Identity Theft

Posted by Freddie on January 15, 2008 under Liberate Your Radio from The Right |

After realizing that the biggest fraud of an entitlement program–marrying her way to the presidency–was in jeopardy, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated just how poisonous Clintonism will be if we allow it to return for a sequel. She has finally distilled the Democratic primary contest to the basest type of identity politics.

Until immediately after Iowa, Barack Obama had succeeded in running a campaign of ideas and inspiration. (For anyone who thinks he’s short on substance, I encourage you to read his Blueprint for Change.) Finally, after his win in the Iowa caucus, there were a few media references that seemed borne out of a feeling of pleasant surprise that a black man had won among Democrats in this overwhelmingly white state.

Then came New Hampshire, where Hillary, dramatically under threat of not getting her presidential handout, “found [her] voice.” She became a woman to win over women.

And now, as South Carolina, where approximately 50% of the Democratic voting bloc is black looms on the horizon, she has dragged the two front-runners into the muck of identity politics.

Let’s review:

her own comments about the legacy of MLK vis a vis LBJ
Andrew Cuomo’s (a Clinton supporter) “shuck and jive” comments
Robert Johnson’s (a black Clinton supporter) comments about Obama’s behavior in “the neighborhood” and comparison to Sidney Poitier a la Look Who’s Coming to Dinner

The Washington Post presents a summary of the whole sordid tale.

I’ll even give Bill a pass on his “fairy tale” comment since I’m familiar enough with the context of his remarks.

The Clinton camp knows that the race issue actually hurts Obama. Obama has run his campaign specifically against the legacy of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Until he was actually a threat (”those meddling kids”), he might’ve gotten away with it. Now, though, every political news item I read, every NPR discussion program I hear, is talking about the politics of race.

Sadly, the Obama camp is responding by playing too much defense. Circulating a memo highlighting Clinton camp transgressions only fuels the fire.

I see the hand of Howard Wolfson (Hillary’s own Karl Rove) in all of this. He and Bill are surely aware that, as with Karl Rove and the evangelical vote, they can sacrifice just enough of America’s black vote (which they’re losing in South Carolina) if they can engineer enough of a Bradley effect to keep Obama from winning the delegate count. Identity politics and the racializing of Obama is going to stem the tide of superdelegates we saw start to go for Obama after New Hampshire (a brilliant timing move on the part of the Obama campaign until the Clintons intervened).

In a way, I think it would’ve been better for Democrats if New Hampshire had served for Obama as a Kerryesque coronation so that we could’ve put paid to the Clintons once and for all. Beating the Clintons in Iowa, I think, was liberating for many Democrats around the country. They saw that they were able to vote their hopes and still back a winning horse. Even though we saw Ken Mehlman’s hand in identity politics when the RNC stuck it’s nose into the competition between Harold Ford, Jr. and Bob Corker in 2006 (”Call me!”), I actually think the Clintons would be more willing to play this game than any of McCain, Romney, or Huckabee (sorry Thompson, Giuliani, and Paul fans: I think your guys are done.). I think watching Obama take on any of the Republican candidates would be a breath of fresh air in national politics. Obama/McCain would be an especially beneficial debate about the direction of our country precisely because it would engage independents as much as partisans. I’d sacrifice the experience/change debate during the primary since I’m sure it will be reprised during the general.

Maybe Obama wins in Nevada and South Carolina will trump Clinton “wins” in Michigan and Florida (whose delegates won’t be seated by the DNC at the Democratic National Convention as a result of violations of rules regarding primary dates by the state parties in question). But watch for the Clinton team to promote a “victory” in Michigan today, despite hers being the only name on the ballot.

I certainly hope that there are enough Democratic primary voters to reject the rest of the Clinton brand of politics, like an unfortunate organ transplant, as not self. We have an opportunity to move beyond the “same old fights of the 90s”, but the Clintons don’t seem to want to let go of them. I sincerely think Obama entering the arena for a true contest of ideas would be of benefit for America. But putting the Bush-Clinton era behind us entirely? That’s change I can believe in…

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani

Volunteer Voters » Scorched Earth said,

[...] now and read Thomas F. O’Connell’s take on the race war going on in the Democratic Party: The Clinton camp knows that the race issue [...]
» The Joy That Is The Democratic Primary said,

[...] out this post from Freddie of Liberadio, an Obama supporter. After realizing that the biggest fraud of an [...]
S-townMike said,

I am really loath to blog about this at Enclave for fear of encouraging the culture war. However, I agree with you about strategists playing identity cards in order to win, especially with regard to Clinton playing the race card. To a certain extent her performance in the NH debate and and her tearful response afterwards were probably also strategic and planned.

However, her political opponents and media commentators made errors in underestimating the effect of derogating the weeping woman, and Obama’s somewhat aloof response to her during the debate was not good even if Hillary was posing as vulnerable and human. Even if Hillary resorts to the low road of identity politics, the other candidates should be very careful about the way they handle the gender issue (and treating Gilliganical references to “voice” sarcastically instead of just ignoring them drives wedges. Cynicism may be wise, but it may not be good public relations for one’s candidate. I know a couple of folks who don’t trust Hillary and won’t vote for her who tell me they got goosebumps when she referred to finding her voice; and when I heard her say it, I thought more that she was referencing stepping out of her husband’s shadow).

