February 12, 2008--The NY Times Plays the Race Card
During the run-up to the South Carolina primary, Hillary Clinton's surrogates slyly pulled out the race card.
Most egregious was what Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Network, with a leer had to say--how he didn't know what Barack Obama was up to "in the neighborhood" when he was a community organizer in Chicago. Wink, wink.
Most disgraceful was what the aspiring First Laddie had to say. How when the polls there began to shift he shrugged his ample shoulders and offered that sure Obama would win in SC, after all there are all those black folks living there. And a day or two later he added that Obama was just like that really scary black dude, Jessie Jackson.
To underline the point, even the candidate herself got into the act, brushing Obama aside while elevating herself when she implied that he was just a "talker" like Martin Luther King and the people who actually get the job done are white presidents such as Lyndon Johnson and, who else, herself.
And it worked! From South Carolina onward Obama reversed the percentage of African Americans who had previously voted for both Clintons. He then and subsequently has been getting about 80 percent of the black vote. This on the surface sounds good, if you are an Obama supporter. But it has also served to marginalize him--note how it is claimed now, even by the media pundits, that he is only a candidate of blacks, young people (who don't vote anyway), and the well-educated (and how many of them are there after all). This is not a winning combination.
Now the New York Times is getting into the act. Last week on the front page they ran a story about Obama's youthful drug use. Though it came to the conclusion that he used fewer drugs than he acknowledged in his autobiography (!), nonetheless resurrecting it this prominently served to remind voters that Obama was a “druggy.”
So today our nation’s newspaper of record, which has endorsed Hilary Clinton's candidacy, featured a story that in effect corroborates the assertions that Obama is in fact the “black candidate.” (Article linked below).
What’s the big deal then that he won South Carolina, Georgia, and soon DC, Virginia, and Maryland? This was to be expected. Forget that two months ago he was trailing Hillary Clinton by at least 20 points in each of these places. Forget that he also won in Iowa, Maine, Washington State, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Montana, etc. and that none of these states are home to that many African Americans.
Oh, I forgot, some of these states vote via caucuses and that gave Obama an unfair advantage. Why? Because he was a better fund raiser? Because he was able to inspire and motivate people? Because he has a better organized and more disciplined campaign?
All good reasons, incidentally, to suggest that many of these skills might translate into his being an effective president.
Most egregious was what Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Network, with a leer had to say--how he didn't know what Barack Obama was up to "in the neighborhood" when he was a community organizer in Chicago. Wink, wink.
Most disgraceful was what the aspiring First Laddie had to say. How when the polls there began to shift he shrugged his ample shoulders and offered that sure Obama would win in SC, after all there are all those black folks living there. And a day or two later he added that Obama was just like that really scary black dude, Jessie Jackson.
To underline the point, even the candidate herself got into the act, brushing Obama aside while elevating herself when she implied that he was just a "talker" like Martin Luther King and the people who actually get the job done are white presidents such as Lyndon Johnson and, who else, herself.
And it worked! From South Carolina onward Obama reversed the percentage of African Americans who had previously voted for both Clintons. He then and subsequently has been getting about 80 percent of the black vote. This on the surface sounds good, if you are an Obama supporter. But it has also served to marginalize him--note how it is claimed now, even by the media pundits, that he is only a candidate of blacks, young people (who don't vote anyway), and the well-educated (and how many of them are there after all). This is not a winning combination.
Now the New York Times is getting into the act. Last week on the front page they ran a story about Obama's youthful drug use. Though it came to the conclusion that he used fewer drugs than he acknowledged in his autobiography (!), nonetheless resurrecting it this prominently served to remind voters that Obama was a “druggy.”
So today our nation’s newspaper of record, which has endorsed Hilary Clinton's candidacy, featured a story that in effect corroborates the assertions that Obama is in fact the “black candidate.” (Article linked below).
What’s the big deal then that he won South Carolina, Georgia, and soon DC, Virginia, and Maryland? This was to be expected. Forget that two months ago he was trailing Hillary Clinton by at least 20 points in each of these places. Forget that he also won in Iowa, Maine, Washington State, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Montana, etc. and that none of these states are home to that many African Americans.
Oh, I forgot, some of these states vote via caucuses and that gave Obama an unfair advantage. Why? Because he was a better fund raiser? Because he was able to inspire and motivate people? Because he has a better organized and more disciplined campaign?
All good reasons, incidentally, to suggest that many of these skills might translate into his being an effective president.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
7:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home