Here's a new one to add to your list:

In the words of that Clinton adviser: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2238148,00.html

Question: Are subtle racial appeals on the rise in the past week? Or are we creating news where nothing exists?

Answer: Yes to both questions.

I doubt using the word "lynch" in the same sentence where an African American is the subject is in any way subtle. The speaker passed "coded" at a high rate of speed on that one.

Salience. The events of the past weeks have made us more aware of them, have made the media more likely to pick them up, and increased the returns to protesting/opposing them.

Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you think this kind of language is acceptable or not.

"Code Words"?

I see overt racism coming from the Clinton camp.

Honestly, to my eye and ear they've been playing the "who does this uppity negro think he is" card for several weeks.

[Trolling deleted]

Callimaco, I think Clinton's message has been
"who does this naive-but-charming, wet-behind-the-ears kid think he is?"

I have clearly heard the youth attack - not the racial one.

The question is: "Are subtle racial appeals on the rise in the past week?"

My gut feeling is yes, but not necessarily as a planned or intended strategy. White folks, even well-intentioned ones, carry around some stereotypes and biases that come to the surface when race becomes an issue.

It's pretty easy to take each instance you name (and a few you didn't) and explain them away as "a poor choice of words". But when you take them all together, you have to ask whether these poor choices reflect racial bias. Would Cuomo have said "shuck and jive" if he was talking about a contest between white men? I have no idea, but I know he did choose that phrase to talk about a contest in which Mr. Obama is a candidate.

Billy Shaheen's "drug dealer" comments raise similar questions. In the past, no one asked if white candidates who admitted to drug use were also dealers (crackpot theories about Bill Clinton and the Mena airport notwithstanding).

Short answer: I don't think anyone is making a plan to race bait Obama. I do think some indications of racial bias are rising to the surface of the debate.

Subtle racial appeals? In the United States? I guess it's progress that they're now subtle.

Ooh, another one taking Obama to task for laziness:

"He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she said. "And that's his prerogative. That's his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records."

http://www.lvrj.com/news/13702902.html

As noted above:

"In the words of that Clinton adviser: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2238148,00.html

Wow. That's extraordinarily racist - a classic devaluation of the very reality of a black man. It says Clinton, a white woman, is more real than Barack Obama. So supporting her is real, while supporting Obama imaginary.

That's just disgusting.

I'm not trying to apologize for any of those comments (particularly Rove's), but the reaction to them is bit disingenuous unless we admit that a large part of Obama's APPEAL is that he's African-American. Yes, many young people are, indeed, attracted to him because he's "history-making," etc. I understand that impulse, of course - but those feelings are, in the end, incidental to whether or not he's the best candidate (which he well may be; I'm on the fence).

I'm also struck by the fact that few pundits or bloggers have pointed out the superficiality of the post-racist attitudes of Obama's young "independents"; via Obama, they get to "strike a blow against racism" at no risk whatsoever to themselves, unlike folks (black and white) who actually moved the civil rights cause along in earlier generations. I'm afraid I'm old enough to remember when racism was, well, not respected, but still very much in evidence - and many of the people who now cheer at Obama rallies would, I think, not have marched in Selma (no, I didn't either).

So needless to say, feel-good anti-racist messages have their mirror in these creepy veiled-racist messages. You simply can't have the positive side of the race card without the negative one, can you . . .

People see and hear what they want to see and hear.

I noticed on the news casts last night that when Ben Bernanke announced possible cuts in interest rates by the Fed, his voice shook. Markets around the world hang on his every word and it was obvious that he was nervous. But, today, there is not a peep in the news about his obvious display of emotion.

I'm also struck by the fact that few pundits or bloggers have pointed out the superficiality of the post-racist attitudes of Obama's young "independents"; via Obama, they get to "strike a blow against racism" at no risk whatsoever to themselves,

Could I possibly impose upon you for, y'know, evidence of this attitude? Why do you assume that Obama's young independents don't actually think he would make the better president?

Keep it civil???

No good will come of this.

If you are worried about subtle or not so subtle racial messages from the Hillary camp, wait for the direct appeals to racial bigotry if Obama is nominated.

I think that both Obama and Hillary will be pilloried in the national campaign by the appeals, by the Republicans, to the basest of human emotions. It's loathsome, but both of them better be prepared for the onslaught.

Al, AGAIN you moron, Bill Clinton did NOT call Obama's civil rights work a fairytale. He was referring to Obama saying, after claiming he opposed the war in Iraq, that his position wasn't all that different from Bush's, calling the idea of Obama having a consistent and thoroughgoing opposition to Iraq a "fairytale."

Thomas Garvey is right on the appeal side. And, it's not racist for others to point that out. That said, it is disturbing to hear a number of cruder comments from multiple people affiliated with the Clinton campaign.

Woody Allen Poe is very right. Al Sharpton is an asshole for calling Tilghman to be fired when Tiger Woods himself has moved on, and the context makes it clear no intent was involved.

"Are subtle racial appeals on the rise in the past week?"

"Lynch him in a back alley" is subtle?

Quaker's logic works for me:

It's pretty easy to take each instance you name (and a few you didn't) and explain them away as "a poor choice of words". But when you take them all together, you have to ask whether these poor choices reflect racial bias. Would Cuomo have said "shuck and jive" if he was talking about a contest between white men? I have no idea, but I know he did choose that phrase to talk about a contest in which Mr. Obama is a candidate.

I immediately thought about the linguist (or psycholinguist) who recently studied Bush's speech patterns (no link, sorry) and was surprised to find Bush hyperarticulate on a few topics--when discussing executions, for example, or torture--but of course hopelessly lost when discussing health care.

"Out of the fullness of the heart," I think the verse in Matthew has it, "the mouth speaks." And when the heart is full of (or at least well stocked with) these relics of racism, well, the language will come out, unbidden. Or bidden. I don't know.

