Racism kerfuffle update

An Andrew Sullivan reader criticizes Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remarks the right way: on their substance. Bravo. (Similarly, from a few days ago, a legit rebuttal to Hillary's MLK comments.)

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama pretends that Bill was talking about something other than what he was actually talking about. Ugh.

Am I overreacting to this whole controversy? Probably. That Obama is putting his purported principles to one side for the momentary political benefit of watching the Clintons squirm is disappointing, but hardly shocking. And anyway, in the purely binary sense -- i.e., wherein everything bad that I say about Obama redounds positively upon Clinton, and vice versa -- it surely should be noted that the Clintons are by no means pure as the driven snow when it comes to identity politics. They've played the gender card shamelessly, and they've arguably played the race card (through surrogates) as well. (Apropos of which, in retrospect, I wish I had left out the fourth paragraph of my letter to Obama. It's true that the Clintons aren't racists, but it's also true, as Stephen pointed out, that "[w]hether or not the Clintons are racist personally is not the question. The question is, will they use racist tactics in pursuit of their ambitions." I'm not sure the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes -- the "cocaine" issue, for instance, is more complicated than people make it out to be, though that's another post for another day -- but it isn't an unequivocal no, either.)

The Clintons clearly weren't playing the race card in this instance, which is why my criticism of Obama is still valid. But I don't want people to get the impression that I think Bill, Hillary & co. are somehow totally innocent. Indeed, a big part of the reason I drifted away from the Clinton camp in the first place is because I was sick of their old-style political tactics, their divisiveness, etc. I just didn't blog about that as much, because I wasn't as engaged with the campaign yet (and, not unrelatedly, it was still college football season!). But it's something I'm well aware of. There's a reason why I said that this kerfuffle has thrown me back into the "undecided" column, rather than back into the Clinton column. (Heck, it may throw me into the McCain column. I haven't decided which party's primary to vote in on February 5. I can choose either one on primary day. And stopping Huckabee is a high priority!)

Anyway, this whole thing has left me somewhat disillusioned, but I do recognize that it's a bit of a tempest in a teapot. And I'm going to try to stop obsessing about it so much. No promises, though. :)

Comments

[JT]

Brendan, sometimes you focus way too much on process and not enough on policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen one post on here analyzing the difference between their healthcare plans, their economic stimulus plans in the face of an upcoming recession, etc. All I hear about is how Edwards is angry, Clinton's use of fairy tails and gender baiting, and Obama's great speaking and race baiting. Try to ignore all of the MSM's fascination with process and focus on policy for just one day. I personally like Obama better than Clinton and Edwards, but when I actually look at policy, I find that I like Clinton and Edwards way more than Obama.

[Marty West]

I don't think you are overreacting at all. A friend and I have been racking our brains about this topic all weekend.

Maybe Fred isn't that bad.

[Brendan]

JT, that's a valid criticism. The truth is that I haven't studied the candidates' policy positions in a lot of detail. There are several reasons for that. One reason is related to something I wrote in an update to my original post about this controversy:

More than anything else, what I'm looking for in a president in 2008 is a leader -- someone who inspires confidence in his or her competence, and someone who has a coherent, rational, non-radical philosophy on the important issues, coupled with an ability to articulate that philosophy in a way that can move us toward accomplishing things, toward solving our problems as a nation and a world. My personal opinions on a lot of issues, including some really important ones, are unsettled -- I have more questions than I have answers -- so I'm not necessarily looking for someone who passes a series of litmus tests on various issues. I'm willing to be persuaded on a lot of things. What I want, again, is a good leader, and someone whose judgment I feel I can trust.

So in other words, the policy differences aren't necessarily all that important to me at this point, since I'm probably not going to choose based on whose health-care plan has the best strategy for dealing with prescription-drug costs or whatever... I'm probably going to choose based on who I think is the best leader generally.

