It's about politics...A professor once told me that to grasp the concept of politics is to simply understand it is about who gets what, when, where, and how... The "Neo-Demo" is my terminology for this era of democrats that is largely different from the the 1940's-1960's Democratic leaders by and large,...and not a compliment btw,...but we are on the cusp of what one democratic leader says is not the same ol' from the democratic leadership...Another who is likely the greatest tactical politician I have ever seen...(although she is quite loathing) but based on the history that is being played out in front of us.... it is not easy to overlook the significance of "never before"...At least not so much...Try not to make it about race,...you can't... A white woman for President ...or a Black man for President...that is something...Race is not what it should be about, but I believe The Clinton's did not make a "mistake" on aggravating blacks over MLK... The Clinton's are too calculating...I mean Hillary like her or not is likely the greatest tactician in politics ever...She is a stone cold, and calculating machine...They are too smart to mis-speak on MLK and his significance... I feel there is a strategy to divide the races, and the numbers are in favor of the Clintons...They know this....{I realize this has been brought up and I want to give credit to others who have talked about this before me...} What I want to do is ask:... will it work? How does it feel to be played? Is it right? When you are in it to win it,...do the means justify the ends? The Democrats' Southern Strategy By Jacob Laksin FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, January 28, 2008 Pay no attention to the exit polls. That seemed to be the furtive message of the Obama campaign, following its Saturday night landslide victory in the South Carolina primary. As the dapper Obama was delivering the high-minded rhetoric that has become a stump staple – and as his supporters defiantly proclaimed that “Race doesn't matter!” – the cold data told a less wholesome story. Behind Obama’s 55 percent to 27 percent drubbing of Hillary Clinton were some telling figures. Most notably, Obama overwhelmingly drew his support from blacks, who made up approximately half of the Democratic electorate in the state. Black women, seemingly immune to Clinton’s appeals for feminist solidarity, went for Obama by a solid margin of 4-to-1. Race does matter, it turns out. As much was cannily forecast by Bill Clinton. Savoring his current role as the lead attack dog of his wife’s campaign, the ex-president shrewdly handicapped the result when he charged, in the days before the primary, that the Obama campaign was getting votes largely “because of their race or gender.” Translation: A white woman like Hillary “doesn't have a chance of winning here.” That she didn’t win doesn’t necessarily vindicate Clinton’s assessment. Nor does it prove that the Clintons’ decidedly divisive tactics during the past week – among which were laughable allegations that the prosaically liberal Obama was a closet Republican – were solely to blame for the racially polarized result. After all, the results by race were similarly lopsided in Nevada, where Obama previously won some 80 percent of the black vote. Nonetheless, Clinton’s loss casts into sharp relief the plain fact that the Democratic race has become stratified along racial lines, with blacks siding with Obama and whites and Hispanics favoring Clinton. Indeed, polls conducted just prior to Saturday’s primary showed that the cresting support for Obama among black voters was matched by a drop-off in support among whites. This racial dynamic is not without irony. In past election cycles, Democrats and their surrogates have gleefully and promiscuously indicted Republicans for exercising a “Southern strategy” to divide voters by race. Now they must cope with the uncomfortable reality that the ugly forces they have attributed to their opponents are prominently at play in their own nomination process. To be sure, those seeking to understand the phenomenon would do well to avoid the popular media. The Washington Post, in its summary of the South Carolina results, insisted that Obama won on the strength of “a biracial coalition,” a conclusion scarcely supported by the numbers, even if one takes into account that he took 25 percent of the white vote. CNN, in a headline more hopeful than accurate, declared, “Voters not swayed by racial politics.” It’s enough to make one reflect with sympathy on President Clinton’s complaint that the Obama campaign has been living a “fairy tale” created by sanitized press coverage. What then can one learn from the dissolution of the Democratic race into squabbling identity politics? At least one prevalent conclusion – that the Clinton campaign is now in “crisis” and must moderate its strategy to win – appears off the mark. Strong though Obama’s performance was in South Carolina, it is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere.On the contrary, all evidence points to turbulence ahead for his campaign. One obvious concern is that, with larger numbers of Hispanics and smaller numbers of blacks, upcoming states are markedly different in their racial composition from South Carolina. California, with its rich reward of 440 delegates, is a case in point. Just seven percent black, the state has a growing Hispanic population – 35 percent of the state is Hispanic – that favors Clinton by a 3-1 margin. Factor in the open animosity between blacks and Hispanics, itself the byproduct of mass immigration and economic competition, and the state increasingly looks like hostile territory for Obama, a fact reflected in the nearly 20 point lead that, according to Realclearpolitics.com, Clinton enjoys in the state. Key battleground states like New Mexico and Arizona are shaping up along similar plotlines, and Clinton has stable leads in “home” states like New York and New Jersey. A compelling case could be made the Clintons are substantially responsible for the racial tensions roiling their party. But if the ultimate goal is to win, it’s difficult to see the flaw in their campaign strategy. Not so in the case of John Edwards. It was just four years ago that the South Carolina-born Edwards triumphed in the state’s primary. This time around, he has utterly failed to gain traction, running a malevolent, quasi-Marxist campaign that every day threatens to set the bar for populist cynicism and demagogic excess. Edwards may prattle on glibly about giving “voice to millions of Americans who have absolutely no voice in this democracy,” but his dismal last-place finish on Saturday is only the latest sign that his campaign has passed its political sell-by date. Popular wisdom holds that 2008 is destined to be a Democratic year. But it’s hard to believe that the divisive nomination battle will leave the party untarnished come the general election. For the eventual nominee, alienating whole swaths of the electorate might prove just enough to win the Democratic crown – and just enough to turn off the rest of the country.
This will be ultimately the determining factor in this race - did the Clintons' strategy force a split in the vote by race that wasn't there before? It's hard to say at this point - it may simply be something unique to South Carolina or the South. For example, the latest polls in California - taken before SC's results - show Obama and Clinton tied in the white vote. Nevertheless, Clinton has a solid 15 pt lead due to impressive Hispanic support (Obama has strong black support, but there are relatively few black voters in California). Bill Clinton was loved by the Hispanic community, so who knows if Obama can break into that. Obama has to bridge the gap with some group of people - whether that be poor, hispanic, older, less educated, or white. If he can make substantial progress with one of those groups or some progress with at least two of the groups, he's in good shape. The other question is what Edwards does and if people still keep voting for him. Obama definitely has an uphill climb though.
ROX, I know this subject has been bandied about, but considering the impact race and gender, for better or for worse (depending on one's point of view), on the selection of a nominee by Democrats and in the general election, could you or someone else give me a link showing where Bill Clinton said this? Savoring his current role as the lead attack dog of his wife’s campaign, the ex-president shrewdly handicapped the result when he charged, in the days before the primary, that the Obama campaign was getting votes largely “because of their race or gender.” I want to add that I still fail to see how Ms. Clinton stating the obvious, that it took a President to push through what Dr. King wanted (at least part of his dream... not all, by any means), the Voting Rights Act, was somehow a slam on Dr. King. I simply don't see it. If the Obama campaign is seriously attempting to use those words by Ms. Clinton to accuse her of demeaning the efforts of Dr. King, I think it is despicable. It is twisting the truth out of all recognition. I hope I have misunderstood the entire, to use basso's pet phrase, kerfluffle. Impeach Bush.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Obama campaign even responded directly to that comment. What caused the race brouhaha was the series of comments. It was Hillary with the MLK/LBJ thing. Then Bill with the fairy tale comment. Then Cuomo with the "Obama can't shuck and jive to the White House". Then the BET guy. Then the Hillary staffer that said brown people won't vote for black people as the race moved to Nevada. All of that happened within a few days - after basically zero references to anything remotely connected to race in the months leading up to that. Each one of the comments is individually defensible pretty well. Taken all together, it was a pattern. And it just grew from there. It became THE topic of conversation with the media so both campaigns were constantly asked about, and so each responded, keeping the topic alive. Overzealous surrogates on each side flamed things even more. Then, after both sides saying they needed to cool it, Bill talked about how it's OK for blacks to like Obama because he's black and women to like Hillary because she's a woman. Then he made the Jesse Jackson comparison. It was basically an effort to keep race as a topic of discussion - and then let the media feed on it until it becomes about Obama being the black candidate.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-24-sc-bill-clinton_N.htm "As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender," he said. "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here."
A. I don't see where Ms. Clinton's statement about needing a President to push through part of what Dr. King wanted was a slam at Dr. King, not matter how someone wants to spin it. I just don't. It is true. It did take a President willing to go against his own political party's interests to get the Voting Rights Act passed. B. "Bill talked about how it's OK for blacks to like Obama because he's black and women to like Hillary because she's a woman." What is wrong with that statement? Isn't it true? C. (I promise this is the last letter of the alphabet I'll use! ) When did Bill say that the Obama campaign was getting votes largely “because of their race or gender.” ? Did I miss it? I'm not saying he didn't say that, but I didn't hear or read it anywhere. I must have missed it. (just saw your link... I'll read it) Impeach Bush.
