| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS | MONDAY COLUMNS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« TEMPORARY COLUMNS: MY FRIEND UNSEATS THE AUSTRALIAN PM | Main | What if the Muslim armies hadn’t been stopped at the French border? »

January 28, 2008

Below the Fold: Out-niggering and Our First “Black President”

by Michael Blim

George Wallace reflecting on his first and unsuccessful run for governor of Alabama in 1958 defeat, made a remarkable vow. “Well, boys,” he said, “no other son of a bitch will ever out-nigger me again.” Needless to say, no one did, as you might recall.

Perhaps until now. Bill Clinton, self-proclaimed and rather foolishly acclaimed by some who shall go nameless as the first “Black” president has played the race card with a finesse that even Wallace might have admired. He has niggered Barack Obama. After he and Mrs. Clinton began to see that African-Americans were turning to Obama – doubtless armed to with polling data (I am guessing here) that might have indicated an African-American swing toward Obama in other states, this most ruthless and cunning couple, the Macbeths of our time, played the race card.

And Bill Clinton knows it. There is nothing, and I hope that progressive Southerners will forgive me this, like the expertise of a Southern politician in out-niggering, to use Wallace’s infelicitous phrase. Clinton employed it with a devilish finesse. Why, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in 1984 and 1988. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama’s run a good campaign here, he’s run a good campaign everywhere.” (Financial Times, January 28, page 4) The Financial Times, a straight-ahead, moderately conservative but rigorously reported newspaper concluded: “Mr. Clinton’s bleary-eyed implication was clear: Mr. Obama is a black candidate whom blacks disproportionately support.”

The specter of “block voting,” another code word in the South for the historic attempts of African-American to change Southern society comes to mind. Clinton has transformed Wallace’s technique: he uses race to “triangulate,” another unseemly strategy he brought to the White House and now spews forth as the hatchet man for Senator Clinton. He’s not baking cookies. He is artfully playing against African-Americans in order to pick up whites and Latinos for the Clinton campaign down the road. This is triangulation in its meanest form. Before it meant isolating progressive Democrats and working with Republicans to steal the middle ground of American politics out from under both of them. Recall “welfare reform,” the Defense of Marriage Act – oh, I don’t want to get started – both signed just in time for his re-election?

No noose-swinger is he. No, the Wallaces and Sparkmans and Russells – and yes the early Lyndon Johnson -- they were pikers in comparison. They merely consolidated the white vote. Clinton seeks to take out not only the black vote (if Senator Clinton can’t get enough of it), but to pick up both whites and Latinos – a kind of multi-culti racism without a ready precedent as I see it, at least now.

Niggering Obama makes a perverse sense that a Southern politician really understands. In the North, white politicians are no dummies. They consolidate white votes too by playing the race card. Their play must be both obvious, but careful in the final analysis. In big cities, few white politicians can countenance completely alienating African-Americans. They must share at least some power with them when they govern. In Chicago, my hometown, the elder Mayor Richard Daley was elected and re-elected with an overwhelming African-American vote, as Mike Royko, the inventor of Slats Grobnik, noted with a bittersweet irony. Yes, Chicago Congressman William Dawson ran a plantation on the South Side, ever since he had turned Democrat during the New Deal.

Chicago since the sixties was often described by social scientists as the most segregated, and by implication most racist, northern city in the nation. But something is lost in this description. African-Americans gained real power in Chicago, and they did it because white resistance began to whither under the relentless pressure of African-American politicians.The first black mayor, Harold Washington, came up working in the Daley machine, as did three generations of African-American politicians before him. After Obama took a whupping in his run for Congress – buried by a well-oiled African-American wing of the famous intergenerational Daley Machine, he still found some room for his rise, as so many other African-American politicians in Chicago have done before him.

Niggering in the North is done not by nailing African-Americans wholesale. – not these days anyway I would argue. But white politicians work up white racists by stigmatizing the Jacksons (not Jackson Jr. by the way who now has the congressional spot that Obama failed to win and is liberal force within the new Daley machine) and the Al Sharptons. These are the blacks to watch out for. They are the pushy ones – the “uppity” ones. In this way, white politician consolidate their white votes and still find a way to work with powerful black politicians after Election Day.

But the resentment of white politicians was visceral. How they hated Adam Clayton Powell. There was one uppity black man. How they hated Harold Washington, another uppity. These politicians knew the moves, and could beat the openly racist white politicians through their extraordinary insight, whether in running campaigns, or in Powell’s case helping pass the most progressive social legislation to come out of the Congress since the New Deal.

