillary or Edwards or Obama or Kucinich or Gravel in this race, there are more important matters to think about than simply who wins a primary. What do Democrats want to be? Do we want to be effectively racist, or do we want to be genuinely liberal. Think well before you decide that a short-term win in a primary is wrth getting into the race-baiting game. You may find the Democratic party pays a very heavy price for one candidate's advantage.

thank you, ardais and nickzi.

i felt after the iowa caucus that obama would need a hedge of protection around him for the spiritual warfare he would endure from every direction.
it is very hard to watch.

"the spirit of the best men is spotless, like the lotus in the muddy water which does not adhere to it."

Why, thank you, Jacqueline. Never had anyone call me a hedge before, but I take it very kindly, and without any thorns.

Edwards supporter here, and no love for Hillary, but to pretend that Obama did not try to cast the LBJ and fairy tale statements as "racially insensitive", when they were not, is self-delusion.

Obama is my number two, but I did not like that move at all. If the "Clinton surrogates" are doing it on the other end (and sorry Andrew Cuomo is an idiot, the BET guy is much more believable), then that is obviously wrong. I just don't think its been proven.

On the up side, EXPECT racist attacks from the GOP if Obama gets the Dem nod. This controversy shows he can play the game if need be (of course the GOPer don't really try to get the black vote anyway so the dynamics are much different -- Hillary's supposed racial attacks make no sense since she relies on the black vote to help her in the primaries).

Palooza, I accept that you are not a Hillary supporter, but I have to say that apparently minimizing MLK in favor of LBJ, in the context of civil rights, can hardly be called a sensitive or wise move. It may not have been deliberately racist, but it was profoundly ill-advised, and yes, I would say extremely insensitive. LBJ did get the legislation through,and I honor him for that, but I think that for many Americans, especially black Americans, it was MLK (who paid with his life) who did the heavy loading: marching, and speaking, and suffering. I tend to feel that the "fairytale" claim was crassly insensitive on a personal level, and rather dishonest - but that's Bill Clinton these days. I think you are wrong about the black vote and Hillary. If Hillary loses the white women over 30 - that sinks her in the primaries. The black vote matters in some of the southern states, but is not as decisive overall. If Hillary has to chose which demographic group to keep, I doubt very much that the choice will take her ten seconds.

nickzi....

you are welcome!
even in serious moments,
it is good to invest
in a little hedge fun!

As nickzi said - never been called a hedge, but thank you for the kind words, Jacqueline.

Um, thanks ardais, but Obama and I are literally the same color.

Well, Jacqueline, if I am a hedge, surely you are a graceful tree, providing shade and bright blossoms.

Weboy, I am glad you share at least one quality with a fine man. I hope there are many more. Not quite sure where you get your vision of the Obama campaign from, since you seem to have forgotten about Clinton and her surrogates in your "blame Obama" narrative, and some of your sequence of events seems pretty inaccurate. Besides, what with your bells and bombs and fences, I have to say that I am not sure whether you are describing the apocalypse or a wedding gone wrong. Either way, be happy that you are somewhat Obamaesque. I salute you.

ardais,

I have to disagree. Let's play a mind game and pretend MLK was black -- Hillary's point would still a valid one. It has noting to do with race. I can see your point about their relative contributions and sacrifice for the cause, but at the end of the day, all that sacrifice means nothing unless laws get passed. And that is the job of the President of the United States (LBJ in this case). Obama and Hillary are running for that position, not the "position of MLK." I think that is a valid point to make by Hillary.

I think Obama turning that into something racial was unfortunate.

It's seemed to me race has been a feature of Clinton's campaign since calling Obama naive. This is the theme of casting Obama as a child amongst adults, which most certainly has racial overtones.

This is a perfect example of the kind of logic Obama supporters are selling nowadays. For any attack on Obama, someone somewhere will "find" some racial element to it, and brand his opponent a racist. There is literally nothing Clinton (or Edwards, for that matter) could do that wouldn't be called racist.

Hillary Clinton is 60 years old and has been involved in national politics for over a decade and a half. Her challenger is a generation younger and has been in national politics for only three years now. OF COURSE someone in this position is going to argue that their opponent is too young and inexperienced. It's the same criticism Lloyd Bentsen made of Dan Quayle. It has nothing to do with race; it's an old standard. (Whether you agree that First Lady = experience is irrelevant; she's arguing that it does, so it makes sense for her to contrast her experience with his.)

But since Obama is black, you find a racial undertone to it.

I am absolutely astonished at the ease with which Obama supporters are willing to plunge the Democratic party into an internecine race war. Our chances of winning in November may have been compromised already by this.

I've long stopped being surprised by the extraordinary naiveté of a lot of the Obama supporters, but Jesus Christ - do you have any idea what Obama would be in for in the general election? If you think Hillary's engaging in "dog whistle" inflammatory rhetoric, just wait to see what the GOP has in store. Crying foul over every remark that might, possibly, conceivably carry racial undertones will not fly in November.

Palooza, the point is not that you or I think of it as racially charged speech, although I find it offensive in several ways for Hillary to make cheap comparisons. The point is MLK's iconic status IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY. That's where the racial undertone, to put it neutrally, comes from. As for your mind game, I am not sure why pretending that MLK was black would change anything. Last I heard, he WAS in fact black. The analogy is also flawed, in that no-one is suggesting running for the position of MLK. The comparison originally evoked by Hillary was to contrast inpiration/hope with experience/bringing about change. In making the comparison, she in effect denigrated MLK in favor of LBJ - and failed to apologize for her implicit denigration of him. That's where this began, and that's why the African-American community is angry, when it sees an icon of black leadership apparently being set down as secondary to a white politician, who did not march, suffer or experience racism first hand as MLK did.

nickzi/taxus baccata

thank yew very much!

