I remember when Somerby went ballistic over the entirely manufactured Terrell Owens outrage (which turned out to be a mass-letter writing campaign from only 3 distinct people). For those that don't remember, it was the naked upper-backed Nicolette Sheridan and TO prior to an MNF football game. He doesn't have any problem with the relentless march of penis-pill ads during NFL games, but something about this impossibly tame white woman/black man jokey scene as a play on Desperate Housewives set Somerby's mind on fire.

Hmm. And now he's defending Bill Clinton against the obvious Jesse Jackson race-bait (it's not like there was an example, say, in 2004 of a SC primary win by an eventual loser while the race was still undecided that Bill Clinton could have used).

In short, Bob Somerby is a joke. When we get the third racial strike, we will know something else about him too.

Enough with this dog whistle nonsense. It's become the "meme" of the last month's pundit process pieces. In all honesty, Latinos and Whites who aren't going to vote for Obama because he's black aren't going to all of a sudden realize he's black because Bill Clinton compares him to a black man; it's going to be fairly evident from his TV appearances. And you're right, Scott, Bill is a deft politician, which begs the question as to why he would pursue a race baiting strategy in a Democratic primary. What is the pay off? Dem Primary voters are motivated progressives for the most part. Are they seriously going to be swayed by such shiftiness? The strategy is so, on its face, preposterous I can't imagine the Clinton's pursuing it. I think what happened here is that Bill acted like a PoliSci Prof rather than a politician (as Judis rightfully pointed out). This was not, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it was, part of a larger conspiracy to undermine Obama by painting him the black candidate. As I said, Democrat's daft enough to make a decision because of his race don't need Bill to point it out.

I figured out a long time ago, and all on my own, that Obama was African American.

I have a hard time believing that it took something that Bill Clinton said in order to inform everyone else of this fact.

Since I first saw Bill's comments, I've been remarkable unimpressed with the "dog whistle" arguments put forth. It struck me as a fairly banal and obvious point, made by a man who was desperate to downplay the significance of a large loss to a predominantly black electorate. The point was that he wanted to dismiss Obama's win because he is a black man winning a large proportion of black votes, just as Jessie Jackson did. We shouldn’t, he says, read too much into it.

Is that correct? Probably not, but it's hardly some kind of bizarre and underhanded racial dis. It's at least to a certain extent true, and it's pretty clear, to me at least, that this was a grasping at straws attempt to save face.

I like Judis, but this argument just seems silly, for the same reason John lists above: Bill is somehow nefariously tying Obama to another black candidate—who people dislike because he was black—in hopes that people won’t vote for Obama because he’s like Jackson—black. Clever.

Look, I'm not saying that the Clinton campaign, many of her surrogates especially, were not trying to inject race into the discussion, and some of it was truly borderline, if not over the border, offensive. This incident, it seems, is more disappointing for the fact that it put Clinton into the position of making a silly argument and belittling himself.

For a man who always wants to appear "above it all," that's a fall far enough.

Boy, Jason's comments about Somerby and TO didn't ring a bell for me. And sure enough, the claim is utter BS. Somerby mentioned the flap a grand total of 4 times - and used it every time to critique media figures for saying stupid things.*

This may be news to Jason, but that's kind of what Somerby does.

What Jason does appears to be making wild accusations of racism, facts and evidence be damned. I hope people take care to remember that.

*I would note that, for Somerby, mentioning something 4 times is like not mentioning it at all - the man emphasizes through repetition.

It would have been fine, of course, for a political scientist or a journalist to make the observation that Hillary Clinton stood little chance in the South Carolina Democratic primary running against a black candidate.

Certainly it would have been unobjectionable, but it would also have been a weak argument, since Hillary led Obama in S.C. for seven straight months, until a few weeks before the primary.

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_primary-234.html

I think it's ridiculous talking all the time about Bill Clinton playing the "race card." Barach is a black man and should be proud of it. This democrat primary race is between a "black man" and a "woman." It's a very historic time for our country and it's ridiculous that anyone would accuse Bill Clinton of being a racist. Thank you!!!

I think it's ridiculous talking all the time about Bill Clinton playing the "race card." Barach is a black man and should be proud of it. This democrat primary race is between a "black man" and a "woman." It's a very historic time for our country and it's ridiculous that anyone would accuse Bill Clinton of being a racist. Thank you!!!

