Obama rips up the race card

Hey, maybe he did read my letter, after all. :) Okay, probably not, but in any event, Barack Obama is finally doing the right thing -- disavowing the race-card nonsense and criticizing the Clintons on the substance of what they said, not on racial innuendo that plainly wasn't there.

Sen. Barack Obama told ABC News Monday there is nothing in Sen. Hillary Clinton's record that would give him any cause for concern about her in terms of racial politics.

Asked how Obama interpreted two recent remarks by the Clintons that prompted an angry reaction from some in the Black community, Obama sought to damp down the racial dynamics of the controversy. ...

"I don't think it was in any way a racial comment," Obama told ABC News [in reference to Hillary Clinton's comment about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.].  "That's something that has played out in the press.  That's not my view."

He then proceeded to criticize the substance of Hillary's comments about experience versus ideals, and similarly, to criticize the substance of Bill's description of Obama's Iraq position. Bravo. You can read all that here.

Later, according to the article, Obama "stress[ed] that he, former Sen. John Edwards, and Clinton all share the same goals when it comes to civil rights and equal justice issues."

Amen. (Hat tip: TPM.)

Of course, some will argue that Obama is playing the old Clintonian game here, letting his surrogates do his dirty work for him, then taking the high road once the damage is already done. And maybe that's exactly what he's doing. On the other hand, the race-specific rhetoric was never coming directly from anyone high-level within his campaign. (His wife did distort Bill's "fairy tale" comment, but she didn't take it to an explicitly racial place; she just suggested that Bill was calling Obama's campaign a "fairy tale" rather than only his Iraq position.) My issue was always that, for all his rhetoric about a more hopeful, less divisive brand of politics, Obama hadn't taken the lead in putting this thing to rest, even though it was some of his supporters and surrogates who got the ball rolling. Now he's actually displaying some leadership to match his lofty rhetoric. I'm not prepared to let him totally off the hook, but I'm a lot happier with him than I was 24 hours ago.

UPDATE: More from the New York Times:

“I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. “We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”

Mr. Obama was seeking to be seen as taking the high road in the ongoing feud between his campaign and that of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. First, he conducted three back-to-back interviews with the major television networks here. Then, he hastily called a news conference at the Reno Events Center.

After speaking to hundreds of Nevada voters at a rally here, Mr. Obama urged Democratic voters not to become embroiled in racially-charged or motivated discussions.

“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”

Hurrah! I couldn't have said it better myself.

P.S. That last part is, it seems to me, incredibly important. Obama is now on the record pledging to "speak out forcefully against" future race-baiting by his supporters. That means that when something like this happens again (and you know it will), Obama won't be able to rely on the argument that it's "not his job" to "bail out" his opponents -- nor, seemingly, on the argument that he "can only be responsible for what he says or what his paid campaign staff say." He has now assumed an affirmative obligation to have Sister Souljah moments whenever his "supporters" engage in race-baiting.

Will he keep that promise? Maybe, maybe not -- but if he doesn't, the media and his critics will be able to throw this quote in his face -- "Senator Obama, you pledged in January that you would 'speak out forcefully against' any misleading or unfair racial criticisms by your supporters. Why haven't you spoken out against _______?" -- and it'll be much harder for him to duck the issue.

The skeptics, I'm sure, will remain skeptical. But just imagine the possibilities, if he's actually sincere. President Obama, America's first black president, making a habit of actively debunking his supporters' attempts at inventing fake racism for political purposes -- and thus giving himself all kinds of moral authority to speak out against real racism when it occurs. That would be fantastic for the country.

In any event, we'll have to wait and see how things play out in future race-baiting incidents, but his statement sets an excellent precedent going forward. And he has to know people will be watching closely to see whether he's true to his word. I certainly will be.

Comments

[Mad Max, Esquire]

I still don't see why it was Obama's job to bail out the Clintons. He is trying to beat Hillary in an election. It's not like he orchestrated this thing.

[Condor]

I'm not sure I disagree, but this is like the 50th time I've read that same comment on this blog.

[PenguinSix]

Why is he doing this now? Because that piece of gum has lost its flavor. He's gotten all he can out of this from one side of the debate, and now he can play 'high and mighty' and gather up those who were upset by the debate getting kind of ugly.

[Jim Hu]

I figured you'd like this too:

“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”

On a day that initially was devoted to speaking about the economy, he held a nine-minute news conference. Before taking questions, Mr. Obama mentioned his rivals by name and praised them.

“I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We’re all Democrats,” Mr. Obama said. “We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.”

