Win, Lose, Draw

-->
Democratic Party, elections

You probably already know that yesterday’s primary in Michigan was meaningless for Democrats. The Dem Party stripped Michigan of its delegates for holding its primary too early. One result of the primary has raised eyebrows, however. As Josh Marshall writes,

According to the Fox exit polls, in the Democratic primary tonight, Clinton took 25% of the African-American vote and “uncommitted” is getting 69% of the African-American vote. Now remember, Hillary is only major candidate on the ballot. The others, and even Hillary to a degree, boycotted the primary because Michigan got crosswise with the national Democratic party over the date of their primary. Rep. Conyers (D) is an Obama supporter and he pushed for the state’s African-American community to vote “uncommitted.” There’s too much screwy about the Democratic primary in Michigan tonight to draw too much from this; but it is suggestive.

These numbers may have something to do with the suddenly kinder and gentler Clinton campaign. Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy write for the New York Times about last night’s Dem debate in Las Vegas:

It was a night of “John” and “Barack” and “Hillary,” soft voices, easy jokes and belly laughs. Even the normally pugnacious Tim Russert, one of the moderators, seemed subdued.

“We’re all family in the Democratic party,” Mrs. Clinton said, glancing toward her competitors who were seated closely around a table. “We are so different from the Republicans on all of these issues.”

The Clintons had tried to take down Obama with some back-alley dirty campaigning. Surrogates for the Clintons kept stepping over the line to make racially tinged charges. Early this week the Obama campaign fought back by releasing a memo detailing alleged racial slurs. And then the Clinton’s noticed their once-secure lead among African Americans had gone with the wind. Oops.

Some have argued that the Obama campaign took some Clinton quotes out of context to give them a racial spin the Clintons didn’t intend. But there was plenty that wasn’t taken out of context. Michael Tomasky writes,

I tend to agree with the school of thought that believes that race-related controversy may help Obama in the short term by galvanizing the black vote for him in South Carolina, but will more likely hurt him in the larger picture because having to talk about race makes him look less “post-racial”, which is the presumed (emphasis on presumed, because this is just white pundits presuming, and no one really knows) heart of his appeal to independents.

This is why the attacks from Clinton surrogates don’t look completely like a coincidence to a lot of people. This is especially true of the ones about Obama’s admitted past drug use, which fuel certain racial stereotypes in a way that “progressive” campaigns ought to avoid. Many people I’ve spoken with fully expected Obama’s drug use to come up – in a general election, against the Republicans, if he made it that far. Most observers did not expect it to surface among Democrats. The fact that it has – and the fact that three Clinton surrogates have now bruited the subject – has infuriated a lot of people.

Maybe the Clintons figured they could afford to lose some black votes if they could stir up enough latent racism among white voters to keep them away from Obama.

… I think it may be assigning too much conspiratorial control to the Clintons to assume that every word spoken by every person is orchestrated from some central command. That doesn’t usually happen in campaigns – which are usually sloppy and disorganised things – either.

But what does happen is that the candidate establishes a tone (and in this case, the candidate and her husband, who happens to be unusually important). Surrogates pick up on that tone, and they decide what’s fair game and what isn’t with a nudge and a wink from central command. And the tone the Clintons have established these last two weeks is one of complete condescension toward and disrespect for Obama, and that, not Hillary’s artless comment about Dr Martin Luther King, is what’s really the problem here.

As I said earlier this week, I think the Obama campaign put the Clintons on notice that they could play the same game. And maybe the Clintons looked at the poll numbers and got the message. So now they’re all being nicey-nice, which works for Obama, who has been trying to run an I’m-above-all-this-dirt sort of campaign.

In “The race vs. gender war,”Gary Kamiya argues that racism remains a more radioactive element in politics than sexism, which in a way gives Obama an odd sort of advantage.

The fact that Obama is being treated with kid gloves shows not that racism is less potent than sexism, but that racism remains a much more radioactive force in American society. Politeness is a sign of ignorance, distance and fear. The mostly white commentariat feels freer to attack Clinton, a white woman, than it does Obama in part because he doesn’t have as long a track record, but mostly because most white people dread being perceived as racist. It’s good that white people don’t want to be seen as racist, but their wariness about criticizing him shows that America still has a long way to go.

On the other hand,

Obama himself has avoided tangling with the media by running on an inspirational message of hope and unity. But that message, as his critics point out, can veer into the ethereal. Obama is caught in a dilemma similar to that Clinton faces, but he has even less room to maneuver. If he gets tough, he risks being seen as “too black,” a perception that would doom his bid; if he floats above the fray, he invites criticism as being a fairy tale, all style and no substance.

