Up until now, Senator Obama's race, like Senator Clinton's gender, has played only a marginal role in the campaign. There is no doubt that race was always part of Obama's resume, but as Black Americans originally seemed incline to stick with Ms. Clinton as the establishment Democratic candidate, it seemed unlikely to be a divisive issue. That may be about to change as the campaign moves south. From The State (Columbia, South Carolina):
Sharp criticism of Barack Obama and other comments about Martin Luther King Jr. — all from people associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — have generated resentment among some black S.C. voters. The furor comes just two weeks before those voters will have a significant say in who wins the Jan. 26 primary here.
The Clinton-Obama battle has the potential to become a wrenching divide for black voters. Historically those voters have been strong backers of Bill and Hillary Clinton. But many black voters now are drawn to the prospect of a black man winning the presidency.
It was perhaps inevitable that the Obama campaign would play the race card. But the Clinton's made an unforced error that invited it. From Forbes:
Both New York Sen. Clinton and her husband, the former president, have engaged in damage control this week after black leaders criticized their comments shortly before the New Hampshire primary last Tuesday.
The senator was quoted as saying King's dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Bill Clinton said Illinois Sen. Obama was telling a "fairy tale" about his opposition to the Iraq war.
Now, one can criticize the Clinton's remarks on both substantive and tactical grounds. Was not Martin Luther King Jr.'s leadership of the Civil Rights Movement the foundation upon which President Johnson acted? And is this the right moment for the non-Black candidate to be asking that question? But Senator Clinton's point, that the President's and Congress (along with Courts) actually make law, as opposed to just demanding it, was perfectly reasonable. And President Bill was entitled to argue that Obama was not being completely honest about his own record, whether you agree with Bill or not. This is what politics ought to be about, and the pieties of the Civil Rights Movement should not be used by Obama as a shield against criticism, if he wants to be taken seriously by the whole electorate.
This is not good for the Democrats. From the New Republic blog, by Noam Scheiber:
The mini-uproar may help Obama win South Carolina--especially since native son John Edwards should siphon white votes from Hillary if he stays in the race. But I think racial tension beyond South Carolina probably hurts Obama--both in narrow tactical ways (he's going to need a chunk of white independents on February 5; it could also create a backlash among Hispanics), and in broad, thematic ways (his candidacy is so attractive to many voters because they see it as an opportunity for racial healing).
That said, all this really just hurts the party. If you were cynical, you could argue that the Clintons have an interest in keeping this going beyond South Carolina, for the reasons just mentioned. But any benefit Hillary would reap from racial division in the primaries could be pretty costly in the general.
Ugh. I wish we could just shove all this toothpaste back in the tube, but something tells me that's wishful thinking.
The toothpaste has been out of the tube for a long time. The Democrats are fond of complaining that anyone who takes issue with them on foreign policy is criticizing their patriotism. Some declare that anyone who writes favorably about Bush's surge strategy in Iraq is a "war monger." The tendency to view any idea you oppose as a sign of bad character is tempting to use against your enemies. It will inevitably divide you from your allies.
Recent Comments