Now, when Barry [Obama] wins South Carolina -- say he wins South Carolina -- what are the Clintons going to do then? Is she going to sit there and just take it that a majority of black people, Democrats, voted for Obama; when Bill Clinton's 'the first black president'? So you'll have some version of the Clinton 'southern strategy,' and it will go something like this. These will not be the words that they use. But when asked about it, somebody like Howard Wolfson or Terry McAuliffe, somebody at the Clinton organization will say to the press asking them about it: 'Well, what do you do expect? A lot of blacks in that state.' Thud. Duhhhh. Giving nothing to Obama, blaming it all on racial identity politics, or crediting it for that. You watch. They'll do something." — Rush Limbaugh, conservative Republican commentator, on January 22
And that is exactly what was implied yesterday when former Bill Clinton commented on Sen. Obama's victory in South Carolina: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
I noticed the coded language that President Bill Clinton — who got my vote twice, so I don't despise him the way Rush Limbaugh does — used in arguing that Sen. Obama was expected to win in South Carolina. Days before the South Carolina primary, President Clinton said that blacks would vote for Sen. Obama and women for Sen. Clinton (I guess the concept of black women, who are at least a quarter of Democratic voters in South Carolina don't exist). Following up that comment with the Election Day comment that Rev. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina (which is Rev. Jackson's native state, but President Clinton didn't note that fact) in 1984 and 1988. That quote served to tie Obama to Rev. Jackson in white voters' minds. This is part of the growing Clinton strategy since days before New Hampshire to "ghettoize" Sen. Obama's candidacy, by tagging Obama as solely the "black candidate". It attempts to undermine Obama's claim that he is a transcendent candidate.
This racially coded language worked in New Hampshire and Nevada. It will succeed after South Carolina, even though Sen. Obama won there. Sure, Sen. Obama was expected to win...but not by the 30-point margin ass whupping that he put on Sen. Clinton.. President Clinton ignores the fact that until some weeks ago, his wife was in the lead in South Carolina....even among black voters. Never mind that Sen. Obama won the majority of the vote in a state, which Sen. Clinton has yet to do. However, President Clinton sought to downplay Sen. Obama's achievement in order to increase anxiety among white voters that Sen. Obama is merely a younger and more attractive version of the dreaded Rev. Jackson.
It is intriguing, although not surprising, that the mainstream media has not zeroed in on this neo-Southern Strategy to appeal to latent racism among white Democrats. However, it has been picked up by some black commentators, such as liberal Michael Dyson. Apparently black liberal commentator Roland Martin agrees with me about the strategy. He accuses President Clinton of stoking racial fires: "Tapper said no one asked about Jackson. His name never came up. Yet Clinton had no problem invoking it. Isn't the reason obvious? The ridiculously called first black president didn't mention his win in 1992. Or that of Vice President Al Gore in 2000, or even then-Sen. John Edwards' win in 2004. He decided to bypass all of these gents and link Obama with Jackson, who is beloved in black America but stirs hatred among many whites."
Why the racially coded language coming from the Clinton campaign? Call it the newer version of the Southern Strategy, as Craig Bardo, a black conservative Republican reader of Booker Rising, calls it. The Southern Strategy seeks to polarize voters by race by exploiting fears of white voters. It has been commonly associated with the Republican Party's efforts in the 1960s and 1970s to expand its voter base with disenchanted white Democrats, but let's not forget that these target white Southern voters were previously Democrats. The Southern Strategy appeals to white voters through race in a backlash against black aspirations. In 1968, it was civil rights legislation. In 2008, it is about putting a (half) black man in the White House. White conservative Democrats were the obstacle in 1968. In 2008, it will be white liberal Democrats.
Let us not forget that among today's white Democrats, Sen. Clinton is popular with whites who haven't gone to college (which would be most white folks). I.e., the working class white folks who Edwards has unsuccessfully been trying to woo. Hence, why Sen. Clinton has been playing the race card ever since this voter demographic news came out around the time of the New Hampshire race, because the race card works well with this portion of the electorate.