Gee- HRC was leading because she was, surprisingly, splitting the black vote evenly with BO. After Iowa, Obama's share of the black vote went up to where you might expect a black candidate to be. There was a lot of contemporaneous discussion of this phenomenon, none of it insisting that only a racist would suggest that black voters comprise a favorable base for a black pol.

Somerby's usually on the mark. But when he's wrong, he's really fucking wrong, no bones about it.

Somerby's always been a water-carrier for the Clinton administration, and he's always been predictible and screechingly self-righteous. He gives the Clintons and Gore ridiculous benefits of doubt, whereas anyone who might be possibly criticizing them gets not even a sliver. He's the Ann Coulter of the left, except without the legs.

By the way, among the people who have won the South Carolina primary was ... Bill Clinton. Hmmm, wonder why he didn't make THAT comparison instead?

I think Somerby's right and that Scott doesn't have the balls to follow his own argument to its logical conclusion. While conceding Somerby's main points (both that Clinton's political observations about African American support in SC were accurate and that he knows nothing about Clinton's motivations), he then goes on to say that it's "highly implausible that a politician as smart and canny as Clinton isn't aware of the associations that come with Jackson's name." What associations are those, pray tell? Spell it out, Scott. Especially when you, and a lot of arrogaant assholes out there, want to accuse a former President of the United States of being a racist and using "dog whistle" language when he's making a factual argument that you yourself concede. And the further support for your argument? That a lot of people have been defending Clinton but they didn't like this remark? That's nothing more than the old Cokie Roberts standard, of "I have no idea of whether it's true or not, but people are talking about it and it's out there." You either have the guts to make incendiary accusations and back them up or STFU.

This is beyond absurd. Read the whole god-damned interiew in which the observation arose -- and then come back and make these claims about Clinton. The only way Some was wrong was saying he "didn't know" whether Bill was playing the race card. Of course he knew. He knew he wasn't.

Tools.

Why would Clinton be implying that Obama can only appeal to African-Americans in significant numbers after Obama already placed first, second and second in an otherwise all white field in states with vary few AAs. Anyone who was paying attention to what Clinton said in SC would already know that Obama was already doing well with white voters.

No one seems to understand "dog whistle." It is a coded appeal that only certain subsets understand and it allows the person using the code words to maintain plausible deniability. Clinton comparing Obama to Jackson in front of a host of television reporters is not dog whistle politics.

How could Clinton have been "injecting race" in the race when the race at that point was already over?

Nope, the "Clinton's are exploiting race" meme doesn't fly. For one thing, to believe it you have to believe either that the white Democratic base is racist enough to make such an appeal not only effective but effective enough to overcome any harm done with voters in the African American community. That's a pretty foul -- and prejudiced -- assumption to make about white Democrats. I don't for a moment believe it. And I don't believe the Clinton's believe it either.

Now, even if you don't believe that assumption about the white Democratic base, you do have to believe that the Clintons are stupid enought to believe it. And stupid enough to make race an issue in this way in South Carolina -- a state where African Americans would be a majority of voters in the primary.

Let's be honest here, the only candidate who benefitted from injecting race into the South Carolina primary was Obama. And it he did it with quite a bit of finesse.

"Clinton comparing Obama to Jackson in front of a host of television reporters is not dog whistle politics."

It is the epitome of "dog whistle" politics.

I'm guessing most of the posters here are completely unaware of the fact that "the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party" was used as a cudgel by Republicans and the MSM once they join the Reagan Revolution.

But, even if most posters here don't remember that
"Jesse Jackson" was a dirty word in politics for decades, I'm certain that Bill Clinton does.

Bob Somerby would defend the Clintons if they burned a cross on Obama's lawn. And his defense of them is irrelevant to the fact Bill Clinton was trying to inject a racist smear into the campaign.

Was Jesse Jackson a dirty word in the Demoncratic party? I'm not so sure. I don't think Clinton was on his A-game, but I'm not gonna attribute motivations because that's pundit douchebaggery. What I heard was possible subconscious cultural racism in maybe trying to attribute some novelty to the Obama candidacy, possibly through his African-Americanness. They were talking about South Carolina so he talked about novelty wins in S. Carolina. I certainly would have been more comfortable with him talking about random winning losers of other caucuses/primaries through history.

