May 09, 2008

Race-Based Initiative

CLINTON: Trying To Get An Entry On StuffWhitePeopleLike.com?

Coming on the heels of Geoff Garin boasting that Hillary Clinton had made "progress" with the white vote, the liberal blogosphere is in an uproar over remarks made by Clinton herself in USA Today: "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on. [An AP report] found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. ... There's a pattern emerging here."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "There sure is a pattern emerging here. The Clintons are using racism to try to win the nomination against a black man. And our party leaders are okay with it. ... Is it any wonder blacks aren't voting for Hillary? They shouldn't vote for Hillary, ever again."
• Pam's House Blend's pam: "The frame is specific -- that's why Clinton referred to hard working white Americans. What happened to 'blue collar Americans?' Oh wait, there are a lot of hard working black and brown blue collar/working class Americans, and many of them they voted for Obama, so she had to slice that demo down to the bottom line. ... I want to believe that it wasn't a purposeful slip of the tongue because it's too painful to contemplate that the black vote is now perceived as a 'problem' because it skews to Obama, and because there are more white voters who have a problem with him based on his race, we have to nail that demo. Remember, the black vote has been the most reliable Democratic vote, not the Reagan Democrats."
• Andrew Sullivan: "If a Republican said this about a black opponent, his career would be in jeopardy for racism."
• Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz: "Race has been the subtext of much of Hillary's argument for her own electability. But now she's thrown it right out there in the open: Obama can't win because he's black. Vote for me instead. You don't have to believe that Hillary's a racist (I don't) to conclude that a combination of the rigors of the campaign trail and her own powerful ambitions have clouded her judgment and curdled her spirit. It has certainly soured what had been a historic relationship between the Clintons and the black community."
• The Jed Report: "Clinton is making these comments to get attention. Her campaign is broke and she needs free media. She knows that the press loves to cover conflict, especially this kind of conflict. She's serving up raw meat on a platter, consequences be damned. ... Should we just ignore Clinton? After all, she hasn't a shot of winning the nomination. ... So I think what we do is calmly -- but forcefully -- reject Clinton's divisive rhetoric, using fact and reason instead of invective and fury."

More-moderate bloggers were critical of Clinton's remarks, but were willing to give her the benefit of the doubt:

• Matt Yglesias: "As quoted, that's a dumb thing to say which seems to imply that non-white voters or perhaps all Obama supporters are lazy. But add a pinch of charitable interpretation into the dynamic, and I think Clinton's meaning is perfectly clear -- she really does do better than Obama among white working class voters in Democratic primary elections. I don't buy the argument ... that this edge among white working class Democratic primary voters indicates a substantial Clinton electability edge in the general election ... but it's a common argument and not an offensive one."
• The Stump's Michael Crowley: "It's definitely uncomfortable to hear her say it, but if Hillary thinks white Americans won't elect a black president, is it so transgressive for her to say it out loud? Everyone in politics and media has been having this conversation for more than a year now. If anything it seems better than reliance on cutesy euphemisms like 'working class' or 'electability.' I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong but I think it's worth considering this before the latest 'race-baiter' pile-on gets underway in earnest."
• Ben Smith: "I'm of two minds about it. On one hand, as Crowley points out, it was perhaps a matter of speaking plainly about what the media and partisans of both sides have been chattering about for months. ... [On the other hand,] her language -- 'hard-working Americans, white Americans' -- is rankling with people who think she's making an equation there. (Or that her campaign is deliberately pushing the race angle.) And the candidate's blunt discussion of race runs the risk of turning her more abstract 'electability' argument into a case for the nomination based on the assertion that white people won't vote for the black candidate. That's going to be very hard for many Democrats, particularly African-American superdelegates, to stomach, whether or not they think it's true."

Not many bloggers defended Clinton outright (Taylor Marsh was noticeably silent). But MyDD's Jerome Armstrong spoke out forcefully against the uproar: "Reading through the comments, it's pretty amazing to consider what the Obama supporters are saying about Clinton. ... Now, when Barack Obama made his claim about the 'typical white person', it didn't mean anything, he was just talking generalities; and the same thing with Clinton here, but even less so [but a 'gaffe' in the same manner]. Clinton clarifies that she's talking about working Americans that Obama is not doing well with, which are typically white, and she's 'ugly and divisive'? This is a lame stretch." However, he did add this caveat: "Political correctness on speaking about demographics has arrived, so are accusations of racism for speaking about voters in terms of their voting habits by skin color that far behind? [I hope] we can talk about a division without promoting it to happen."

Some bloggers were befuddled as to why Clinton, from a strategic point of view, would adopt such racial rhetoric. Contentions' Jennifer Rubin: "Has she ever come right out like this and said 'Whites aren't voting for him' before? She's talked about 'working-class' voters and women seniors, of course. But not once, in my recollection, has she spoken openly of any racial divide. Why on earth would she do this if she's not still committed to trying to scare superdelegates and whip up the vote in West Virginia? There doesn't seem much point, if she actually has the Democrats' best interests at heart. (And it won't help her get the VP slot, either.) Frankly, it makes about as much sense as her '3 a.m.' ad or her remarks touting John McCain's preparedness as commander-in-chief. All those suspicions about her preference for a potential one-term McCain presidency rather than a two-term Obama one are only going to increase with comments like this."

Others pushed back against suggestions of Machiavellian intent. Hilary Rosen: "I don't know what Hillary Clinton will do in the next few weeks. But I do know that she is not going to take an unwinnable fight to the convention and spoil the party. ... And she will resolve her campaign the way she has lived her entire career -- with class, commitment and intelligence. And if that were to happen, mark my words, she will be the MOST valuable surrogate Barack Obama has in the fall campaign."

Many liberal bloggers went beyond the ethical arguments to attack Clinton's electability argument and the statistics she based it upon:

• Markos Moulitsas "How is that not race-baiting? Are African Americans not hard working? Are Americans with college degrees not hard working? And this obsession with race! And she's wrong, too." [TABLE OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA] "So how can Clinton be so wrong? Because she's citing an AP-Yahoo News poll from back on May 3rd. Rather than cite actual voter data, she is basing her claims on an old poll taken before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. Yup. That's what Hillary Clinton has been reduced to. Ignoring actual votes and cherry picking polls. Which really, shouldn't surprise anyone. She's already ignored and belittled every state and voter demographic that doesn't support her [in order to confirm] her manufactured reality."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "So much for the notion that Barack Obama is uniquely weak among White voters. New Gallup polling puts that theory to rest as well. ... So at a point when Obama was getting hit as hard in the media (both paid and nonpartisan) as he ever has, attacked for his relationship with a neighbor (Bill Ayers) and his former pastor (Jeremiah Wright), Obama still runs about as well as did John Kerry, who only narrowly lost the last presidential election.... For reference, Al Gore received 42 percent of the White vote in 2000, so Obama does not run too far behind him either."
• Singer also takes the opportunity to undercut Obama's supposed weakness with Jewish voters: "So when you actually delve into the numbers, it becomes clear that these numbers actually bode fairly well for Obama's chances among Jewish voters in November. What's more, these numbers seriously undercut the notion that Obama has a serious problem among American Jews resulting from false smear emails or whatever else."
• Alex Koppelman: "There are two problems with what Clinton said. First, there's the assumption that voting patterns in the primaries accurately predict voting patterns in the general election. ... But even if we concede the above point, there's still the matter of the unspoken demographic problem Clinton herself faces. African-American voters are absolutely critical to the Democratic Party. And while it's true that Obama trails behind Clinton in winning support from white working-class voters, it's not as if he's getting no support from that group whatsoever. Clinton, on the other hand, has almost no support left from African-American voters."
• The Jed Report: Barack Obama has won more pledged delegates, more states, and more votes than Hillary Clinton, no matter how you count it. Under any imaginable standard, he will enter the fall campaign with a broader, larger political base than would Hillary Clinton. [Also,] a disproportionate share of Clinton's support from white voters comes from women who are basing their vote on gender more than race. ... Clinton might be able to find a trend line over the course of a few weeks that looks good for her, but any real perspective shows just how much support Barack Obama has been able to build -- and just how much she has squandered. ... At one point, Clinton did have a bigger and broader political base. No longer."

