McCarthy, and the issue of Race
President Clinton made two statements, and people should take note of
these two statements - a mistake both Mr. Russert and Mr. Todd,
and even Mr. Robinson made today on Meet the press.
President Clinton said
I think it would be a great
thing if we had
an election year where you had two people who loved this country and
were devoted to the interest of this country.
AND he further went on to say
And people could actually
ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other
stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.
Clearly, the first statement states that there
are some candidates in the race who don't necessarily love this country
and are not devoted to the interest of this country.
There are some people who think this as a stretch,
but all those people should listen to and read what the Republicans,
conservatives, and talk-show & talk-radio hosts have been saying
ever since Michelle Obama's
I-am-proud-of-the-country-for-the-first-time rap, including, I must
add, Peggy Noonan's column "praising" Obama's speech.
It is naive to think that there are no "customers"
for this kind of talk. It is important to note that President Clinton
was addressing a group of war veterans in North Carolina.
I do not believe that war veterans or men/women in uniform
overwhelmingly make up these "customers" but it is political and I
believe (not think or know) common perception that war veterans and
men/women in uniform tend to "respond" more to this kind of "patriotic
talk."
Coming to the second sentence of President Clinton
and a follow up by Gov. Rendell, who according to AP said
Bill Clinton was saying what many people think, that the campaign should focus on the economy, health care and the candidates' experience, for example, and not on race and other distractions.
It is an outright jab at Obama's Tuesday speech.
Essentially Mrs. Clinton's supporters, if not Mrs. Clinton herself, are
saying that race should not be an issue, for it is a non-issue and
distracts us from real issues.
While the fact remains that addressing race head-on
can alleviate many other issues in this country, including but not
limited to, education, poverty, and affirmative action- I am sure
everyone would like a society where there is no need for affirmative
actions, Clinton supporters are more than suggesting that it is a distraction.
That said, Obama's campaign could use a dose of discipline, ranging
from Mrs Obama's "proud of America" statement, to Mr Obama's "typical
white" remark, to Gen. McPeak's remarks, not to mention Prof. Power's
monster gaffe and "Obama-not-bound-by-Iraq-withdrawal-plan."
They might not have said anything wrong, but they sure are saying things that are putting them on the defensive, and frankly, the campaign can live without.
I thought Obama himself said a million times he didn't want race to be an issue. Or that he didn't want this campaign to be about race or gender.
March 23, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was under the impression that he was referring to the race or gender of the candidate
March 23, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, if he is, as you say, then I disagree with him!
March 23, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight, those are two different separate statements that add no context to what he was saying.
“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. [New statement] And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”
Just like Ferraro’s separate statements: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. [New statement] And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. [New statement] And the country is caught up in the concept."
How many new statements do you begin with "And"? Clinton also said: “I think it would be a great thing if …people who loved this country could actually …stuff themselves.”
Race became a front and center issue when Obama had to use it to get out of the Wright problem. Of course, it is a problem but is also a distraction from the salient issues of this election.
March 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks ye all are just parsing and overlooking a little too much.
First to the original writer of this blog (who is at present "nameless"): I was with you up to the point you said, "That said..." then you lost me.
I believe Clinton's statements should not be taken independent of one another, since they were said as part of one continuous statement. And I don't think that a consummate politician -- as Bill Clinton is -- that he did not think out that statement in at least its broadest terms:
"Patriotism" in this country is something which seems to be reserved for white people. (A controversial statement, I know, but bear with me a sec. Warning: I am about to employ hyperbole.)
At least as reported by the media and certain pundits, you need to be of a certain political persuasion (very conservative Republican is best), Protestant (conservative Christian is best), male, white, and middle-aged is preferred. Your fashion sense should be conservative, you should never be caught without your flag pin. You should like country music and failing that, at least like "white music," and "white" entertainment. Loving the flag is paramount. You should love the symbolism of America more than the country itself. Pride is important: modern-day "patriots" have lots of pride. (It does not matter that it is misdirected sometimes.)
Clinton was suggesting that McCain (a "given" in the "patriot" department) and his wife (lacking in the "maleness" department but "conservative" enough even though she is Democrat because of her eagerness to wage war) are the only people who fit the "patriot" mold in the race. Obama cannot be a "patriot" because he is by definition a pacificist (pacificism is not patriotic), doesn't wear his standard issue flag pin, is not of the "proper" conservative Christian theology, and of an unacceptable racial "persuasion."
Clinton was further separating McCain and his wife from Obama, by suggesting that all this "race stuff" is a distraction. It is a given that "typical" white America doesn't like to talk about race. Even when they bring it up (Rev. Wright). They want to get it off their chests, and move on. They want things to be resolved in the manner they feel is "equitable," which usually means the people on the side of their equanimity go away feeling, well... shortchanged. To a McCain, and now we learn to a Clinton, talking about a real problem in America is both unpatriotic and a "distraction." (End hyperbole.)
Even McCain, when his 2000 candidacy was being torpedoed by manufactured tales of his "fathering" a black baby (the Bangladeshi child he and Cindy McCain adopted), when it would have been "straight talk" for McCain to address the race issue head on (suggesting perhaps that we as a country had outgrown the petty bigotry, racism, attendant with interracial marriage, interracial adoption and integrated living), McCain chose to turn tail and go home. (Worse, is that he returned willingly -- almost gleefully -- to the scene of the "crime," South Carolina to collect his conservative bona fides from places like Bob Jones University and the late Jerry Falwell and others.)
Bill Clinton knew exactly what message he was sending and to whom. Race is a "distraction", Obama is a "distraction" from the "real patriotic" chatter and the "real" patriots in this election: the two white persons left standing.
Shame on you, Bill Clinton. You are worse than I ever could have imagined.
Except for whatever it is you're going to say tomorrow.
March 23, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
To read that statement as accusing Obama of being unpatriotic is ludicrous. I imagine, though, that Clinton was thinking, perhaps not of race per se, but of identity politics and smears and scandal-mongering. He may be arguing that race (and gender) politics are distracting but only in the sense of the pertinent issues of this campaign. We should not be re-fighting race or feminist issues at the expense of everything that needs to be done in this country.
I totally agree with him and Obama has said the same thing at times. You see, both HRC and Obama have denounced identity politics though both have slipped into at times to get votes. But Obama has rushed into race politics to extricate himself from Wright's radicalism. NOw he is beginning to play race politics in earnest.
Can any of you talented parsers and gifted mind-readers divine what Richardson meant regarding Obama, "But you know, Chris, it shouldn't just be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. You know, what about the rest of us?" The "rest of us"? As in not white, right? Wow. It's awfully quiet here.
March 23, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink