Barack Obama took quite a beating on Meet The Press this morning, as Hillary continued to insist surrogates in his campaign were ramping up the rhetoric and playing every card in the racial deck. He has refused the unifying tack of granting Hillary a mea culpa for her words, and instead seems to be following the adage “If your opponent is drowning, throw them an anvil.” Forcing Clinton to explain her way out of it just keeps the narrative alive.
Barack is showing through these actions that he realizes his own lofty unrealistic rhetoric is just that. He is willing to go on the attack by proxy, but simultaneously retains his veneer of All American Virtuosity and Brotherhood by refraining from direct assault. Obama understands the game, and how to play it the Chicago Way.
Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I’m saying is, what are you prepared to do?
Ness: Anything and everything in my power.
Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way because they’re not gonna give up the fight until one of you is dead.
Ness: How do you do it then?
Malone: You wanna know how you do it? Here’s how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
Ness: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so.
Malone: Well, the Lord hates a coward. Do you know what a blood oath is, Mr. Ness?
Ness: Yes.
Malone: Good, ’cause you just took one.
Dave l
You’re saying this like it’s a BAD thing…
Tom in Texas
Dave:
Far from it. I think it’s brilliant politics. Barack simply sits back and denies any culpability while the media or others do the attacking for him. His reputation thus unsullied, he remains the purest and chastest candidate of them all in the short term media narrative.
But the unity “we can do this” thing is a sham. He knows it. The point is to convince the majority that your views are the same as theirs. So you use encompassing rhetoric when describing your platform.
JoeBu
Obama/Mini-Ditka ’08!!
/Old in Chi-town
Horselover Fat
Obama is doing more than sitting back, he’s stirring the pot…
I don’t know how to do linkys here unfortunately
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html
Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html
excerpt:
…
Horselover Fat
messed up, here is the excerpt..
“A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements,” said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.”
freddy
You first say that Obama is all airy persiflage and then that he is nothing but a street fighter. That he is all rhetoric and then that he uses the tactics of a gangster. You make him sound just like…FDR. I like this Obama!
Brachiator
Sorry. Hillary Clinton was just being politically stupid here. It is absurd to claim that Obama is playing every card in the racial deck when it was Hillary’s camp that that started this BS (such as the repeated indirect musing that Obama maybe might have been, oh, a drug dealer because he admitted to using cocaine).
Again, Clinton’s tin-ear with respect to hearing people come into play here. A lot of black folk love Bill Clinton. A lot of black people still love Clinton more than they love Obama, who cannot (as a Jesse Jackson might) automatically claim ethnic allegiance. Hillary has previously been granted some of Bill’s black-folk-love, but she cannot depend on automatic immunity.
Comments that are taken as a gratuitous attack on MLK or the Civil Rights movement in general would be seen by some the same way that an attack on the pope would be seen as an insult by pious Catholics. As a consequence, anything that smacks of GOP style dirty tricks may come across as a betrayal. This is fair more serious than any simplistic, and phony, claim that Obama is playing the race card.
Clinton dug her way in. It is up to her to dig her way out. That’s politics. Why would you want it any other way?
Also, in this era of YouTube, it is just silly for Hillary Clinton to claim that her words have been distorted when anyone can easily see for themselves what she and Bill have said. This is one of the reasons why Bill has had to run to Al Sharpton and others to explain what he “really meant,” while at the same time having his own surrogates run to papers like the UK’s Guardian to continue their own trope about Obama’s supposedly insubstantial campaign.
In the 60s, JFK was the idealist, but RFK was his attack dog. I have noted before, and agree with you here, that Obama has to deliver more substance. But the idea that he must wage his campaign as though he were a saint is obviously ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is the idea that Hillary Clinton can coyly claim, “I’m just a girl” and also rant “I’m the feminist icon. Bow down to my inevitability, dammit!”
And as for the “Chicago Way,” Ness won didn’t he?
I do, however, like the way you compare Hillary to Al Capone. Good one.
Dennis - SGMM
Considering the Clinton campaign’s direct mailer to NH voters implying that Obama was soft on choice (Despite 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood), the drumbeat from Clinton campaign staffers that Obama is too liberal, soft on crime (He opposes mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes) and her depiction of him as “”an untested man who offers false hope,” I think that Obama is treating her very gently. Why should he grant her a mea culpa?
What the fuck? Bobby Kennedy famously said, “Some men see things as they are and ask, ‘Why?’ I dream of things that never were and ask, ‘Why not?'” His brother promised to land a man on the moon. That was some pretty lofty rhetoric too. So we should aspire to the possible, to a limited vision of what we can safely accomplish with the least effort? It’s the so-called realists that have us in Iraq and who, when asked when we’ll be out, answer “Some day.” It was Hillary Clinton who said, in 1964, “I think you have to view the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.” The world, Hillary, and our nation in particular, sucks in many ways at the moment. So we’re just supposed to accept it?
As for direct assault, it seems to me that Hillary has done the assaulting. If Obama refuses to do the same then he is walking the walk as far as virtue and brotherhood. If others take up the cudgels on Obama’s behalf then so be it.
Rick Taylor
Hillary fired someone for that remark; I haven’t seen Obama doing that.
Ted
I just think Bill should STFU when it comes to the primary race, other than generally supporting the party and his wife. Him turning into an attack dog for her, given his status, is a bit shitty of him.
A Different JC
Obama seeks “unity” with anyone who also seeks unity. Meaning that well-intentioned people from across the aisle can be reasoned with and brought in as allies instead of – the current Newt Gingrich/Tom Delay/Karl Rove method of shooting your ideological opponents just to watch them die.
Obama is calling for a return to pre-‘Republican Revolution’ Politics. It’s not nicey-nice – it’s how things used to get done (cf. Moynihan, Bob Dole, or even LBJ, I shudder to say). It sounds pretty mature to me.
Obama is not playing nicey-nice with Hillary, however, because (a) she’s ideologically inveterate, and (b) he wants/needs to win.
But his behavior will be tainted by those who don’t like him – either he’s too weak and nice and won’t attack his opponents or he’s a liar because he will let his opponents be attacked.
Obama’s behavior must also be seen through the lens of how righteous Hillary is. On the race issue, Hillary and her surrogates appear to be playing some dirty tricks. And Mark Penn knows that main reason why Obama is popular as a black politician is because he strenuously avoids playing the race card. He’s black like Kennedy was Catholic – it was useful for getting his own ethnic group behind him but innocuous enough to not inflame skeptics.
If Penn and Clinton can get Obama to make claims about race, then they will have knocked Obama from his tightrope. And that will be a great victory for her. Hence why it is logical for her to stir up this conflict. I think it’s called “race-baiting”, no?
However, if you really truly think that Hillary is innocent, then Obama is being a hypocrite. And I can appreciate that viewpoint, but it is possible that she is just a ham-tongued politician who doesn’t understand the nuance of words and phrases.
I’m giving her more credit. I don’t think she’s innocent.
freddy
Hillary fired someone for that remark; I haven’t seen Obama doing that.
You haven’t seen Obama doing that for…what, specifically?
Dennis - SGMM
Agreed. Inasmuch as neither Gore nor Kerry has taken on the role, Bill is the symbolic head of the Democratic Party. I would fully expect him to support his wife but, attacking fellow Democrats is beyond the pale.
The Other Steve
Obama’s strategy is brilliant.
demkat620
You know the other day someone told Obama he was too nice for politics and he basically responded and I am paraphrasing “I’m from Chicago, I think I’ll be a’iight.”
I think part of the problem here is this guy is just as smart and knows how to play this game as well as the Clintons. Sometimes I think he’s much better at it.
LiberalTarian
Considering the blue dog endorsements Obama is picking up, I think he is running well to the right of Clinton. The more I see, the less I like.