A typical response to Clinton's remarks in the conservative blogosphere was nicely illustrated by Michelle Malkin: "Meanwhile, Hillary's playing the white card ... and the Obama-supporting nutroots are not happy. ... Really going to miss these food fights."

DEM FIELD: The Flor-igan Fight

Another debate raging in the liberal blogosphere is the dispute over how to settle the delegate controversy in FL and MI, states that Clinton supporters insist are crucial to her electability argument. Clinton added fuel to the fire yesterday when she sent an open letter to Obama demanding that the FL and MI delegations be seated without compromise.

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn: "As to all the Michigan plans proposed so far, none are fair to Hillary. I think all the delegates, not half of them, should be counted. Hillary should get her's now. Those who voted uncommitted should be seated at the convention as uncommitted votes and they choose between Hillary and Obama then, if the race is still going on. ... Barack Obama removed himself from the Michigan ballot and may get the delegates from those who voted for Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel, those who voted uncommitted, which includes those who voted for Edwards or truly were uncommitted and and 5 of HIllary's delegates. This is fair? This is new politics? This is vote-stealing."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "So let me get this straight -- the first act of the self declared Democratic nominee Barack Obama will be to state that Michigan and Florida will not count? This is insane. Two key states in November will be dissed in the first act of the newly crowned Democratic nominee. At the least, Obama should wait until he has 2209 delegates counting the existing Florida and Michigan delegations."
• Matthew Yglesias "Nothing would do more to help resolve the Florida and Michigan issue than for Clinton to drop out and endorse Obama. If she did that, the only remaining issue would be to strike a balance between representing FL and MI at the convention and slapping FL and MI on the wrist hard enough that states don't pull this kind of stunt again. ... It's the fact that the campaign is continuing that makes the question difficult to resolve because it has both campaigns focused on maximizing their delegate counts rather than dealing with the aforementioned issue. Which, I suppose, is part of what makes it such an appealing pretext for staying in the race -- as a rationale it has a nice circular logic where the campaign can't end 'till MI and FL are resolved, but the issue can't be resolved until the campaign ends, so on and on we go.
• Big Tent Democrat: "Barack Obama is almost certainly going to be the nominee. ... That's why I think attitudes like that exhibited by Matt Yglesias are totally misguided. If Obama loses the nomination, it won't be because Florida and Michigan are seated. It will take a huge meltdown for that to happen."

THE FIELD: Decked By Cards?

The big uproar in the conservative blogosphere centered on Obama's remark that John McCain was "losing his bearings" for touting to the media that Obama was endorsed by Hamas. The McCain camp shot back with a memo accusing Obama of use the "age card" against McCain.

