Aw, c'mon Jason. I know you are not naive. The Obama campaign created a conference call with the press to draw attention to Ferarro's remarks. Then Axelrod painted it as part of an insidious pattern." Obama's "measured response" is just pretending to take the high road while there is a highly coordinated effort by his campaign to do exactly the opposite.

And frankly, it is obvious why Obama would benefit from charging Clinton with racism. Given his campaign's emphatic strategy of focusing on caucus states where the results would be dominated by small enclaves of highly liberal democrats and also focusing on states where the African-American vote is very large, it looks like a cynical and deliberate strategy--and it has to a great degree gotten him to where he is.

The self-interested cynicism and calculation of this is like his first campaign in 1996 when he drove all four other primary opponents off the ballot with aggressive challenges totheir petition signatures. One of the opponents he drove off was his mentor, a progressive activist.

Or, in the current campaign, you can blame Axelrodfor the cyncial calculation if you want.

"Unless the people running the Obama campaign are idiots, they realize that those 'two main pillars of support'--black voters and young white liberals from university towns--will never be enough to capture the nomination, much less win the general election."

No, those two main pillars of support aren't enough to capture the nomination, but they appear to be enough to push a candidate over the top for a Democratic primary.  Those two main pillars of support appear to comprise a significant percentage of the Democratic voting bloc in many southern states that Obama is sweeping.

Hear, hear Bigm.  

Two further points:  (1)  While Ferrarro got all the heat, her comments are nowhere near as inflammatory as those of Rev. Jeremy Wright, Obama's pastor AND an employee of the Obama campaign.  Some equal treatment from TNR would be nice (though, as of late, unexpected):

abcnews.go.com/.../story

(2)  Recognizing Obama's strategy of appealing to these two main pillars of support -- and incorporating Jason's final argument -- one understands from where Penn is coming:

www.politico.com/.../Penn_Obama_really_cant_win_the_general.html

If Obama wins the election, I wonder if every criticism leveled at him during his administration will be viewed through these same rose-tinted glasses?  Frightening thought.  But perhaps cathartic.  I think an argument can be made that the beginning of post-racialization will be marked by a ethereal period of hyper-racialization.

Sorry -- "an ethereal".

please, the only thing obvious is that Wilenz is totally in the tank for Hillary, and like a lot of Hillary supporters refuse to see that bullshit game she is playing. Hillary Mondale has no chance relying on the Dem base (minus a whole lot of pissed off young blacks and latte driving, prius driving liberals who just loved to be condescended to by a bunch of loser ancient exhippies, radical whiny feminists, and ignorant racist white trash). Hillary is a dinosaur dressed in a pantsuit who thinks her gender makes her somehow less an example of an extinct era. If Obama doesn't win, it is because we haven't caught up to the promise of the future, when Hillary loses, it will be to bury the loser baby boomer past of narcissism and self-entitlement.

As to me, I will be certainly happy to vote for McCain if Hillary somehow whines her way to the nod. And we can face the prospect of her thanking New York for being the only state that voted for her.

Oh, please, Scottlooper. You can fantasize about hypothetical accusations of racism, if you like. But the Clinton campaign has been far freer with accusations of sexism than obama could ever dare to be with accusations of racism.

My question is how one can be a contributing editor when one can't edit onesself.

hey scottlooper, are you Catholic, if you are then you are directly responsible for everything every priest has done. Well, being that I am Catholic I say bullshit to that and bullshit to what his pastor says. Have you no goddamn shame? The church is in his neighborhood and is his denomination, should he stop going to church to suit you or because the Pastor is a dingbat? I am a Catholic because I believe in the faith, not the priests, is that also not possible for Obama.

Love to see your religious bigotry show through, stay classy fella. There is no goddamn way Hillary can win the general election, and probably it is true of Obama too. Well, at least we will keep the blacks away from the White house, that is what is most important.

Honestly, the only thing stupider then the Clinton campaign are the people who think she can win the general.

President McCain, yeah, i can live with that, so apparently can Hillary. Well, at least we agree on something.

Welentz's entire cockamamie, through the looking glass theory that Barack Obama had an interest in "racializing" this contest and injected race in this  even as he was cleverly manipulating the press and public (and evidently the Clinton campaign, to force them say all those unfortunate things) into thinking that it was comiing from the Clintons, is and always has been wack.

He had the college kids, hundreds of thousands of them, on the night of the Iowa caucuses, and he got them with a message of inspiration and hope, not anger and resentment.  And the night he stood up on a stage with thousands of white folks chanting his name and claimed the Presidency of the United States with grace and poise and eloquence, he had 80% of the black folks from there on out.  All he had to do was just be the best Barack Obama he could be, and he collects that remaining ten or fifteen percent (and he has...look at Mississippi) who hadn't yet taken the plunge.

And he didn't get them by cultivating a sense of common grievance, or promising programs and goodies specially for them.  He got them with hope and the prospect of a historical redemption that is sweeter than any federal program could ever be.

