Hope not, but there has been some weird stuff said in the last week that has made me wonder. I think Clinton haters tend to think that everything she does is calculated, even the tears. I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt on that, but this post at TPM Greg Sargent raises the issue about a deliberate race-and-gender strategy developing. If there’s something substantive here, maybe the tears were fake. Are the following excerpts from commenters responding to Sargent’s post examples of unhinged Clinton hatred, or is it the Clintons that are becoming unhinged? I don’t know:
The pattern?
– HRC’s comments suggesting that LBJ did more for civil rights than Dr. King – and by implication, suggesting that Obama couldn’t actually accomplish anything
– Bill Clinton’s repeated references to Obama as unqualified, too risky, etc.
– Billy Shaheen’s drug comments, followed by Mark Penn’s repeated reference to "cocaine" during a national television program
– Andrew Cuomo’s "shuck and jive" comments
– The "imaginary hip black friend" line quoted today in the Guardian
– The Bob Kerrey comments about his middle name, followed up with a comment about a "madrassa"
A pattern? A set of unconnected dots?–Terje
***
This is a reference to something Dick Morris said would happen: the Clintons are injecting race into the campaign through a series of statements that when viewed in isolation can be spun to look innocent. As a result, race becomes an issue and not only can the Clintons claim innocence, they can play the victim if Obama or anyone else dares play the race card. I think it’s becoming clear this is what’s happening, and I’m afraid it will play into Bill and Hillary’s hands.–Captain Obvious
***
The Clinton campaign wants nothing more than to bring race front and center in this election. There is nothing that could help her more politically. If she prods Obama to point out how her remarks about (how MLK needed Johnson to actually accomplish anything) or her campaigns several other remarks are racist she wins over support of the remains of racism in the Democratic party. At the same time, she wins over support of all whites who aren’t following the issue and immediately see Obama as making it about race. Since there are many more whites than blacks in the democratic party, Clinton knows that this will help her (as disgusting as it is).
At the same time, Clinton can also make the race about gender as much as she wants (ie. making it look like the "boys" are ganging up on her). Since women outnumber men in the democratic race, this also helps her win.
In conclusion 🙂 if the race becomes about either race or gender, Clinton wins.Who loses (besides Obama): The democratic party, who will have successfully alienated: men, african americans, intelligent people who can see this, and younger voters. . . . –Kevin
Is it true that for the Obama campaign to call the Clinton campaign racist, even if it is using subtly racist strategies, is a losing proposition? Is it true that the gender bias accusation doesn’t work against the Clintons the same way? I know politics is a tough game, but If this nomination contest becomes a race-and-gender slugfest, it plays right into the Republicans’ hands. The country turns to bomb, bomb, bomb–bom-bomba Iran McCain (or worse) for a sane alternative. It will be interesting to see how Obama deals with this if it turns out that the Clintons are in fact deliberately playing this kind of dirty pool.
Leave a Reply