How Barack Obama played the race card

[NickCole]

The New Republic
Race Man
by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008

After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.

Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.

The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.

Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

 

[Lostlover]

Nickole, that's water under the bridge. You and your conspiracy theories are boring. Your biased articles have no weight anymore as Obama is officially the nominee.

You need to get a new gimmick. Hillary threw in the towel with that abominable performance last night.

She was creamed and beaten by herself. Obama didn't take the bait of dirty politics and she was left looking like a moron.

This shit above is just shit.

Obama is officially the Dem nominee now after last night.

 

[NickCole]

Nickole, that's water under the bridge. You and your conspiracy theories are boring. Your biased articles have no weight anymore as Obama is officially the nominee.

You need to get a new gimmick.

You need to learn about Democracy.

Obama is not officially the nominee.

 

[White Eagle]

Oh boy, maybe we can make it thru the next week.

 

[Zingerific]

Of course, you neglect to mention that Sean Wilentz is a close family friend of the Clintons. His specialty is 19th century American history, and this piece is more like the boilerplate of 19th century campaigns than modern journalism.

 

[naked gent]

Hey Nick don't ya hope that Obama guy can be this slick against McCain come the fall?

 

[greydog]

Why don't you guys just get behind the Democrat nominee,
whoever he or she may be and direct all your anger towards
McCain.

 

[MystikWizard]

You need to learn about Democracy.

Obama is not officially the nominee.

Not yet. But he will be.

Speaking of Democracy, I'm glad you are enjoying your freedom of it. I'm glad you are using your Freedom of Democracy to cast votes based on gender-preference.

Being that Gays face enough discrimination as it is, I am surprised that you would support Feminism. But I guess I shouldn't be. After all, many Gay Guys simply identify more with the Female species, and that comes into play ... even ... believe it or not ... when making decisions about who to vote for President.

How would you like it if I discriminated against you? How would you like it if you were applying for a job, and had the same qualifications as a Woman who applied ... but my preference is that I would just rather have a Woman on my staff. So instead, I turn down your application in favor of the Woman. How would you like that? Sexism goes both ways, and you sure as Hell are showing it.

Make no mistake about it. As a White, Caucasian Male, I have no problem voting for a Woman ... White, Black, Brown, etc. It doesn't matter to me. I, like many others, am not voting for Hillary Clinton NOT because she is a Woman. Rather, like the Republicans already know, and what the Democrats now know, as well ... is that this particular Woman can not be trusted. She is a greedy, power-hungry politician ... just like her husband. She spins her record. She distorts the facts. And she won't even tell us what she did as First Lady, yet tries to incorporate this into her "Experience". So, we should just take her word, I guess?

After 4 years of a disastrous Presidency, it's time we scrutinize a candidate's character a little more thoroughly. It's obvious to everyone, but the Feminists, that Hillary's Campaign started the mud-slinging and dirty campaigning. Now, they have the nerve to want to forget all that and now are doing their darndest to paint Obama as the Bad Guy who has been negative campaigning from the get-go.

We've had Clinton staffers make Obama out to be a Muslim. We've had Clinton staffers release that most recent photo to Drudge in an attempt to associate Obama with the Muslim culture. We've had Clinton staffers paint Obama as an ambitious power-hungry person ever since his Elementary school days when he said he wanted to be President of the United States when he grows up. Pathetic. We had Bill Clinton call Barack's chances at the White House a "Fairy Tale". We've had the Clinton's try to distort Obama's record, despite the fact that Hillary's own record is deplorable. You would never know she was a Democrat by her voting record.

She's raised the most money from lobbyists from all the candidates ... both Republicans and Democrats.

She's raised the most money from the Defense Industry from all the candidates ... both Republicans and Democrats.

Her husband plays the Gender card and makes the statement that all the Male Candidates are "ganging up on a poor woman".

Hillary has been involved in numerous campaign Fundraising Scandals.

Yet the Feminists, like Nick, want a Woman President ... so all of that junk is ignored in favor of supporting Hillary Clinton. All while they attempt to justify it with "Experience" ... what that Experience is exactly .... we still don't know, and won't know either ... since they will not release her records as First Lady.

And like I said in another thread ... you could put Hillary's career in the body of a male candidate like Chris Dodd, and people like Nick wouldn't even give this male candidate a second look. But because Hillary is a Woman, again she gets the Free Pass.

We live in a sad, sorry state where we have people who vote with prejudices like this. You would think that in 2008, things would have progressed to the point where everyone is treated equally and that these prejudices don't come into play in Presidential Elections, of all things ... but apparently not. Not for people like Nick or Iman.