I've been a lonely Obamite at my work for nearly a year, and I have many black friends and co-workers.  Most of my friends were convinced that (a) white folk would never vote for him and (b) if by some miracle he got elected he would be shot, and thought me cute and naive, but doomed to disappointment.  

On the day after the Iowa caucuses, one of my friends, as apolitical a guy as I know, came over to my desk and just stood, kind of awe-struck, shaking his head and repeating over and over, "If my grandma could have lived to see this day.." and he was hooked and has been ever since.  The whole office became, overnight, a subsidiary Barack Obama headquarters, and now everybody follows the campaign and talks about "the Latino vote" and has knowledgable opinions about Florida and Michigan and role superdelegates.   Barack never needed to "racialize" this campaign, he just had to prove he could get white people to vote for him and be Barack Obama, and he had his folks.  It never was, and can never be, in his interest to lose that possiblity that white folks will vote for him.  If he's "ghettoized" he's finished, and if Wilentz doesn't get that then he should turn his historian's credentials back in, because he doesn't deserve them.

The Clintons figured this out after Iowa and have been trying to marginalize him ever since, with some success, if the exit polls from Ohio, Texas and Mississippi are accurate.  I don't know if there is deliberate racial subtext in everything they say and do, we may be just habituated to seeing it now, but there is enough and it keeps on coming.  The Obama campaign has to push back to some degree, but Barack himself has always been at pains to de-emphasize it rather than shine a light on it.  Anger and division does not work in his favor.  That's the Clinton's game.  The 51% people.

vanwurs, no Clinton is now the 45% people and steadily falling.

vanwurs,

a lovely and sad fairly tale you're spinning--such tristesse and poignancy.

Obama's campaign called a conference call with the press specifically to call attention to Ferraro's remarks. Axelrod described the remarks as part of an "insidious pattern." They did this as Missisippi was voting. In South Carolina, Obama's campaign circulated memo to the press with various examples of Clinton's racism. This is cynical and cold in light of Clinton's real history. But destroying the viability of his opponents with cyncal technique is what Obama has done since his first campaign in 1996. Meanwhile, he mouths a genltle line. As always (oops, I pushed the wrong button on that vote--six times), he is saying one thing and doing another.

Obama introduced race (along with Clyburn) by suggesting that Clinton's MLK-LBJ remarks were racist. He did this after losing in New Hampshire, heading for South Carolina and while Clinton still had strong support in the polls among blacks in SC. At this point, many black leaders were still cool to Obama--and not because they thought he would be assassinated, but because he was not really part of their colaition at that point. Obama's suggestions of racism were a catalyst for change.

Painting Clinton as racist is an effort to win the nomination for Obama and to make Clinton unelectable. Simply ask yourself--who benefits from the introdctin of race into the primaries?

Blackton...

Knock on wood.  Until I see the stake through her heart and they cut off her head.......this isn't over.

Both campaigns are "playing the race card" whatever that means, so they should both stop.  Here's a thought:  Since Barack is not technically black (mom was white,), they could nip the issue in the bud by Barack pointing that out, and move on.  

I'm afraid that won't happen.  The "race card" benefits both campaigns.  For one thing, there are six long months of daily talking points, so Barack's alleged "race" will be a recurring issue.  Both sides will charge the other with playing the race card in some cryptic way in some obscure event.  This whips up the blogosphere for a few days.  Then it goes away.  Then it happens again, and again goes away, and people on both sides are getting angrier and angrier.

And this is all great for the Fourth Estate, which has to be broadcasting blogging 24/7 so there has to be something to talk about.  The candidates notice these trends and hatch it up by posturing - as Obama did regarding the Ferraro comments - hashing over prior times they allegedly played the race card, perhaps interjecting some new controversy with improvised "facts".  And so on.  We'll be bickering about things like this all summer.  

Wilentz's attempt at a contrarian viewpoint is devoid of logic, facts, and grace, but other than that, his work is spectacular.  Let's not pretend that he and Patterson are having some sort of "reasoned debate;" one is presenting a logical, coherent viewpoint, and the other is simply pointing and shouting "no, YOU'RE the racist" (and presumably jumping up and down at the same time, but this is only TNR and not bloggingheads so I can't say for sure).  Give me, and the rest of the TNR readership, a break.  

The racial subtext of the 3am ad is undoubtedly there.  When Americans think of a terrorist attack, they think of a certain Tuesday morning just short of 9 am.  Terrorists, from our frame of reference, do not go around attacking houses with white women and sleeping children at 3am.  Criminals do.  And, unfortunately, anybody likely to be influenced by that ad associates the word "criminal" with a certain race.  

Does the preceding paragraph deal in stereotypes?  Of course it does.  That doesn't mean it's racist, as Wilentz somehow claims.  Ninety percent of "political demographics" are simply well-phrased stereotypes.  When Tim Russert talks about the "white ethnic vote," or the "Catholic vote," or the "blue collar vote" (as an aside, why does the Clinton campaign exclude African-American people from their tabulation of who is winning the "blue collar" vote?), or the older women vote?  What is he doing?  Dealing in stereotypes.  It's a shortcut, but it's not racist.  Most people understand the difference.  But Wilentz is a crank; Andy Rooney with a pen rather than a camera.  Spare us, please.  

When will you people fire WIlenz? Not for "bias" because so what, we're all biased - but for sheer illogic/stupidity. If he's not stupid then he is just a spinner/liar. Either is unacceptable.

Blackton: Rev. Wright works for Obama's campaign.  That was the only point there.  

and Pcostello,

You say po-tah-toe and I say potato.  We look at the same events and see a different story.  

I said that the campaign has to push back, in order to call attention to the truth and resist "ghettoizaton".  So sure, Axelrod, on the eve of the Mississippi primary, when Geraldine Ferraro had just raised the spectre of Obama as an affirmative action candidate in a state that still probably has some tensions around that issue....had to push back and shine a light on those kinds of tactics.  A campaign of hope is not a campaign of naivety.  He did not unilatterally disarm when he attempted to raise the tone.

And Obama was slow to respond to the King/Johnson comparison, and when he finally did her simply characterized it, in his understated way, as "unfortunate".  Clyburt and Donna Brazzile both took spontaneous and independent offense to the comparison.  Along with lots of little folks you never heard of who felt that King was being dissed and Johnson was being given too much credit and the subtext was "Well they can sing and dance, but it takes a white man to actually get shit done".  But gosh, Pcost....what do black people know about racism and what it sounds like?  You are so much wiser and better informed, they will be reassured by you, I'm certain.  And by Geraldine, who was just trying to be nice and celebrate his historic moment.  Those black people are just too sensitive, don't they know that Hillary loves them so?  And she's worked night and day for them for thirty five years.  Damn ingrates!

And I did ask myself, who benefits from injecting race into the primaries, and I looked at the exit polls from Ohio and Mississippi following a steady stream of Clinton dog whistling culminating in the demented rantings of Ms Ferraro, and the answer I came up with was Hillary Clinton.  In an electorate which averages 20-25% black (outside of a few southern states) at best, who benefits from injectiing race?  By what trick of logic would that be Barack Obama, the guy who gets the short end of that stick if identity politics rules the day?  Who's spinning fairy tales now, P?

scottlooper, fair enough, although it is my understanding it is an honorific, he should cut his ass loose pronto. The Dems are screwed I suppose should be the only point.

blackton says:

"As to me, I will be certainly happy to vote for McCain if Hillary somehow whines her way to the nod. And we can face the prospect of her thanking New York for being the only state that voted for her."

As a New Yorker, I wouldn't be too sure about that last part. I started out preferring Obama but willing to vote HRC if it came to that. After the last few months, it's all I can do to mutter JudgesJudgesJudges before I can contemplate such an act. In a few more weeks, even that might not work.

Wilentz was okay testifying against Bill's impeachment.  After that, he should have been muzzled.

vanvurs,

You're wrong (and obnoxious) in too many ways to count or for me to waste time correcting. Ohio and Texas came long after Obama had been playing the race game for months. And maybe the "black people" you talk about  aren't the final experts on what the "white people" you talk about actually mean. And maybe some "black people" are capable of being self-interested and small-minded and even prejudiced just like some "white people" are. Maybe some find it useful to play the race card and victim as a way of getting one-up in a conversation or argument. Maybe you would know.

Maybe the lower level of white voting for Obama doesn't reflect racism but simply the value of Obama's appeal to a broad population when the strong identity appeal for black voters is subtraced from the calculation.

flutie2phelan

(whew, what a moniker....)

Calling Wilentz a crank give him too much props.  There is a certain authenticity in a crank and the charm of the curmudgeon.  He is a propagandist.  He deals exclusively, these days and in these pages, in the willful distortion of truth in order to create a lie and persuade folks that it is fact, for the purposes of helping Hilalry attain power.  And he is utterly cynical, because we know he isn't stupid so he can't belive his lies and he must tell them deliberately.  And he uses his self designation as an "historian" (I've seen him do it on Tucker Calson's show) to give his lie the status and authority of expertise.  Kind of like, "I'm a Doctor, I've done tests", or "I'm a priest, I keep the mysteries" and swats away probing and inconvenient questions or contradictions.  "I'm an historian.  I know", he smiles.  Calling him a crank is too good for him.  And calling him an historian is an insult to historians.  Prostitute, maybe.  Or just slut, because I don't think he does it for money.

RACE BAITING....Which campaign is injecting racial politics into the Democratic primary? Sean Wilentz argues, contra conventional wisdom, that it's the Obama campaign: "tentatively since before the primaries began, and with a vengeance since Clinton's