The argument will be, “But Clinton is right of center, too! At least we will like Obama because he has a nice voice.”
No, I doubt that we will like President Obama. He is going to give the right what they want, not as a matter of power brokering, but because he is fine with it. The changes he is promising will be cosmetic, everyone will get along better. Why? Because he will reward the squeaky wheels while he pretends to be neutral and fair.
Depressing.
John Cole
Oh no you didn’t, Tom in Texas. fifteen hundred whiny Obama supporters who have all been “elevated” by his rhetoric and “inspired” by his message of “hope” and “unity” are about to be all up in your shit.
Don’t you know that Obama transcends race, racial divisions, politics, political divisions, anger, etc.
Zifnab
She’s his wife. He’ll do whatever he can to make sure she wins. If you expected anything less, I can’t help but see that as a bit naive, even if you don’t really like it.
Didn’t we bitch at Kerry specifically because he went down like a chump to the Swift Boat Veterans bullshit? Isn’t one reason we like Hillary so much because she’s supposed to have the brass balls to deal with Rovian bullshit? If Obama can play in her league, I don’t see how this would be a disqualifying factor for him. He’s playing the same game as McCain, leveraging his media sainthood to mud shield himself.
demkat620
He can also align the planets. He is Bill and Ted only without the whiny voices.
Ted
I suspect so as well. I guess I’m waiting to see what else he comes up with in the campaign.
I didn’t exactly expect differently. I just think it’s demeaning to his own legacy.
Tom in Texas
Obama is actually my guy. Because I think he can win. People will vote for this.
Horselover Fat
Progressive Punch has an analysis of senators’ voting records. I fear to post the link because it is long and might cause formatting problems.
The first 50 names are all Democrats or Independent.
Clinton is number 29 on that list. Obama is number 43, right after Claire McCaskill number 42.
Don’t see what’s so supposedly lefty about Obama.
El Cruzado
I get the impression that when Barack goes off with his unity message, he doesn’t really mean other politicians.
Besides, the “stay above the fray personally and have attack dog underlings dish it out” is a time-tested political strategy when running for highest office. Why, it’s what GWB did in 2000. Dozens of other examples are easy to find.
Horselover Fat
Any (D) wins this year. Vote for who will do the job best.
A Different JC
This is just a theory but the red-state Democrats may be supporting Obama not because he’s a closet-Republican but because they fear the polarization of a Hillary candidacy.
That is, Hillary on the ticket may be the equivalent of a gay-marriage mandate – drawing out the GOP base and harming red-state Democratic chances.
Brachiator
Apparently, this “unity” thing is a one-way street, with Obama expected to shape up, while the Clinton camp is free be as nasty as it wants to be. The Times of London reports how the Clinton surrogates have been running already discredited Obama smear (e.g. “He is a Muslim and was raised in an Islamic school,” etc.), hoping to get traction from it (“Dirt begins to fly at Obama: War opens with hints about ‘suspect’ backers,” January 13):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3177684.ece
myiq2xu
Actually, I like this edition better than Obama the Unity Pony.
If all he had to offer was his magical persuasion powers then I’d vote for somebody else, cuz I’ve been disappointed in the past by sweet-talking politicians who couldn’t deliver.
But if he is willing and able to get down and dirty in a little bare-knuckled politics, then just maybe he deserves my vote.
“Politics ain’t beanbag” – Molly Ivins
Davebo
That’s simply not true. And a dangerous assumption.
Zifnab
People are cheering for Obama because they assume for once he’s on “our team”. That team being the team fighting indefinite war, health insurance rape, and government incompetence. All the “hope” rings strong after seven years of generally despairing at ever seeing clean, intelligent government. All the “unity” rings strong after seven years of being generally ignored by our representation.
You rip on Obama for not having a plan. What plan is better than the existing benchmarks and timetables that have already been presented by Pelosi’s House? What plan is better than the Energy Bill that got squashed in Reid’s Senate? What plan is better than the Hillary-Care ’08 platform (which Obama hasn’t exactly had criticism of) that Hillary would end up presenting in the Senate anyway?
We’ve got lots of ideas. We need a salesman who can sell them. So, the question is, can Obama be that salesman?
myiq2xu
You forgot time and space.
Horselover Fat
OK, I’ll take it back.
But I don’t buy that current polls mean that Obama will be a better candidate 10 months from now than the other Dems.
I have seen polls showing Clinton already does better matched against McCain than Obama in states like Ohio and Virginia, and we do have something called an Electoral College.
Brachiator
More on Clinton camp dirty tricks from progressive columnist Marc Cooper (“Worst Campaign Tricks of 2007), LA Weekly, December 26, 2007):
Dirtiest Overall Campaign: Hillary and Bill Clinton
Which brings us right to the present and the now-infamous letter from the public-employees union AFSCME. Presided over by longtime Clinton hack Gerry McEntee, the union put out a flier this week slamming Barack Obama for his health-care plan that does not mandate coverage. Obama has said that such mandates are unfair and unaffordable to the poor. By the way, AFSCME’s president has said the same exact thing in congressional testimony. But, hey, no sacrifice — including the truth — is too great on behalf of one’s candidate. Worse, the anti-Obama and implicitly pro-Clinton flier was written in such a way as to suggest that it came from the John Edwards campaign — a real twofer in dirty pool: the sliming of one candidate, in the name of another, by a third candidate hidden behind a union that publicly contradicts its own long-standing position.
Note also how Obama’s criticisms of one version of health care mandates is also, pace John Cole, substantial. The full column can be found here:
A Different JC
For those who support Hillary: is there any way for her to win without trying to destroy Obama? If she kept her arguments against him to things like “He’s too young, let him spend a few years learning about the real world” or even “he’s too nice, let him toughen up in the Senate” then I’d be OK with her tone.
And while she does use those types of arguments, she’s also trying to paint him as a delusional flip-flopper on the Iraq War and a drug dealer (or whatever was implied by Shaheen).
The attacks on Obama’s age are fair-game to me because they’re easily fixed. But the charge of lying and drugging are not only false they have deeper damage.
I’m concerned not because I’m an Obama supporter (I prefer Edwards), but because Obama will likely be the Democratic nominee in ’12/’16 if he doesn’t get it now.
He *is* the future and Hillary & Bill need to remember that.
John Cole
Maybe you missed Jesse Jackson, Jr. get interviewed by Norah O’Donnell in which Jesse basically said “It’s about to get all racial up in here” by accusing Hillary of crying over herself but not rying for the black man during Hurricane katrina.
Obama’s group is not this bunch of clean, above the fray folks like you all seem to want to pretend.
myiq2xu
This isn’t about whether Hillary is a dirty fighter, it’s about whether Obama is. Pointing out her alleged deficiencies is not a defense of Obama.
BTW- quit fucking up the page by posting giant links nobody else will read anyway!
TheFountainHead
This is absolutely the question and if Hillary is the only other option, then the answer is yes.
Brachiator
I don’t see anyone here making that claim. Quite the opposite, some here have openly admired the “Chicago Way.”
Huh? The Cooper piece clearly shows that the Clinton campaign attempted to smear both Obama and Edwards. The issue here is not a defense of Obama, but demolishing the false idea that any Democratic Party presidential candidate who responds to Clintonian dirty tricks is somehow working against “unity.” Before he withdrew from the race, even Richardson, who seemed to tilt toward supporting Clinton, complained about some of Team Clinton’s dirty tactics. This is more than a matter of “alleged deficiencies,” it is about a pattern of pointless mean-spiritedness on the part of the Clinton campaign that might alienate voters whose support will be needed down the road.
whatsleft
On MTP I saw a person who believes in a unitary executive, just that it hasn’t been handled as well as SHE would. She is still adamantly against admitting to any mistakes, insisting that she was completely justified “in context” for her every decision. I have not, as yet, made any decision except NOT Hillary. I believe that she will gladly pick up the distorted presidential mantle that the present administration has been allowed to stretch beyond any possible relation to the actual Constitution, and use that to insist on doing things her way, so that we will continue to have at least 4 years of gridlock. And a further giant step away from what it means to be America will occur. Sadly, it would be the “good guys” doing it.
dnA
John,
Oh Obama has been playing the race cards? So I guess these incidents are my imagination:
By contrast, the Obama campaign has:
Who exactly is playing the race cards now? Obama? Because the article you link to points out that black people are getting irritated by the now perpetual use of racial subtext against a black candidate in the campaign?