To you both, let's nominate Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan. They're both Women. Since that is apparently your only qualification to run for President ... , and character apparently does not matter to either of you ... let's make one of those 2 the nominee.

 

[iman]

There is no doubt that the Obama campaign used the race issue coming out of New Hampshire to solidify the black vote in South Carolina. They simply took any criticism the Clintons made and labeled it "racist". There is even the memo from the Obama SC campaign coordinator listing Clinton statements that could be interpreted as racist. Never mind that the Clintons had every reason not to alienate black voters.

I don't condemn Obama for trying to solidify a natural base to the extent that Wilenz does, but I do find it deplorable that the press has accepted the Clinton racist myth as gospel fact.

Even a distinguished columnist like Frank Rich felt compelled to micro analyze a Clinton TV event where there was a black moderator, but no questions from black audience members, and offer it as "proof" of a Clinton racial strategy. Just absurd!

Of course none of this will matter to those currently in Obama Rapture, but at some point the history will be written and the facts will catch up with the press and Obama, I just wonder if that will happen before the election.

 

[iman]

She is a greedy, power-hungry politician ... just like her husband. She spins her record. She distorts the facts. And she won't even tell us what she did as First Lady, yet tries to incorporate this into her "Experience". So, we should just take her word, I guess?

So, apparently the other candidates are not "greedy, power hungary politicians". The other candidates do not "spin their record" or "distort the facts" and we don't know what Clinton did as First Lady?

How would you like it if I discriminated against you?

Feminism does not mean that men get discriminated against. Feminism actually means a lack of discrimintaion.

You guys are so transparent, but you have plenty of company.

 

[MystikWizard]

So, apparently the other candidates are not "greedy, power hungary politicians". The other candidates do not "spin their record" or "distort the facts" and we don't know what Clinton did as First Lady?





Feminism does not mean that men get discriminated against. Feminism actually means a lack of discrimintaion.

You guys are so transparent, but you have plenty of company.

In the traditional use of the word Feminism, you are correct. However in this particular case, that is not what you and Nick are doing. You are voting based squarely on gender, and it is obvious to all. In your cases, you are discriminating against Obama, a man, in favor of a Woman ... solely because of Gender. Because it is your preference to have a Woman President. And that is where I and others take issue. Sex should not enter the equation, but you sure are making it an issue.

And as far as power-hungry politicians, taking a look at the lesser of all evils between Obama and Hillary, Obama shows the least signs of being infatuated with the powers of the Presidency. Can't say the same for Bill and Hillary.

But here you are justifying Hillary spinning the facts and distorting her very own record. You make a point at pointing out the other candidates. I don't deny that spinning the Iraq War and the progress involved is wrong. It certainly is. However, you don't see me taking up for McCain because of it. Yet, you certainly take up for Hillary distorting her record, now don't you. And the bottom line reason is is because of your prejudice towards Women.

 

[iman]

In the traditional use of the word Feminism, you are correct. However in this particular case, that is not what you and Nick are doing. You are voting based squarely on gender, and it is obvious to all. In your cases, you are discriminating against Obama, a man, in favor of a Woman ... solely because of Gender. Because it is your preference to have a Woman President. And that is where I and others take issue. Sex should not enter the equation, but you sure are making it an issue.

And as far as power-hungry politicians, taking a look at the lesser of all evils between Obama and Hillary, Obama shows the least signs of being infatuated with the powers of the Presidency. Can't say the same for Bill and Hillary.

But here you are justifying Hillary spinning the facts and distorting her very own record. You make a point at pointing out the other candidates. I don't deny that spinning the Iraq War and the progress involved is wrong. It certainly is. However, you don't see me taking up for McCain because of it. Yet, you certainly take up for Hillary distorting her record, now don't you. And the bottom line reason is is because of your prejudice towards Women.

I have never said that I am voting for Clinton because she is a woman, and I'm not. I do see the all the misogynist posts made on JUB against Clinton and have seen the misogynist tone of much of the press coverage.

All politicians are ambitious, Obama has been running for President since he got out of Harvard, there is nothing wrong with that, although in Obama's case it has certainly influenced his conduct.

Most of the posts you and a few others make invariably invoke negative female stereotypes (conniving, untrustworthy, two faced, treacherous, etc.)

