TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 5:30 PM
December 01, 2008 | 4:40 PM
December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM

December 01, 2008 | 6:39 PM
December 01, 2008 | 6:31 PM
December 01, 2008 | 6:16 PM

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

December 01, 2008 | 6:03 PM
December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
22.01.2008
It's Only Going to Get Worse


Bill Clinton dozed off at the Convent Avenue Baptist Church in Harlem just as his wife was receiving the endorsement (or, more properly, the blessing) of Calvin Butts at Abyssinian Baptist Church, eight or so blocks away.  This church had been the pulpit of Adam Clayton Powell Jr. -- "Mr. Jesus" to his congregation, member of Congress and husband to the politically fearless lefty (just one instance: as a witness before the House Un-American Activities Committees) and staggeringly sexual songstress of my youth, Hazel Scott, like Lena Horne.  A randy fellow. I don't think that black preachers have the sway they once had. Or white ministers, for that matter, except for those who are evangelicals and fundamentalists operating out of humongous mall churches.

But back to the black ministers and their diminished sway.  The decline of preacher power is a coming of age of the African-American population, much as it is among Irish and Italian Catholics or Jews or, for a demographically near-fatal shift, mainstream Protestants, who mostly and at best think their ministers are irrelevant.  The black clerisy cannot any longer instruct its parishioners about their voting.  It is an irony, of course, that the Harlem pastorate's last swing at real political influence over their congregations is for a white woman and against a black man.  Yet it also emphasizes their reactionary cast.  No one since Martin Luther King has anyone so inspired and energized young whites as Barack Obama.  This, then, is a real cross-racial alliance built on the cultural and educational achievements of African-Americans and on the true openness of whites and Asians to their black brothers and sisters. The bond between every Calvin Butts in America and Hillary is the old fix, pliant for the former, patronizing for the latter. 

And, as for the latter and her husband, it is also ugly.  An article in this morning's Financial Times by Edward Luce and Stephanie Kirchgaessner makes clear how perilous this is for the Clintons -- and for the Democrats, in general.  The most significant trap is that Bill risks making himself the prime issue of his wife's campaign, two nasty and unimaginably calculating folk baying at Barack Obama whom almost everyone finds gracious. Me too.

There is a calculus to the Clintons trying to make Obama run as the black candidate.  It is to stir up fear in one part of Hillary's constituency, white women and particularly older white women.  The other goal for Hillary is to turn Obama into a taunt for Hispanic Americans.   After all, there was not one significant black figure in the Clinton administration, except on what you'd have to call the black reservations like Housing.  Yes, there was the supreme fixer outside the administration, probably because he couldn't get confirmed for anything or no plausible appointment was high enough for him, Vernon Jordan. The Clintons did not offend Hispanic Americans, not at all.  For instance, they made Bill Richardson U.N. ambassador.

One of the largely unexamined frontiers in American politics is the one between African-Americans and Hispanic Americans, and it is at best a frosty frontier.  There are more voting Latinos than there are voting blacks in the electorate, and probably more in the larger states that are soon to have primaries.  Like New York and California on Super Tuesday.  Watch for malicious mischief. 




Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:17 PM with 15 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!

r-ennis said:

Obama wants it both ways. He enjoys his status in the media whereby any criticism of him is attacked as racist. He also expects to win in the black vote in SC and elsewhere primarily because of his race. Yet Marty accuses Clinton of trying to make him of running as THE black candidate.  

January 22, 2008 4:39 PM

mollysimon said:

r-ennis:  He is not going in SC because of his race; he is going to win because, unlike Hillary, he is inspiring.  If you looked at initial surveys, blacks were skeptical of Obama and didn't think he deserved their vote "just because he's black."  That is utterly racist, and in keeping with Hillary who has made it a point to race bait.    She's ugly, ugly, ugly, and has already lost herself general election votes (mine included) should she be nominated.  I, along with other democrats I know, will never cast a vote for "that woman."  

Now, what does that say about the slimy duo?

January 22, 2008 5:50 PM

michmfox said:

It's not what that says about the Clintons (your slimy dual), it what this says about you.

1. You will vote for another 8 years of a Republican nightmare because you've bought the Obama Hillary Hater slop that's been fed you.

2.Ugly, ugly, ugly.

January 22, 2008 6:17 PM

mroman said:

Once again,

"I, along with other democrats I know, will never cast a vote for "that woman."  "

The Clintons risk winning the battle and losing the war.

But what the Obama faction has to realize is that the Clintonistas control the party machinery. Tee of them and watch the lackluster grass roots campaign that results.

