TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 3:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:12 PM
January 07, 2009 | 2:37 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
January 06, 2009 | 4:07 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
16.01.2008
Hillary's New Low

I was in "the promised land" when the two opposing camps in the Democratic race began accusing each other of insensitivity and oversensitivity to race. But I must say that the stench from the pissing match was still pungent when I arrived back home in Cambridge. Here's an especially egregious example: Speaking after Hillary's New Hampshire victory, her avid supporter, New York attorney-general Andrew Cuomo, suggested that Barack Obama's strategy to "shuck and jive" was responsible for his loss. This is a little much, and it reflects something loose and ugly about the generation of family-legacy politicians who've done nothing else but schnorr for votes in their lifetimes.

One of Obama's attractions is that he has actually lived and worked outside politics. First, as a community organizer, a trade about which, as it happens, I do have some tough questions. But still ... And he was, after all, a professor at one of the most distinguished law schools in the country (the University of Chicago), holding his own, like Cass Sunstein, against those conservative giants Richard Posner and Richard Epstein. This vocation takes more brain work than anything Senator Clinton has ever done, which is mostly to conspire and maneuver to advance herself.

In any case, there is no longer one black constituency but two ... and probably more. At least among African-American politicians and public figures to whom the black citizenry looks for leadership. The fact is, however, that the older generation has exhausted both rhetoric and strategy. Rhetorically it has been strident but strategically pliant. Charlie Rangel is the prototype, voice and figure orotund, willing to deal as long as his empire remains, a little bit out of it. When I read that Hazel Dukes of the New York NAACP had endorsed Clinton I was dragged back a decade. Wasn't she ousted from the organization's national board for embezzling money from an old and sick friend? Yes, of course. And hadn't she pleaded guilty to a New York grand larceny charge? And hadn't she been thrown off the board of trustees of the State University of New York because of same? What kind of endorsement is this? Does Hillary really covet it?

It is as if there had been no change in black reality. Except that there is no longer anyone screaming about "black power."

Obama's support among blacks comes from the younger stratum which expects to be equal players with whites. This is a paradigmatic change. Obama may be extremely sensitive to racial issues. How can he not be! He is an African-American candidate, quite literally. But what's new is that he just happens to be an African-American candidate. He is not Jesse Jackson. One of the little joys of watching Obama on TV was the absence of Jackson from the screen. A type of emancipation proclamation for all of us.

Perhaps the most disgusting tactic in the Clinton pursuit of black voters was deploying the first African-American billionaire, Robert Johnson, to trash Obama. I know that the Clintons like millionaires, adore billionaires. But really. Johnson, who made his money deploying pelvic power at Black Entertainment Television, is an economic reactionary. He is a cultural reactionary, as well. The fact is that there are very few Americans in Obama's age group who haven't tried cocaine. It was a rite of passage.

No big deal.

P.S. Turns out Cuomo's comments had been taken out of context, and his remarks should be read in full. I was unaware of this discrepancy until it was brought to my attention and I regret the error.

Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:39 PM with 23 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

boxofrox said:

Word, man.

January 16, 2008 1:16 PM

teplukhin2you said:

One of the more persuasive Spine entries I've seen. Camp Hillary is really sinking lower and lower. I thought the race was starting to get interesting, maybe even raising the quality of the debate, but the last few days' efforts are pushing me closer and closer to Obama's side.

Still, I suppose in this best of all possible worlds it's a good thing that Obama's being exposed to slimeballs early. He'll need a thick skin and a strong back when the GOP attack dogs come for him in the general. Willie H redux

January 16, 2008 1:30 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

This is actually a pretty good post. For starters, the "Afro-American" has been replaced with the more appropriate 'African-American'.  Good sign.  That "Afro' thing always puzzled me.

And amazingly - considering my 25 year irritation at MP's racial pov - I found that MP notes a few interesting developments: One, the absence of Jesse Jackson from the Obama camp. Now, I don't share the tnr animus towards Jackson but I do agree with Peretz that Jackson't conspicuous absence is liberating for Obama and a new generation of AAs.  Second, I do agree that Obama's reported dalliance with cocaine is not a big issue these days but my sense is that dismissing it as "no big deal" will not work in middle American. Be honest about it but not flippant or dismissive.

Otherwise, this is a pretty interesting perspective from an unlikely source...I am pleasantly surprised...

January 16, 2008 1:35 PM

mmathog said:

I think many blacks were waiting for Obama to become 'viable,' I think he has largely passed that test, we'll see in South Carolina.

To win the Dem nomination, I think Obama needs his base (we latte sippers), ~75% of the black vote (which he can get), and turnout among independents and the youth of the nation. He's trying to go downscale a bit and pick up some HRC/Edwards supporters... hope it works out.