He continued, saying: “They are good people, they are patriots. They are running because they think that they can move this country to a better place.”

Asked whether he believed either Mrs. Clinton or former President Bill Clinton had shown racial insensitivity in recent days, he said: “I don’t want to rehash that. I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think they care about the African-American community and that they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and justice in this country.”

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Condor-

Hence the word "still." It is a response to Brendan's ongoing insistence that Obama is now somehow Hillary's keeper.

[Anonymous Hoosier]

PenguinSix is right. No one should let Obama off the hook for his mild disavowal of the race-baiting tactics now. He's already milked this for all it's worth, allowing his supporters days to stoke perceptions that Hillary is a racist, and thus shifting the playing field with the African-American vote. His comments today don't change the fact that he was willing to allow the racism card to be played -- with significant, lasting effects -- to regain a lost political advantage.

Anyone interested in the "new politics" bromide that he mouths should be very, very skeptical at this point.

[dualdiagnosis]

Obama could have squashed this right away. On Friday he could have made this call. Remember Joe Biden and "clean and articulate"? Obama was out within 24 hrs to knock that down.

In this case he chose to "ride the wave" -down to the gutter.

[Condor]

If ever there were an honest politician, we would never be able to know it, because we would always be attributing the worst possible motives to them in every grey matter.

[Wind Rider]

Obama may be many things, but stupid isn't one of them. Sure, playing the same old identity politics/racial inuendo/charge-counter charge slap fight might endear him to a segment of the electorate - BUT - he knows full well there are plenty of others around to throw such mud, and that he'll score points with a much larger demographic by taking the above the fray road on this, and concentrate his efforts on that which the Clintons are oh, so vulnerable (except from the right) - their basic honesty, which is demonstrably somewhere far, far less then either slim or none.

His inuitive grasp of this, however, does not make him or his progressive/liberal/socialist/populist agenda any more desirable from where I'm sitting.

But he ain't dumb.

[M. Simon]

Now all he has to do is disavow his friend Sharpton's anti-white stuff and he will be Jake with me. Wouldn't hurt if he did something about the anti-Jew rhetoric of Rev. Al, as well.

BTW the first comment here is telling. Let me quote:

I live in the South Bay area (San Pedro) of Los Angeles. I spent five years as a service manager in an auto repair shop that was located adjacent to the Rancho San Pedro public housing projects. I can recall more black on hispanic and vice versa prejudice than you would ever believe.

You can read the rest at the link.

[Bengoshi]

No stupid he's not. Obama has to realize that he needs to appeal to the broad electorate - and that includes latinos, asians and whites. The WORST thing that could happen for him is if he were seen as just another "black" politician, ala Jackson, Sharpton et al. MSM has been playing up this issue as being cryptonite for _Clinton_; its the other way around and Obama realizes it. Smart move.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

If it was me I would have let her drown in her vomit it was not his job to bail out his political opponent who claims to have 35 years experince...

[Brendan Loy]

Obama clearly recognizes what you and Angrier & Angrier stubbornly refuse to see: that he's not "bailing out his opponent," he's standing up for his own ideals. If you claim to support a new brand of politics, but then you're perfectly willing to stand idly by while your supporters and your surrogates use old-style political tactics to attack your political opponents, then your ideals are a fraud. You can't claim to be a leader, who will lead us to a more hopeful and less divisive place as a nation, if you aren't willing to lead even in this most basic and obvious situation. The excuse "I didn't say anything wrong, those other people did, and it's not my job to correct them" is the excuse of a follower, not a leader, and certainly not a leader with high-minded ideals like Obama's.

Obama recognized this and did the right thing. He didn't "bail out" the Clintons -- he still attacked them on the substance of what they said -- but he made clear that the racial stuff is bullshit, which it is.

You and Angrier are completely missing the point. It's not about Hillary and Bill. It's about Barack, and doing what his rhetoric demands.

[Anonymous Hoosier]

I'm leaning towards "fraud" rather than "standing up for his own ideals." Information and news circulates rapidly today. If your ideals are "no race-baiting" and a "more hopeful and less divisive place as a nation," you get angry as soon as you hear the race-baiting, and you put a stop to it right away, not days later when it's given you the maximum advantage and the backlash is brewing.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

Obama didn't launch the attack. His surrogates, as far as I know, had nothing to do with the MSM running with it. What I have seen are his surrogates - like Tom Daschle - saying that the Clintons aren't racist. Personally I think you are blaming Barack for something he hasn't done.

[Brendan]

Angrier, sorry, but you're just wrong. "His surrogates, as far as I know, had nothing to do with the MSM running with it"? From Politico:

“A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements,” said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.