I think brewmn is pretty much dead wrong, but who gives a crap. We're all mind readers, so I find it surprising that we disagree so much. I kind of wish everybody would just shut up for a day, maybe two days, then come back fresh and think about all the useless words spilled out over nothing.

What can I say, I'm in a foul, foul mood today.

wait a second: the way I heard the story reported, Clinton made his remarks *in response to a question about his own role in the HRC campaign*; in other words, the question he was asked had absolutely nothing to do with race, Jesse Jackson, or anything related to those topics. Is this not relevant in trying to determine whether Bill Clinton is guilty of "dog-whistling" or whatnot?

I don't think any honest intelligent person can have any doubt that Clinton saw an opportunity to (ham-fistedly) raise the topic of Obama's race and imply that he therefore should not be the Democratic nominee.

I thought I had everything possible thrown at the Clintons and then they get accused of racism.

Anyone who thinks the Clintons are racists hasn't been paying attention for the last 16 years.

No, Clinton was entirely justified in mentioning Jackson. It's obvious to all but liars and the criminally insane that Obama, like Jackson, had an advantage in the SC primary in that he is black, as is a substantial part of the Democratic electorate. Past experience, such as in 1984, demonstrates that. Is anyone claiming that black voters didn't provide a very substantial part of Obama's victory margin?

I, for one, think Clinton and Obama are pretty even on the merits, but I'm voting for Clinton because I'm sick of the media doing their best to "get" Hillary.

"I don't think any honest intelligent person can have any doubt that Clinton saw an opportunity to (ham-fistedly) raise the topic of Obama's race and imply that he therefore should not be the Democratic nominee."

Yeah, because before Bill Clinton made his observations no one knew Barak Obama was black. I love how to those who can read Bill Clinton's racist mind he is on the one hand, a "master politician who calibrates the exact effect of his words upon an audience". On the other hand he is clumsy and "ham fisted" in his approach. I think this dog whistle meme has played itself out.

"Bringing up Jackson doesn't suggest, to me, the banal point that Obama has greater appeal to African-Americans, but rather carries the more pernicious implication that Obama can only appeal to African-Americans in significant numbers"

Funny, I had exactly the opposite reaction. Perhaps we just feel differently about Jessie Jackson, or maybe just about the Clintons. That happens.
Of course your case remains baseless speculation either way.

As a white guy who voted for Jesse Jackson in the 84 primary I have to note that when I heard Bill Clinton's comments regarding Sen. Obama's win in South Carolina it did not strike me as either odd or racist. It is sad that so many of our Democratic leaders and party members are so eager to adopt MSM/Republican talking points simply because they want Obama to win. If he does win Barack Obama is going to face withering attacks from the MSM/Republicans. The same is true for Hillary if she wins. But after their smearing and name calling of the Clintons who do the Obamabots think is going to stand up for them when the attacks come?

Yes, Jason, et al, everyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

Where I come from, this is called "playing the race card."

Was Jesse Jackson a dirty word in the Demoncratic party? I'm not so sure.

I remember that it was. Of course, I first became aware of politics in the late 1980s, living in the south at the height of the Reagan era. So maybe growing up in different contexts gives us each a different perspective on this.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/false-pushback.html

I tried to list all the questions during the 1/28 press exchange with Bill Clinton, to show how the race aspect was brought up several times by the press--wouldn't take.

Anyway, go to the link and read the entire exchange. It changed my impression of the Bill Clinton mention of Jesse Jackson, but I'm pretty skeptical of our MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media), so your reaction may differ.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/false-pushback.html

I tried to list all the questions during the 1/28 press exchange with Bill Clinton, to show how the race aspect was brought up several times by the press--wouldn't take.

Anyway, go to the link and read the entire exchange. It changed my impression of the Bill Clinton mention of Jesse Jackson, but I'm pretty skeptical of our MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media), so your reaction may differ.

Honest--haloscum said my first attempt of my second comment hadn't taken. It was just still there with a new set of letters. Honest!