January 16, 2008 2:07 PM

mmathog said:

He's not Jesse Jackson.

What I'm afraid of is, if he wins the nomination, the GOP will do their utmost to present him as Jesse Jackson (a black man from Chicago!)

I mean, if the GOP is willing to smear McCain's war record, imagine what they'll try to do to Obama!

January 16, 2008 2:08 PM

lymon1 said:

But it's no problem for Obama to trout out foul mouth comedians to *explicitly" play the race card and give known homophobes a platform (literally) to speak.  Whatever, Marty.  Again, it's not that the criticism of Hillary is unfair, it's the utter double-standard.  Keep talking, you and Sullivan and the rest of the elitists are going to get her the nomination despite herself.  

If I were the GOP, I'd make an ad out of all the lovely Chicago politicians Obama has endorsed.  Clinton can't do that because she endorsed most of them herself.  There are some great visuals to go along with some of these folks...

January 16, 2008 2:33 PM

mmathog said:

who's afraid of bernadine dohrn?

January 16, 2008 3:08 PM

basman said:

For myself, I am surprised that such astute posters as Boxo, Teplukhin 2 me and J.B.  got taken Iin by the main post rooted as it is in such pissy irrelevance and distraction. I saw the debate last night and I saw Obama and Hillary say that they were putting all racial controversy behind them and that they understood and disavowed the exuberance of surrogates and supporters. They both asked to be judged on their records and on what inferences can be drawn from their records as to who will make a better president.

In contrast what do we have here--just a few examples:

1.a “stench” supported by some talk of “shuck and jive” retracted at the end of the post in a p.s. It should have been deleted and not let to sit there stinking like a rotten fish—this is Peretz doing the very thing he decries;

2. an irrelevant comparison: Obama’s brain power is way better than Hillary’s because he was a prof at the law school at the University of Chicago which takes “more brain work than anything …Clinton has ever done…” Is this schoolyard boasting jejeune or what? Make the case on their records—who knows maybe Obama comes out ahead—but make that case and cease and desist from the infantilism;

3. Hillary Clinton has “mostly” conspired and maneuver to advance herself, Peretz says. Note how “mostly” is such a weasel word here, a defensive verbal wall set up against any one who suggests perhaps that the assertion, sitting unsubstantiated, is a reckless insult. In fact the assertion is sleaze ball reductionism, as bad as calling some one a name, but here just dressed up as a kind of almost nuanced political conclusion. It stinks. Make that case or point to where it has been made and stop throwing up unsubstantiated insulting one- liners;

4. How does Hillary get bombed by the people endorsing her. And talk about sleaze and stench! Here Peretz in fact links Hillary to Hazel Dukes while sort of pretending not to when he asks rhetorically “What kind of endorsement is this? Does Hillary really covet it?” This formulation suggests that Hillary does “covet it” without proving that proposition and it casts the point in the loaded negative connotations of “covet” rooted in the Ten Commandments type blameworthy longing;

5. Here is more rhetorical bullshit:  “Perhaps the most disgusting tactic in the Clinton pursuit of black voters was deploying the first African-American billionaire…” Why write this in the passive? Could it be because it alleviates the writer from naming a specific subject who did the deploying? If Peretz wants to reason to a conclusion from a chain of suppositions, he should say so and so qualify his conclusion. If he has evidence as to who did the deploying he should say so.

Again, all of this is what Hillary and Barack were trying to get past last night. Where is the discussion they both pleaded for?

How does this crap from Peretz help raise the discourse ? In fact it is an unintended repudiation of Obama.

January 16, 2008 3:57 PM

teplukhin2you said:

itzhik, I didn't watch the debate (don't have TV, and they're largely phony anyway). But the onslaught of BS from Camp Hillary in recent days-- pretending that she and Bill didn't support the war, the noxious remarks from Johnson and Cuomo fils-- is proving, I'd guess, to be a bit more than even someone sympathetic to Hillary can take. For me the BS about the war is simply unconscionable.

t

January 16, 2008 4:36 PM

basman said:

tep, I may say something further later, but what most impresses me about your comments is that you don't have a t.v. Me, I am a television junkie, and need to join some supprt group for kicking that.

Gotta' run: Seinfeld is on.

January 16, 2008 4:50 PM

jacksondyer said:

"But what's new is that he just happens to be an African-American candidate. He is not Jesse Jackson. One of the little joys of watching Obama on TV was the absence of Jackson from the screen. A type of emancipation proclamation for all of us."

Yes, indeed, though this is not a strong enough reason for me to vote for him.

Read Leon Wieseltier's article on Obama in the latest issue of the magazine  if you want to know the kinds of objections some people including me have to Obama's candidacy.

I even agreed with him that McCain is the best cadidate in the race, though I doubt he'll get the nomination.

On the Democratic side I am still an Hillary supporter and your attack on her isn't  very convincing, marty.

The only thing that will turn me against Hillary is if she decides to join the Ms Magazine crowd in bashing Israel.

January 16, 2008 5:29 PM

jacksondyer said:

I don't watch TV either, Itzkik, though I have been known to watch films on DVD, especially Westerns.

January 16, 2008 5:30 PM

The Spine said:

I did Andrew Cuomo an injustice earlier today by accepting as true an allegation that the New York attorney

January 16, 2008 5:59 PM

basman said:

jack you and tep not watching t.v.  I have got to emulate your examples. But I'll start tomorrow.

January 16, 2008 6:05 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

True to my obsessions, I really only watch tv during campaigns so I am somewhat limited to reading what actually transpires on the degraded medium.  I read Marty's retraction and that satisfied me. I think that those of us who read this blog know about the author's Clinton animus so I let that one go. Still, I smaintain that this post, even given the retraction, is an interesting opinion. Hey, when Peretz goes off on one of his hobby horse badguys - Carter, Jesse, Kerry, Kofi - I am the first to comment. I like to think that if I see something I like, I will comment on that too.

The Spine has been mixing it up with lots of issues and surprises here and there and I, for one, welcome this development...

January 16, 2008 6:12 PM

jacksondyer said:

" I am somewhat limited to reading ..."

God, I am addicted to print. I'll pick up anything printed just to see what it's about before I trash it.

January 16, 2008 6:28 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

Again, I'm calling bullshit. Clinton is pandering to racist attitudes in the Democratic Party primary? Are you joking? Maybe you should venture out of Cambridge and take a gander at what the primary voter looks like SC. Yeah, ugh, they're about 50 percent black. And this from a guy who talks about NY blacks in terms like "victimization pimps" etc.? You'll excuse me if I treat this with same contempt I treat Peretz's posts on the horror of black rule in South Africa.

January 16, 2008 6:39 PM

jacksondyer said:

I am Hillary supporter in this election, and don't agree with Marty on this issue, but this comment is ridiculous:

mpatrickhendri:  "And this from a guy who talks about NY blacks in terms like "victimization pimps" etc.?"

Where did Marty call NY Blacks "victimization pimps?"

January 16, 2008 9:22 PM

r-ennis said:

Cocaine is not and never was a "rite of passage" drug. Unlike pot, cocaine is highly addictive and dangerous. Obama seems to have emerged from his experimentation with it successfully. He is lucky and good for him for talking about it.

January 16, 2008 10:19 PM

mollysimon said:

r-ennis, ah, your opinion would be news to just about everyone I know.  And I'm in Obama's generation.  Went to college the same time he did.  

Re. TV:  Come on, guys--it's worth it just for Gossip Girls. And, oh, yeah, the debates.

January 16, 2008 11:30 PM

psantillana said:

What I hated particularly about the Bob Johnson thing was the cover-up.  He's a sleazeball, but they let him near a mike anyway, ok, bad judgment, he says something trashy, surprise surprise, but I don't think they put him up to it.  

But then they put out a press release saying that he now claims he was referring to Obama's community organizing.  With a straight face they do this, and Bill, when questioned about it on a radio show, snaps "why can't we just take him at his word?!" and at the debates Hillary says, like a robot, "we're taking him at his word" and then, when asked if the comment was out of bounds, says "yes" immediately, volunteering that Johnson has said the same: conversation over, despite the fact that talking about Obama's community organizing is not at all out of bounds, so obviously she just lied, the campaign lied, and Bill lied.  But hey, no problem.

January 17, 2008 6:06 AM

The Ignorant Populist said:

There's a lot of snobbery about not watching TV. I have one, and I find myself watching Newsnight, Sport and the odd doc on Channel 4, BBC2 or Discovery.

You can stumble across excellent programmes on TV and life without European football or the Premiership would be unbearable.

So TV good for Sport, the odd dip into MSM Propaganda News and the odd Doc. In saying that the Internet is just head and shoulders above any other entertainment. After reading the Scientology post yesterday, I watched a BBC doc on Scientology on Youtube and then found myself watching an ABC interview with David Misweirdosomethingorother as well.

You just can't beat that on-demand aspect of the net. Plus, you can genuinely educate yourself online about all sorts of topics.  

I'd say these days, I'm spending 4 times as much eh..time on the internet than I do watching TV.

(You really wanted to know that, right?)

January 17, 2008 7:58 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

iggy pop,

It is not really snobbery as much as lack of time and interest. Really.  I just don't have two hours to blow every day, especially in the evening. I do however, watch movies and tv programs from Netflix (like Monk and Cheers) on DVD on weekends. During the week though, I just don't have the time, even for the high brow stuff.

January 17, 2008 9:42 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.