(yew is the proper name of a hardy hedge!)

Jason, please, stop exaggerating. No-one on the Obama campaign has yet suggested that Edwards is a racist. They disagree with him on some issues, but trying to claim a call of racism is utterly dishonest. Your claim is beyond ridiculous, and resembles a Rovian ad hominem attack in a number of despicable ways. As for the fight between Obama and Hillary, first, remember that no-one has attacked Hillary as "white" or used loaded terms from implicitly racist discourse towards her. You can't say that for Hillary's surrogates, who have tried to hint at drug dealing, called Obama a "kid", brought up drug use and then tried to pretend they were talking about community organizing, etc. If any campaign has played the race card and started this whole pointless march to disaster, it was the Clinton campaign, which began cries of "racism, racism", while Obama said nothing. Since we are on the subject of exaggerations, let's remember that Obama served as a State Senator in Illinois 1997-2004, worked as a community organizer, and has been a member of the Senate from 2004 on, which is easily as much in terms of real achievement as HRC. And no, there are plenty of attacks that HRC and her surrogates have made that were not called racist. No-one called the allegations of inexperience racist, no-one calls the distortions of Obama's anti-Iraq vote racist. People simply call them lies, and have done with it. If you insist on offering a case for Hillary, please, make a real one, rather than this pathetic screed of lies, innuendoes and distortions. If you are a Hillary supporter, you do a damn good job of making a convincing case for voting Republican.

Jacqueline, I am tempted ask willow you marry me! *s* All this niceness in one evening. I am just afraid you might vanish, and leave me to pine away....

"In just the last month or two, you've had Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair, Bill Shaheen, bring up Obama's drug use (a highly racially charged subject, of course),"

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge, Obama is the first serious presidential candidate to admit to anything stronger than marijuana use. To a large number of Americans, there's a major difference between smoking pot as a kid and doing anything stronger. At least, that's the CW. Just suppose it were a race between between Clinton and any other candidate and the other candidate admitted to cocaine use, don't you think some Clinton surrogate would try to use it as an attack poit? So, again, what the hell are you talking about?

Clinton supporters continue pushing RACE issue (Redux)

As evidence I offer up this article by Professor Sean Wilentz, a longtime supporter and personal friend of the Clintons, who now has a new piece over at TNR. After the last backhanded Obama supporter and media bashing article I'm surprised he can show his face on that site again, but apparently Prof. Wilentz seems bent on destroying all semblance of his credibility and bound and determined to immolate himself on a pyre of his own making. I guess tenure makes you reckless.

The Power and the Inspiration

I've heard much bemoaning of this as a non-issue, on supposedly liberal blogs, from people who just want it to go away. Perhaps they should tell that to Mark Penn and the Clinton campaign who are apparently petitioning their operatives to pursue this avenue.

Hillary Clinton made a huge rhetorical misstep when she held up Lyndon Johnson as the doer, in contrast to Martin Luther King who she implied was merely the inspirational leader and dreamer of nice dreams that others had to make reality. It was not only a huge gaffe but factually incorrect, a fanciful rewriting of history as it were. But I suppose it's the kind of thing you would expect coming from someone who grew up as a Goldwater Republican, as we all know Barry Goldwater himself did not support the Civil Rights Act. It's also the kind of mindset you would expect from a Washington insider who believes that all power and change flows from those corridors. Another piece of revisionism that is not supported by the history of the United States. It saddens me that Hillary Clinton forgets who is the real driving force behind this nation, WE THE PEOPLE. Such arrogance does not bode well for someone who aspires to our presidency.

Here's a little historical reminder for Wilentz and Hillary, the civil rights movement was a movement of the people, it was their concerns that drove the legislation that became the law of the land. It was the people in the movement who paid the price and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King paid a much higher price than most. As we know he was assassinated for his part, but long before that he began paying a price. As anyone who knows the history can tell you, the doctor who performed the autopsy on Dr. King noted that his body had incurred the kind of wear and tear usually only found in the bodies of 60 year olds, yet Dr. King was only 39. Obviously King had been paying the price for his advocacy for decades before he was murdered.

And how many other African-Americans laid down their lives in this fight? There's the names that we remember like Malcolm and Medgar but there were thousands before them, most of whom died in obscurity between the 1860s and the 1960s, not to mention the tens or even hundreds of thousands of African-Americans who lost their lives in this country for no other reason than that they had dark skinned, because US law offer them little or no protection. And the history goes back well before abolition, with Dread and Harriet Scott who fought for years in the US courts where they had virtually no chance of winning. Yet they kept on fighting in the hope that one day their sacrifice would finally bear the fruits of liberty for their posterity. It only it took another 118 years for African-Americans to become full-fledged citizens.

Yes Black people in America paid a heavy price in their struggle to achieve equity under the law. But it wasn't until the rest of America, White America, got to see fire hoses turned upon children on their nightly news, and pictures of young people lynched and murdered in their local papers, before the majority of Americans woke up, and said enough, no more of this, we must put an end to such repression and inequity.

Lyndon Johnson may have done the right thing, but it was the people of this nation who prompted him to step forward and take that action. He was merely the leader of the moment who realized that his job as president was to listen to his people. But in truth he did no more than any man of conscience would've found himself compelled to do under such circumstance.

So when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton slights and diminishes the achievements Martin Luther King, in order to make a rhetorical point to bolster her presidential bid, she deserves to be pilloried and condemned. Because she didn't just slight the memory of Dr. King alone, she slighted and diminished the contribution of every one of those people down through history who first dreamed of change and then made it happen. It wasn't Lyndon or any of his people who paid the ultimate price in order to achieve equity under the law, it was MLK and the Black folk of this nation who paid for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and they paid with their blood, the blood of their children, and with the blood of numerous generations before them.

So instead of giving Hillary and her campaign a pass, I suggest the Clinton supporters advise their candidate to check herself before she wrecks herself.

Jason, please, stop exaggerating. No-one on the Obama campaign has yet suggested that Edwards is a racist. They disagree with him on some issues, but trying to claim a call of racism is utterly dishonest.

I in no way meant to imply that anyone was accusing Edwards of racism. I'm not sure exactly what I said that made you think otherwise, but it was probably my own sloppiness in phrasing.

So no, no one (to my knowledge) has accused Edwards of racism. Edwards is enough of a non-factor for Obama right now that he doesn't seem to spend any time at all going after him.

I do think, however, that ANY white candidate who was going up against Obama would be caught in a kind of Catch-22 if his campaign and his supporters are willing to make accusations of racism at the drop of a hat. If Edwards were neck and neck with Obama instead of Hillary, we might be seeing the same dynamic playing out.

But no, Obama has not accused Edwards of racism.

There is a Clinton Attacks Obama Wiki up. At the Incidents Page, there are now TWENTY-ONE listed.

http://clintonattacksobama.pbwiki.com/Incident-Tracker

But, of course, this is in the ' imagination'. You've been ignoring those of us who have been pointing out this PATTERN for some time.

Will you even bring up that just as Hillary supposedly called a ' truce', she had Charlie Rangel ATTACKING OBAMA.

Why does this sound like deja vu?

Oh yes, could it be that it is totally like the Sheehan flap, where Clinton SUPPOSEDLY apologized to Obama....and then not less than two hours LATER, on HARDBALL, there is Mark Penn ATTACKING Obama.

This is a race-baiting strategy to BLACKEN UP Obama, for the February 5th states, but none of you MSM yokels will call her on that, will you?

This is indeed a tough topic and everyone seems to have an opinion. Ultimately, I think Soullite has it right. Is this 'provable'? Maybe not in scientific terms, but let's consider the evidence.

If you look at a timeline of the incidents, it's clear that the Clinton campaign is keeping the story alive in the press. Otherwise, why didn't Hillary make an appeal on Meet the Press to magnanimously put the issue to bed? No one explicitly accused the Clintons of racism, and such an appeal would have gracefully eased the pressure (especially given the Clintons' favorable history in the AA community). Instead she attacked Obama. Obama finally made the magnanimous gesture today.

My intent is not to recite the whole timeline, but there are many examples. I believe there was one primary exception---Jesse Jackson Jr.'s comment on Katrina. Otherwise a whole slew of comments have come from the Clinton side, thereby causing more media coverage. The Obama-campaign memo was prepared and released as a reaction. After 2004, do you expect any reasonable campaign to stand idly by?

As further evidence, if Obama is just being overly sensitive, why have there been no incidents involving the Edwards campaign? For a good stretch in Iowa, he was going at Obama. I can't intuit the underlying motives, but the Clinton campaign is happy to keep race in the discussion. Fair-minded folks can draw their own conclusions from there---but I don't see too many scenarios that cast a favorable light on the Clintons.

Again, Cuomo used that phrase to comment on politics in general--not Obama. For the Obama camp to suggest otherwise makes a poorly chosen phrase all the more inflammatory.

Fix that.
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=6141#more-6141
Obama camp:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

If we're going to hold the candidates responsible for all their supporters (I don't think we should), then let's apply those standards to everyone. No, I'm not a Clinton supporter, not do I care for Obama.

How does being charged as racists help the Clinton campaign? Honestly, I don't see how she has a chance now. Considering the press' visceral hatred of the Clintons even a whiff or "racial" comments would've been distorted into a major scandal no matter what. Combine that with the press' general love affair with Obama and it seems outrageous that the Clintons would be politically suicidal.

Axelrod is no fool; he's playing audacious hardball.

"How does being charged as racists help the Clinton campaign? "

Two-step process. From the repeated news cycles, it's easy to frame the narrative of Obama as just another black politician who makes everything about race. Because this frame undermines Obama and his message, the Clintons get a net gain because (1) they have plausible deniability and can harken back to favorable impressions in the AA community and (2) their negatives are already high, so it hurts Obama more.

Can't prove that this is the strategy, but it's certainly plausible. More here:
http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/oreos-and-house-negroes-clinton.html

The Clinton's calculating ingenious new tactics are plans within plans. It seems they will do whatever is necessary to get themselves back in the White House, and if that means playing the race card, so be it.

You know I was expecting this type of thing from the Republicans, but I must admit I really wasn't expecting a Democrat to pull this crap, I guess that makes me naïve.

Injecting Race Into the Campaign

[I think that the Clintons' anti-Obama strategy is more subtle than commentators are realizing. It is in the nature of a "provokatsiia", as the Russians say. Cuomo didn't utter the phrase "shuck and jive"without forethought; nor did Clinton bring up LBJ and MLK on the spur of the moment. Both are experienced street-fighting politicians who don't say that kind of thing to the press without thinking it through. Such comments are a provocation, waving a red cloak in front of the Obama people. When they respond angrily with charges of racism, suddenly they look like Jessie Jackson redux...just the kind of angry, militant black folks who scare white people (btw I think black anger and militancy are completely understandable...this is just a point about how much of the white public reads such charges of racism). Then the Clintons deny responsibility.

The whole point was to get the Obama people to respond angrily, which they did. Clintons win.]

With the likes of John Lewis defending Hillary, Barack saw that the racism argument was not sustainable, and called a truce. It was a mistake to have over-reacted to the vulgar, stupid remarks of her supporters.

For the terminally ignorant, which several of you are here, the word "magica negro" is an attack on white voters, not blacks, which means the following things:

a) Obama is black, but not like those other blacks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/5/173727/4473

The above diary discusses one such Obama supporter and by what I have seen here and else where I no longer give the benefit of the doubt, the only supporter, and how they view race.

b) "Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him. "

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-home-center

It's not a term that started with Obama, and it's sure as hell isn't about Obama. It's about yo, the voter. How you think about race and how simplistic this country is about the conversation.

The point of the "magic negro" is not that Obama isn't trying to be black. It's that electorate will not let that be part of what he is. Thus, the sometimes insane conversations I see, and here, the arguments about race as if it weren't the elephant in the room well before the bruh-ha-ha with CLinton. That's the magic part of this. That he was above race. It was about you to think this. I believe he allowed this for obvious reasons, but ultimately it is about the voters frame of race that's the problem. But don't worry we will never address that-- only these fake conversations about the candidates. At some point this country gave on doing anything real. Did we ever want to do anything real?

There is a Clinton Attacks Obama Wiki up. At the Incidents Page, there are now TWENTY-ONE listed.

I encourage everyone to follow that link so you can see for yourself just how substanceless the charges of racism are. Here are some of the supposedly "racist" remarks:

"Barack Obama is a beautiful symbol."

"We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country."

"I just don't want to see us fall backwards"

"Okay. I have a choice between a truly inspirational speaker who has not done the kind of spadework with the sort of, uh, experience that another candidate has."

If you can find racism in those comments, you can find it anywhere.

"it's that the electorate will not let that be part of what he is."

i think it is unfair to put a wide swath on any group of people and decide how they all think.
many people have evolved to the place of seeing people as human beings; knowing that each life holds complexly different life experiences based on lots of factors, but we honor and encourage the differences and want to move forward,
together.

is it fair or even correct to put people in such a wide net?

Oh come now Jason C. it is not hard to find Clintons rascism, simply think of Hillary and Bill as Republicans and its easy to see how Clinton speaks in racial codes as Ezra insists Republicans do.
Let's look at the record:

1. Roger Clinton is on tape repeatedly using the N-Word and has never been repudiated for it by Bill and Hill.

2. Bill Clintons political mentor and man he still praises is J. William Fulbright, a known racist and leader of the opposition to civil rights for blacks.

3. Hillary Clinton referred to Obama as a 'boy' and Bill referred to him as a 'kid', both racially insensitive words to blacks when spoken by whites.

4. No less then 3 eye witnesses, two troopers and a campaign operative have claimed both Bill and Hillary used the N-word and told racially offensive jokes in Arkansas as Governor.

5. Clinton left the campaign in 1992 to go back to Little Rock to sign the death warrant for a mentally retarded black man. He also went out of his way to attack black artists like Sister Soldjah when he was running against Jessie Jackson.

6. Every year as Governor Clinton had Robert E Lee day and Confederate Flag day in Arkansas.

There's alot more but that is more then enough evidence to convict any Republican.

the straightjacket of what kind of candidate Obama must be in order to run as to not to offend people about race says it all. It's implicit in any number of things people say here and else where. Honesty isn't about make you feel better about yourself or self help programs. It's about being honest. That's why this conversation to anyone being real about race in American is just plain bizzare.

"that's why this conversation to anyone being real about race in america is just plain bizarre."

your conversation reminds me of similar discussions in the jewish community.
because there is so much anger-based and fear-based thinking, which is so understandable in light of the history of judaism, for many, there is hardly a way to get past it.
and since our particular sufferings are singular to us, we can claim it for our own. who else can understand the nature of one's private suffering?
no-one.
this kind of thinking finds a home in the thinking of lieberman and other neo-conservatives.
it appeals to instincts of the deepest distrust.
there is no dialogue that can erase the wounds of a past, whether it is of the individual, or a group of people collectively.
at some point, there has to be a point of courage to move forward.
there is never a realization or an apology or a reckoning big enough to undo the damages of the past...no dialogue can accomplish that in any sphere of life, on the smallest or largest scale.
and yes, there has to be a complete mindfulness and grieving, which is part of the dialogue before we can move on.
but without moving forward, we retell the same story, reopen the same wounds and live in a cemetary, re-examining the wreckage.
and so, when we finally decide to leave the graveyard, we have to muster up the will and strength to begin all over again.
it is very hard work.

this is the same truth, in people's homes or in geo-political conflicts.
supporting obama's campaign, at least to my way of thinking, is not about any kind of absolution or feeling better about myself..it is because i feel that he represents the philosophical and spiritual change that can move us forward at this time.
and contemplating the magnitude and urgency of the problems that we are facing, i hope the debate can refocus on solving some of our problems, this being just one of them.

Well, it's been interesting seeing all of the Liberals/Progressives try to nuance (once again) the race issue.

First it was "race is important". Now, they seem to be promoting the "color-blind" society, a typically conservative goal, for political advantage.

I forgot to say:

"Welcome Aboard!!"

"Now, they seem to be promoting the "color-blind" society, a typically conservative goal, for political advantage..."

Pretty funny, El. How many non-white Republican Presidential candidates have there been again in your color-blind world?

Jason C deliberately misses the point. I've explained ot him million times how this works, he refuses to listen because he's convinced racism is something only Republicans have inside of them.