The Clintons, one expects the former President in particular, must really hate what is happening. An African-American politician, of all people, could become the real first black president. Another Clinton myth dismantled. The poor man sees himself becoming the Eisenhower of his generation.

But whereas, the General was an old-fashioned racist, Bill Clinton is of the new breed. He won’t be out-niggered, but in a new sense. He and the Senator can’t run an overtly racist campaign. After all, some of their best friends….. Oh, by the way, does my memory deceive me, or were the most spectacular of Clinton’s political executions during his regime the throwing overboard of Lani Guinier, Jocelyn Elders, and Andrew Young – all black “friends of Bill?’ Help me readers on this one. I could never keep up with Bill and Hillary’s betrayals.

But they can try to make Obama black. Watch out, they are saying to whites and Latinos, those old black block voters are going to get their way. And God knows, you both will find yourselves on the outside looking in. Think of what would happen if they escape the plantation? Given what’s been done to them, their revenge could be frightful.

And, of course, we Clintons will lose our grip on the best job, the most perks, the most lucrative book deals and speaking engagements, and the best elbow-rubbing in the world as we know it. Why they even paid off Bill’s legal expenses incurred in the little mess with that woman that the old yard dog didn’t have sex with.

Let a black man grab this? Not on your life. If we have to nigger him, well, the polls say we’ll make out. Another one over the side – that’s just a day’s work for us. We’ve been doing it so long, what’s another one to us?

George Wallace has found his heir, only in a politician smarter and more modern. But Bill be out-niggered? Not on your life. Or Obama’s for that matter.

Posted by Michael Blim at 10:50 AM | Permalink

Comments

The Clinton's make a curious and pathetic poor example of what it's known as pathological narcissism.
There are prievious terms that have been used to describe their character and its structure, but PN (pathological narcissism) will do.
A couple that has the blindest and most insatiable thirst for power, wants to be our next president: two for the price of one.
Were Hillary to be elected we'll get a bilateral form of migraine --- since, the first consort will be handy everywhere offering advise on the achieving a second term for both spouses while working on the distant possibility of the first one for Chelsea --- in American politics (from John Adams on) dynasties are a dream all elected officials have.
That's what makes the office itself absurd, and that's why it should be abolished.
What does Obama offers the country?
A man conscious of his role in history and of the fact that he cannot make the foolish mistakes of his predecessors, specially of the kind Bill made, and got away with.
Obama would be conscious of his race and will try to be an unifying president.
Unification of a fragmented country. A country in need of fresh leadership, not a replay of the Clinton's game.
PN!

Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Jan 28, 2008 11:16:22 AM

Thanks so much for your comment Dr Larocca. Amen to that. I have gone to my fallout shelter, but caught your comment just in time. I'll take it with me.

Posted by: Michael Blim | Jan 28, 2008 11:35:39 AM

I get annoyed over and over when I hear that Obama will unite the nation. This nation is not ever going to be "united, " and that might not be so bad. I am talking not about race or gender but rather about those who tend to be liberal and those who tend to be conservative. If there is a major crisis, as in WWII, there will be unity. Otherwise, no.

I am surrpised at BillC. since he had been touted as politically asture nd has alas shown himself heavy-handed and thugish.

If Obama gets he nomination, I can not say how things will turn out but if he fails to win the presidency, we will not be around for many years before any black has a chance of becomin g president.

Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 28, 2008 12:07:11 PM

One quick correction - when Obama ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000, he was running against Bobby Rush in Illinois' 1st district, not Jesse Jackson Jr in the 2nd district.

Posted by: Nizam Arain | Jan 28, 2008 12:34:38 PM

Thank you, Michael. This is superb, and I hope everybody reads it -- twice.

Maybe being from Chicago is a uniquely qualifying experience for an Auslander in understanding the inner life of a Southern white politician. Which is precisely what Bill Clinton is, never more self-evidently than now. Chicago, historically a magnet for Southern blacks seeking work, has always been something of a test case.

Until the last ten days, I thought I was sick of the Clintons because of both the distracting unseemliness they offered up in the 90's and the self-sabotaging of his once considerable promise as a president. If Bill Clinton was horribly singed and hobbled by that vast right wing conspiracy, then why did he keep handing them Georgia fatwood to stoke their flames? I never under-estimated Hillary's role in the way things played out, and I just didn't want more drama, disingenuousness and phony progressive talk. The Macbeths of our day? Well, maybe -- but the Macbeths suffered. They knew horror at themselves, they knew remorse so entire there was in her case no refuge but madness, in his no refuge at all. What did the Clintons suffer for their treacheries? Only rage at being thwarted, and doubtless agonizing fears over becoming irrelevant.

