HARRY JACKSON JR. OP-ED: Dying A Slow Death: The Politics Of Race

The evangelical conservative argues that, contrary to some blacks' assertions, Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is not using race-baiting language against Sen. Barack Obama: "White pundits like Dick Morris predicted that the Clintons would play the race card. These comments left many holding their breath, waiting to see what the Clintons would do. 'No trick is too dirty for them' was the declaration of many media personalities. The pundits created a false spotlight on Bill and Hillary. So when they made their next campaign statements, many hypersensitive Democrats began to speak out that they were offended by the Clintons’ statements. First, I received a call before the New Hampshire primary, asking me to comment on the 'lack of spade work' comment that Hillary had made concerning Obama’s experience. The interviewer was convinced that this was a subtle, but incendiary racial comment. Thankfully, he allowed me to give my own comments. Next, I heard the media clamor that the height of playing the race card came when Bill Clinton commented that some of Obama’s campaign criticisms about Hillary were 'fairy tales.' I took the time to actually listen to Clinton’s remarks on [YO]UTUBE. There was not one shred of racial prejudice in Bill’s comment. Late last week, I heard that Congressman Clyburn of South Carolina was upset by the 'fairy tale' comment. He also claimed that he was not taking sides but he had to speak out about the 'racist overtones' of the Clinton comments. In my thinking, Clyburn slipped back into the unfair practices of race-based politics. Some old school politicians read racial prejudice into every comment made about an African American. In these folks’ minds, it’s okay for them to be hypersensitive. The net result is that no one can attack Obama’s record or lack of it without being attacked on some trumped up racial prejudice. There is something inherently un-American about that."

He adds: "Here’s the Catch 22 of last week. If the Clintons say anything politically incorrect about Obama, their liberal friends may label them as closet racists. If they allow themselves to be muzzled by fear, Obama will continue to ride the moment of fluff and flowery words. In essence, they would give him a free pass. What Hillary needs to do is simply campaign in a clear, above-board fashion. She has to attack the flaws in Obama’s narrative about change, despite cries from reverse racists in her party. Fear of a black backlash will shipwreck her campaign. She cannot win without black support; on the other hand she will not maintain the respect of American women if she lets him box her in. The unfairness of this situation is that Obama can put down Hillary’s experience and allude to dishonesty and insincerity, but any response from her can be seen as race baiting. This is certainly not Martin Luther King, Jr’s dream. This is a form of subtle race based, cultural manipulation. Obama himself could stop this race baiting, if he spoke up. Such an act would give him the upper hand in the ultimate political exchange. He would truly be the candidate of change. However, if he stands back and says nothing; he allows the kind of divisiveness that he speaks out against to flourish."

My response: I disagree with Mr. Jackson here. Sen. Clinton's campaign can criticize Sen. Obama without all of the racially coded language ("spade work", "shuck & jive", the implied drugdealer statements to name a few) that they've been using. There's a race-baiting pattern by Sen. Clinton's campaign here. It is Sen. Clinton, not Sen. Obama, who needs to speak up about it.