• Michael Goldfarb: "In the same breath as [Obama] says McCain is name calling, he effectively calls McCain a senile old coot. Mark Salter put out a statement blasting Obama over the rank hypocrisy of his attack. Of course what's really absurd is Obama's insistence that his policy towards Hamas is no different than McCain's. This might be true if Obama wasn't in such a rush to play pattycake with Iran, which provides the funding and training that sustain Hamas, and which, like Hamas, denies Israel's right to exist."
• Hot Air: "McCain's point here goes right to the heart of Obama's foreign policy. Yes, it's true that Obama's stance towards Hamas, incoherent though it is, isn't much different from the GOP's, leading one to wonder then why Ahmed Yousef should have any strong preference for him instead of McCain. The answer: Because he knows that the Messiah's willingness to engage in 'aggressive' diplomacy with one set of terrorist slackjaws means he's more likely to adopt that policy towards other sets. That's why no matter how much pro-Israeli rhetoric Obama offers, Palestinians continue to bitterly cling to the hope that he's going to be a new Jimmy Carter once he’s in office and free enough from electoral pressures to let the mask slip a bit."
• Contentions' Jennifer Rubin: "Barack Obama accused John McCain of 'smearing him' by claiming that Hamas wants Obama to be President. But this isn't a smear, it is fact. A spokesman for Hamas, you will recall, did endorse Obama."
• The Corner's Andy McCarthy: "King of Righteous Indignation, is righteously (actually, risibly) indignant over a "smear" by John McCain -- namely, McCain's factually true (and totally understandable) observation that Hamas wants Obama to be president. ... I hope Sen. McCain does not decide that this, like the patently relevant Wright matter, is somehow beneath his dignity to discuss."
• Sullivan: "My response is simply that honorable campaigns do not allow foreign agents, especially terrorist organizations, to insert themselves into American presidential politics. No respectable foreign governments do such a thing; and the gambits of al Qaeda, Hamas, or any other grouping to play one candidate against another should in general be ignored, not exploited. ... It's a lame and cheap shot. And beneath McCain."

THE FIELD: The Activist Vs. The Decider

Many bloggers are also criticizing Obama for his judicial philosophy, which they claim is too legislative (or "activist") in nature.

• The Swamp's James Oliphant: "It's an interesting, if not shocking, exercise to match Obama's remarks up against those made by John McCain on judges earlier this week. ... Where McCain seemed to suggest that courts should involve themselves in controversies only when necessary, Obama clearly views their duty more expansively, especially in terms of leveling the playing field between rich and poor."
• Hot Air: "In our earlier threads, some of our commenters insisted that there would be no difference between McCain and Obama on judicial appointments. Obama himself made the difference clear; he wants judges who would impose social policy rather than interpret and enforce existing law. This makes sense from a legislator who has done nothing to propose social policy in his three years in the Senate. He would rather take the shortcut on which liberal activists have grown to rely when they realize that their radical plans have little chance of success in the legislative process."
• RedState's Tom Feeney: "Over the last half of this century, the United States Supreme Court has frequently elected to decide what the law should be rather than what the law actually is. ... As we approach the coming election, we must have leaders that are dedicated to upholding the rule of law and finding judicial nominees that are able to exercise the kind of restraint that Senator McCain promotes. Senator McCain recognizes that the real and desired activism in our country is democratic rather than judicial."

Others, however, claim that McCain too heavily favors executive power, and has allowed it to encroach too heavily upon the Constiution. Glenn Greenwald: "Virtually every abuse of the last eight years has its roots in the Bush/Cheney view of the President as Monarch, and John McCain clearly endorses its fundamentals. Indeed, when responding to a questionnaire on executive power circulated to all the candidates, [McCain] refused to say that there was even a single aspect of Bush's use of executive power that he found unconstitutional or otherwise objectionable. ... By contrast, Obama answered the same question at length, [and] then went on specifically to identify numerous issues -- torture, detention of Americans as 'enemy combatants' without due process, warrantless surveillance, violations of international treaties, the lawless creation of military commissions -- which he said were unconstitutional or otherwise objectionable expressions of excessive Presidential power. By contrast, McCain refused to identify even a single Bush assertion of power he rejects."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY:

P.J. O'Rourke: "All politics stink. Even democracy stinks. Imagine if our clothes were selected by the majority of shoppers, which would be teenage girls. I'd be standing here with my bellybutton exposed. Imagine deciding the dinner menu by family secret ballot. I've got three kids and three dogs in my family. We'd be eating Froot Loops and rotten meat."

LEST WE FORGET:

From "Deep Thoughts," by Jack Handey: "One thing kids like is to be tricked. For instance, I was going to take my little nephew to Disneyland, but instead I drove him to an old burned-out warehouse. 'Oh, no,' I said. 'Disneyland burned down.' He cried and cried, but I think that deep down, he thought it was a pretty good joke. I started to drive over to the real Disneyland, but it was getting pretty late."

Posted by cbodenner at May 9, 2008 01:04 PM