But that was then. South Carolina is still now. Bubba playing the race card is one of the ugliest sights I never thought I'd see, not because he isn't a racist -- he's a Southern white politician over 60, after all, and if you ever doubted the full meaning of that, you no longer can -- but because it's like watching a card sharp show you how his tricks are done while showing you, also, that he expects those tricks to deceive you. As they may, as indeed they may. If the Clintons are on the verge of another co-presidency, one way they shall have achieved it is by playing to an element many people just as racist as they but a little more honest hope genuinely to purge themselves of. For this reason as for so many others, I cannot but hope they fall upon their own sword.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 28, 2008 12:46:32 PM

Now that Sen. Kennedy has come out for Obama, the fat is really in the fire. We can anticipate that there will be no more attention paid in the Democratic primaries to anything resembling an actual issue. It will be all about Chappaquiddick and Hussein the "black candidate."

Is there anything so pathetic as the Democrats? The Republicans are masters at intensifying all the evils of the system, from economic exploitation to imperialism, and the Democrats are not exactly slouches in that respect either, but whereas the Republicans never seem to be tarnished by their personal scandals (good old George a draft dodger and cokehead? Perish the thought!), they are immensely skillful at exploiting the smallest skeletons in the Democratic closet.

One might think that with a deep recession getting underway and the Bush record in public view, the GOP's chances in November are hopeless. But I'm not so sure about that. With the Republican ability to work the mass media system so much greater than the Democrats', and a candidate who appeals to the media as much as McCain does, I think their chances are pretty darned good.

Posted by: JonJ | Jan 28, 2008 1:17:18 PM

Good points, but I'm a bit uneasy about this: when Huckabee did well in Iowa, the conversation certainly did involve the fact that evangelicals (a larger than typical fraction of that state) voted disproportionately for him.

What is the right way to make the analogous statement about Obama and South Carolina? It seems bizarre to say one simply cannot note that African Americans are a larger fraction of the SC electorate than of the national (or blue state) electorate.

Posted by: D | Jan 28, 2008 1:55:53 PM

Jon J:
I feel your pain. No, really! Yes, there is a very good chance that the bumbling GOP might hold on to the White House. I am now just hoping that at least the congress stays on the right (ie left) side of the aisle. (Not that much good came of that after the 2006 elections.)

But issues? What issues? The whole presidential race on the Democratic side has come down to what Michael Blim said and this.

Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 28, 2008 2:00:08 PM

Was Blim doing an Infinity ad?

What I find funny: all the fuss made about dynasties--The Bush gang; the Clinton wife team...but when the Kennedys come out en masse, that does not matter.

Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 28, 2008 2:16:18 PM

Thank you for the correction Nizam Arain. I have been away from Chicago too long. I still remember Dawson! Ralph Metcafe (sic) I believe had the seat after Dawson. I did know it was Bobby Rush, but somehow I thought that Jackson Jr. had edged him out. Are there two south side seats, or is one of them straddling either the southern burbs or the west side?

I was old anti-machine, IVI boy when I was a lad in Chicago -- a traitor to my Irish roots.

Elaltia: keep swinging. You have the south under your skin which I greatly admire. It is a difficult case.

Inifnity? Don't get it. Agree with you on the Kenneds. but even if I didn't what is your point about the Clintons per se?

John J. and Ruchira: I am nervous too and not very sanguine about a stand-up Congress. Haven't seen it yet.

D: that wasn't Clinton's objective, as the FT well reported. I would appreciate it if you might deal with the argument I presented.
Thanks again to all.

Posted by: Michael Blim | Jan 28, 2008 2:56:03 PM

I'm not arguing the main point of this article, but I do think it comes off as rather assumptive. I don't see any real evidence regarding Hillary or Bill Clinton's intentions or even actions for that matter. And why is this all about Bill? Hillary is the candidate.

Posted by: Darcy | Jan 28, 2008 3:49:12 PM

Also, I just wanted to say that I heard Jesse Jackson Jr. speak a few years ago in Chicago and I really liked what he had to say. I hadn't considered it before, but I wonder if Obama would bring some of Chicago's black political leaders to his cabinet. That would be pretty incredible; I'd like it to happen.

