So. I've done my share of measured cackling at the fact that black folks have played a decisive role in the ending of Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions. I go back and forth on whether the campaign race-baited or not. As this thing winds down though, I begin to lean on the old rule that incompetence is more common than conspiracy. Racebaiting or not, I think the racist fool Geraldine Ferraro was/is poisonous, and I wish Hillary had said something close to that. I think her hard-working, white people remark was something of a slip and I wish she could have acknowledged as much. I think Bill meant what he said in North Carolina, but the worst part is his insistence that Obama was, in fact, race-bating him. I think her recent charge that sexism is widely accepted, while racism isn't, is, as I've said before, akin to a welder opining on carpentry. Like all competitors in the Oppression Olympics, she's unqualified. But in that, she's got a lot of company.
Still, in general I don't buy a campaign of race-baiting for a couple reasons: 1.) It's not a particularly great strategy in a Dem primary. You essentially trade blow-outs across the South, for single to low-double digit wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, which you likely would have gotten anyway. 2.) I know this is naive, but I give some credence to the fact that there are several black people supporting--and running--Hillary's campaign. I'd like to think they wouldn't go along with such a thing. My cackling is more based on black voters DQing someone who shared many of George Bush's worse managerial qualities--confusing loyality with competence, an inability to say I'm sorry, changing the rules to suit your needs. It almost redeems our shameful role in that 2004 roll-out of gay marriage bans across the states.
Alright so I'm rambling. My point is that there's been some speculation that Hillary's beef with black voters will follow her home. Black New York pols--most of whom back Obama--are claiming that she's going to have some bridges to repair here in Harlem, in Bed-Stuy etc. Let me be the first to step up and say that I don't see it. Begin with the fact Hillary doesn't even have to run again until 2012. I expect that she will, indeed, go all out and campaign for Obama. If he wins, than people will more remember her helping him get elected. If he loses, well she won't be running for Senate then anyway. Moreover, I just don't think the wounds are that deep. I desperately don't want her anywhere near the White House or the Naval observatory. But she's been a fairly decent senator. In fact, I'm more pissed at Schumer for rolling over for Mukasey. Call me daft, but I think the politics of the moment are just that. A year ago, no one expected Obama to be getting nine out of ten black votes.
P.S. All this week I'll be cross-posting over at Matt Yglesias's place.
P.P.S. And of course, peace to Matt for allowing me this platform to publish my various screeds, fulminations and love notes. I'll try not to lower his stock too much.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I really disagree on this one. The "white Americans" thing may have been a slip of the tongue, but it's of a piece with the argument she's been making for a while now, which is that a black man can't possibly win, full stop.
That wouldn't be racist outside of this context -- in fact, had you asked me two years ago, I would have probably said without hesitation that it was true -- but here, in this context, where Obama is winning the primary, in fact has won it, and every indicator we have says he not only could win the general but probably will, it seems quite racist to continue insisting he simply can't win. This is doubly so when one remembers that the only way she could possibly be more electable is if she didn't need black votes, or if we assume she'll ultimately win most black voters back over after pulling out a tainted win against Obama, because where else will they go? The former, of course, is extremely racist and stupid, and assuming the latter is a formula for racism in the future.
That's how I see it anyway.
I think I have to agree with Mike here. How many "slips" would ultimately equal race-baiting? I buy that there probably wasn't a meeting where Clinton and her strategists made an explicit decision to employ a "southern strategy," but she seems all too willing to exploit racial tensions to her benefit. And her insistence that she's a better candidate, presumably because she's whiter than Obama and can win swing states (which seems to me code for white voters) is enough to give me pause. Listen, Clinton is probably not a racist, but her campaign has certainly benefitted from race-baiting, whether or not she initiated it, and she certainly doesn't seem to object to that fact.
You must think Hillary is a complete idiot to have that many "slip-ups" after she was already accused of race-baiting. How come these "slip-ups", these indirect, insinuating insults towards African-Americans, never occurred during Bill's presidency? How come he (or she) never inadvertantly insulted any African-Americans back then? And how come none of these mistaken insults ever happen towards any other group (Hispanics for instance), if they are innocent mistakes, shouldn't they be evenly directed towards all the different communities? It seemed like these "mistakes" only began happening after she started losing. If she's that stupid, if she really has no clue what her words imply even after she has been told and explained to, she doesn't deserve to hold any government office at all. If she isn't that stupid, I don't even have words for how mistaken I was about her to begin with. Thank God Obama's running, or we all would've put this crazy person into office.
I have to disagree with you as well. Do you see how many different things you had to dismiss or account for in order to give her team a pass? That, my friend, is a pattern. If it was just Geraldine Ferraro, or Bill's "all niggers win South Carolina" Clinton or Hillary's "Hard working white Americans", it would be reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt. But it is all of those things, plus more, and basically when you have white mainstream writers accusing them of race-baiting (the same core of writers who are gleefully oblivious to racism) I think that speaks volumes.
At best you're being generous. You should check out the Clinton attacks Obama wiki at Jack&Jill politics. It lays it out rather clearly. And if referencing assassination and June primaries and 'you know what happened to RFK' 5 times isn't intentional I might as well claim immaculate conception. Her charges of unfair treatment and sexism used as some sort of code against Black men, her denying ANY racism while trumping sexism which totally discounts Black women - sorry but you are being willfully ignorant! As if having house Negros with self-interests excuses her and them from racism. No! Look at the CBC report and check out the voting records of some of the Borg Queen's most staunch advocates and you will see how they've failed to live up to voting in the interests of their constituents and sold us out for pennies.