Another reason I don't talk a lot about policy differences is that I get the sense the Democrats' policy differences are relatively small -- fighting around the margins about details of how to implement the overarching policies that they all pretty much agree on -- and moreover, I know that their platforms will shift as necessary once we move into the general election (and again once they actually get elected and start working with Congress), so I am generally inclined to believe that the differing details are less important than the "big picture" of whether the candidate is a good leader, has the right instincts, etc.

However, none of the above is a good excuse for being ignorant of what policy differences do exist, which I admit that I am to a significant degree. I just don't have, or rather haven't taken, the time to read through a bunch of policy papers and such. That will be more of priority once the nominees are selected and it's time to choose between them (at which point the policy differences will be much more stark). But as for right now, yeah, you're right, I probably do focus too much on process. What can I say, I'm a junkie for this stuff, just like the media.

[Brendan]

P.S. I will also probably give myself a bit of a crash-course in the policy positions of whatever two or three candidates I narrow my choice down to, once I decide which party's primary to vote in, assuming the difference in leadership/instincts/etc. between those candidates isn't so vast as to make the choice obvious based on those overarching criteria alone. I do like to be an educated voter. But I still have a few weeks yet. :)

[JT]

To be fair, I'm not voting in the primary. I didn't register in time and I'd be happy with either Obama or Hillary. I just don't care at all about the constant bickering over he said/she said.

[Scientizzle]

Dear Barack Obama,

Can I be your Veep?

Love,
John Edwards

[4-7]

So much of the democratic party's platform is based on exploiting racial and class based anxieties that I have to say we can only benefit as a country for this Clinton-Obama battle to get worse and worse, whoever is the victor. Perhaps it will finally expose the illegetimacy of modern race consciousness in government and society.

[Angrier and Angrier]

In an odd way I agree with 4-7. There is no racial debate in this country anymore. If you try to make a valid point of any sort, you are immediately called a racist.

And let's be honest, this is primarily a black-white thing. Yes, things are bad between whites and Hispanics right now, but relations between the two were fine 10 years ago and they will be fine 10 years from now.

But black and whites simply do not see eye to eye. There is an entire industry in the black community designed to exploit perceived racial slights. Whether it is Al Sharpton jumping on the radio or Jesse Jackson walking into board rooms to shake down CEOs, these groups are personally profiting while undermining the African-American community they claim to serve.

On the other side, I am stunned by how many fair-minded white liberals I know who have told me they simply will not vote for a black man. I hear this, and see things like Jena 6, and have to wonder if Jim Crow really is dead.

[Condor]

I'd like to repeat my techie point that the word "this" is ambiguous. Bill Clinton said, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen." "This whole thing" can have narrow or wide scope here. The narrow reading is that "this whole thing" refers to Obama's position on Iraq. In the wide reading, "this whole thing" refers to Obama's candidacy.

Evidence for the narrow reading is the lead up to the quote, which concerned Obama's stance on the war. Evidence for the wide reading is the break in applause, which could yield a subject change, and the post quote context, which seems to be about Obama's candidacy in general rather than his particular stance on the war.

Here's the quote in context:
“Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, ‘Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you’re now running on off your website in 2004 and there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since?’ Give me a break.

[applause]

This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports."

[Alasdair]

A&A - Jim Crow *is* dead - a few people still try to pretend he isn't, but he is ... but, due to the Al Sharptons and the like of the world, and their blatant attempts to exploit 'racial' inequities whether real or manufactured (can you say "Tamara Brawley"?), many who are otherwise colour-blind will publicly say they won't vote for someone black because, until very recently, the available black candidates tended to be Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Marion Barry, and the like ... and *I* wouldn't vote for any of those ...

Until recently, Senator Obama had seemed to be above such things ... sadly, it now seems he is not ...

And, of course, lest we forget, the noble white liberal cannot vote for a Clarence Thomas or a Condoleeza Rice either because they are associated with the R-word ... (or, at least, if they were up for election to a public office, that would be the reason given, not Jim Crow) ...

[gahrie]

If you are going to discuss Barak Obama and race, you cannot ignore the church he belongs to.

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

As for examing policy statements, only Fred Thompson has bothered to release detailed policy statements covering all of today's major issues. Everyone else has mostly relied on campaign statements.