Posted by: Darcy | Jan 28, 2008 3:54:31 PM

Michael Blim - I agree with you, and with the FT, that Clinton was race-baiting. That's not my point. My question is simply the following:

Imagine hypothetical Bill Clinton who isn't trying to play to white prejudice, who simply wants to say post-primary that Obama's large victory in SC isn't necessarily a huge setback to Hillary Clinton, and that the outcomes wouldn't necessarily carry over to other states, because most states aren't majority - minority. This seems like a perfectly sensible - and probably valid - point to make. How might imaginary-Clinton make his point to the media without provoking your reaction?

Posted by: D | Jan 28, 2008 4:07:19 PM

Yes, Darcy, the thing that's lacking here is evidence. We have one statement by Bill Clinton, which to me only means that winning South Carolina does not make one a viable candidate. (Something I would disagree with, and I actually prefer Obama to Clinton or Edwards.) What else that's lacking is a sense of perspective. This imagined racism is blown all of out proportion. Why don't we please discuss the proud bigots that are the Republican nominees (gay marriage, "islamofascism", illegal immigration, etc.).

Posted by: anon | Jan 28, 2008 4:23:49 PM

I singled out as power hungrydont think this kind of Clinton bashing is justified or in true spirit of democracy. Why should they be singled out as power hungry or ambitious just because Hillary is running for President. I am proud of the fact that a woman is able to stand up and take the challenge of fighting for this highest office in a tough fight. All America should be proud. I have nothing against B. Obama and am glad that he is a candidate too. It is a historic moment in American Presidential history and we should not malign it by sordid talk.
AR

Posted by: A R | Jan 28, 2008 5:23:40 PM

Sorry the first line of my comment got mixed up due to computer problem. It should read: I dont think this kind of Clinton bashing is justified or in true spirit of democracy. (Rest is fine)
AR

Posted by: AR | Jan 28, 2008 5:27:44 PM

It's possible that the only point Bill wanted to make was that there are a lot fewer African-Americans in most of the Feb. 5 primary states than in SC, and therefore he thought Obama might have a harder time on that date. A rather obvious point, but perhaps he wanted to take the time to make it, in case anyone out there in TV-land was unaware of it.

However, by mentioning Jackson, he appeared to at least some politically savvy observers to be trying to make that point while simultaneously suggesting that he thought Obama was only a presidential candidate in the sense that Jackson was thought by many to be at the time he was running for the office in the '80s -- that is, a mere "protest" candidate, a mere "black candidate" who needn't be taken seriously, unlike Ms. Clinton.

In other words, my interpretation (possibly an over-interpretation) of what Bill was saying is something like "Hey, he got 80% of the black vote, but that's only what you would expect from these 'black candidates' like Barack and Jessie, who are only running to try to push the agenda of their race. He won't do nearly as well on Super Tuesday; that's when Hillary, the 'real' candidate, will crush him."

If Bill were only making an obvious point about the relative numbers of black and white voters, I would think he could just say something like, "Hey, remember that there are a lot more white voters than black ones in the country as a whole, and it seems to me that Barack is better getting votes from the latter than the former." Of course, that might be considered just as offensive as what he actually did say. I'm not sure there is any non-offensive way of saying that Obama only basically appeals to African-Americans.

Posted by: JonJ | Jan 28, 2008 6:18:49 PM

That was an incredibly cruel and ruthless column.

Posted by: JonathanG | Jan 28, 2008 8:02:12 PM

AR,

I would be proud that the right woman might very soon be president. Looks like you think that's Hillary. I don't, but if she captures the nomination and gets elected, all anyone can decently do is hope she lives up to the high opinion of her enthusiastic supporters. But she and her husband have notched up their lies and slurs -- do you not agree? Democrats need to show that's not the way to go. Of course, the damage done by playing the race card cannot be undone by ceasing to play it, so the dirty deed is done, and Hillary is now free to rise above race. If I call her on all this, how is that Clinton-bashing? She and her team have done a bad, low and divisive thing that should not go unremarked, that has not gone unremarked -- in this space or elsewhere.