The whole point of this strategy was to piss off white voters by making pressing Obama into pointing out that the attacks are racist. He hasn’t even done that, and yet you’re still accusing HIM of being the one who is playing the race cards.
Clearly, it’s a good strategy, because it’s working on you, and you’re no dummy.
dnA
John,
Oh Obama has been playing the race cards? So I guess these incidents are my imagination:
By contrast, the Obama campaign has:
Who exactly is playing the race cards now? Obama? Because the article you link to points out that black people are getting irritated by the now perpetual use of racial subtext against a black candidate in the campaign?
The whole point of this strategy was to piss off white voters by pressing Obama into pointing out that the attacks are racist. He hasn’t even done that, and yet you’re still accusing HIM of being the one who is playing the race cards.
Clearly, it’s a good strategy, because it’s working on you, and you’re no dummy.
dnA
my apologies for the duplicate comments. My computer is slow.
dnA
Oh yes, it’s Obama playing the race card again.
Chuck Butcher
I am in the process of watching very progressive Democrats that I know well get all ‘het’ up for Obama. All I want to know is where is this Obama progressivism? I guess sweet rhetoric trumps yanking this country back from the right cliff…
John Cole
Woah, woah, woah. If you are trying to get me to defend the Clinton’s, good luck with that. I think Mark Penn and company have dome some serious below the belt bullshit.
I just think there is, quite honestly, NOTHING that Obama and company could do that you all would not defend. How bout his gay-bashing minister buddy? What about Jesse JR.?
Just quit pretending his crew is “above it all.” They aren’t.
John Cole
And one more thing, some of the stuff you are labelling as racist is bullshit. Calling someone a kid is racist now? Snide, condescending, and inappropriate, yes. Racist, no.
Hell, the other day Sullivan freaked out about Hillary saying Edwards and Obama are buddies, claiming it was her playing the “gender” card. That was just stupid.
dnA
John,
The “kid” comment has to be viewed in context. Like I said, I’m sure the former governor of Arkansas knows that there was a time where a white man, no matter how young or old, could refer to a black man of any age as a “boy”. He should know, because he lived through it.
I’ve never bought Obama’s whole “unity” schtick as anything other than a clever rhetorical framework for talking people into progressive ideas who might not other be interested. I said as much in a comment on one of your posts this week. (I know you’re mad busy and you don’t read all your comments)
The gay-bashing minister thing is ugly. The Jesse Jr. moment was ugly. I believe I responded to that with a post on my own blog titled “Tell this brother to shut the fuck up.” I don’t like it.
But the fact is the only person who has anything to gain from injecting race into the campaign this way is Clinton. Now she’s got the man brought us slow motion ass-clapping basically calling Obama a house negro. Obama retains an advantage as long as race is not explicitly discussed. Obama has a vested interest in making the campaign not about race, Clinton has an interest in the opposite.
There is no way the Obama campaign wants this fight.
magisterludi
I really get uncomfortable with all the Obama swooning. Between Her Huffiness and Sullivan and all the dewy-eyed idolatry of Obama , the New Jesus, it’s all I can do to hurl.
The fact that red state dems and moderate gop’ers support him with such , uh, vehemence, gives me the willies even more.
And , to really piss off B.O. supporters, I don’t sense only a whiff of misogyny, but also a subtle scent of homo-eroticism from some of the more ardent of his flock. Not that there’s anything wrong with that and what-not. It’s just an impression.