There is lesson here from the 1990s. According to Molly Ivins, Ann Richards won over enough moderate Texans to become Governor her first time around. She did it by goading her slow-witted Republican opponent into derogatory gendered comments that won over many women frustrated by the relatively large obstacles they had to face because of gender. George W. Bush beat Richards, says Ivins, because he refused to be pushed into a debate that didn’t line up with his pet policy issues. I think Obama should have followed suit in NH and he would have won. He shouldn’t have taken the swing he did at the debate and he should have been more vocal about defending Hillary when she was getting beaten up for going misty. He would have stolen her fire by showing himself on a higher road. But he didn’t. And I don’t care what kind of lipstick is put on the pig that was his loss in NH, it was a major set-back for his campaign (which I don’t think is a bad thing; losing something can be the best teacher).

Personally, the last few days have reminded me that Democrats have a habit (which they don’t share with Republicans) for tearing themselves apart when they need to come together. Both sides of the Clinton-Obama divide have played the race card in ways inconsistent with the ideals of MLK, Jr. (Obama supporters have leaned on whole “first African American President” line ad nauseum and some have alluded to the positive effects of his presidency for the black community; that’s positively identity-oriented and not sufficient reasons to vote for any person: policy priorities and character are). And I think the Democratic campaign for the White House–much like Democratic leadership in Congress from 2006 on–is teetering and slouching toward failure. If we’re not careful, we’ll see another Republican Administration in 2009; McCain is angling moderate and the Dems are moving to the extremes.

Democrats seem always somehow fated to screw things up. Identity politics is just the latest tool for achieving failure.
Freddie said,

I agree that Obama’s too-cool-for-school response to Hillary’s likability was a serious misstep for his campaign.

Just like I think his campaign’s and his surrogates’ fanning the flames of race-baiting is going to hurt him in the long run.

I’m just squarely in the camp that thinks another dose of Clintonism is exactly what the Democrats and the country don’t need.
Mark Mays said,

No. If the Clintons continue this tactic past South Carolina, it doesn’t lose some of the Black vote. They will eventually martyr Obama and lose most of their Black support (rank and file), and there could even be a reverse Bradley effect for those remaining supporters. Once it appears that the Clinton team is actually attacking Obama because of his race or on issues pertaining to race, it can only end badly for them.

I don’t think they will keep this up past SC, or Feb 5th at the most.
Mary said,

“After realizing that the biggest fraud of an entitlement program – marrying her way to the presidency – was in jeopardy, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated just how poisonous Clintonism will be if we allow it to return for a sequel.”

Now you know I’m no HC fan, but this statement is offensive. Perhaps you might ask New Yorkers, whom she has served righteously for many years - if they think she’s marrying her way into the presidency. Do you honestly believe that she doesn’t have the qualifications to be president? You may not like her tactics or her policies or the way she may govern, but she is as qualified to run this country as any other candidate.
Freddie said,

“Righteously for many years”? She’s served one full term. She was elected in 2000. And if you don’t think that her state of choice and office of choice were 1) carefully planned for the presidency, and 2) based almost entirely on name recognition supplied by a marriage certificate, then we have very different definitions of experience and qualifications for the presidency.

I think she has the same right as anyone to run, but based on their respective experience, I think she and Obama have approximately equivalent qualifications. And I think Obama’s personal story actually better qualifies him for the job.
Mary said,

I think we have the same definition of experience and qualifications for the presidency. I’m simply willing to admit she has both the experience and the qualifications - even though she’s not my candidate of choice - and you aren’t. She was a politically active, smart and capable woman before she married and now she’s even more so.

I was trying to put this in perspective in my head last night and all I could think of was that if Laura, Barbara, Nancy or Rosalynn ran for the Senate after their husbands’ presidency was over, I’m not sure they would have won seats. I don’t know….And it’s more than HC being a political animal and those other women not being that way. She’s a wonky leader.
Freddie said,

I think the offense you took at my opening line might’ve prevented you from seeing the bigger picture: Hillary’s idea of how to present her qualifications to the American people involves a mean-spirited invocation of both gender and race that ought to be offensive to women, blacks, and everyone else. Clintonism is done, and I want to help stick a fork in it.
S-townMike said,

But while you’re singing the praises of the idea of the death of Clintonism, keep in mind that Obama has been doing a bit of triangulation himself, what with his recent ode to Ronald Reagan. Seriously, how far are all-in Obama supporters willing to go with this whole idea of reaching across the aisle to bring Republicans on board? It is one thing to appeal to common issues and policy interests (for instance environmental initiatives). It’s quite another to genuflect to a conservative icon.
jojoe said,

This is the important election and very sincere, experienced people feel passionately about their candidates. It’s important to let people know why they should vote for your candidate rather than disparage others. After all, if we’re committed to real change on the national political front, we will have to support enthusiastically whoever is elected the “blue dot” candidate. None are perfect and all will make unfortunate remarks because I assume we will elect a human and not a god.
Freddie said,

I’m just incensed by the type of campaign the Clintons (Bill very intentionally included, here) are running, especially against a candidate like Obama. I have to admit: it brings out the worst in me. Ordinarily, in conversations about this race, I’m much more interested in highlighting what it is about Obama that I like. But when he gets kneecapped by the Clintons portraying him in blackface, it’s infuriating.
jojoe said,

Politics is the ultimate game, unfortunately. And it really is hardball and for keeps.