Jason c is, to put it bluntly, doesn't care about racism. He doesn't want to hear history. He doesn't want to deal with the fact that sometimes people who aren't blatantly racist take advantage of racists attitudes in people like him. All he really cares is that some black guy somewhere pulled the 'race card'. Thats the extent of his concern for social justice in America. He just doesn't want to hear black people whining.

He is, basically, exactly the kind of voter Clinton was aiming at when she embarked on this strategy.

jac.

i like you but please don't psycho analyze me. especially, since, it's really just a defensive mechanism on your part to avoid uncomfortable truths. right now i am not seeing much value in what you are adding here any more than el va who has an agenda. my agenda if yo uwant to understand it is honest conversation about race that isn't about how it makes you feel good, but actually will result in better outcomes for peo of color.

Akaison, please, don't confuse your personal views, based on limited data, for the truth. Trying to make yourself some sort of arbiter on this issue is an arrogant approach, and not one that will win you much agreement. Since when were you qualified to tell Obama how he should run, or what an authentic position for him is?

Racism is on full display in the Democratic presidential contest.

"Maccacca" demanded action. Trent Lott's comment demanded action. However, when it's on the Democrat side, it only raises eyebrows.

Why aren't these politicians held to the same standards?
(no nuance, paleeze...)

akaison,

Thoughts?

Obamabots will pillary this guy, but I enjoyed his straight-up talk about Barak Obama and white America.

Paul Street is a Left commentator in Iowa City, IA. Street's latest book is Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis: A Living Black Chicago History (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007). Street is the author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2004), Segregated Schools: Educational Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (New York, NY: Routledge, 2005), and the semi-weekly Empire and Inequality Report.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=254&option=com_content&task=view

.....The first difficulty is that part of Obama's appeal to white America has to do with the widespread Caucasian sense that Obama "isn't all that black." Many whites who roll their eyes at the mention of the names of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton - former presidential candidates who behave in ways that many whites find too African-American - are attracted by the cool, underplayed blackness and ponderous, quasi-academic tone of the half-white, Harvard-educated Obama. Obama doesn't shout, chant, holler or drawl. He doesn't rail against injustice, bring the parishioners to their feet and threaten delicate white suburban and middle-class sensibilities. He stays away from catchy slogans (like Jackson's "Keep Hope Alive") and from emotive "truth"-speaking confrontations with power. To use Joe Biden's revealing terminology, Obama strikes many whites as "clean" and "articulate" - something different from their unfortunately persistent image of blacks as dirty, dangerous, irrational and unintelligible.

Obama has no moral or political obligation to shed his biracial identity, "multicultural" background and elite, private-school education to "act [more classically and stereotypically] black." But whites' racial attitudes are less progressive than might be assumed when their willingness to embrace a black candidate is conditioned by their requirement that his or her "blackness" be qualified. When ingrained gender sensibilities lead you (all other things equal) to prefer your "straight-acting" gay uncle over your outwardly "effeminate" gay nephew, your tolerance for non-traditional sexual orientations might be less enlightened than you think.

A second and related reason not to do racial justice cartwheels over Obama's popularity with whites is the candidate's deep willingness to accommodate white supremacy. In his ponderous, power-worshipping and badly titled campaign book The Audacity of Hope (New York: Henry Crown, 2006), Obama ignores elementary U.S. social reality and strokes the master race by claiming that "what ails working- and middle-class blacks is not fundamentally different from what ails their white counterparts." Equally calming to the white majority is Obama's argument that "white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America" as "even the most fair-minded of whites...tend to push back against suggestions of racial victimization and race-based claims based on the history of racial discrimination in this country" (Obama 2006, p. 247). Part of the reason for this "push back" - also known as denial - is, Obama claims, the bad culture and poor work-ethic of the inner-city black poor (Obama 2006, pp. 245, 254-56).

White fears that Obama will reawaken the tragically unfinished revolutions of Reconstruction and Civil Rights are further soothed by his claim that most black Americans have been "pulled into the economic mainstream" (Obama, 2006, pp. 248-49). During a speech marking the anniversary of the Selma, Alabama Voting Rights march, Obama claimed that 1950s and 1960s civil rights activists - who he referred to as "the Moses Generation" - had brought black America "90 percent of the way" to racial equality. It's up to Obama and his fellow "Joshua Generation" members to get past "that 10 percent in order to cross over to the other side" (Barack Obama 2007)

And then there's Obama's claim that "conservatives and Bill Clinton were right about welfare." The abolished Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, Obama claims, "sapped" inner-city blacks of their "initiative" and detached them from the great material and spiritual gains that flow to those who attach themselves to the noble capitalist labor market, including "independence," "income," "order, structure, dignity and opportunity for growth in peoples' lives." He argues that encouraging black girls to finish high school and stop having babies out of wedlock is "the single biggest thing that we could do to reduce inner-city poverty" (Obama 2006, p. 256).

Never mind that blacks are afflicted with a shocking racial wealth gap that keeps their average net worth at one eleventh that of whites and an income structure starkly and persistently tilted towards poverty (Loewen 2005, p. 130; Shapiro 2005). Never mind that lower-, working-, and middle-class blacks continue to face numerous steep and interrelated white-supremacist barriers to equality. Or that multidimensional racial discrimination is still rife in "post-Civil Rights America," deeply woven into the fabric of the nation's social institutions and drawing heavily on the living and unresolved legacy of centuries of not-so "past" racism (Feagin 2000; Brown et al. 2003, Street 2005; Street 2007).