OTOH, maybe it’ s not Obama I find untrustworthy- it’s his supporters I keep finding distasteful.
Prepare the brickbats!
(pardon the inadvertent olfactory references)
Digital Amish
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you! To think that there’s politicin’ going on in this election!
Horselover Fat
5:34…
“Obama has a vested interest in making the campaign not about race, Clinton has an interest in the opposite.”
Anyone who wants to win in November wants this race stuff to go away. The idea Clinton benefits from it is absurd.
curtadams
Obama can be very nice and charming. He can also be cutthroat and aggressive – read up on what happened to Alice Palmer when she double-crossed him. And he knows when to be which – exactly what I want to see in a president. Likewise he can deliver soaring vague rhetoric or wonky detailed policy proposals (check his issues pages), and knows when to do each.
Hillary has similar skills but she’s not as good. Less convincing when nice, less effective when cutthroat, and much less good at soaring rhetoric. She is a match on wonkiness, but no more.
Red state Dems want him because he’ll bring in votes. Blacks, young people, and evangelicals who actually believe in charity. They’re politicians, they don’t care about his positions. That’s why Kerry supports him even though Massachusetts isn’t exactly red.
dnA
I’m looking at this blog right now, and just from the way people are reacting it’s clear that Clinton benefits. If she didn’t, she wouldn’t have Bob Johnson out there comparing Obama to Sidney Poiter in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. He might as well put the man on a cream of wheat box.
Jim
I have to wnnder if bipartianship is ever possible, given how both sides are eating their own at this point.
As for the “kid” comment, whether it’s racial or not isn’t the only point. It’s incredibly stupid and wrong. Obama’s no younger than Clenis was when he ran for Prez, and I’d argue that his experiences, both in life and in politics, are a whole lot more enlightening than Clinton serving as governor of a small backwater state for as long as he did (and I like Bill Clinton, even though he’s a moral reprobate). Any instances of Bill calling Edwards a “kid” even though he isn’t that much older than Obama? Whether it’s racial or not, it’s petty and unbecoming.
Jon H
Tom wrote: “But the unity “we can do this” thing is a sham. He knows it.”
I think it’s not so much a sham, but that he knows there’s a limit, that ‘unity’ has its place.
Too much ‘unity’, and you don’t get anywhere, don’t get things done.
The main thing is that Obama v. Clinton is a zero-sum game. There’s no middle ground, they can’t both be nominated, so much of the unity rhetoric is immaterial to the primary race.
tBone
So Obama supporters are not only soft-headed suckers for pretty speeches; they’re also woman-hating gays? That’s a masterful analysis.
This primary season can’t get over fast enough.
skippy
have to agree w/jon h. above, it’s really a lose-lose situation, and they both oughtta just tell their surrogates to stfu.
personally i don’t know whom i distrust more, hillary clinton or obama, but it seems to me that, specficially on the race issue, hillary’s people drew first blood and are the ones who started it.
not to say that obama’s homophobe minister opening act, plus his penchant for loving the repubbb’s policies endear him to me.
Mrs.Linder-Phoenix
Why are blacks so sensitive? Isn’t Obama the ‘uniter not the divider” or do you have doubts? No one in my family is voting for Obama based on his empty slogans which are not even his own. Even Bush created his own slogans and stupidity. Where’s the beef Obama? Who’ll be Obama’s VP, Jesse Jackson Jr.?
Why aren’t the Hispanic voters not whinning about Richardson’s failure to win? Why aren’t they calling it racism? Richardson is far superior than Obama in quality and experience. Of all the candidates, Obama has less experience to be president or uniter. Imagine a native American running for president on such a thin resume. Any woman with Obama’s thin experience would have been laughed out the door. Richardson would have been laughed out the door. If Obama doesn’t win, what are black folks going to do, burn down the White House? All we see are very angry black people and no substance. We were for Governor Richardson but my family is all now for Senator Clinton.