D,

You make a good point, as always, but -- DID Romney or McCain belittle Huckabee's victory in Iowa by pointing out the huge number of Fundies on all those farms? Apropos Nevada, DID Obama and Edwards observe for the record that Hispanics were mainly Clintonistas, and that in states where there were fewer Hispanics they would do better than Hillary? Did their spouses speak up about it? What was astounding about Bill's remarks was that you had a former president implying Obama's win in SC compared with Jesse Jackson's wins there 20 and 24 years ago -- that Obama now was like Jackson then: all dressed up with no place to go. It's a highly inflammatory, cynical and -- Billary hopes -- crushing remark. It was no pollster merely rationally remarking that a black candidate carried a state with a vast black electorate. It was who said it, and how it was said -- with every intention of trivializing and marginalizing Obama. JonJ is right -- there is no inoffensive way to say it, and the former president didn't mean to be inoffensive.

anon,

I kind of agree with you -- the race thing is out of proportion. When I was young, the woman thing was out of proportion, too -- jeez, you couldn't get away from it. But gender equality is not on its way here to stay because people were "understanding" about sexism in the 70's. It is thus better to go postal when you see the race thing than to sweep it under the rug because it's awkward. That's where it will do the most harm after all -- as an open secret that honorable people can manipulate with impunity. As with homophobia and misogyny, the sooner the race card brings only trouble to whoever plays it, the better. If Billary wanted to demonstrate their being mastodons, wedded to regressive politics, their recent remarks on and around race would be a fine way to do it.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 28, 2008 8:49:29 PM

Not that it makes much difference, but unless various other blogs are wrong, Bill Clinton made the remarks in question Saturday afternoon, not *after* Obama's win. Just a little preparatory spin, you know....

There's a video at this link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064875.php

Try To Explain This
01.26.08 -- 7:48PMBy Josh Marshall

Here's Bill Clinton this afternoon discounting Barack Obama's expected victory in South Carolina by explaining that Jesse Jackson won the state twice ...

Posted by: JanieM | Jan 28, 2008 9:13:05 PM

Clinton wins NH in late rally: centre-right Obama devotees cry "frustrated women vote Clinton to deny Obama his deserved victory".

Nothing wrong with that. Not sexisting anybody with that talk.

Obama wins state in which Democrat vote is made up significantly of blacks, and Big Dog, responding to question from reporter about wheher a black candidate can win, 'niggers' Obama. Said Obama devotees are outraged.

Double standards ahoy!

Posted by: Dr Zen | Jan 28, 2008 9:15:00 PM

Just a wee bit of recent history. It was Obama who first noted race in this business.And I say that for accuracy raqtheer than pushing for either of the candidates.

Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 28, 2008 9:19:51 PM

Oh, Dr. Zen, Dr. Zen. Surely the difference between a statement by our former President Bill Clinton and that of un-specified "devotees" is something you can get your head around.

Posted by: Jesse | Jan 28, 2008 10:15:00 PM

Elatia, you'll find very little argument from me on the probable rationale behind Bill Clinton's remarks. I think a race game is indeed being played here, and it is depressing to behold.

My concern here is with the astonishingly strident and self-assured response of this article, which simply takes for granted that the worst may be assumed with impunity of anyone who says anything that can be construed (even plausibly, as here) as playing the race card.

Consider Blim's glib reduction of criticism of the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world to discomfort with "uppity" blacks. Yes, racists probably find Sharpton useful as bait, but it scarcely follows that only racists can denigrate or disapprove of that man. (speaking of baiting, can this post use the n-word any more than it does?)

You and JonJ seem to say that a politician (as opposed to a pundit or pollster) simply cannot make a fairly straightforward demographic point about South Carolina without facing a tirade like this one. I can't say I have a simple formulation of Clinton's point that would save him from accusations of bigotry, but it does seem to me that one is needed before one can write over-wrought posts comparing Bill Clinton to George Wallace and plantation owners.

As it happens, I tend to think it's easier to make the case that the Clintons are being cynical and amoral politicians than it is to argue that Bill is an unreformed Strom Thurmond style racist who just gets the need to stay closeted. Regardless, the automatic assumption of bad faith I see in this post entails too significant a narrowing of the sphere of acceptable discourse. It isn't a tolerable imposition upon free speech.

Posted by: D | Jan 28, 2008 10:35:27 PM

D,

I see what you mean. I see that Bill Clinton is not George Wallace. And, sure -- there is hyperbole in this post. The question is whether hyperbole serves or undermines a cogent point, and I see there's room for disagreement. But it's kind of a matter of style.