My grades on whether these were racial appeals:

"shuck and jive"
Probably

"kid,"
Possibly

"pickup basketball at Harvard,"
Possibly

"Lynch him in a back alley,"
Coming out of the mouth it did, probably not, but still pretty much a firing offense because of how it's understood

"It took a president to get it done."
Nope

Are subtle racial appeals on the rise? Are overt racial and racist appeals on the rise? And sexist ones? And does anyone think it's going to stop there?

D: historic opportunity to elect first (woman / African-American) !
R: that's divisive, racist/sexist, and un-American !
D: to say that is divisive, racist/sexist, and un-American !

R: (hysterical-weak-timid / criminal-scary-lazy) !
D: that's divisive, racist/sexist, and un-American !
R: to say that is divisive, racist/sexist, and un-American !

I just can't wait to see what new lows of bigotry and hypocrisy this election will sink to...

Having teenage children and their African-American friends in my house and car almost constantly for the last 15 years, I can tell you that they do not have the same reaction to code words that I do. The kids are very open and casual with each other (sometimes way too much for me). I would look at the age of the person who is talking to decide how they mean something. It's a different day now, and I don't want to burden our children with our baggage.

But when you take them all together

You realize that some of these quotes are from Rove, some of them are from random Hillary supporters, some are from unattributed staffers, and the most innocuous are from the candidate (and spouse).

White folks, even well-intentioned ones, carry around some stereotypes and biases that come to the surface when race becomes an issue.

Everyone has some issue with race. Whether it be hypersensitivity, uncomfortableness, irrationality, or ignorance. Misinterpretations and miscommunications galore. Obama is pretty much the only one who can put this baby to sleep. Or he can let it fester, poison the democratic electorate, and use it to win in primaries in the south. Not saying he created the situation, just that his leadership is the only civil way out. That was one hell of a "non-endorsement."

Watch this:

Bitch, man-hater, penis envy, shopaholic, daddy's girl, frigid

Politics is such fun!

"Al Sharpton is an asshole for calling Tilghman to be fired when Tiger Woods himself has moved on, and the context makes it clear no intent was involved."

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 11, 2008 at 3:32 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The woman is supposed to be a professional broadcaster. Professional. A professional music critic wouldn't lament the latest Elton John effort as sounding like someone on his hands and knees squealing like a piggy. Nor would he scoff having done so his intentions had been misread. Golf is a genteel game. Television hosts are expected to be commensurately genteel in their comments. Had a man linked lynching and Tiger Woods his future employment might include calling the action at demolition derbies at county fairs.

Could someone please make a list of phrases that, while they had racist origins, are in common usage today, and give people the benefit of the doubt? I think I may have used 'shuck and jive' at some point in my life and never thought of it with a racial overtone. I'll sure stop now though.

Just to be clear, the 'lynch' statement was made by a sportscaster, not a Hillary surrogate. And even Tiger himself does not think the sportscaster meant it in a racist way.

Should the word lynch just be stricken from the lexicon?

You know who could fix this in a heartbeat if they wanted to? Barack and Hillary themselves. It would be a wonderful Democratic unifying event if they could make a joint appearance and issue a statement. Yeah, I know I'm too naive and hopeful. They're waiting until the convention when one of them has slapped the other silly with this stuff.

I think Sen. Clinton's campaign is using subtle bigotry as attacks on Sen. Obama. I hope they will find out that the same reflex Democratic voters have to rally behind a candidate that is subjected to sexist prejudice is similar to the one they will have when a candidate is subjected to racial prejudice.

Perhaps Obama should stage an incident at one of his campaign stops where hecklers want him to pick their cotton. Instead of tearing up, he should respond with cries of 'Don't beat me master.'

Just to be clear, the 'lynch' statement was made by a sportscaster, not a Hillary surrogate. And even Tiger himself does not think the sportscaster meant it in a racist way.

I agree with all that. But intent, in that job, is only part of the issue. There are certain things you just don't say because of how people will understand them.

Life is unfair, especially to the clueless.

I suspect that the race baiting from the right will soon be drowned out by the "Obama is a muslim terrorist, trained in a madrass" line, but Karl Rove wouldn't be Karl Rove if he wasn't doing a little bit of race baiting on the side. As for Andy Cuomo's remark, I think "Shuck and Jive" achieved mainstream status years. It may have had racist origins, but it outlived them a long time ago.

I think it's obvious that Bill Clinton was hitting Obama's inexperience, and what Clinton saw as hin naivete. You have to look awfully hard for a reason to take umbrage with his remarks, although I'm sure some will (it's their job).

In passing, I have a couple of friends, both lifelong Democrats, who live in Chicago. Both of them are somewhat favorably inclined towards Obama, but the both say he was a pretty unimpressive State Senator, at least in terms of legislative achievement

Some of those comments were just dumb. Shuck and jive??? Seriously? Very dumb. I think that they are just as dumb as comments about age differences.

Easy Kevin ole boy, you’ll be accused yourself of something you are innocent of. Note that some of your commenters think this is all about the Clintons.

shuck and jive: phrase used by Andrew Cuomo in an extended answer (that made no mention of Obama and was not about Obama) to a question (that made no mention of Obama and was not about Obama).

kid: I follwed the links all the way. Bill Clinton was quoted at length, but never said “kid” or anything like it. Donna Brazile seemed to accuse Bill of using the word, but it wasn’t in the quotes provided.

pickup basketball at Harvard: Karl Rove is the one who used this phrase, not either of the Clintons. Rove is also the guy who explicitly said that Obama is sometimes lazy.

Lynch him in a back alley: phase used by a lady discussing Tiger Woods and his golf dominance. Nothing to do with the Clintons.

It took a president to get it done: As pointed out by Greg Sargent, NYT keeps truncating the quote. Appears Hillary (a fan of MLK since young teenager) was comparing LBJ to Kennedy if you read the entire quote.

