Guest Post by dnA
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton put the responsibility on the Obama campaign for distorting remarks she made about the Civil Rights movement, which some say could cause a backlash among black voters in upcoming primary states.
Clinton said in an interview in New Hampshire earlier this week that Martin Luther King’s role during that time was facilitated by the help of President Lyndon Johnson. The comments drew fire from the African-American community who felt Clinton belittled King’s efforts.
“I’m particularly offended at the way some have taken out of context and apparently deliberately tried to mislead others about what was said,” said Clinton inside a local Mexican restaurant in Reno. Clinton called the attacks “baseless and divisive.” She went on to say that she was “personally offended at the approach taken that was not only misleading but unnecessarily hurtful.”
“It clearly came from Senator Obama’s campaign and I don’t think it is the kind of debate that we should be having in our campaign.”
Today, Obama responded to Clinton’s statement.
This is fascinating to me. I mean I think what we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. But Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous. I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat out wrong.
She suggested that I didn’t clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn’t read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance. She belittled the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate despite the fact that she stood on the sidelines during that negotiations on that bill. I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election.
I saw Hillary Clinton’s version of the Civil Rights Movement as a two-man operation was reductive, not just to Dr. King, but to all the activists, black and white, who risked life and limb fighting for equality under the law for all Americans. I found it personally very offensive, and I wasn’t the only one. That kind of attack made me feel bitter towards the Clintons in a way I never expected to before the primary season started, which is why I thought Noam Schreiber was on the money when he said this about the recent racial tension between the two campaigns:
That said, all this really just hurts the party. If you were cynical, you could argue that the Clintons have an interest in keeping this going beyond South Carolina, for the reasons just mentioned. But any benefit Hillary would reap from racial division in the primaries could be pretty costly in the general.
Ugh. I wish we could just shove all this toothpaste back in the tube, but something tells me that’s wishful thinking.
I argued yesterday that both Clinton and Obama might have to avoid dealing directly with race or gender in order to win if not the primary, than the general election. It’s looking more and more like that won’t be possible.
UPDATE: BET Founder Bob Johnson, the man who gave us slow motion ass-clapping, weighed in on the controversy on the side of the Clintons. Johnson is stumping for Clinton in South Carolina.
Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who is campaigning today in South Carolina with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just made a suggestion that raised the specter of Barack Obama’s past drug use. He also compared Mr. Obama to Sidney Poitier, the black actor, in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.”
At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent comments that Mrs. Clinton made regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not mean to take any credit away from him, Mr. Johnson said, when she said that it took President Johnson to sign the civil rights legislation he fought for.
[…]
Moments later, he added: “That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.”
Johnson’s statement comparing Obama to Sidney Poiter’s character in “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” strikes me as far more offensive than Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” moment, (which I never believed was racial) both because it characterizes Obama’s campaign as something akin to fiction and therefore not likely to succeed (something of concern to black voters in SC currently trying to make up their minds and especially the Obama campaign) and Obama himself as a docile, inoffensive “House Negro.” For those who don’t know what that means, he is basically implying that Obama is a sellout.
Johnson also said this:
“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.”
Johnson later claimed that his above comments did not refer to Obama’s drug use as an adolescent.
My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.
I’m skeptical, but it is entirely possible that is what he meant.
A few thoughts come to mind: Obama benefits most when race is not an issue in the campaign. Clinton benefits more when race is an issue, because any response directly accusing the Clinton campaign of making racist statements would be seen as sour grapes by most voters. The longer this argument goes, the better it is for the Clintons, which is why they appear to be prolonging it.
It isn’t at all clear to me that Bob Johnson is entirely an asset. As a black man in a society dominated by political correctness, he can attack Obama in ways the Clintons themselves cannot. At the same time, he is viewed, as G.D. at Post-Bourgie points out, as a “very polarizing figure” among African-Americans because of long-term anger over programming at BET that many see as perpetuating black stereotypes.
As a side note, Media Matters has an item detailing the ways in which the New York Times truncated Clinton’s statements on MLK. It did not change my mind, but for those of you who either haven’t seen the full quotes or don’t know what the controversy is about, it is worth reading.