The Clinton Race Gambit January 28, 2008; Page A14
About Bill Clinton, what can you say? Even before the polls
closed in South Carolina on Saturday, the former President was diminishing
Barack Obama's victory and trying to boost his wife in the next primaries by
playing the race card.
Asked by a reporter why it took "two" Clintons to beat Mr. Obama,
Mr. Clinton replied that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" in 1984 and 1988.
And he added that both Rev. Jackson and Mr. Obama had run "a good campaign
here." Hmmm. The reporter hadn't mentioned Jesse Jackson, but Mr. Clinton
somehow felt it apposite to refer to him anyway. He thus associated Mr. Obama's
landslide victory with that of a black candidate who never did win the
Democratic nomination, much less the Presidency, and who had run overtly as an
African-American candidate in contrast to Mr. Obama's explicit campaign theme of
transcending race.
Anyone who thinks this was accidental has spent too much time
with Sid Blumenthal. While Mr. Obama won a respectable 24% of white voters,
according to Saturday's exit polls, Mrs. Clinton still won 36% and John Edwards
39% of the white vote. Mr. Obama won 78% of the black vote.
The Clintons are now eager to make Mr. Obama into a Rev.
Jackson-style "black candidate" as they contest primaries with a larger share of
white and Hispanic voters than there were in South Carolina. The Clintons want
to portray Mr. Obama as a candidate with a narrowly racial appeal, both to
undermine his larger and inspirational message of "unity," and also to play to
whatever doubts still exist about an African-American candidate among Democratic
voters.
It's going to be fascinating to see if Democrats and the press
let the Clintons get away with this. Imagine if Mitt Romney had made the Jesse
Jackson comparison. Democrats would have immediately denounced the remarks as
"racist," or as a part of some Republican "Southern
strategy."
This primary contest has been a rolling revelation for many
Democrats and the media, as they've been shocked to see the Clinton brand of
divisive politics played against one of their own. Liberal columnists who long
idolized the Clintons are even writing more-in-sorrow-than-anger pieces asking
how Bill and Hillary could descend to such deceptive tactics. Allow us to answer
that lament this way: Our readers aren't surprised. |