Never mind that the long centuries of slavery and Jim Crow are still quite historically recent and would continue to exercise a crippling influence on black experience even if the dominant white claim that black "racial victimization" is a "thing of the past" was remotely accurate (Brown et al. 2003; Feagin 2000). Never mind the existence of numerous left Caucasians (e.g. Joe Feagin, Tim Wise, Michael Albert, Stephen Steinberg, yours truly and many more), not to mention a large number of black Americans, who support not simply the "race-based" claims of affirmative actions but the demand for reparations to address the living and powerful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

And never mind the absence of social-scientific evidence for the "conservative" claim that AFDC destroyed inner-city work ethics or generated "intergenerational poverty." Forget the existence of numerous studies showing that the absence of decent, minimally well-paid, and dignified work has always been the single leading cause of black inner-city poverty and "welfare dependency" (Handler 1995, 32-55; Jencks 1992, 204-235; Stier and Tienda 2001). Disregard research showing that high black teenage pregnancy rates reflect the absence of meaningful long-term life and economic opportunities in the nation's hyper-segregated inner-city and suburban ring ghettos . Forget that the single biggest thing that could be done to reduce inner-city poverty would be to make the simple and elementary moral decision to abolish it through the provision of a decent guaranteed income - something once advocated by Martin Luther King, Jr. and that other dangerous left "moral absolutist" (Obama's description of 1960s New Left peace and justice activists) Richard Nixon.

Racial hierarchy isn't the only oppression structure that Senator Obama is willing to eagerly accommodate. As I've been arguing for some time now (Street 2004, 2006, 2007a-2007e), he plays the same essential opportunistic and power-worshipping game in relation to related inequality structures of class and empire. Beneath peaceful and populist-sounding claims to the contrary, he's largely on the dark and neoliberal side of power when it comes to each of what the democratic socialist and anti-imperialist Martin Luther King, Jr. called "the triple evils that are interrelated:" racism, economic exploitation/inequality (capitalism), and militarism (King 1967, 250-251; Garrow 1986 p. 546). It's not for nothing that Obama was recently described as a "conservative" in a flattering New Yorker write-up titled "The Conciliator" (MacFarquar 2007).

In accommodating white supremacy, Obama is playing to the perverse racial politics of the post-Civil Rights era, wherein the leading architects of policy and opinion have declared "race" over as a barrier to black advancement. It is a time when large number of Americans, including many blacks, claim "exhaustion" with race issues. Race- and racism-avoidance have become the orders of the day in an officially "color-blind" neoliberal age when conventional wisdom ascribes people's status and wealth to purely private and personal success or failure in adapting to the permanent, inherently human realities of inequality in a "free market" system of reactionary corporate rule to which "there is no alternative." In the dominant public discourse of this era, the nation's "pervasive racial hierarchies collapse," in the words of Henry A. Giroux, "into power-evasive strategies such as blaming minorities of class and color for not working hard enough, refusing to exercise individual initiative, or practicing reverse racism." Even as an enveloping, increasingly invisible racism "functions" as "one of the deep and abiding currents in everyday [American] life," this discourse works "to erase the social from the language of public life as to reduce all racial problems to private issues [of]...individual character and cultural depravity."

This "neoliberal racism," as Giroux calls it, "can imagine public issues only as private concerns." It sees "human agency as simply a matter of individualized choices, the only obstacle to effective citizenship being the lack of principled self-help and moral responsibility" on the part of those most victimized by structural oppression and the amoral agency of those super-empowered actors who stand atop the nation's steep and interrelated hierarchies of class and race. Under its rule, "human misery is largely defined as a function of personal choices," consistent with "the central neoliberal tenet that all problems are private rather than social in nature." (Giroux 2003; Giroux 2004).

The technically biracial Obama's campaign and persona are perfectly calibrated for this era of victim-blaming neoliberal racism. He allows whites to assuage their racial guilt and feel non-racist by liking and perhaps even voting for him while signaling that he won't do anything to tackle and redress the steep racial disparities and systemic racial oppression that continue to deeply scar American life and institutions. "What... me and my country racist? You can't be serious: we're thinking seriously about voting for a black man as president. My wife and son just love Oprah and Jamie Fox."

This brings me to the third reason not to sing racial justice hosannas over the sudden rise of Obama. Race- and racism-avoidance have become the orders of the day in an officially "color-blind" neoliberal age in ways that are unintentionally suggested at the end of the professor's comment given at the beginning of this article.

The main problem with the conventional white wisdom holding that racism no longer poses relevant barriers to black advancement and black-white equality in post-Civil Rights America is a failure to distinguish adequately between overt "state of mind" racism and covert institutional, societal, and "state-of-being" racism (Street 2002; Street 2004a; Street 2007).

The first variety of racism has a long and sordid history. It includes such actions, policies and practices as the burning of black homes and black churches, the murder of "uppity" blacks and civil rights workers, the public use of derogatory racial slurs and epithets, the open banning of blacks from numerous occupations, the open political disenfranchisement of blacks and the open segregation of public facilities by race. It is largely defeated, outlawed and discredited in the "politically correct" environment created partly by the victories of the Civil Rights Movement.

The second variety lives on, with terrible consequences. It involves the more impersonal operation of social, economic and institutional forces and processes that both reflect and shape the related processes of capitalism in ways that "just happen" but nonetheless serve to reproduce black disadvantage in numerous interrelated key sectors of American life. It includes racially segregating real estate and home-lending practices, residential "white flight" (from black neighbors), statistical racial discrimination in hiring and promotion, the systematic under-funding and under-equipping of schools predominately attended by blacks relative to schools predominately attended by whites, the disproportionate surveillance, arrest and incarceration of blacks and much more.