To "Quaker in the Basement" - it would be rather hard to find hard "evidence" of the impulses I'm describing, wouldn't it; how many Obama supporters would tell any survey that, deep down, they simply thought it was cool to be voting for the young, black guy? Yet common sense nudges one somewhere with the intimation that such a surmise is probably true. And who can help but notice that racism is the one and only thing worthy of moral censure among many young people (along with the illusion that this idea somehow makes them better than their parents)? Such easily self-flattering sentiments, I'd argue, may well undergird much of Obama's support.

Of course Obama may, indeed, prove to be a great president, and would certainly get my vote over any Republican. Still, his experience IS thin, and he DOES speak largely in terms of vague uplift. It's far harder to make the case, in fact, that people are attracted to him because of some hard-headed analysis of his ability, because his ability simply hasn't been proven. And let's not forget, while I'm musing about Obama's appeal, that his calls for transcending partisanship offer an easy out for those foolish enough to have supported the Iraq War (I know, he opposed it), or the Bush administration in its early stages. Obama implictly promises to simply wipe those mistakes away; for many complacent Democrats, and many Republicans too, that no doubt has a lot of appeal.

As for Andy Cuomo's remark, I think "Shuck and Jive" achieved mainstream status years. It may have had racist origins, but it outlived them a long time ago.

Anybody who hears the word "jive", in particular, and doesn't immediately think that it has great potential to have racial overtones just isn't paying attention.

And politicians are paid to pay attention.

How sad that it has taken the greatest democratic republic the world has ever known, 145 years since the Emancipation Proclamation to even have a black man in a position to ascend to the highest office in the land. No one else has even come close.

Ignorance is at the core of all racism, since Barack Obama is only different from Dick Cheney by the concentration of melanin under his skin. He is likely more intelligent than Cheney, since Cheney barely finished college and Obama was Law Review at Harvard. Yet, there remain many Americans who think Obama is not qualified to be president because of the racial background of one of his parents.

The big question is - Why are so many Americans still so ignorant???

Yet common sense nudges one somewhere with the intimation that such a surmise is probably true.

"Common sense" lets us believe almost anything we wish.

I'm sure that people support Mr. Obama for all sorts of reasons; among them, that he is black. Likewise, it's just as likely that Ms. Clinton has supporters who like the fact that she is female, Mr. Edwards wins voters who like him because he is southern, and Mr. Huckabee gets voters who like him because he is Baptist.

We should have a problem with all of these or none of them.

The former president was pretty clearly trying to get at the issue of experience. I don't think there's any question that race didn't have anything to do with his comment, at even the subconscious level (as I think was the case with both Cuomo & the golf announcer) but he & others looking to exploit that theme will need to be conscious of the fact that less thoughtful expressions might, to some ears, sound like calling Obama "boy." And even the more thoughtful expressions can be twisted by the cynical.

Ooh, another one taking Obama to task for laziness: "He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she said. "And that's his prerogative. That's his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records."

She is referring to an article in the July NYT in which Obama himself characterized his Illinois senate experience as part-time. Guess all campaign remarks need to come with footnotes this year.

I must admit that until recently I was wondering how it was that so many seasoned, intelligent politicos could say such stupid things.

At this point I am thinking that all of the "gaffes" have been planned by the Clinton camp.

None of the other campaigns have laid down such a string of supposed gaffes.

For me "Shuck and Jive" is right up there with "Iron my Shirt". I await the "Shine my Shoes" at an Obama event.

It all sounds like classic Rove-ism to me. The Clintons' strength was seen to be their appeal to black voters (1st black president, etc.), so therefore the way to attack them is to say they and their subordinates are being racist. Only problem with this theory: Rove is off writing columns for Newsweek.

It is impossible to discuss Obama and not discuss race, as it is impossible to discuss Clinton and not discuss gender. Many people wish to break the color barrier on the presidency, and many people want to break the gender barrier. Each is a worthy goal.

What is upsetting,and disquieting to me, is how African Americans take offense at so many things that whites say which are not racist, which seems to be polluting the debate. When Clinton described Obama as naive and irresponsible, someone posted that this was racist, since that was the way the "man" talked about blacks in the south. Who knew? Then if anyone mentions certain things that Obama brought up in his own book, like his prior drug use, well, thats racist too even thought he brought it up and published it.

Heck if Obama people think its racist now you have see nothing and are...'cough'...naive. Shoot, I heard a radio personality here in my town yesterday say Obama needs to be investigated for his Muslim ties, "whether they be terrorist or not." Thats what you all can expect people. So let him take his hits now; he will be stronger for it.

I suppose all of this is inevitable. I just fervently hope that we dont degenerate as Dems into woman vs. black, make nasty accusations against each other and blow our great opportunity in the fall.

Bottom line for me is I am glad neither HRC nor Obama can cost to the election but must earn it through hard work and good policies against a formidable opponent. Whomever is left standing at the convention will be a much stronger and more formidable candidate against the Repub hate machine than someone who waltzed to the nomination (I am assuming there is nothing wrong to blacks or women with using the word "waltz". Just a joke.)

jackohearts: great work! Deserves a repost:

shuck and jive: phrase used by Andrew Cuomo in an extended answer (that made no mention of Obama and was not about Obama) to a question (that made no mention of Obama and was not about Obama).

kid: I followed the links all the way. Bill Clinton was quoted at length, but never said “kid” or anything like it. Donna Brazile seemed to accuse Bill of using the word, but it wasn’t in the quotes provided.

pickup basketball at Harvard: Karl Rove is the one who used this phrase, not either of the Clintons. Rove is also the guy who explicitly said that Obama is sometimes lazy.

Lynch him in a back alley: phase used by a lady discussing Tiger Woods and his golf dominance. Nothing to do with the Clintons.

It took a president to get it done: As pointed out by Greg Sargent, NYT keeps truncating the quote. Appears Hillary (a fan of MLK since young teenager) was comparing LBJ to Kennedy if you read the entire quote.

The "lynch" comment and the "shuck and jive" comments aren't coded at all. They're direct references. The "pickup basketball" and "kid" are either intentionally coded or tinged with racism. "It took a president" was not racist, just stupid and clumsy and bad history.

Well, I don't mean to raise too many hackles (which of course would be totally out of character for me), but one thing that has occurred to me that's at least interesting is how much more forbidden negative or loaded language is when it comes to race than when it comes to gender.

People openly talk even in liberal blog comments about Hillary as being a shrew, a bitch, a ball-buster, etc.

But even the most indirect potential slur about race is seized upon, and punished as an unforgivable offense worthy of ostracism. It's simply unthinkable that any racial term that might be a real analogue to "shrew" for women could be uttered in such a context.

I'm not really saying it should be otherwise. I actually do think that for various reasons race is far more delicate and dangerous issue than gender.

But it's an interesting illustration of that underlying reality, I think.

With Kelly Tilghman and the lynching of Tiger Woods, probably just abject stupidity. Shuck and jive: Definitely. The rest, maybe.

Kevin,

I think you should make it plain where these quotes are from, because a lot of people seem to assume they all come from the Clinton camp.

Steve Duncan, you're taking Tilghman's words out of context of a whole set of dialogue, including Nick Faldo saying, right before that, that a way to stop Tiger would be to take him in a back alley and beat him up.

You're also not putting Al Sharpton's comments into the context of, well... Al Sharpton.

If Al wants anybody fired, he can start by firing himself from his abused self-created soapbox.

Quaker: Great last comment. And, the most abhorrent are those who vote for Huck because he's a Baptist. Remember, Americans say they would be less likely to vote for an atheist (that's people like me) than a gay person. For all I know, somebody here might have a bias against me.

More on Clinton and Obama’s “fairytale”

Here , the Slickster explains in detail how Obama’s “fairytale” is about his allegedly consistent and continued opposition to the Iraq war.

“We went through 15 debates and the Obama campaign has made the argument that his relative lack of service in the Senate was not relevant because he had better judgment than the other Democrats on the Iraq War...” Bill said. “And I pointed out that he'd never been asked about his statements in 2004 that he didn't know how he'd have voted on the Iraq War, and that there was no significant difference between his position as President Bush’s.”

Obama has said during this campaign that he hedged on his answer about the Iraq War authorization vote because he did not want to openly disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards, as they were the party's ticket at the national convention where he was speaking, and both of whom had voted for the war and yet to repudiate it.

"Keep it civil???

No good will come of this."

I agree.

Hillary is screwed with black voters:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html

This is the kind of thing that is not going to go away no matter what she does. This is what black voters are going to be talking about for next week and the stench won't be easily covered up no matter how much Bill and Hillary explain. The more they explain the worse it'll get -- pretty soon she talk about how some of her best friends are black. As long as Obama heeds the late Lee Atwater's advice (Stay out of the way when your opponent is engaged in self-destruction) he'll benefit mightily from this. Obama has Clyburn's endorsement in the bank now. And the longer this goes on, the more NY, NJ and CA politicians are going to be reluctant to vocally support Hillary.

I can't see how any reasonable person wouldn't see that "shuck and jive" is a racially-loaded phrase. Andrew Cuomo knew exactly what he was saying. Either that, or he is the dumbest human on the planet. And I know that's not the case, because Dumbya still lives here.

I support Obama over Clinton. And I think this is a case of "two of these are not like the others". The Bill and Hilary ones aren't racist at all.

There are some situations where calling a black man "boy" is racist, but I've never heard that argument about the word "kid" -- and more importantly, that's obviously not what Bill meant. Doubly so for "it took a president to get it done." Imagine that MLK were alive today -- he would wholeheartedly agree with that statement. The whole point of MLK's political agenda was that powerful people needed to do brave things, because bravery by protesters, while necessary, is never sufficient.

Compare that to:
1. Resurrecting the phrase "shuck and jive", which, as someone under 30, I have hear fewer times in my life than I've heard "macaca"
2. Rove's insane attempts to imply that Obama was a lazy jock
3. A sports announcer joking about lynching a black person.

It's not even close, and pretending it's close insults everyone's intelligence.

Thomas,

I think you put too much emphasis on how younger people view race. It's an issue, of course, but not THE issue it has been in the past for other generations. It may not be better or worse or earned, but it's definitely different. I don't know how else to describe it. Obama's race means very little to me beyond how it has shaped his worldview.

The Guardian UK "example" is also taken out of context, and is already making the rounds of comment threads in a spam-like fashion.

Sometimes you really don't mean it in the worst way it can be taken.

A few weeks ago I was in a Japanese restaurant with my family. My son and I were speaking some limited Japanese (we took two semesters of Japanese at a local community college last year) with the staff, who were Japanese immigrants. When the manager, who was not Japanese, came to our table and spoke English to us, I complimented him on his English, telling him he spoke it like a native. He smiled and said that was because he was from Lemon Grove, California, and we chatted about the meal for a few seconds.

Later my wife asked me if I realized how racist what I had said could be taken to be, since the manager was African-American. I said I hadn't, but I can see how it might be taken so.

It's a good thing I'm never going to run for an office.

When Bill Clinton finds himself having to explain himself on Al Sharpton radio program, like some reincarnation of Imus, you know he's in trouble.

Anybody going to mention Jesse Jackson Jr.'s two-fer of sexism and race-baiting? "Her appearance brought her to tears, but not Hurricane Katrina." Or was that too uncoded?

Well, it is far beyond code. I get all sorts of kooky forwards from redneck relatives and SURE ENOUGH I get the first one about Obama a couple of days before the primary. The subject line is "Obama's Church". A snippet: "If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned!" What's funny is they talk about his middle name being MOHAMMED! It is probably intentional, so if it gets brought up, somebody will correct them and tell them it is HUSSEIN! Then that will of course, make them think he is Saddam's cousin and that's far worse...

....since Barack Obama is only different from Dick Cheney by the concentration of melanin under his skin....The Conservative Deflator at 4:09 PM

frankly0, don't leave out the old Southern standby 'boy'

Callimaco at 3:13 PM: the full quote was: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool." While I'm as impressed by anonymous quotes as anyone, the intent, however ineptly expressed, was not racist. It was clearly an attempt to delineate policy driven voters or voters wanting social programs.

... even the most indirect potential slur about race is seized upon, and punished as an unforgivable offense worthy of ostracism. It's simply unthinkable that any racial term that might be a real analogue to "shrew" for women could be uttered in such a context.

Misogynist language is plenty hateful, but racist language has the weight of institutionalized brutality behind it. There wasn't a war fought over the issue of the ERA. There's no equivalent to the Klan when it comes to opponents of feminism. To be sure, awful things are said about -- and sometimes even done to -- women, but I don't think they can be compared to slavery & its legacies.

I find Clinton's assertion of superior experience to Obama very curious, considering he has served in elected office more than half again as long as she has. It might be worth considering what social context makes it possible for Clinton to get traction with this.

"It took a president to get it done," is a subtle racial appeal? That's so crazy I would expect to hear it from Chris Mathews! From you, Kevin Drum, it's disappointing.

Anybody going to mention Jesse Jackson Jr.'s two-fer of sexism and race-baiting?

Well, you just did. Now maybe you could try to make it relevant?

I just chastised TPM for adding to their headline
a reference to an interview Bill Clinton had w/Charlie Rose last month. It made a small blip at the time. However, in the midst of all this racial brouhaha, TPM saw fit to add it to the conversation. I accused them of adding fire to the "race" with old and irrelevant material. This political situation is becoming a "game"- just like Hillary said.

*

Here's what I just realized -- if Hillary's JFK / LBJ / MLK discussion was really just aimed at saying that she's LBJ and Obama is JFK, isn't she insulting the Kennedys? "That JFK was all hat and no cattle." Obama ought to bust out with "I'm happy that she sees me as JFK, a politician that had more experience as an elected official than Hillary and I combined when he was elected president."

I may be grievously out of touch, but I can not fathom any racial overtones, undertones, or any tones at all in the words 'kid' and 'president'. Help me out here, peeps.

We humans haven't really progressed much in the last thousand years, much less the last 150. Both gender and race will be major factors in the primaries, and likely in the general as well. Along with "likeability," they may well determine the outcome -- assuming there is no terrorist event on American soil.

"it took a president to get it done."
It's an ugly truth that it took a deeply flawed man like LBJ to actually push civil rights legislation through congress, because he was a political creature who knew how to make deals and twist arms. I don't know that either Obama or H. Clinton have LBJ's political skills, though, so the quote is kind of silly. Nor am I sure we would want another LBJ. But the history is there...

"imaginary hip black friend" isn't so much a swipe at Obama, I don't think, as at the number of young middle-class white people who think of themselves as not being racist, but because our society is so segragated, don't actually associate with any African-Aamericans.

Anybody going to mention Jesse Jackson Jr.'s two-fer of sexism and race-baiting? "Her appearance brought her to tears, but not Hurricane Katrina." Or was that too uncoded?

I'll have to agree that when I heard Jackson I immediately thought he was hitting below the belt, going after votes in South Carolina based upon racial inuendo.

But I am slow to blame a Candidate for any particular statement made by a supporter, even a campaign offical. If a pattern becomes evident, or something incriminating appears in an ad, that's different.

Both Clintons and Obama will have to be careful. Rival supporters, the media, clueless jerks, tinfoil nasties, and Republican instigators are waiting to incite and to jump.

Lampwick, Bill Clinton made the mistake of going on Al Sharpton show in the first place, giving Sharpton undue credence.

I for one actually heard the section of the speech in which Bill Clinton used the words "fairy tale" and he was not referring to "the Dream" but to Obama's voting record on the Iraq war. Let's get it straight, people.

And as far as Andrew Cuomo and all the rest of it - I don't see the blatant and continual sexism present in the attitudes of the other candidates or the media coverage of Senator Clinton's campaign being addressed anywhere - no one is being held accountable for that.

I want to point something out that’s very obvious to me because I seen in all my life. And it’s something that I cannot imagine not happening.

Karl Rove and his political brethren will try to sow racial discord between the Clinton and Obama camps. If they can throw in a little gender discord, all the better. They love to start such fights. In their minds, it can only hurt Democrats and help Republicans, a win-win phenomenon.

They want Obama supporters so pissed that they would never consider voting for Clinton. They want Clinton supports so enraged that they would never consider voting for Obama.

It’s an easy game to play. And for them it’s great fun. It’s a game they have used in the past to divide and conquer. They will not be able to resist. They are flat out addicted. And they happen to be quite accomplished.

So, it is not O.K. to criticize Obama for his lack of experience because that is racist; but it is O.K. to criticize Hillary’s extensive experience by diminishing its importance by, for example, calling her contacts with foreign leaders “tea parties.”

It sounds like the same one-sided lack of accountability is being created that Bush used in 2004: no one was supposed to question his going AWOL as a member of the National Guard during the Vietnam War; but, it was O.K. to smear Kerry’s actual combat experience.

Quaker in Basement: "Katrina" = "subtle racial appeal." Not all of them are directed at Obama. Jackson's spectacular sexism was just lagniappe.

Paul Gottlieb: "Shuck and jive" has made the mainstream? Really. Please tell me where because I want to avoid that place.

little ole jim: You may have a great point about Rove, seeing that he has kept quiet for the most part until after NH. Rove and his "math" took a big hit after the 06 elections. Perhaps he wants to regain his "evil genius" title among Republicans.

Yes, what's with this Jesse Jackson Jr. Katrina thing? And also Donna Brazil and the guy on MSNBC talking about The Bradley Effect. They basically said if you don't support Obama, it's because you're racist. Now this is a problem for me, this idea they seem to be implying that you can't disagree or criticize an African-American without be suspected to be a racist. Do Brazil and the others actually think that's fair? That's nuts!

Shine: yes, and there are a lot of Karl Rove clones who don't yet have the name recognition, but hope to be bragging about their audacious trickery a few years from now.

Dog whistles brought down, through heavy-handedness, to normal pitch...

Honestly, I think the fact that the Obama campaign and all of his supporters are spending such a disproportionate amount of their time counting ways to to ignite some level of feighed outrage over his racial sensitivities being offended in order to energize the black vote is kind of pathetic. His supporters want to carry on about how he transends race, but are waiting with their hankerchiefs out any time a perceived slight is noticed. "Anonymous Clinton Advisor??" I'd like to get further clarification on that one before I decided to run too far down field with it. I realize none of you will, but I'm just sayin'. Also, Andrew Cuomo is a "supporter" of Clinton not an advisor or involved with her campain in any way.

I believe Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are both Obama supporters. Should I get my knickers in a twist and start panting over every racially stupid remark that has ever come out of one of their mouths? Hymie-town or Tawana Brawly ring any bells? Not likely.

Obama couldn't kill her off in NH like he thought he would, and she's alive and well and headed into Feb 5th. Chances are, she'll win with Florida, NY, NJ and more firmly in her column. Obama's only chance is if he can completely galvanize the black vote away from her any way he can. Funny how every news story about Obama has been about some kind of implied racial outrage since NH. Not one story about his stance on any issues.

I am not sure the references are all that subtle and that Hillary's supporters are the ones anxious to have race and gender and their respective advantages and disadvantages be part of the debate. It was Gloria Steinem, seeking to rally support for Hillary, who argued in her NYT op-ed that sexism is a more "restricting force" in American life than racism. It seemed odd that to promote the historic occasion of the first viable female presidential candidate she felt it necessary to denigrate the equally historic occasion of the first viable African-American candidate. Why put the two at odds?

I'd say it's Kevin and you readers who are practicing dog-whistle politics.

Kevin's brought it race with regards to Obama a few times now...remember the post about how the rest of the world will respond to an Obama as president?

Kevin and the rest of you guys jumped on Bob Kerrey a few weeks back.

It is too hard to ask you so-called liberals to practice what you preach for a change?

What will it take to get the Washington Monthly and its writers could just focus on the substance of the policies of Obama and Clinton rather than race or gender?

I'd say it's Kevin and you readers who are practicing dog-whistle politics.

Kevin's brought up race with regards to Obama a few times now...remember the post about how the rest of the world will respond to Obama as president?

Kevin and the rest of you guys jumped on Bob Kerrey a few weeks back.

It is too hard to ask you so-called liberals to practice what you preach for a change?

What will it take to get the Washington Monthly and its writers to just focus on the substance of the policies of Obama and Clinton rather than race or gender?

Since I have been roundly thrashed for being insensitive to the racism of "shuck and jive" I searched my memory for my associations with that phrase. The one that stands out is a very mediocre Art Garfunkel song called, believe it or not, "Mr. Shuck n' Jive" from his 1974 album Watermark, which I bought those many years ago. And yes, it is available on iTunes right now. the song is about a huckster, and that is always the association I have had with that phrase. There are no racially tinged lyrics - in fact it kind of describes Bill Clinton, if he were a failure. Now I am questioning the little jazz interlude in the middle, however. JUST KIDDING.

Anyway, just thought I would pass that along so you can excoriate Art Garfunkel for a while.

One more point I'd like to make. Do you know what drives true Independent voters absolutely bat-shit crazy? Oversensitivity to racial issues. If Obama's supporters stay on this track they are dooming his general election chances. That is why the only match-up that scares me is McCain v. Obama.

Even before Iowa, there was the cocaine story. There was a story in the note that said Hillary's campaign had all but called Obama lazy. And there was a third one I'm forgetting.

This is treading on racist stereotypes--and when there was no mainstream response, they realized they could go farther with white audiences on this.

And now that they've written off South Carolina (her numbers started to drop with the cocaine story, in no small part becuase Black voters knew exactly what she was doing), there's very little holding them back.

It's to their advantage if white people start arguing about "well, was that racist? Or not?" Because it lets them pretend Obama isn't the unifying figure who is inspiring change by appealing to fundamental american values--he's just another uppity negro running a divisive "identity" campaign (ironically, only the Republican Huckabee is running an "identity" campaign; Hillary is the Dem closest to doing this.). He's stirring up stuff just by virtue of his uppity negroness.

The more stories they can write that make it look like Obama is running to be "The First Black President"--which his campaign explicitly ISN'T about--the better it is for her.

It's really, really disgusting. It's incredibly bad for America. And they don't care.

One more point I'd like to make. Do you know what drives true Independent voters absolutely bat-shit crazy? Oversensitivity to racial issues.

Dawn: this, and many other factors, make it totally unclear which Democrat would ultimately be the benefactor of injecting race into the race. Why would either campaign risk it?

But one thing is for sure: Republicans would benefit big time.

I have a hard time with the notion that Barack Obama would never had been in contention if he was not black. I also have a problem that the experience issue is such a big factor now when it was less of a factor when John Edwards ran in 2004. Then Edwards had just two more years in the Senate than Obama has now -- without counting Obama's experience in the Illinois legislature. Gore, in fact, considered Edwards for the Vice Presidency in 2000 after just 2 years in the Senate.

Why?

Because Edwards, like Obama, has charisma.

If Senator Clinton and Obama were both white men, it would be like Mondale and Hart in 1984 with the difference that Obama doesn't have the personal issues that brought Hart down.

Obama happens to be a gifted human being who has risen fast largely due to his gifts. That is all.

The "shuck and jive" comment by Cuomo was not about Obama, it was about politicians in general. That's clear if you read the entire transcript of the interview. Cuomo was saying that small-state primaries like Iowa and New Hampshire are good because candidates have to connect with real voters and can't "shuck and jive at a press conference" like they usually do. Obama had just won Iowa, and Clinton had just won New Hampshire. So I don't see how this amounts to dogwhistle politics.

fairly saddening that some of the posters in this thread who just can't see what all the fuss is about racially loaded language are the same people who were quite rightly furious about the sexism tossed at Clinton.

The Clintons are playing the race card in subtle and not so subtle ways, all with deniability.

They are playing to traditional dems who probably don't want to vote for a black person.

This behavior is despicable.

Here's a sequence to consider:

Edwards was called a 'faggot' and 'breck girl' by various people, er Republicans.

Iowa and NH were screwed up by cheating of some kind.

After Iowa we started hearing all kinds of nastiness from people claiming to be Obama supporters. They claimed anybody who opposed Obama was racist or unpatriotic or something. Then there's the Hillary "tears" and the question of Edwards sexism.

Then Karl Rove claims Obama is 'prissy'.

Methinks KKKarl has been testing ways to punch people's emotional buttons when they're under pressure.

I don't think we know who should be in the lead and I think Republicans are really screwing with the Dem primaries. We need to start from scratch with our considerations of the candidates and then vote your conscience.

Who would be the best president?

Which candidate is most likely to have a good presidency?

If Clinton really is doing this on purpose I agree it is despicable. And no one benefits except the Republicans, because Obama can't win without the Independents, and Clinton can't win if she pisses off loyal Dem voters.

I was certainly furious at the sexism tossed at Clinton - by the media, not by Obama's spokespeople, except for a few of his more vitriolic supporters on blogs. To me it was a lot more blatant than this. To take just one example, did Chris Matthews call Obama's white advisors a 'minstrel show' the way he called Clinton's male advisors the 'eunuch chorus'? It is certainly possible I just notice it more because I am a woman. In that case I have been educated by this discussion.

MarkH: I don't understand why media outlets, like Newsweek, are giving a known disrupter like Karl Rove a platform to spew his destructive comments in this race.

I have alread e-mailed NBC Nightly News, where Rove's comments about the Iowa race were quoted, and told them that after watching their program for over 50 years, I am through.

Hasn't this country suffered enough because of that man?

Wah wah! Dam liberals!

I gotcher code word-raise my taxes? NO!!!!!!

I gotcher code word-SURRENDER TO THA ENEMY????

NO!!!!

shut it and keep your opinions to yourself. AMerica is free becuz we want it that way. See that flag, fuh-lapppin in the breeze! Freedom.

You hate freedom, so no you don't get to complain.

Waaaaah-rurrrrr wurrr wuurrr! Out!

I've defended the Clinton's many times for many things over the last 15 years. But racism? Really? As Josh Marshall says, let's everybody take a deep breath.

PE,

I disagree that inexperience was not a factor with John Edwards in '04. I think it was a big reason he did not get the nomination for president. He seemed like a perfect choice to inject some youth and charisma as VP.

To take just one example, did Chris Matthews call Obama's white advisors a 'minstrel show' the way he called Clinton's male advisors the 'eunuch chorus'?

Mother of God but that man needs a therapist's couch in the absolute worst way way.

Or even just way.

... even the most indirect potential slur about race is seized upon, and punished as an unforgivable offense worthy of ostracism. It's simply unthinkable that any racial term that might be a real analogue to "shrew" for women could be uttered in such a context.

Misogynist language is plenty hateful, but racist language has the weight of institutionalized brutality behind it. There wasn't a war fought over the issue of the ERA. There's no equivalent to the Klan when it comes to opponents of feminism. To be sure, awful things are said about -- and sometimes even done to -- women, but I don't think they can be compared to slavery & its legacies.

This is an insane comment. Do you know how many women are the victimes of domestic violence everyday? Last year there was several instances of gunmen walking into places and gunning down just the women (the amish school comes to mind). No one talked about the fact that just women were killed. If a gunman walked into a school and systematically killed only black kids it would be all over the papers about the racism involved. But because they were girls it was never discussed.
And, can we please remember that women did not get the right to vote until 50 years after black men.

Dawn,

Please take a moment to look up the quotes (and heresay) and their contexts. Kevin did us a disservice in throwing them out there in this fashion.

You already know the answer: yes and yes.

The real question, which of course you will not address, is who is behind these insinuations. Name names, Kevin, or STFU.

thersites said:

"It's an ugly truth that it took a deeply flawed man like LBJ to actually push civil rights legislation through congress..."

I don't agree that LBJ was a "bad person" like so many people seem to believe today. I can certainly understand why many, during his presidency and since, hated him over Vietnam, since they saw so many people losing their lives needlessly. Johnson definitely deserves criticism for not following his instincts and getting the U.S. out of Vietnam. But the larger, pre-Vietnam condemnation of LBJ one hears, particularly from Johnson biographer Robert Caro, seems absurd.

Johnson is frequently condemned, for example, for the obvious vote fraud that played a critical role in his 1948 Senate election. There is no doubt that massive fraud took place. But I don't think it's fair to condemn LBJ and his campaign for this when one looks at the place and time they operated in. Much of Texas was, like Chicago, notoriously corrupt. In whole counties, votes were sold to the highest bidder. If you weren't willing to participate in the fraud, you would be beaten by someone who was. The results were going to be tainted no matter what. Given this, Johnson's behavior becomes understandable and--at least to my way of thinking--justified. And would Johnson's critics rather have had LBJ's opponent, Coke Stevenson--a traditional segregationist--elected to the Senate instead? We might still have Jim Crow today if that had happened.

It's like judging Truman regarding Hiroshima. Even if one disagrees with the decision, one must acknowledge the context in which it took place.

I can see why many people are turned off by LBJ, but I don't think he deserves to be demonized the way he frequently is today.

I'm prepared to say unequivically that everything both of the Clintons have said are unobjectionable and unintended.

Except her remark that LBJ was more important to the Civil Rights movement than Martin Luther King. That proved she as unfit to govern as George W. Bush, and for the same reason.

About Ben Smith's Politico column, "Racial tensions roil Democratic race".

Obama is probably going to win SC. He was probably going to win it before NH and the nastiness unleashed by the Clinton camp.

Thus, Ben Smith is trying to take a good bet (Obama winning SC) and turn it into a narrative (Obama winning SC because of angry black voters).

@applestooranges

Imagine that you were about to be born.

Imagine god told you that your natural lifespan could only be cut short by violence.

Imagine that god then gave you the choice to be male or female.

Which would you choose? What gender is more likely to die by violence?

asdf: what did I take out of context? More specifics, please.

The Democratic party needs to try to get a handle on the FAST. Everybody's sensitivity levels need to be lowered several notches and real quick because what we have here is a circular firing squad that will just take down the party. The ONLY beneficiary of this prickly, hair-trigger, lashing out at perceived insults to either one's ethnicity or gender by inciting voters is the Republican party.
Democrats, by and large, although of course capable of their own biases and prejudices are not generally racist or sexist. If we let the Karl Roves and their Xerox Republican Noise Machine, misquote each of our candidates and their campaigns. If we let them, hyperinflate what the candidate said and then run with it. If we let them take a word or phras out of context and turn it into a talking point for the Republicans...We all know the the Repugs are better at spreading false infor and staying on false message than the Dems EVEN up to the point that they can PROVOKE A RESPONSE FROM A DEMOCRAT WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO RESPOND TO IT.
Lets not let them make us into our own metaphorical 'suicide bombers' who destroy our own party. LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE.

If Clinton really is doing this on purpose I agree it is despicable

I've defended the Clinton's many times for many things over the last 15 years. But racism? Really?

I know a lot of people on this thread are confused. Maybe I don't understand the context of your comments. One of Kevin's quotes is about a sportscaster and Tiger Woods. One of them was from Karl Rove. This isn't all about Hillary.

asdf: yes, I think it was confusing that they were not all Clinton related, but I was responding to other posters that were saying things like "I see overt racism coming from the Clinton camp."

"@applestooranges

Imagine that you were about to be born.

Imagine god told you that your natural lifespan could only be cut short by violence.

Imagine that god then gave you the choice to be male or female.

Which would you choose? What gender is more likely to die by violence?

Posted by: Adam on January 11, 2008 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK"

Are you serious? I would choose to be a man, because the violence of most men is cause by their own behaviour, not that of a deranged male. Women are killed by men for being women. Men are not killed just for being men. Men are killed many times in fights when both parties are drunk or abusing.

A male that stays sober and out of trouble, will live much longer than a woman that does the same.

""imaginary hip black friend" isn't so much a swipe at Obama, I don't think, as at the number of young middle-class white people who think of themselves as not being racist, but because our society is so segragated, don't actually associate with any African-Aamericans."

That's exactly what I thought as well. It's a slam against the lightweight fluff balls who just luuuve Obama cuz he's so cute and, you know, speaks real nice. There was a joke site a while back about a black guy who rented himself out to white couples so they could say they have a black friend that skewered the same mentality.

"Do you know what drives true Independent voters absolutely bat-shit crazy? Oversensitivity to racial issues. If Obama's supporters stay on this track they are dooming his general election chances."

It won't get that far, because it's not just independent voters who are driven batshit crazy by this nonsense. No, the group includes all but about 10% of white voters, period.

Shuckin and jivin is an excellent example of just exactly the issue that drives people batshit. It *is* in the mainstream--so long as it's said by a black man. But it's one of those terms that white people can't say. (Cue a long discussion about the n-word as an extreme example of the same rule).

Obama's entire appeal is premised on the fact that he won't raise those sort of issues. His popularity will nosedive if voters can envision 4 years of insufferable whining about insufficient sensitivity.

So whine away. But then, I'm voting for either Hillary or McCain, and think Obama would be an utter disaster, so anything that reduces the offchance he'll make the primary is all right by me.

Do you know how many women are the victimes of domestic violence everyday? Last year there was several instances of gunmen walking into places and gunning down just the women (the amish school comes to mind). No one talked about the fact that just women were killed. If a gunman walked into a school and systematically killed only black kids it would be all over the papers about the racism involved. But because they were girls it was never discussed.

Nobody argued against the fact of domestic violence against women, but the example you cite is pretty poor, as it was a) random, and b) at the hands of someone who was mentally ill. (And, yes, *plenty* of people noticed the fact that it it was women & girls that he killed. The media went on about it at quite some length -- and for understandable reasons.) If some African-Americans are a little sensitive about racist language, it might be because they live in a country that was built largely on their forced labor, because half the country went to war to keep them in chains, and because discrimination against them was codified into law decades thereafter. Violence against women is a serious thing, as is the glass ceiling, and as is hateful language directed at women. The fact of a woman with a very good shot at being President of the most powerful nation in the history of the planet ought to be a great opportunity for people to repeatedly tell folks like Tweety to STFU when they start going off like they do. But let me know when you find an example of organized, government-sanctioned savagery against women that in any way resembles slavery.

*This isn't, by the way, intended to excuse people who cry racism at the drop of a hat. Just sayin' that there are reasons why people might be sensitive -- even sometimes overly sensitive -- to coded language.

Lee on January 11, 2008 at 9:40: I don't agree that LBJ was a "bad person" like so many people seem to believe today

No argument here. I deliberately used the word "flawed," not "bad" or "evil." I think his aggressive promotion of civil rights is a wonderful example of a man transcending his limitations. Without the horrible blunder that was Vietnam, he would be remembered as a great