The South is never far from teetering absolutely backwards, or from propelling itself forwards, away from that legacy of suspicion and moral failure. As a Southerner, my radar is up, for I know how bad things were and could be again. When a white Southern leader, one of the most significant figures of his day, who a bare 16 years ago became president descends now to race talk, connecting the fading dots between the pre-Civil Rights era and the present in such a way to suggest that the South needs yet to be two nations, that there is a black vote that is meaningless except in that it is black, and that it represents nothing -- nothing -- nationwide, I have to listen for the deeper, the regressive meaning.

How can this be explained? I don't really know. My vintage, perhaps? But, what great social evils are you on the lookout for? Everything is a matter of perspective, after all. Do you worry that, old enough to be your mother -- probably! -- I can't see the big issues? Maybe I can't see your big issues. I'd like to know what they are. But this I do know -- the Clintons' performance over the last 10 days reminds me as I had never hoped to be reminded that the bitch that bore Wallace has been in heat again, roiling in a white "power couple" I could have accused of many sins, but not till now the sin of using race when they feel threatened. It's a disappointment from people I thought had shown me quite enough to be disappointed in. What is the lowest you can go? To be a white Southerner playing the race card is to go the lowest you can go -- to cast as trivial, 44 years into the Civil Rights era, the vote of Southern blacks. To disregard it, to suggest its meaning stops at some imaginary pollster border, that it portends nothing for the nation, when that vote was secured by the deaths of people in living memory.

But those are my memories, and maybe not yours. Whatever outrages and disgusts you is what you have a Constitutional right to vote down.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 28, 2008 11:38:59 PM

Is invoking George Wallace a little like invoking Hitler is there a Godwin's law for George Wallace?

Posted by: Norm | Jan 29, 2008 1:12:38 AM

Michael,

The 1st and 2nd districts cover adjacent areas of the south side of Chicago and the southern suburbs.

The 1st is the seat that was Dawson's forever, and then Metcalfe's. It then went through a few other people (including Harold Washington before he became mayor) before Bobby Rush won the seat in the '92 election.

Jesse Jackson Jr took the second district after Mel Reynolds resigned in '95.

Posted by: Nizam Arain | Jan 29, 2008 10:22:31 AM

Thanks to all for the comments.

I understand linking Clinton to Wallace is shocking.

Consider several things. I am not writing history here. In real time, I am asking you to consider as an hypothesis that the Southern race card, revised, is being played again.

I cannot present a full-scale account of the role of racism in Southern politics and how it has changed -- or in this case --mutated in the hands of Bill Clinton. I believe it's a strong case.

I can ask you to consider that racism is one of the strongest anti-democratic currents in American life. If you agree, then think a bit with me.

Hyperbole is a legitimate function of rhetoric in my view. It can take the reader outside the box of their conventional understandings. It can generate heat, to be sure, but it also can generate light. No, you probably have never thought of Bill Clinton in the frame I have used. Why not try? What can it challenge you to see? What can it help you to see?

But let me note the general absence of support for Clinton in your responses to the post, whether you think he did or did not play the race card. What does your lack of support mean?

Let me also note that no one has yet challenged my description of how Clinton played politics during his presidency. Is there no pattern here? To press Obama's blackness is instrumental. There are serious social antagonisms that are easily stirred up. There is considerable tension between African-Americans and Latinos in most major cities that are important in the remaining primary battles. I am certain that most of you by your comments are well aware of how the instrumental use of race can re-point and consolidate large numbers of voters on one or more sides of the racial divide. If Clinton can do his "math," so can I. In every state of the union, African-Americans are in the minority. They can be isolated and sacrificed in pursuit of white and Latino votes. And don't you think that one of the most poll-driven presidencies in history (remember the famous Dick Morris overnight tracking polls that guided every day of Clinton's presidency?) would not make use of them in this instance. He did for eight years. As they say, why is today any different from any other day?

Once more, I do not sense that you disagree with me. In fact, several of you have noted that divisions in the Democratic Party of this sort may cost them defeat in November.

I urge you to think through my hypothesis. Note the pernicious use of race by the former President. Act accordingly. Note that Senator Clinton didn't disown his comments. She just said he was tired and got carried away. She could have said: "I love him, but those are not my views."

And I must say: If Teddie Kennedy can smell the coffee and feel so right on the race-bait issue it that he said it out loud, take an antihistamine and try sniffing again.

Michael Blim

P.S. I have a longstanding antipathy toward the Clintons, both of them, as is obvious. I can give you reasons, but I don't want to turn the column in that direction at this time. There are too many things I want to write to you about.