The South Carolina vote will provide momentum in this presidential race, but it will not mainly be experienced by Sen. Obama's campaign. Instead, it will be experienced mainly by Sen. Clinton's campaign, thanks to the Southern Strategy that will have reverberations throughout the country.
Roland Martin writes: "Since Richard Nixon implemented the 'Southern strategy' in 1968, which was intended to get Southern whites to side with the GOP due to their anger at the Democrats for passing civil rights legislation, it has been a staple of American politics, especially down South. It has largely been used by the Republicans over the years, and Democrats have always blasted it as race-baiting. So the idea that a former president — a beloved Democrat, especially among African-Americans — would do such a thing to help his wife was considered nonsense. During CNN's coverage Saturday night of the South Carolina Democratic primary, commentator Carl Bernstein called it 'unthinkable.' But it really isn't. Clinton has used race when it suited him over the years. (Check out Rep. Jesse Jackson's book, 'A More Perfect Union,' where it's covered over six pages.). And a top adviser to the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton admitted to Ron Fournier of The Associated Press in a report published Friday that it was the campaign's intent to turn Obama, who has deftly avoided the race issue, into 'the black candidate.' Based on the results in South Carolina, it backfired badly. The jury is still out as to whether it hurts him in the nearly two dozen-state February 5 contest, but what the voters in South Carolina made clear is that they won't reward candidates who play the race card."
However, I disagree with Mr. Martin that the tactic "backfired badly" in South Carolina. Sen. Obama - who won lily-white Iowa and did pretty well in lily-white New Hampshire - only got 25% of the white vote in South Carolina. Since the Clintons' racial campaign rollout, Sen. Obama's dominance with white men has evaporated. I've been saying for weeks that things would change soon, and I've been right. Some folks argue that in a three-way race, a 25% white vote for a black candidate - who pre-election polls showed would get as low as 10% of the white vote - is decent. They claim that it shows that whites didn't vote against Obama. However, the evidence does not back up that claim. Mr. Edwards got about 38% of the white vote, and Sen. Clinton 36%. Granted, Mr. Edwards was born and raised in South Carolina. However, he has been trailing in previous races. Thus, Sen. Obama should have been in second place with white voters, and not a distant third to show that there was no racial fault line. Also note that Mr. Edwards, who is not a frontrunner, won the plurality of folks (mainly white voters) who were late-deciders. Get Mr. Edwards out of the race — which I'm sure Sen. Clinton's campaign is trying to do — and those white voters will probably flock to Hillary Clinton.
Sen. Clinton only got 17% of the black vote in South Carolina. That is clearly a message to the Clinton campaign that "America's first black president" campaigning on behalf of his wife is not the same as her alone being on the ballot. However, that aids the Clintons' Southern Strategy because the states voting in Super Tuesday do not have South Carolina's demographics. Thus, racial polarization that galvanizes more white voters to her side thanks to her campaign's racial double entendres (and add the Hispanic firewall of support) means Sen. Clinton will win most Super Tuesday states. The Clintons' Southern Strategy will have reverbations beyond the four Southern States that vote on February 5. Note that Sen. Hillary Clinton didn't even make a concession speech in South Carolina, hightailing straight for Tennessee, another Southern state and one voting on February 5.
As one of my readers, Chris G, writes: "Clinton figures if his wife wins, Blacks will vote for his wife or stay home in the general election, and he can get more of the Hispanic vote to offset the loss of Blacks who are angry because they were used to manipulate the white vote against Obama." The Clintons are probably banking on that no matter how foul or racial they get, black folks will revert back to them for the general election against any Republican candidate.
However, try as Obama might — and his speeches last night was pretty good — that we are One America, with core values and with a need to change the paradigm of American politics...it is the same ol' racial politics that will propel Sen. Clinton to victory as the Democratic nominee. I've argued for some time that whites, white Democrats in this case, as a collective are not gonna nominate a black candidate anytime soon. Some folks have criticized my prediction about Sen. Obama's fate as cynicism and I have even called me the black female H.L. Mencken because of it. I call it realism based upon my advanced degree study of American politics and my prediction about white Democrats will soon bear out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment