The Clinton's have pulled out all stops to keep race on the table. The most recent instance of that is when they sent their black friend, Bob Johnson, to restate the racist rant of Geraldine Ferraro. As if a messenger in dark face, changed the nature of the racially negating and limiting message.
Just what is the meaning of Geraldine Ferraro's message? Most of us thought that Geraldine Ferraro was talking about affirmative action. That she was saying there’s something about being black that gave Barack an advantage, and because we though, like Barack said, that it was "absurd," we left it with our indignation, but not much thought. But I think we missed the point they were trying to make, so they sent Bob Johnson, to say it again.
When Bob Johnson showed up to repeat Geraldine Ferraro’s message, he used a hypothetical to highlight something that was not in the original message, namely, if a white person was running for president, "would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?" Which presupposes that’s what Barack started out with, when that’s not true. Leading up to the primaries, 57 percent of black voters favored Hillary, while only 33 percent favored Barack. But by the time the Clintons reached the South Carolina primary, they had diminished Martin Luther King's contribution to civil rights, characterized the black vote as for "pride," racialized Barack's political success, and were under suspicion for mailings that falsely claimed Barack is a Muslim. At the end of all that, Barack Obama had 80% of the black vote.
Bob Johnson knew that Barack Obama didn't start out with 90% of the black vote, so why did he say that? And why did he repeat Geraldine Ferraro's racial claim? Because it furthered the racial idea that the Clintons were trying to communicate, namely, that African Americans are voting racially, and white Americans should do the same . . .
Because Geraldine Ferraro's comments and language were highly racialized, and typical of a certain racial idea, we quickly concluded the obvious, namely, a claim that an African American obtained something beneficial because of his race, had to mean, what it has always meant, that he received something undeserved. So Bob Johnson was sent to clear up the confusion. Looking like the fox in the chicken coop, peering out from under shifty eyes, and speaking from a twisted mouth, he gushed, "it's not like he didn't deserve it . . ."
So Bob Johnson restated, for the Clintons, the idea that Barack Obama's success was the product of racial voting, by falsely stating that African Americans gave Barack Obama 90% of their votes, before they knew anything about him. He went on to characterize the racial attitude, on Barack's behalf as aggressive, suggesting that African Americans, who support Hillary, are being pressured to reject her in favor of Barack. Then he spiced it up by suggesting that African Americans are in such a tither about Barack's candidacy, until they can't be "rational," and white people aren't allowed to talk about it.
Bob Johnson wasn't the only performer in the Clinton's bag of tricks, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. CNN can always be counted on to carry the Clintons ideological theme, to the public.
For New Hampshire, CNN devised a racist report including Baracks African grandmother, falsely claiming that she did not want her son to marry a white woman, and expressing dismay that a future president of the United States could come from a "Kenyan grandmother," code for the N word? They also flashed, Hillary's teary moment, in agnosia, and brought us the Hillary show on "sexism," involving a man, sporting a Hillary sticker, who, along with his friend, shouted, "iron our shirts." And the Clinton theme, spoken by Hillary, was announced, "Sexism is alive and well," and two social ideas were activated: racial rejection and gender oppression.
For Ohio, CNN rolled the drumbeat for a seeming defection, involving an Obama advisor and some Canadians, in which it was claimed that Barack wasn't serious about NAFTA reform. Long after it was established as a lie, CNN repeated reported it as if it was true. Meanwhile, at every opportunity, CNN identified Barack's support racially, activating two social ideas: suspicion and racial alienation.
For Pennsylvania, CNN continued to highlight African Americans as Baracks base of support, using the map analysis of voting trends, for increasing opportunities to do so. Then CNN went to work to heighten the implication of the Clinton theme, namely, that white people should vote racially:
CNN also encouraged white seniors in Pennsylvania to consider African Americans as trouble makers, as part of their decision making process. CNN accomplished this through a report on a senior couple, who were Hillary supporters. After the couple talked about why they intended to vote for Hillary, CNN voiced in, "seniors are part of a generation that has experienced racial problems." The message: Vote Hillary or for a member of that group that you had trouble with . . .