Posted by: Michael Blim | Jan 29, 2008 12:09:43 PM

Michael,

I don't think that you can plausibly argue that the Clintons' dirty tactics will hurt them in the general. They've already won three elections for national office between them, and all evidence is that any blowback they suffered from being generally scummy was not enough to beat the point spread.

If Romney is the GOP nominee, I think it's safe to say either Obama or Clinton can stroll across the finish line, barring a significant stumble or scandal. If McCain is the nominee, Clinton is popularly regarded as the stronger opponent, partly because she is more hawkish than Obama on foreign policy, but also partly because she's a street fighter, and McCain is sure to run a nastier campaign than Romney could ever muster. (If the race is between Romney and Obama, we may all asphyxiate on their gaseous platitudes long before we make it to the ballot box, but at least we won't have to wipe off as much slime and viscera.)

If you meant to imply that Clinton's race-baiting weakens Obama, should he emerge as the Dem nominee, I think his win in South Carolina and subsequent endorsement-collecting spree cast reasonable doubt on this. I guess it's an open question. It would certainly be tragic if Clinton were able to cleave the Hispanic vote with her agit-prop insinuations that a black candidate would be politically impotent. (I think her remarks about MLK and LBJ in New Hampshire were at least as dismissive as Bill's in SC.)

Bill Richardson's endorsement will be a factor, as will Obama's success in courting Latinos. Ultimately though it's the electorate's job not to be swayed by race-baiting. We're not automatons. If enough of us subliminally (or overtly) believe HRC's imputations that a black candidate effectively marginalizes himself just by being black, I guess we'll get the goverment we deserve.

Posted by: Chris Schoen | Jan 29, 2008 1:56:18 PM

Elatia,

- Perhaps you're right. I am somewhat less pessimistic about racism in the South today than you are, but then I've never even lived in the South, and would be somewhat chary of moving.
- I suspect our ideals are rather similar on the whole, and on black/white issues in particular. I do think Democratic ideas on Affirmative Action, inner cities, prison reform et al have lost marketshare and need to be reframed and rebranded, but I'll be damned if I know how. In any case this is tactics.
- One difference between us is simply that I've only two presidencies I have any decent recollection of, and after eight years of Dubya more Billary seems like a hell of a deal. I simply don't greatly dislike the Clintons, and would be quite happy to see them back.
- Of course, the appropriate comparison here is not Dubya/Clinton but Obama/Clinton . I'd be delighted with either, but do prefer Clinton. Some of this is probably just psychology - mac vs pc ads make me want to buy pc's.

More importantly, I don't like Obama's rhetoric of unifying the nation. Transcending party differences is what you do when you're on the losing side, and for the first time in God knows how long we aren't. We are in a place where the Religious Right is practically impotent, where instead of jumping over ourselves to exhibit "family values" we can sit back and watch the Huckabees talk about stewartship of the planet. We are at a place where independents skew democratic, and where practically the entire nation agrees healthcare is a disgrace.

This is when we roll up our sleeves, drag policy slowly back to the left, and undo some of the past thirty years. Let the Republicans talk bipartisanship for a change. Mind you, I recognize that on actual policy Obama and Clinton don't differ very much, but with Obama I find it difficult to discount rhetoric - I don't have that much else to judge.

Posted by: D | Jan 30, 2008 6:13:17 AM

D,

As a really smart young person who sees nothing much wrong with the Clintons, you've got plenty of company. Many women getting up in years see no reason not to prefer Hillary, either. She sure is smart and tough, isn't she? And a woman, which should be a big help in and of itself.

That she is a deeply unprincipled woman married to a man who is about as principled as a force of nature simply cannot be apparent to you. That Hillary has a treacherous double nature, that, even for a politician, her doubleness is extraordinary, is being successfully packaged as pragmatism, and many people who recall the Clinton Years as better than the Bush years are looking no further than that.

But if you did want to look further, you would look at character, wouldn't you? From your observations, I infer you aren't feeling pressure to take it that far -- only because you didn't mention it as an issue, not because I suspect you don't think it's important. You may just feel no special reason to worry about Hillary's character, and that of her husband. But as Eleanor Roosevelt said of Nixon, when someone remarked he was certainly smart enough to be president -- "It's not his intelligence I'm worried about, it's his character."

I don't want to turn this space into a screed against the Clintons. Someone else -- Michael? -- could do a better job than I, if he wanted to one of these Mondays. But, just for example, I deeply believe that more children live in poverty today than would otherwise do if I and millions of others had not trusted the lip-service-spouting Clintons to prioritize protecting them. Look at what they do, D, don't listen to what they say. If you're ever thinking about getting married or voting, remember -- by their actions, you shall know them. If you examine the actions of the Clintons, you will discern a bone-chilling trail of treachery. If you choose not to examine their actions, but ponder only how they are being sold to you and whether they are likely to prevail, then you will see only what they want you to see.

