| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Clinton Race Gambit |
| 2008-01-28 |
| About Bill Clinton, what can you say? Even before the polls closed in South Carolina on Saturday, the former President was diminishing Barack Obama's victory and trying to boost his wife in the next primaries by playing the race card. Asked by a reporter why it took "two" Clintons to beat Mr. Obama, Mr. Clinton replied that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" in 1984 and 1988. And he added that both Rev. Jackson and Mr. Obama had run "a good campaign here." Hmmm. The reporter hadn't mentioned Jesse Jackson, but Mr. Clinton somehow felt it apposite to refer to him anyway. He thus associated Mr. Obama's landslide victory with that of a black candidate who never did win the Democratic nomination, much less the Presidency, and who had run overtly as an African-American candidate in contrast to Mr. Obama's explicit campaign theme of transcending race. Anyone who thinks this was accidental has spent too much time with Sid Blumenthal. While Mr. Obama won a respectable 24% of white voters, according to Saturday's exit polls, Mrs. Clinton still won 36% and John Edwards 39% of the white vote. Mr. Obama won 78% of the black vote. The Clintons are now eager to make Mr. Obama into a Rev. Jackson-style "black candidate" as they contest primaries with a larger share of white and Hispanic voters than there were in South Carolina. The Clintons want to portray Mr. Obama as a candidate with a narrowly racial appeal, both to undermine his larger and inspirational message of "unity," and also to play to whatever doubts still exist about an African-American candidate among Democratic voters. It's going to be fascinating to see if Democrats and the press let the Clintons get away with this. Imagine if Mitt Romney had made the Jesse Jackson comparison. Democrats would have immediately denounced the remarks as "racist," or as a part of some Republican "Southern strategy." This primary contest has been a rolling revelation for many Democrats and the media, as they've been shocked to see the Clinton brand of divisive politics played against one of their own. Liberal columnists who long idolized the Clintons are even writing more-in-sorrow-than-anger pieces asking how Bill and Hillary could descend to such deceptive tactics. Allow us to answer that lament this way: Our readers aren't surprised. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #2 The nakedly divisive comments by the formerly savvy Bill Clinton were decidedly counterproductive. He hates her. |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2008-01-28 18:36 |
| #1 The nakedly divisive comments by the formerly savvy Bill Clinton were decidedly counterproductive. The schism they opened in the liberal political coalition will not heal by the time the general election rolls around and will lie there waiting to be exploited by Republican campaign strategists. The Democratic Party heavy machinery is still levered in Hillary's favor which makes it highly unlikely that Obama can win the nomination. But her task of getting to the starting line without alienating Obama's base just became more challenging. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2008-01-28 17:43 |