Finally, CNN encouraged white people in Pennsylvania to vote racially, by highlighting the idea that black people are voting racially. CNN used Bob Johnson to tell the lie that African Americans immediately supported Barack Obama, without question, when they were fully aware that African Americans overwhelmingly supported the Clintons, before their racial gaffes. Bob Johnson was indulged to perpetrate lies and racial stereotypes, as well as the false assertion that African Americans are voting racially, and the inference that, white Americans should do the same, for Hillary.
Bill Clinton is a master of social manipulation. He has single handedly pulled off, what maybe the most extensive, manipulated, racial divide, in America's history. First, He tried to racialize Barack, while holding onto the African American vote. But when his antics caused African Americans to desert Hillary, he went back to the drawing board and defined the voting pattern of African Americans, as racial.
His first racial description of the African American vote was for "pride." Then his surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro, gave form to the concept, by describing Barack Obama's success as something akin to a racial gift, and she announced that it made him "so lucky to be who he is." However, there were challenges to the pride thing, so Bill Clinton gave the African American vote, a new racial name. It became a vote for "the first African American with a real chance to win."
The concept of racial voting by African Americans, didn’t take hold through Geraldine Ferraro's efforts, because her delivery was so racially explosive, until our reaction prevented us from understanding what she meant. Then the heat went up on racial comments by Clinton surrogates, until it occurred to them to deliver their message in dark face. So when they really needed the racial voting message spoken, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, they trotted out Bill’s black friend, Bob Johnson, to repeat Geraldine Ferraro's message, along with the caveat, that white people can’t talk about it, and the "explanation," "It's not like he didn't deserve it."
Inhibiting race talk is very disturbing to the Clinton agenda since, racially provocative words have to be repeated, often, to trigger the unconscious racial ideas in people. Hence, the Clinton complaints, through Bill and surrogates, about challenges to racial talk.
I agree with your analysis of the Clinton campaign strategy. Nice work. I enjoyed reading the whole piece.
I had just been wondering myself today why it is that the Ferraro comments didn't become a bigger issue. I thought she looked ridiculously and rudely racist and that it highlighted the fact that most Americans are ready to move beyond race as a divisive issue. I thought she had sunk Clinton's campaign. But then, out came the kid gloves. It's weird how the media seems to have built Obama up and now wants to knock him down.
by
Peter Dearman (9 articles, 19 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 124 comments)
on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 11:10:30 AM
Clinton did a slightly better job selling herself in PA, although the vast majority of the Democrats supported her before Obama ever started campaigning in PA. Remember, Clinton had a 26% advantage over Obama before the campaign started in PA in earnest. By primary time, Obama has made significant in-roads so that the Clinton advtange was cut to 9.3% difference in Democratic support on the day of the Primary. Did the Clinton campaign initiate some rather unbecoming efforts to taint Obama? Yup. Did that prevent Obama from making greater in roads in PA? Possibly. Let's move on, there are still more primaries.
Clinton's negatives have grown with her campaign, Obama's have not increased nearly as much. It doesn't appear the Clinton strategy is working very well. I think Clinton is slowly self-destructing. As she continues these campaign tactics, people are seeing the patterns of dishonesty, insincerety and misinformation. Meanwhile, her self-destruction has fed the support for Obama, he is the only Democratic alternative left. The more they see Clinton and compare her with Obama the more it helps Obama. Obama is now turning out crowds of 20,000; 30,000 and more at rallies in bigger cities. When do you see that kind of excitement in a Democratic primary?
While I think it is important that people understand what the Clinton campaign has been doing, I am not convinced it is having a great effect. Clinton clings to a marginal win in a state tailor made for her. She asks why Obama hasn't sealed the deal, even as Obama moves ever closer each week to doing just that, sealing the deal. Clinton lags behind, she is not pushing ahead. Her campaign is in debt, Obama's is not.. Reports that continue to help people become more aware of how and why she hangs on at all are useful. Thanks for the excellent analysis.
by
Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 164 comments)
on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM
That is an old adage; I would guess it means deceiving the buyer.