Ok, here is the full article: Bill Clinton says race, gender to decide S.C. vote DILLON, South Carolina (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton downplayed recent acrimony between her campaign and that of Barack Obama as her husband, former President Bill Clinton, suggested she may lose Saturday's Democratic presidential primary because many black voters will side with Obama. Meanwhile, Republicans looked to Florida, where a closely-fought race could help anoint the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination. The former first lady's comments to the Associated Press came as she prepared a speech on ways halt the global economic slide and stabilize U.S. financial markets. "We're in a very heated campaign, and people are coming out and saying all kinds of things," Hillary Clinton said in the interview Wednesday. "I'm out there every day making a positive case for my candidacy. I have a lot of wonderful people, including my husband, who are out there making the case for me." Bill Clinton's unusually direct comment Wednesday on the possible role of race in the election was in keeping with the Clintons' bid to portray Obama, who is aiming to become the first black U.S. president, as the clear favorite, thereby lessening the potential fallout if Hillary Clinton does not win in South Carolina. The race for the Democratic presidential nomination has essentially been dominated by New Hampshire primary winner Clinton and Obama, who secured the coveted win the lead-off Iowa caucuses. Stuck in third place was former North Carolina senator John Edwards, a former vice presidential candidate whose White House bid has been overshadowed by the personality-driven campaigns of his rivals. Voting for president along racial and gender lines "is understandable, because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time," Bill Clinton told a Charleston audience Wednesday while campaigning for his wife, a role he has played all week. His comments and later outburst came on a day when Obama continued to challenge Hillary Clinton's candor and trustworthiness. He said his chief rival has indulged in double-talk on bankruptcy laws, trade and other issues. The atmosphere grew more charged after Clinton's campaign aired a radio ad in South Carolina suggesting Obama approved of Republican ideas. Obama responded with his own radio spot that says, "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected." Bill Clinton, campaigning on the coast while Obama was inland, said Obama and the media had stirred up tensions over race in response to some Democrats' criticisms of the couple's strategies. "I never heard a word of public complaint when Mr. Obama said Hillary was not truthful," and had "no character, was poll-driven. He had more pollsters than she did," the ex-president said in a heated exchange with a CNN reporter. "When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called her the senator from Punjab, I never said a word." It was not clear what he meant by "hit job," and Hillary Clinton refused to speculate in the interview. Last year, Obama's campaign circulated a memo describing Hillary Clinton as "D-Punjab," a reference to her Indian-American donors. Obama has said that was a mistake. Bill Clinton said black civil rights leaders Andrew Young and John Lewis have defended his wife. "They both said that Hillary was right and the people who attacked her were wrong and that she did not play the race card, but they did," he said. Clinton said the news media is much tougher on his wife than on Obama. At the end of the exchange, he told the CNN reporter, "Shame on you." Clinton also told about 100 people in Charleston that he was proud of the Democratic Party for having a woman and a black candidate and he understands why Obama is drawing support among blacks, who may comprise up to half of Saturday's turnout. "As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender," he said. "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here." Meanwhile, Edwards, who has staked his fading hopes on the Jan. 26 contest in South Carolina, where he was born and whose primary he won in 2004, stepped into the increasingly bitter exchange between Clinton and Obama on Wednesday. He criticized Clinton for leaving South Carolina after Monday's debate while she focused on the Feb. 5 mega-primary where wins could easily open the door for the party's presidential nomination. "What are the chances she's coming back when she's president of the United States?" Edwards said at a rally. On the Republican side, the Jan. 29 Florida primary could help sort out a wide open race. The race is now essentially split among three men: John McCain; Mitt Romney; and Rudy Giuliani, who has yet to win any of six state contests. Support for Giuliani appears to have plummeted, however, in a state where he focused most of his attention. A St. Petersburg Times poll Wednesday showed the Florida race to be a dead heat between McCain, with 25%, and Romney, with 23%, while Giuliani and Mike Huckabee trail at 15%. More than a quarter of the likely voters surveyed — 27% — said they still may change their minds. The state offers the winner a hefty 57 delegates to the party convention and it serves as a gateway to the Feb. 5 de facto national primary day. Republicans are focusing on the struggling U.S. economy — and who is most capable of dealing with it. "We will have a pro-growth, pro-economic, low-tax, low-spending agenda when I'm president," McCain said Wednesday during an economic round-table with local business officials. Romney unveiled a new ad about his experience as a businessman, the most visible element of his strategy to try to prove that he is the only candidate who can turn around the U.S. economy. Not to be outdone, Giuliani said Wednesday in Estero on Florida's southwest coast: "I was tested dealing with an economy that was in very bad shape when I became mayor of New York City." Preacher-turned-politician Mike Huckabee now seems to be running a low-budget campaign not for the nomination but rather to be seen as the newest leader of the conservative Christian wing of the party. Up for grabs are backers of Fred Thompson, who abandoned the race Tuesday after performing poorly in South Carolina. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-24-sc-bill-clinton_N.htm As a former President who's wife is running for President, we're in uncharted territory. Bill is campaigning for his wife. I don't doubt that he's been unhappy with some of what he's heard from the Obama campaign, as he illustrated here. As you know, Major, politics is a rough and tumble game. You are saying or implying that this was a coordinated effort by the Clinton campaign to use Obama's race against him. That's how I read it, anyway, and if I misunderstood, my apologies. At the same time, though, we are supposed to believe that the Obama campaign isn't also coordinating its attacks on Hillary Clinton? Bill was working to dampen expectations for Ms. Clinton in South Carolina, when their internal polling must have told them it was going to be a big loss. There is nothing wrong with that, from where I sit. It's SOP for a political campaign. There is so much uncharted water here it's just crazy. You have a serious candidate who's a woman, a first, and a serious candidate who is Black, also a first. How can race not come up? Or gender? And what the heck does Punjab have to do with anything? That "jab" came from Obama's campaign. Shouldn't the Punjabi people be incensed? Stay tuned... I'm sure this will get crazier than it is already. I've said before that I am not a fan of Ms. Clinton. Not because I think she wouldn't be a good President, particularly based on the standard the American people have become used to the last 7 years, but because I think she would be the least difficult for a Republican to beat. No, I'm not saying she'll lose if she gets the nomination, but that it would be closer, and dirtier, than might be the case with someone else, due to 15 years of non-stop character assassination by the GOP. I'm just saying Mr. Obama can't have his cake and eat it too. Impeach Bush.
I'm suggesting exactly that - that once things went awry for the Clinton people in Iowa, they changed strategies and within a matter of days, after months of race NOT remotely being an issue, the Clintons and their surrogates made a number of vague, well-placed race-related quotes to put race on the table. And it worked - within the week, race was the hot topic amongst all the media. I agree - nothing wrong with it as a singular instance. Just convenient how many times race started coming up within a very short period of time. Why compare Obama's win to Jesse Jackson in 1988? Why not John Edwards in 2004? It never came up in the year of campaigning leading up to Iowa. It came from an Obama campaign staffer sometime in the early/mid 2007 (I want to say May or June, but I'm not positive). And Obama apologized for it at the time and went off on the staffer that did it (there was a big Newsweek article about this after Iowa, though I can't find it offhand. Obama said it was the worst moment of his campaign.) I agree - Obama got sucked in and fell for the bait. And he paid the price. It may ultimately be the undoing of his campaign. But several things of note. 1. Obama didn't start any of the race talk; in fact, he didn't really respond until after it was brought up numerous times by Clinton & surrogates over the few days surrounding NH and was forced into a major media story. 2. Obama's campaign has never once made Hillary's gender an issue; if race just had to come up, why hasn't gender? 3. When the two sides agreed to back off in the Nevada debate, his side did; Bill continued talking race.
Thanks for the great reply, Major. You're one of the members here who "gets" politics. Refreshing. Right now, I'm leaning towards Obama. There were those here who made light of the Caroline Kennedy endorsement, but that had an influence on me. I agree that Ted Kennedy's is far more important nationally, especially with the Latino vote, but also in some other areas of the country with large union blocks and large numbers of liberal Democrats and Independents. Kerry? I believe his endorsement might actually be a negative, but hopefully he'll stay in the background, relish his moment "in the sun," and leave the Obama campaign alone. Impeach Bush.
Thanks While I absolutely can't stand Clinton, I totally understand her appeal. I just hope she loses! I think the main (or maybe only) benefit to Kerry's endorsement was that he emailed 3 million people (or at least 3 million email addresses) a few times asking them to support Obama. Whether it works or anything, who knows. But apparently, it gives Obama access to a lot of donors and potential voters. I'm glad he's not out there campaigning for Obama though. That would be a disaster! That's good to hear that the Kennedy impact made a small difference to you - I'm always curious what impact endorsements have. Having not lived through the JFK/RFK years, I don't really have a comparison point to have a real good sense of their impact outside of what I read today.
I know that people younger than a certain age just don't remember those years and what an enormous impact Jack Kennedy, and his brother, had on America and American politics. They read the history books and watch some grainy film, wondering what the big deal was. Without the context of living in America in the 1950's and the carry over into the '60's, one could fail to understand what a revolutionary thing his election, and Bobby's political run, really were for this country. Think Obama on steroids and you might get in the ballpark. Not that close, but ballpark. Their deaths changed this country, and not for the better. There are still several million people, besides me, who remember those years, and a lot of them actually vote. Impeach Bush.
