Cup of Cha
This is China

Just as I was readying to write a post about how Senator Clinton is getting some unfair press over race, I found an anonymous quote from one of her aides that sickened me, but I’ll get to that in a moment. Since the New Hampshire primary there has been a bit of a whispering campaign–in no way associated with the Obama campaign from what I can tell–that race factored in to the surprise election results.

The theory is that there is often a polling gap with black candidates because some people want to say publicly that they support a minority, but in the secrecy of the polling booth they actually vote for the opponent. It’s called the Bradley Effect based on then LA Mayor’s failed bid to win the governorship when polls showed him well ahead. The two other most prominent examples were in a Virginia governor’s race, and when David Dinkins was expected to have a double digit win in the 1989 NY mayor’s race (against Rudy of all people) and squeaked by with 50% of the vote.

Very few columnists are overtly saying that this it is what happened in New Hampshire, but a lot are bringing it up as a feasible explanation, like this Washington Post Op-Ed, which is fair enough. However, there is a peculiar tone to some of the comments, that ostensibly refute the theory, while at the same time seemingly endorsing it. Take this Slate article. It is one of the more confusing articles I’ve ever read, because I don’t understand the point. Melissa Harris-Lacewell begins clearly enough:

So much for the post-race horse race. The exit polls in New Hampshire were accurate for the Republicans and for the second-tier Democrats. The only miscalculation was the amount of support for Obama. That miscalculation is about race.

Okay, so she seems to be endorsing the Bradley Effect, right? But then in the next paragraph she entirely shifts gears:

Some observers will argue that naked racism explains Tuesday’s result. But that argument ignores the thousands of white women and men who built Obama’s local organization in New Hampshire and worked tirelessly on his behalf for months.

Okay, so race was not the main factor, right? Later she continues:

I am mad about it. I am mad because on the night that Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses, I was in a crummy hotel room in Manchester, N.H. I was there with two dozen college students who came to work the primaries and see American democracy in action… I also brought my 5-year-old daughter, Parker, because I wanted her to take part in this historic election…Last night, I had to explain Obama’s loss. She wanted to know if his daughters were as sad as she was.

I know that many black Americans are discouraged and worry that New Hampshire’s results mean that America is not ready for a black president. What I know for sure is that if black Americans are going to be relevant to American elections, they must rally behind Obama.

I find this article quite disturbing, because while I hope black America rallies behind Obama, I hope it happens for the right reason. I do not like supporters mentioning racism might have been a factor, then dismissing the idea, then finally saying black America needs to rally behind Obama (even though the Bradley Effect was not to blame). It’s a twisted and unhelpful message, and one that I suspect the senator would not endorse, nor do I suspect it helps his campaign.

The potential of the Bradley Effect in New Hampshire–which I have a hard time believing could have made more than a 1-2% difference in the polls, not nearly enough to explain the polling gap–shows race is suddenly, and unfortunately, a factor in this election. A number articles have come out recently accusing the Clintons of playing the race card. As I mentioned at the top, I am inclined to defend Senator Clinton, which I am normally loathe to do. Politico.com lays out the argument the best in this piece.

The main examples that people have been citing are the Senator’s comments about MLK Jr., and a comment by Bill Clinton saying that Obama’s candidacy is “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen” because it goes unquestioned by the media (the first clip is below, the second one is here). Hillary’s comment I find stunningly dumb and tin-eared, but I’m inclined to believe that it is not based on race. Bill’s speech, which I think makes him look slightly insane, and feeds into the ‘angry’ perception about Hillary, does not seem even vaguely racist, although apparently he’s going on Al Sharpton’s radio show to defend himself. (Incidentally, this is why race coming in could be a disaster for Obama: the last thing Obama wants is for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to come out of the shadows drawing some sort of connection between the senator and a generation of black leadership best known for “Hymietown” and Tawana Brawley.)

(Senator’s comments)

So after going through the evidence, I found it tough to believe that the Clintons were really trying to play the race card. As much as I dislike her, I could hardly take her to task when I wholeheartedly accepted Joe Biden’s explanation for his dumb comment a year ago. The evidence just did not seem to be there, although the fact that long-time Clinton ally Donna Brazille was concerned raised my eyebrows. And just when I was about to write a post about how Hillary is getting a bad rap–words that rarely come out of my mouth or keyboard–I decided to check in on Andrew Sullivan’s blog, just because I think he’s always got something interesting to say.

Here was his quote of the day from a Clinton aide, which originally came from this article:

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

Hillary Clinton runs the most disciplined, tight-lipped campaign out there. This does not happen by mistake, and this is a stain on the entire Democratic party. I have no idea if the first two comments were racially charged, but the disgusting implication here, and overall tone of the quote, clearly seems to reflect the internal thinking of the campaign. For the Clinton camp to think that it is easier to run as a black candidate is ludicrous and ignorant. Obama is the only black US Senator, while both from California are women, and he is only the third since Reconstruction.

Somewhere along the way the Clintons seem not to have realized that they are no longer the little team from Hope Arkansas, the only ones fighting for the little guy. When it comes to social policy–health care, gays, economic policy–there is not a huge amount of difference between the two candidates. Bill Clinton may think that he was the first black president, but he was not, and they should be careful about injecting race into the election.

But the bottom line is that Clinton does believe that she is the best candidate. I think her sense about how lost America would be without her can be summed up in one telling line from her now-face speech during which she showed some emotion. The Senator told a crowd, “I have so many opportunities in this country, I just don’t want to see us fall backwards.”

Hopefully that includes falling backwards into the politics of race. The Senator will have plenty of time to show the world that America, and her campaign, are not stuck on race.

Share This

Tags: clinton, obama, race
Follow Comments via RSS Feed
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.