If he wins the nomination, Senator Obama might want to add a little more gravitas to the mix.

Share Button
8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. joanr16  •  Jan 16, 2008 @6:23 pm

    I think the Obama campaign put the Clintons on notice that they could play the same game.

    I am paraphrasing the great Lily Tomlin here, but “the trouble with the rat race is, even if you win, you’re still a rat.”

  2. k  •  Jan 16, 2008 @7:29 pm

    I just watched the exchange on pbs- Obama saying management skills were important but what he really wanted to do was bring everybody together- what a load of bull.
    I don’t give a crap about being brought together as if it could be done. I care about a president that pays attention to more than the prepared pablum brought to him to approve . We have seen an individual that was much too small for the job, one that appointed all kinds of taodies sleaze and foxes to oversee henhouses. I really do want to know about the candidates’ management styles- it really does matter.

  3. Doug Hughes  •  Jan 16, 2008 @8:01 pm

    It’s interesting that AFTER the Restaurant Union endorsed Obama, Clinton (through the Teachers Union) suddenly objected to caucases at work, which had been set up and approved in advance for casino workers- until the Union came out for Obama.

    Then on the Republiocan side in California, Independents will not be able to vote in the Republican primary, but they will be allowed to vote in the Democratic caucus.

    Call me a romantic – but getting out the vote for your candidate is NOT the same as trying to block votes by supporters of your opponent. Are any candiates or parties capable of grasping this?

  4. Ed Deevy  •  Jan 16, 2008 @8:47 pm

    Clearly, when each of us watch a debate we see what unfolds before our eyes differently…based on our own values and experiences. When I saw the exchange between Obama and Hillary on “management skills” needed in the White House I was most impressed by what Obama had to say. I’ve spent most of the past three decades trying to convince senior executives to act as LEADERS…not as MANAGERS. By this I mean focusing on bringing the main stakeholders together and inspiring them with a motivating vision for the future.

  5. maha  •  Jan 16, 2008 @11:14 pm

    Ed — I believe I understand what you’re saying. My gripe with Sen. Clinton is that she’s all wonk, no vision. She’s more of a carpenter than an architect. I see a Clinton Administration II moving forward with all manner of earnest initiatives that are only incrementally better than what we’ve got.

    I think it’s OK if a President is not a great hands-on manager as long as he/she respects management and process and appoints good managers to make things work. With the Bushies, not only can none of them manage, but they have a weird contempt for management and process.

  6. Ed Deevy  •  Jan 17, 2008 @6:35 am

    maha:
    I totally agree that it takes highly effective managers to translate visionary leadership into reality. The Bush Administration lacked both visionary leadership and effective management. Nothing symbolizes the incompetence of the Bush managers more than the ineffective response to Hurricane Katrina.

  7. scott  •  Jan 17, 2008 @9:52 am

    I think the whole dust-up over the last week was completely the product of overzealous partisans on each side (remember Jesse Jackson Jr. complaining that Hillary cried because she looked bad? wtf!) and an MSM eager to pimp racial division. As you note, race is a completely radioactive element in our society, and I just don’t think that HRC is dumb enough to mount a centrally directed push to insert that element into the contest. Call her what you want (and may will), but I’ve never heard that she’s stupid, nor have I heard that the Clintons are insensitive to or tone-deaf about the importance of race. And don’t underestimate the importance of two campaigns staggering on bad food, no sleep, and high emotion over the holidays, to Iowa, then to NH, going up and down like a rollercoaster. From what I’ve read (and Obama made explicitly this point in the Vegas debate), the candidates seem to have realized that their excitable surrogates were fucking this up and tried to rein things in this week (the catalyst for the make-nice seems to have been Bill Clinton reaching out to James Clyburn of SC and Clyburn talking to both camps). I was relieved about the turn I saw in the debate, as well as the heckler telling MSNBC to stop race-baiting! I’m an Edwards guy, but I don’t think race dividing the two “front-runners” (sigh!) helps anyone. Let’s have a debate about Iraq, Iran, the debtor crisis, and forget this shit.

  8. Bonnie  •  Jan 17, 2008 @8:13 pm

    I have worked for the Federal Government for 30 years. The one thing I know is that you cannot run the Federal Government like a business. All the administrations who tried that have failed. Right now, I have supervisors/managers who spout business buzz words; but, don’t know any thing substantive about how to get the work done. We, at the lower levels, get no support from “management” to help us do our job. I am so sick of this administration. It has ruined the last seven years of my Federal service.



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile