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 . . .
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 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.
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.