Also, please note what the post says about latinos and blacks. We all know obama has to take a few of the critical purple states--especially in the southwest--can he do so without latino votes...especially if their other choice is the immigrant-friendly John McCain?

John Edwards is at this point the one democrat who can unite the party and win not only the traditional democratic states, but a few of those critical states that can tilt the election to Dems.

Obama would be a perfect VP for Edwards, and would provide him in the office with the gravitas and national experience that would make him, as a still young 54 year old, a shoo-in for the presidency in 2016.

THe two major candidates are quickly making themselves unacceptable to one or another part of the electorate.

I don't expect to persuade anyone right now to abandon their first choice. I do hope that people are starting to realize that, to quote Lincoln, "a house divided cannot stand", and a party divided cannot win.

Edwards/Obama 2008

January 22, 2008 6:43 PM

scrubbyoak said:

r-ennis: When was the last time Obama called anyone racist?

January 22, 2008 8:12 PM

blackton said:

michmfox, I am with Molly on this one. Hillary has been running a very ugly campaign lately and she risks turning off a very significant segment of the Democratic party. Even if she were to win with the coming recession and the Iraq war she will be very constrained in what she can do, and won't be able to draw on the goodwill of too many people, so what will happen is a Republican rout in 2010 and another Republican President in 2012. Long term, it is just better to let the Republicans reap the whirlwind of what they have sown, with a Dem congress to mitigate anything too extreme, poising the Dems for a huge victory in 2012, when the economy will be coming out of this next recession.

Granted, the same can be said about Obama, but I think his honeymoon will be far more extensive, and due to his true leadership abilities might be better able to weather the storm.

January 22, 2008 8:23 PM

davidsmith192 said:

Look at the bright side.  If Obama wins the nomination, it can no longer be said that he has "never won a real race."  He will have pick up invaluable experience for the general election.

January 22, 2008 8:28 PM

mollysimon said:

A republican nightmare? No, not if McCain wins.  He's liked on both sides of the aisle, is reasonable, and could get things done, unlike the polarizing Hillary.  And what if Hillary gets her four years?  I think Clinton I was a nightmare.  It just didn't seem that way at the time, but alas, we were all dreaming.  9/11 changed all that.  We woke up and realized we'd been sleeping with an ugly whore who sold everyone--blacks, gays, his own friends--down the river.  And really wasn't running the country in the end.  He's lucky there was a tech boom.

January 22, 2008 8:32 PM

ChanRobt said:

mroman, why would Obama sublimate himself to Edwards on a ticket?  He's far more talented and has already won far more delegates and states.

January 23, 2008 2:17 AM

dcshungu said:

While there is clear evidence that Bill is helping HIS wife's winning chances (she has won the two contests in which he was actively engaged in campaigning for her, including pulling a rabbit out the hat in NH),  the clearest evidence that Bill is helping is that the media, e.g, Marty Peretz,  have now gone on over-drive about about Bill's involvement, with their verdict already rendered: Bill is hurting himself, his wife, and Dem party. However,  when the media's consensus  on  anything  involving Hillary is  Y, you can bet that  the truth is anything but Y. The only  thing that is hurting  Hillary regarding Bill's involvement in her campaign is the media's frenzied rant that he is hurting her,  but that is really their whole purpose, isn't Marty?  Hillary has the biggest gun of them all in her husband, which the media see as an unfair advantage that she must be deprived of. But if Bill is hurting Hillary and he sinks her chances for the nomination, why is that the media's concern? That is why I have no illusions about the media's motive in obsessing over this canard...

I think that the media need to pull back a bit on this because it is truly uncharted territory: (a) No woman has ever had a realistic chance to win the presidency before, (b) there has never been a female candidate for POTUS with her husband as one of her surrogates (Edwards has Elizabeth and Obama has Michelle, both very vocal, why can't Hillary have Bill?), and (c) no candidate has ever had  a former POTUS as both a spouse and a surrogate before. Instead of considering these "firsts" and pondering them, the media have already decided that Bill's involvement is wrong, but are they adequately equipped to deal with it rationally? The evidence so far is that of the MSM usual echo chamber not unlike that which led to their disastrous and embarrassing 2008 NH primary predictions. The voters, and not the pundits, will ultimately decide whether or not Bill is hurting Hillary's chances, however, the evidence after NH and NV suggests that the voters do not share the chattering classes' view on this one...

January 23, 2008 5:42 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

no, I haven't left tnr but I am insanely busy. I do have a request Peretz: Can tnr do an article about the alleged rift between AAs and Latinos? I am hearing a lot about this right now and I rarely see poll data that supports this proposition. I am very interested in this topic, for obvious reasons. I have said this before but will say it again: When I hear this mentioned, I always want to say "says who?" but I know, deep in my gut and referencing my experiences growing up and seeing and hearing what I saw and heard that, unfortunately, there may be more to this than I am willing to admit.