If you read Somerby's post you will see it is more of critism of Gene Robinson than a defense of Clinton. In Robinson's article he states
"The only possible reason for invoking Jackson's name was to telegraph the following message: Barack Obama is black,...". Somerby is
stating that his is a riduculous accusation to make. As pointed out by Somerby, the other possile reason Clinton may have brought up
Jesse Jackson is to point out that Obama, like Jackson, had an advantage in SC because of the large black population. Bill Clinton
was trying to minimize Hillary's defeat, which all campaigns do. But to Robinson, the only explaination was one of race.

Fred App

First off i think Somerby is dead on! And believe me, I have had my own personal beefs with the guy. Like all of us, he can be clueless at times. But not here. Not on the Clinton Race Card issue. Though I think, sadly, that he is wasting his time on this. The boat has sailed on this issue. The myth has been created and there it will stand.

Second, unless you have a picture we don't have...how do you know anything about Somerby's legs?

Luke perfectly illustrates what's wrong with this debate: he declares there "no doubt" of Clinton's intentions, because of "the way he heard the story reported." How irresponsible is that? As I said before, go and read the whole transcript, and then see if you can read into it any intent that would contradict everything Bill Clinton has stood for for decades.

I've never heard Clinton called politically stupid. If it's a dog-whistle to white racists, don't you think blacks are totally attuned to all such expressions? And don't you think Bill Clinton would know that? And don't you think Bill Clinton would be incredibly stupid to piss off African-Americans for the majority of Democratic primaries still to come?

That's why this whole discussion is incredibly stupid. Oh, and by the way, although I thought Hillary was once again fantastic on Letterman last night, I voted enthusiastically for Barack this morning.

Reading all the racism whiners on this line is the exact reason that I'll be sitting this race out along with a number of my friends and family if Obama is the nominee.

I've voted for every democratic presidential nominee since Carter. To have the Clintons trashed by supposed Democrats is a joke. After all they have faced from the disgusting right for years to standup for many of the people that now spew this trash.

It will remain to be seen how well saint barack does in PA (a state he will most definitely need) without traditional democrats who have great respect for the Clintons.

Bob Somerby is a patriot and American hero.

Bob Somerby is a patriot and American hero.

I find it highly implausible that a politician as smart and canny as Clinton isn't aware of the associations that come with Jackson's name

I find it highly implausible that Clinton is a racist and implausible that he makes negative associations with Jackson's name in his own mind and has any interest in making negative associations in the minds of others. The assumption you make is that Clinton is a supernatural smart and canny guy at every living breathing moment of his life. This is countered by many instances going back years of his fat fingering a sentence. Sometimes a fact is just a fact.

I find it highly implausible that a politician as smart and canny as Clinton isn't aware of the associations that come with Jackson's name

I find it highly implausible that Clinton is a racist and implausible that he makes negative associations with Jackson's name in his own mind and has any interest in making negative associations in the minds of others. The assumption you make is that Clinton is a supernatural smart and canny guy at every living breathing moment of his life. This is countered by many instances going back years of his fat fingering a sentence. The media have been making orgies out of the things he's said for years.

Damn! I hate Captcha. It's nearly impossible to see if you don't have the eyes of a top gun.

Let's be honest here, the only candidate who benefitted from injecting race into the South Carolina primary was Obama. And it he did it with quite a bit of finesse.

I have to go with Mary. You got it ass-backwards.

Many thanks to Jawbone for the link to the transcript. I found it quite eye-opening.

I was under the impression that Clinton's comment had nothing to do with the question, but now I see that it can be considered to be a direct response. The question was "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?" In other words, why are you campaigning so hard here and still losing? The context established by the question is important. There is a difference between "Why are you not winning?" and "Why are you getting your ass handed to you on a platter?" It changes the answer from "Obama is only beating us because of racial politics" to "Obama is only beating us by 30 freaking points because of racial politics." These are not the same.

This is not proof that the comment was not planned and intended to have the meaning that many are attributing to it. But I am forced to question now whether that is so.

"It would have been fine, of course, for a political scientist or a journalist to make the observation that Hillary Clinton stood little chance in the South Carolina Democratic primary running against a black candidate. And it would have raised no eyebrows if he or she drew comparisons between Barack Obama's win and Jesse Jackson's 1988 victory. But Bill Clinton is a master politician who calibrates the exact effect of his words upon an audience. And as Clinton well knew, linking an opponent to Jackson, as former North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms used to do regularly in his campaigns, is a surefire way to stir some white voters up against him."