This is what they're counting on. And it is hard to cut through their razzle dazzle, because they have made truthfulness and deniability functionally the same thing. I bit, in 1992, and have long regretted it. If you bite, this year, you'll be reeling someday too. Because it's not about competency -- oh, they have that and to spare -- but about character.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 30, 2008 9:49:57 AM

The attempt to distort Bill Clinton's lifelong history of support for poor and black people into some sort of manipulative racist philosophy based on a sentence or two from an interview in a parking lot is despicable. Michael Blim should be ashamed.

Posted by: Jim Wallis | Jan 30, 2008 12:56:37 PM

Jim Wallis,

Which incidents from that lifelong history did you have in mind? NAFTA? Welfare Reform? Hiring Dick Morris? Sistah Souljah? Throwing Lani Guinier and Jocelyn Elders under the bus? Maybe it was increasing the Federal prison population by over 50 percent? Or was it "three strikes your out" (just one strike for public housing residents)? Executing Ricky Ray Rector right before the NH primary?

It's way more than a sentence or two in a parking lot, my man.

Posted by: Chris Schoen | Jan 30, 2008 3:47:25 PM

Add Marian Wright Edelman of the Childrens' Defense Fund to the list of the jilted. Thanks Chris, for bringing up Dick Morris in this context. Jesse Helms' infamous "Hands" ad agaist Harvey Grant and affirmative action was the brain child of Morris whom the Clintons invited to be their adviser.

Bill Clinton's political mentor was Sen J. William Fulbright. Look up his record on civil rights.

I doubt that the Clintons are active haters of African Americans like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and many others. They just don't care (like they don't about gays) and will cynically manipulate their goodwill in the black community to their immediate advantage.

Toni Morrison, who conferred upon Bill Clinton the dubious title of "Our First Black President," has now endorsed Obama.

Those who are upset with Michael Blim's post, please read Christopher Hitchens' column in Slate. Michael is not the only one who sees a pattern.

Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 30, 2008 4:28:58 PM

I am a white male. I find the repeated use of the racial epithet unnecessary, gratuitous, and offensive. The point of the column, such as it is, gets lost in the evident glee the author feels in flinging this crap on every nearby surface.

I am no fan of Clinton, and only a grudging fan of Mr. Obama - I like him as a Senator, but wish we had someone more sinewy running for president. The author, whatever his position, lacks the imagination to be an engaging, much less a convincing, writer. At least as evidenced here.

Posted by: John in Santa Fe | Jan 31, 2008 12:27:29 AM

Ruchira, I can't speak for others who are offended by Blim's article, but having briefly skimmed Hitchens' article (thanks for the link), I did not find him flinging the racial epithet with abandon.

Posted by: John in Santa Fe | Jan 31, 2008 12:29:57 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed

Help 3 Quarks Daily

Bookmark This Page

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3QD ADVERTISING



Please Visit Wikio

  • Wikio
  • Wikio Shopping
  • LCD Monitor
  • LCD TV
  • Recent Comments

    Jesse on literary science?

    chris on Elise & Me: A Tale of Extreme Optical Seduction

    yaqoob pasha on Burqa ban!

    Elatia Harris on literary science?

    OT on Elise & Me: A Tale of Extreme Optical Seduction

    fgh on Physicists could soon be creating black holes in the laboratory

    Philip Graham on literary science?

    Ulle V. Holt on Elise & Me: A Tale of Extreme Optical Seduction

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    Felix E F Larocca MD on After Guantánamo

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Hauser and Morris on Science and Morality

    Pete Chapman on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Are Saint-Simonians Responsible for Modernity

    J on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Jennifer Ouellete's Top Ten at the World Science Festival

    JonJ on Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?

    C. M. R. on literary science?

    Jared on literary science?

    Bilal on Friday Poem

    Transleitor on literary science?

    Mike on literary science?

    Chris Schoen on literary science?

    Mike on literary science?

    Dave on Structured Procrastination

    reader on literary science?

    Acclaim For 3QD

    Best Non-European Weblog Winner


    Best Group Blog and Blog Most Deserving of Wider Attention Finalist


    "I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

    "I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

    "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

    Subscribe to this blog's feed