“There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months,” she said. “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?”

Also,

Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones, a prominent Obama supporter, echoed those sentiments.

"It’s very unfortunate that the president would make a statement like that," he said of Bill Clinton's criticism of Obama's experience, adding that the African-American community had "saved his presidency" after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

"They owe the African-American community — not the reverse," he said. "Maybe Hillary and Bill should get behind Sen. Barack Obama."

As I say in this post, I'm impressed with the steps Obama has taken to tamp down this controversy -- not least because it means that arguments like yours will not fly in the future if (i.e., when) this sort of thing happens again. Obama has now assumed an affirmative obligation to speak out against race-baiting by his "supporters." So keep that in mind the next time you want to claim that it's "not his job" to "bail out" opponents who are unfairly criticized on racial grounds by Obama supporters and/or surrogates.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

The comments you posted are great. Neither one unfairly criticizes the Clintons on racial grounds, as you claim. They are both truthful and the second one accurately describes Bill Clinton's statement as an attack on Obama's experience, not his race.

Like I said, you are accusing Obama of something he isn't responsible for.

[Brendan Loy]

So Emil Jones saying that Bill Clinton shouldn't criticize Obama because Clinton "owes" the African-American community isn't making it about race??

You're a hoot, A&A.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

And yet Emil wasn't attacking Clinton's comments as racially motivated as you have been claiming.

Once again, please point out where Obama's surrogates have been out there saying the Clintons' comments are racially motivated. I would like to see them.

I think the MSM has been unfairly fanning the flames against both Obama and the Clintons and I think bloggers like you have fallen right into line with it.

[Brian Foster]

the second one accurately describes Bill Clinton's statement as an attack on Obama's experience, not his race.

A&A, if what you say is true, then doesn't that directly undercut your argument that "the MSM has been unfairly fanning the flames"? You just admitted that the MSM in this instance "accurately" described Clinton's comments. Yet it is Jones himself who goes on to imply that the comments had racial significance by saying that the Clintons owe the AfAm community.

So this excerpt proves the point -- the media is just covering the kerfuffle, and it was Obama's people who injected race where it did not belong.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brian-

Good Lord. One instance of where the media got it right doesn't excuse the MSM from making more of this than it deserves. Even the talking heads on the cable news networks are to the point of self-flagellation over how the media has been making something out of nothing.

My point all along is that Brendan is blaming the Obama campaign for this when, in fact, the media has taken one comment totally out of context and made a bigger deal out of Hillary's ill-advised comment than it deserves. In response, I have seen no evidence that Obama or his campaign instigated this or has actively played the race card as a result. Obama not stepping to the defense of the Clintons' doesn't make the guy a race-baiter and it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

[Brian Foster]

A&A,

Every single media story I have seen or read about this has been pitched as "Clinton Comments Cause Uproar," and the focus has been the uproar and the comments in tandem -- i.e., on the criticisms and denouncements of their comments by others, who almost to a person are Obama supporters and surrogates.

Your argument appears to be that the media drew unnecessary attention to the comments themselves and then waited for the reaction (or, even more improbably, that the media itself raised the question of racial undertone in its initial coverage), but I haven't seen even one story that approached it that way. Rather, every story has had the evidence you can't find embedded right within -- the very fact that the "story" was generated by Obama's people crying foul over the comments.

We agree that the media eagerly ran with that story and gave it far more coverage than it deserved. But the media didn't have a story until Obama's people generated one.

Your claim that "Obama not stepping to the defense of the Clintons doesn't make the guy . . . a hypocrite" has been so thoroughly discredited that it needs no further response.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brian-

You should go back to the blog and news accounts that took place around the time of the New Hampshire primary. The earliest reports are from bloggers and reporters inaccurately describing Clinton's remarks as an attack on Obama's campaign. In none of these stories are Obama supporters quoted. Here is an example from the NY Times...

"That Mr. Obama — who was viewed favorably by over 80 percent of Democrats who voted Tuesday, whether or not they voted for him — has often seemed an elusive target for the normally sure-footed Clinton team could be seen in Mr. Clinton’s red-faced frustration when he described the story of Mr. Obama as a “fairy tale” to an audience of New Hampshire voters Sunday night."

...The narrative was that Bill Clinton was frustrated and lashed out at Obama's campaign. It organically grew into this race story as people reacted to the initial comments (that were inaccurately reported by the media). You seem to believe that there are no black reporters or columnists in the news industry who might take offense to this kind of thing and report or comment on it on their own.