Richly enabled by policymakers who commonly declare allegiance to anti-racist ideals, this deeper racism has an equally ancient history that has outlived the explicit, open and public racism of the past and the passage of justly cherished Civil Rights legislation. It does not necessarily involve individual white bigotry or even subtly prejudiced "ill will" against blacks. Consciously or even unconsciously prejudiced white actors are not required and black actors are more than welcome to help enforce the New Age societal racism of the post-King era. This entrenched, enduring, and more concealed societal racism does not depend on racist intent in order to exist as a relevant social and political phenomenon. The racism that matters most today does not require a large portion of the white population to be consciously and willfully prejudiced against blacks or any other racial minority. It only needs to produce racially disparate outcomes through the operation of objectively racialized processes. It critically includes a pivotal failure and/or refusal to acknowledge, address, and reverse, the living (present and future) windfall bestowed on sections of the white community by "past" racist structures, policies and practices that were more willfully and openly discriminatory toward blacks.

"State-of-being" or structural racism generates racially disparate results even without racist intent - "state-of-mind" racism - on the part of white actors. It oppresses blacks with objectively racialized social processes that work in "routine" and "ordinary" fashion to sustain racial hierarchy and white supremacy often and typically without white racist hostility or purpose (Carmichael and Hamilton 1967; Feagin 2000; Brown et al. 2003; Street 2007; Steinberg 1995).

Jason c is, to put it bluntly, doesn't care about racism. He doesn't want to hear history. ... He just doesn't want to hear black people whining.

Wow, you got all that from a few comments on a blog post? Really?

So what you're saying is essentially this: when someone is accused of racism, anyone who believes the accusation is untrue doesn't care about racism.

By your standards, Barack Obama, who just said he didn't believe Hillary was intentionally using race, is a racist.

This is lunacy. How dare you accuse me of not caring about racism because I disagree with you over the issue of whether a particular charge of racism is valid? Who put you in charge of deciding the culpability of every person who stands accused of racism?

You have leveled an extraordinary insult at me with no basis whatsoever.

akaison

i apologize if it seemed i was trying to psycho-analyze you. it was more about the terms in which i try to see the world.
....i dont know what defense mechanisms i am using to feel more comfortable.
my world-view is that evrey human being is on a rack of suffering in this lifetime.
we all carry a cross, and each one is different.
the details of each life may be different, but ultimately, we all struggle with the same things.
we must remain compassionate and do what we can to heal the world, help others and reject fear and anger.
leadership also needs to reject fear and anger.
i also believe that in any circumstance, when people lose their hope or inspiration, they lose their will and footing.
for me, that is more or less, the beginning and end of it all.

maybe that is simplistic. i actually find it incredibly complicated.

Better be careful, Jacqueline, otherwise akaison is going to denounce you for psychoanalyzing yourself - and we wouldn't want that now!

I'll also note that soullite is herself a white woman, who has no more standing than I do to evaluate claims of racism.

Growing up in the 1960s doesn't count, sorry.

So, Jason, by your own logic we ought to reject anything you say on this topic? Is that your meaning?

maraschion

i have respect and interest in the things that akaison is saying. he is always honest.
one can only benefit from the interchange.
athough, where brennan is concerned, i am going to be needing stronger reading glasses soon! (just a joke :))

So, Jason, by your own logic we ought to reject anything you say on this topic? Is that your meaning?

Did you read what I said?

"She has has no more standing than I do to evaluate claims of racism ..."

I'm willing to accept that black people are generally better situated than white people to understand and appreciate the manifestations which racism can take.

Soullite's not black, and neither am I, so her perspective on this issue is no more legitimate than mine.

The underlying problem is that liberals have used the term "racism" to include missteps, 'worst-case' interpretations when a more benign one would be more likely, etc. The meaning of the word has changed for political purposes. Mostly to destroy the enemies of liberals such as Trent Lott and Governor Allen. Those transgressions are now exactly the same as owning other human beings.

Now, this same highly crafted weapon is being turned on other liberals...effectively.

Jason, if you write unclearly, you can hardly blame me for trying to clarify your latest comment. By your own logic, it seems that neither you, nor soullite, can really offer much to the debate in constructive terms. Why you wish to argue this debateable point is mysterious, but not totally surprising.

I've stated that I'm white many times. I doubt that's going to shock anyone. What is shocking is that you'd think that matters, that you think only a black man or woman could be incensed by this.

I've lived around black people and white people my entire life. I've looked at the world with my eyes wide open. I would suggest you take the time to have a conversation with people within the black community about race. Listen to what they have to say, don't just shake your head and get angry because you don't like what you're hearing. HEAR what they have to say, and then apply it to what you see in every day life. Don't look for reasons to dismiss their concerns, look at every situation and see if it doesn't match up with their fears.

I'm a dude as well.

Soullite, you are absolutely right. It is an old fallacy that only black people can talk about their own communnity, just as, presumably, no non-Jew can discuss Judaism - and, by extension, only al-Qaeda operatives can really analyaze al-Qaeda. It's a dangerous, reductive, and logically laughable position. It is also pretty close to forms of divisive, even racialist academic politics. I hoped Jason might not try to defend it, but alas, my clarification met with a response that makes me think otherwise.