[gahrie]

Angrier and Angrier:

The Jena Six was a hoax,designed to inflame racial tensions. One of the "six" plead guilty to a felony last month.

Jenna Six

[Brian Foster]

Condor,

If we're going to put the quote in context (and I agree we should), then we should put it in its full context.

Clinton was asked a question about Mark Penn, Hillary's pollster/chief strategist. The question opened up with the unnecessarily gratuitous line, "One of the things Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment." The questioner then goes on, "I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn" as being "out of touch with reality, for instance circulating a memo about Iowa, saying 'Where's the bounce?,' and then the next day there was a 12-point jump for Obama."

Clinton responded that Penn was wrong on that because the bounce always shows up the second day, not the first day. And then he turned to the topic he really wanted to talk about, but you only provide half of it. Clinton's next words are:

"But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.'

"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates . . . "

So, now that we see the "First" that came before the "Second," and the preliminary statement to which both "First" and "Second" are offered as supporting arguments, it is impossible to read the "fairy tale" reference as a suggestion that Young Black President Obama is a fantasy. The "fairy tale" is, rather, exactly what it appears to be -- that the "central argument" Obama makes about having superior judgment because he "always, always, always" opposed the war is factually untrue, and hence, a "fairy tale."

And let's not stop here. After your provision of context ends, he actually had more to say:

"Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.

"So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.

"Otherwise I do not have any strong feelings about that subject."

Again, there is no mistaking Clinton's meaning here. Obama's fabricating a story about himself as a post-modern above-it-all campaigner with the superior judgment to have been always, always against the war in Iraq, but the facts that say otherwise are "out there," thus demonstrating that Obama's carefully cultivated self-image is -- yes -- a "fairy tale."

I concede that the reference is to something broader than Obama's "position on Iraq" -- as I argued in an earlier thread, it's also targeted at the media's kid-gloves treatment, and as this further context shows, it is also targeted at the "central argument" of Obama's campaign. But that's as far as it goes. It calls into question the factual accuracy of the image or perception of Obama -- it does not suggest that the very notion of an Obama candidacy is, itself, a fairy tale. And there is no reasonable way to read it otherwise.

[Condor]

That's pretty helpful. Thanks.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

gahrie-

Bell plead guilty to a charge of battery and juvenile detention, which he should have been charged with in the first place. The outrage was that the six black teens were charged with attempted 2nd degree murder because one of them kicked a white kid with a tennis shoe (which the prosecutor charged was a deadly weapon).

Sorry, but Jena Six wasn't a hoax. It was an attempt by an overzealous prosecutor to make an example of six kids by charging them with the wrong crime because they were black. The prosecutor wasn't much different than Nifong in his approach or rationale.

[gahrie]

Mad Max:

Nice spin.

1) The beating that the six were charged with was in no way linked to any racial incident. The entire narrative of the Jenna Six hoax was based on a series of racist acts.

2) Bell has a criminal history that includes four violent acts leading up to this assault. He was in fact on probation for a previous violent act when the assault occurred. He has plead guilty to a felony, and included in his plea bargain he has agreed to testify against his co-defendents.

3) It wasn't one kid kicking someone with a tennis shoe. The victim was assaulted, concussed and was kicked repeatedly by all six defendents in the head and torso while he was lying on the ground. His assailents had to be pulled off of him by teachers and other students.

4) Bell was the only one charged with second degree murder (a charge quickly pulled) and as an adult. This was primarily due to his extensive prior history of violent acts.

5) This story was shopped to the media by a third party who had acheived some notority by fanning the flames of racism before. In fact, much of the MSM repeated a significant factual mistatement he made about the number of nooses, proving they didn't bother to do much, if any, independent reporting.

[Brian Foster]

Condor --

Rereading the comments I included in my last post, some of them seemed a little snarky, as if I was suggesting or implying that you had intentionally left out relevant context that didn't serve your point. I intended no such suggestions. Apologies if it came across otherwise. I just wanted to get the entire exchange out there.