The Republicans have used fear of blacks to win elections for years, but this year they will have trouble using it against a benign middleclass guy like Obama. What is unfortunate is that we see Democrats using fear of emasculation to go after Mrs. Clinton. You guys that make all the hate and fear posts against Clinton need to get a little more (maybe a lot more) secure with your gender. Hillary really won't cut your balls off whether she's nominated or not.

 

[Twisted06]

You need to learn about Democracy.

Obama is not officially the nominee.

i 100% agree with you. the march fourth primary hasnt happend yet obama is not the nominee its time to get real. hillary may only be head by 1 % in texas but 1% is all she needs to win the state and in ohio she still holds if im not mistaken depending on what poll u look at her 6% to 11% lead. so you guys really need to get real and realize this is far from over. as said there is still another high scoring state penn. wich holds 188 delegates if im not mistaken. and she also has a strong lead there. so lost lover and all the obama freaks need to get in with reality.

 

[floorrunner]

i 100% agree with you. the march fourth primary hasnt happend yet obama is not the nominee its time to get real. hillary may only be head by 1 % in texas but 1% is all she needs to win the state and in ohio she still holds if im not mistaken depending on what poll u look at her 6% to 11% lead. so you guys really need to get real and realize this is far from over. as said there is still another high scoring state penn. wich holds 188 delegates if im not mistaken. and she also has a strong lead there. so lost lover and all the obama freaks need to get in with reality.

From what I have heard there are still 46% of the total delegates still at stake. That is a lot of delegates. Even with Obama having a lead of about 100 plus delegates, Hillary is still very much in the race. This is because of proportioning the delegates. If it was winner take all in each state we would probably have a clear
nominee.

 

[Twisted06]

From what I have heard there are still 46% of the total delegates still at stake. That is a lot of delegates. Even with Obama having a lead of about 100 plus delegates, Hillary is still very much in the race.

thanks for confirming that for me. i hate how people say obama is the official nominee based on delegate amount. yeah thats what most of half the country is saying. not everyone plus i know theres a couple after this next set that have 100+

 

[JackFTwist]

It is totally wrong to say Obama is the nominee. No one is close to that point.

It is going to be very difficult for Clinton to make up the deficit in the delegates, basically impossible.

Those two statements are not contradictory. And that is because it ain't over til its over, the math is horrendous for her losing 11 in a row, and there are uncommitteds out there.

 

[Twisted06]

It is totally wrong to say Obama is the nominee. No one is close to that point.

It is going to be very difficult for Clinton to make up the deficit in the delegates, basically impossible.

Those two statements are not contradictory. And that is because it ain't over til its over, the math is horrendous for her losing 11 in a row, and there are uncommitteds out there.

i dont know how u can say impossible. if i knew how the delegates were split id go do the math. but there r several states left that have over 100 delegatels by several i mean 4 or more and some of them she is WAY ahead in.

 

[Kulindahr]

Twisted, a lead of 1% in the state could result in Hillary getting fewer delegates than Obama, in Texas, because of the way delegates are selected. Most come from the primary, but some come from a "convention" process that may as well be caucuses.




The article up there in post #1 gives an interesting perspective on things. Having seen the same material addressed by other sources, though, I'm not convinced.

Though I am convinced of one thing: it's nearly as impossible for one person to be in control of a national campaign as it is to be in charge of the office of the presidency itself. Remember, these politicians have campaign managers, who hire professional political consultants. It doesn't matter who you are; those professional teams operate on basically the same playbook. And where do most of the tricks and ploys in these campaigns come from? Easy -- the political consultants, whether on the national or state level.

So when a candidate says he'll have his staff look into it, blaming what's already gone down on the candidate is a cheap play, because you don't know the candidate approved whatever it is.

 

[Twisted06]

well like i stated in another thread i have no idea how the delegates r split up. i know about that as much as i know about nuclear science. its all greek to me lol

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

Speaking of Democracy, I'm glad you are enjoying your freedom of it. I'm glad you are using your Freedom of Democracy to cast votes based on gender-preference.

How is your assumption that Clinton-supporters are voting based on gender-preference any different than the assumption that Obama-supporters are voting based on racial preference? Or, for that matter, an assumption that McCain supporters are voting based on a gender AND racial preference for white males?

What about the implied gender-bias behind your assumption that anyone who would support a female candidate must not be voting on the issues? Or the race-bias implied by some of the disparaging characterizations of "duped" Obama supporters?

If we aren't willing to concede that our opponents are also voting on the issues, then how would we ever "disprove" any of these politically-correct assumptions? By refusing to vote for anyone at all?