Anyone who has paid enough attention to how racism manifests itself in today's society wouldn't be demanding

The fact that you clearly don't care about history is indicated in the fact that you are clearly not familiar with some of the phrases and stereotypes invoked over the last week. You demand that someone manipulating race in a Democratic primary start screaming 'N*****' before you're willing to call them a racist. That's just not realistic.
The fact that you just don't want to hear black people whining is clear by the fact that you blame OBAMA for this. You claim that they are misinterpreting-- either deliberately or otherwise-- these phrases. It would be possible for this to be true, though not likely, race almost never cuts in a black man's favor in America. But your explanation also requires that every black blogger be either too stupid to see what's going on, or corrupt enough to go along with it.

That's a whole lot of effort you're putting your mind through to avoid the most obvious conclusion: Hillary Clinton is trying to exploit race to prop up her campaign. You need to start asking yourself why you're bending so far over backwards to come to that conclusion.

I fear you're right Maraschion. Some people are too caught up in the notion that race is a problem black people have to solve. But it's not, it's a social problem we all have to solve if we're going to advance to be the best society we can be. Unfortunately, some people just resent having to deal with difficult subjects, and resent anyone who forces them to.

Jesus Christ people. I DID NOT say that only black people can talk about racism. All I meant was that it seems plausible to me that a black person might have a more robust and sophisticated understanding of, and ability to perceive, racism. Maraschion, I'm the first to admit that I don't always write clearly, but I don't think anything I've said can be interpreted as claiming that only black people can talk about racism.

Soullite seemed to assume a sort of superior standing to make judgments about racism, and I just wanted to point out that he (sorry for getting the gender wrong before) did not have any inherent epistemic advantage.

Soullite, you have no idea who I've talked to about what. Again, it's preposterous for you to assume, simply because someone disagrees with you over a particular accusation, that they are blind to the problems of race. I've spent time talking to black people about racial discrimination for a living, so spare me your lectures.

Geeting a touch defensive there, Jason old son? And all this "inherent epistemic advantage" makes you sound just a touch pompous. You wouldn't be a grad student with an unfortunate taste for critical babble, would you? In the real world, we mostly say "he doesn't know any better than me".

ardais doesn't know any better than Jason...but he knows how to be snarky

Why thank you kindly, jj. Always happy to be compared to the inimitable Jason in terms of my inherent epistemic advantage. But I can't imagine where you got the idea that I was being snarky....

To others:

Jason's point, and as an African American who has experienced this first hand (and I suspect why weboy agrees), is that there are all to many who are not black who think they understand racism better than thos who actually experience it. Does that mean you can't understand it at all? No. But it is the equivalent of myself as a male saying that I understand to the same degree as a woman all the different ways sexism occurs in our society. It's not only dishonest, it fundamentally means you aren't listening because you have decided that you know better than those dealing with it. Imagine if one ran a business like you think of racism.

Jason:

It's not your wording. It's your audience. The American defense mechanism with liberal or conservative these days is denial. And yes, most do think they aren't racist so long as they never mouth the n word.

akaison - Jason's point was aimed mostly at soullite, to judge from what was said previously. He disliked the idea that she was somehow more qualified than himself to speak on such issues. Your overall point is questionable, though, because there may be many people who have experienced racism, who lack a framework for analyzing it in coherent terms. This does not mean that their experience is invalid, but it does make it harder for them to "qualify" as the best analysts. It is also often the case that people deeply caught up in a given situation make the worst analysts, exactly because they lack detachment or a comparative focus. What this all comes down to is that the quality of analysis depends much more on the intellectual honesty, education, and awareness of the analyst than it does on the color of their skin or their life story. Would you trust an analysis of for example black male misogyny by a black gang member, or by a white academic who had studied the situation, written extensively on it, and had access to data on numerous cases of that situation?

Jackson-- you construct a strawman, a banality and ultimately a bit of irony.

Point out where I say what you claim I said. What I said is in response to a common assumptm-- I said, "many who are not black think they understand racism better than thos who actually experience it" I don't see an all in that statement, and more important I wasn't responding to those who undertake to actually talk to black people rather than make a pronouncement on the subject as many along this thread do without more than "I feel" to justify it.

Moreover, your observations are banal at best. Yes, of course, the specifics matter, but so does the general point which is what we are all operating off of here. The assumption by many is that they are in a position no matter what to be the equal of an African American regarding understanding racism in America. Point out where they ask about background beyond their bare assertion above.

Ironicall, for example, clearly the person whom you are questioning Jason C who says he has spent part of his professional career asking African Americans about race and racism is in a better position than most on this blog. Yet, ironically, you felt the need to attack the one person I would give credence because he has bothered to ask and study the issue rather than make pronouncements based on "i feel."

Oh dear, akaison. We come back to the tired claim of constructing straw men and banality. That's a pretty pathetic way to attempt to debate a detailed argument,isn't it? But of course, you had to make matters worse. Tell me, akaison, do you know my age, gender, race or professional qualifications? No, and you have no real idea about what level Jason works at either. If you are going to make some trivial ad hominem attacks, at least gather a little bit of data, mmm? You can't tell whether I am a serious researcher in anthropology, a carpenter, an NFL quarterback - or, in fact, anything about me. But you had to go making assumptions, generalizing, and refusing to face the facts that your attempt to evade the key issues here is deeply uninformed, poor in logic, and frankly, so close to racism in its assumptions that you come across as someone playing the "native informant" card to get out of the pickle in which your assumptions have landed you. Make a logical argument, and I'll happy engage with you, but your uninformed personal attacks are not worth engaging with, once they've been exposed for the shallow exercise in unpleasantness that they are.

well considering this is the first time i've seen your name i assuming now you are probably someone else or else why use the word "tired.' what's tired is some guy who can't post without changing screen names. says a lot. good luck.

akaison, I do agree. And thanks for re-stating the "magic negro" definition.

and go, jj, go. :)