It also would imply the buyer is a bit naive or, worse, ignorant. And what seems to be embedded in this article is a poke with a piggy. A metaphor for selling nail soup, to expand an old wives' tale.
When I heard Obama was thinking of running for president, my first thought was, oh, heck, he is going to really screw up the '08 election for the Dems. I knew immediately race would be the main ingredient in this year's electoral stew. To say America is over race issues is a blatant fairy tale And all the king's horses and all the king's men won't put this broken opportunity back into its shell. I don't let TV run my life or make my decisions but what little I have seen and read in online media favors Obama about ten to one.
If anything is kicking up racial division, it is the talking heads and poison penmen/women who make a living inciting fictious riots. Ninety percent of Hillary's negatives have been invented by them and they can be indicted for a large ratio of the hyped campaign schisms. They turn every incident into a federal offense and every gaff into a photo opportunity--film at eleven; if it bleeds, it leads. That is SOP for our infotainment industry. And by definition, a business must turn a profit or die. What is dying is democracy in the mad dash to one-up the competition.
Under what other paradigm would a Dick Morris gain instant notoriety? Or a Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh become household names? Could Ruppert Murdoch be peddling his shtick on Fox or Richard Mellon Scaife have gotten away with the infamous "Arkansas Project," dedicated to attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton that set the stage for impeachment? It's spawned a cottage industry with smaller franchises investing in the market. Randi Rhodes learned this, as did Howard Sterne and Don Imus. They try to out-gross one another and the public buys in. The dumbing-down of the American consciousness did not start in our failed school system; it started in our failed media.
The upshot of my point is that race is a big issue, as is ethnic and religious differences. We jumped the Catholic hurdle with JFK, but ethnic and race are two areas that hit too close to our own comfort zone. It is competition of another color. It will take more than a ginned-up media campaign or slick nationwide commercial to sell Barack Obama. He can't be pitched as a political Marlboro man; he has too many holes in his resume and too many unanswered questions about his loyalties or his associations. To this time, he has successfully dodged many attempts to unmask his cool detachment. It isn't some mystical, ethereal aura he emanates; what most sense is his unwillingness to volunteer for the vetting other candidates must endure on their quest for the White House.
And when a reporter or the opposing campaign begs to wonder why, the race card is handy. I would like to say it isn't about race, it is about Obama's inexperience and flawed history; but of course, the two-hundred pound gorilla in the room is his biracial background. And the way it is being used to deflect and protect his image as a potential leader when nothing in his past legislative life would endorse his candidacy, is little short of the most egregious hypocrisy. Geraldine Ferraro did not exempt herself when she made her blanket statement of fact. Barack Obama should not be in the 2008 presidential race; my question remains: why is he?
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 8:33:18 PM
Ms. Firth, you are perceptive and write very well. Your mistake comes in believing that intellectual approaches to this election process will work. They certainly are not being used by these almost fanatic supporters of the neophyte politician Barack Obama who seem to need to turn every sentence, every phrase, every nuanced look by the Clinton camp into a personal insult against their guy.
Never mind the facts of, as you so eloquently note, a resume with gaping holes, never mind the words of Senator Obama that place him squarely in the same political sphere as his opponent, Senator Clinton , centrists and globalists both, wedded to the same corporate controls as is John McCain in fact.
I understand the desperation of the progressive to find a candidate to love and support, never mind that , in the end, it aint Obama. I believe, and very strongly, that the growth of the third party looms closer with each failure of the electorate to see through the sham and fraud of the two party system and its wretchedly posturing and outright lying candidates. It is only a question of time.
This is the second time I have snuck a peek here, the first resulted in assurances that my absence was warranted and the choice to spend my time in more fertile and less blindly partisan fields was correct. This tiem I found a gem, and I thank you for it. I would hope that this is not the only forum in which you frolic, there are far better and more adult political places to be.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Saturday, April 26, 2008 at 9:12:13 AM
I recommend, rather than formulaic and childish nonsense, that you either put some intellectualism into a post or just forgoe posting until you have something of real import to add.
More and more of us ( those who use that grey matter) understand that voting for a democrat is little different from voting for a republican, as the end result is still the same. That you refuse to make this leap is due to any number of factors, youth, inexperience, inability to put facts together and draw logical conclusions or simple laziness. Not that you are alone in such lack of logic, but more and more are deserting your position daily. It is, in many minds, the only way out of our dilemma.
I wonder if you have even bothered to go to votenader.org, to read and think about what is written there and to compare and contrast it to what is being said by the two democratic candidates? It is folks like you, sir, who keep me from coming to this site with any degree of frequency. I need more there there......
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Saturday, April 26, 2008 at 5:04:31 PM
and I agree with many if not most of them. I am also interested in getting the status quo replaced with an administration that can actually get elected, and govern this nation, rather than spend four years giving admirable speeches and being otherwise stymied by a congress that is not of his party, which it would be under any circumstances. That is political jerking off.
If you wish to cast a vote in protest of the government you WILL have, you are quite free to do so, but don't be so self delusional as to pretend that it will actually make a difference. As I have pointed out before, your pretense at political sophistication is simply political sophistry.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1174 comments)
on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 8:08:42 AM
You are simply a fraud, sir, or so politically inept as to be useless to solutions to a way out of the swamp we find ourselves enmired within. Ralph Naders candidacy, as well as that of Cynthia McKinney's , is undertaken, not with any hope of victory but simply to place before the thinking voter ( sorry that excludes you) those agendas that remain absent from the politicing and campaigning of the representatives of the Duopoly Party.
You fasten upon the unelectability of third party or independent candidates as a bulldog on a bone, as if your lack of political perspicacity were instead some grand revelation. What you are , sadly, is an average thinker, one incapable of thinking outside the box, one who fails miserably to see the complicities and cowardice of your own choices, one who puts winning an election over changing the course of this nation . No democrat will significantly alter the course we are on, neither Obama nor Clinton has taken a principled stance on any of the important issues of our day. Both suggest health care plans that exclude millions, both continue to vote for the continuation of a war they supposedly are against, both support tax cuts that are biased and increase the descent of this nation into third world status. Both are solidly and inevitably in the thrall of the very corporations that rule this nation and, if either is elected, will continue to rule it.
Yet you seem obsessed, and rather childishly so, with voting for a winner....Neither they nor you are winners, sadly. I believe my ballot important. Far too important to waste it as you will yours. I believe this nation deserves better than it gets, you believe in mediocrity and a continuation of the descent of our nation. I note your penchant for formulaic and trite catch phrases, for meaningless responses that offer nothing in the way of illumination or astuteness. Your motives are incomprehensible to me but I do understand your cluelessness in our current crisis of leadership. But dont worry, Mr. Sanchez, others are taking up the work that you shirk, others are genuinely concerned with raising up this country to where it belongs, while you only are a smallish obstacle, one that already has been left behind.
I have returned here too many times of late, precisely because I find this place filled with those like the poster to whom I respond, either a GOP operative or one who unwittingly does their work, thus I will depart again and leave the field to the few here whose work and thought processes I admire, but are simply to few among the semiliterate and abysmally ignorant. I do check in from time to time, perhaps in a month I might find more folks sick of the Sanchezs' of this world.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 11:23:11 AM
Your presumption of an ability to analyze me is invalid on its face, and the results of your applied analysis are speculative and clearly an infantile attempt at intellectual bullying.
You may find someone to buy your rant, but it won't be me. I gave up drugs years ago.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1174 comments)
on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 1:57:12 PM
Thank God somebody has the same feelings that I do! I only wish that we could have a do over. I would pick either John Edwards or Hillary for President and the other for Vice President and then I would have Barrack Obama go out into the other countries like the Secretary of State and then we could get somewhere!
That is my comment!
by
nestacal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments)
on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 5:50:45 AM
10 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