This is a ripe topic, especially in light of the fact that the choice between HC and BO may come down to how Latinos break out for the two.

January 23, 2008 10:09 AM

jdcarteriii said:

“In the hood” we see, and have seen all our lives, the entitlements, the handouts, the help-outs and bailouts, none of which are begrudged.  Please understand that, first and foremost, that we don’t begrudge.  Si Dios quiere.  We avert our eyes, feed our kids, and go back to work.  And we get kicked, when we’re down, when we’re up, on the way to work, church, the city college.  We mass millions, and the response we get is increased enforcement.  Instead of the Underground Railroad, we get a high tech fence.  But we don’t blame, or make noise, or get loud.  We go to work.  And don’t begrudge.  But we see, and we know. ____________________Maybe if we didn’t know, the giddiness over Barack would be hope, and in fifty years we’d have Barack’s pic next to JFK and La Virgen, but WE KNOW.  It's white guilt soothed, and black nationalism whitewashed, but without the menace of the hood, without the threat of hip hop.   It’s a new day; guess who’s coming to dinner?  Better yet, guess who is gonna bus the table?___________________Immigration is the single most important issue to the Latino community, transcending "progressive" issues.  We care deeply about the distribution of wealth, college tuition and loans, logical and well meaning foreign policy, and energy independence and responsibility, but I'll vote for whoever approaches immigration humanely for my people.  We contribute to the ACLU, DNC, PBS, lol.  That said, if Obama wins the Dem nomination, I vote McCain. ____________________Hillary is ready to govern, Obama is not, on the strength of immigration alone. Are the Dems ready to lose the Latino voting block for a generation just to salve their guilty consciences about past racial policies?  If he’s that good now, wouldn’t he be even better in the future, without stirring up this mess, now?  Believe me it aint Hillary doin the stirrin.

January 23, 2008 10:49 AM

jm_rice said:

Maybe sometime in the future it will be different, but today the only Latinos who pick presidents are in South Florida.  The rest don't vote. (Hyperbole, but they don't vote enough to matter.)

Once again, Democrats are letting identity politics define their agenda.  "We're the ones!"  "No, we're the ones!"  And while Democrats are thus entangled, in their endless silly-season of racial/ethnic aerobics, the adults over at the the GOP will be fielding candidates -- Romney-McCain, McCain-Romney -- who are about the economy and defense:  AMERICAN issues, not black or Latino issues.

The Dems should be about American issues, too -- healthcare, environment, decency in government, and a strong defense for chrissake -- but instead are offering up...novelty candidates.  "Isn't it about time we had a woman president?"  "Isn't it about time we had a black president?"  The only people promoting this kind of fatuous thinking are the media and the nitwit wing of the Democratic party.

As for: "This, then, is a real cross-racial alliance built on the cultural and educational achievements of African-Americans and on the true openness of whites and Asians to their black brothers and sisters..."

That is SO quaint!  Like the Donovan riff, "Trust there is a mountain, when there is no mountain, then there is."  On the other hand, there's wisdom of Marty's implication (by omission) that there's nothing "cross-racial" about Latinos.  It's so refreshing to see a pundit (apparently) refusing to play the race card vis-à-vis Latinos.

Did anyone see the item on CNN.com about the storm of emails from irate readers about an article saying black women have a dilemma about voting gender or voting race?  

One reader:  "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What I'se gon' do? Oh lordy!"  

Another reader:  "How about issues? Should a black woman consider the candidates position on issues, or should we just stick to race and gender. Disgusting!"

Whether it's about race or gender -- or ethnicity -- the media and the demagogues peddle it to target groups who, they figure, will eat it up, because it feels so good to be catered to.  And yes, it is disgusting.

January 23, 2008 1:46 PM

jwl2672 said:

Why is Osama the "great white hope?" Who is this guy? I haven't heard this guy speak and he has no voting track record at all except that he leans left always.  No accomplishments in public life.  All of a sudden, without reason or past record, he's supposedly the man to lead the world.  Forget Giuliani who saved NY from mobsters and corruption and crime.  Forget McCain and his 40 years of public service + years of military service.  Who the hell is this guy and why are white people having a seizure talking about him?

I'm no racist either.  I'd vote for Condi for president in a heartbeat.  Cheney-Condi 08! Write in candidate!

January 23, 2008 5:40 PM

teplukhin2you said:

right on, jwl. Besides, I heard that Osama's been involved in some _truly_ scuzzy real-estate deals in Kandahar.

January 23, 2008 7:16 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.