I hate this game where commentators try to put across this idea that some people get to tell the truth while others don't. If what Clinton says is true, blacks tend to vote more for blacks just like Irish vote for Irish, white straight males vote for white straight males, etc., then it's fair game for Clinton to notice that. If a politician tries to manipulate the public by saying stuff that's bupkis, that's worthy of condemnation. Condemning someone for saying something true is the heart and soul of political correctness, which has been such a disaster for liberalism.

The right wing echo chamber is in full swing again. First one network tells a falsehood, then another network repeats it, another network attacks from a different point of view, another station reinforces it, and finally they are all summarizing the aggregate of their deceptions as if they they got it, and are passing news on to their audiences.
The problem, of course, is that it isn't news, they are selling propaganda to persuade their audience about matters that are both inconsequential and superficial, therefore ending the debate with falsehoods. When they are not able to deceive, they obfuscate.

When they are not able to obfuscate they confuse. When they could have respected their audiences they make fools of them. It is a disgrace. It is betrayal. It is self-serving garbage. It is anti-American and it is shameful. And all the while they pat each other on the back, telling each other just how smart they are.

Somerby does brilliant media criticism. That some of you see him as "carrying water" for the Clintons is a result of the fact that the media has an axe to grind with the Clintons. That's it.

By the way, Somerby "carries water" for accurate public school reporting, Kerry vs. Swift Boats + media complicity , Edwars vs. the bogus "Breck Girl" attacks, and generally speaking, the fact that wealthy media stars are duping the public for their own gain.

You can still believe the worst about Bill Clinton's remarks if you like. Somerby is just destroying the false argument that the worst is a foregone conclusion, and maligning the motives (with cause) of the media consensus that predominantly carries such bogus claims.

Well said, JonathanG. Somerby also "carries" water for (i.e. defends against irrational attacks) Republicans like George Bush occasionally. Somerby's fairness to conservative Republicans (when it's warranted) given that he's a progressive Democrat (I infer this from his writings...I could be wrong) to me is a badge of his intellectual honesty.

Incidentally (someone may've already made this point). I don't think Bill Clinton's alleged political acumen can be used to argue he knew his comments would be interpreted by racist whites as a coded message not to vote for Obama because he's black, and therefore he was engaging in "dog whistle politics". Why not? Because one can just as easily argue that someone with his political acumen would also know his remarks would trigger "blowback" onto his wife.

With you, McAdoo, though I will vote against the rethug candidate.

It's been disgusting and disheartening to see the Obamabots parrot corporate media bashing points.

The stir about the MLK v. LBJ truths, and the absurdity of the charges of racism against the Clintons - in fact the boosterism of the CM for Obama - have also moved us to the Clinton column.

I feel for the Obamabots too, when the rethug machine turns its attention to, and brackets, Barack Hussein. It's all too predictable.

I don't think the Clinton remarks were racist and agree with Bob Somerby. For those of you who say he's a shill for Clinton, he's indicated he might vote for Obama out of electability concerns in the press-poisoned atmosphere we live in.

On the other hand, I think Bill's remarks were stupid. He should not have been the one raising the obvious point that Obama had the advantage of the fact that South Carolina's Democrats are more overwhelmingly African-American than most states are and this might account for his win.

Instead, he should have congratulated Obama on his win, made some meaningless mumbles of "On to Super Tuesday" and gotten the hell off the stage. That's what you do when you get your ass kicked, like Hillary did in South Carolina. And he didn't have enough common sense to do that.

Instead he called attention to himself. And that act of stupidity was enough to switch my up-for-grabs vote between these two more-similar-than-different candidates from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

"But Bill Clinton is a master politician who calibrates the exact effect of his words upon an audience."

Doesn't this argument swallow itself? Bill is both trying to court the cracker vote and (what?) incite the din of "Clinton Plays the Race Card" in the MSM?

Jason types, the very first comment:

In short, Bob Somerby is a joke.

Why the OFB imagines this behavior helps their candidate I can't imagine, but they must think that, because they keep doing it.