I don't think anyone during the primary accused Bill Clinton of being a "racist"--as in "I don't think black people are equal to whites." He was accused of race-baiting. Some of it was, from my perspective, dubious. Deriding Obama's identity as a guy who consistently opposed the Iraq War as a "fairy tale" is not only fair, but actually kind of true. But I thought the infamous South Carolina/Jesse Jackson comparison was race-bating--either that or it was just foolishly dismissive.
Nevertheless, it amazes me that Clinton is actually still pissed-off about this idea that he's a racist. Of course it's telling that he's turned the very specific charge of race-baiting, into a much larger, much easier to attack charge of racism. I have no doubt that Obama's surrogates worked behind the scenes to push the Clinton race-baiting angle, while Obama angelically smiled and claimed to take no offense. But that's what people do when they're running for office. The whole Clinton appeal was based on this idea that they would fight dirty, that they could counter the Republican attack machine, that politics was basically dirty, and to win you had to be willing to fight that way. How then can you be mad that you lost to someone who fought dirty? Wouldn't you have done the same thing?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
You nailed it.
The only thing more annoying than Bill Clinton The Perpetual Victim is Bill Clinton the Historian.
His version of history and events never matches what the rest of us remember.
Bill Clinton is not a racist. I think it is indisputable that the clintons did use race-baiting tactics and they tried-unsuccessfully-to use Obama's race as a reason not to vote for him.
Now, the clinton's beign the clinton's they're much too good at sliming others to get caught red-handed doing it. But that doesn't mean they didn't do it in subtle, dog-whistle ways.
Welcome to the Atlantic! Saw you on Tavis' public TV show with your dad and couldn't be happier that you're here.
I have to take apart your argument here though: I think maybe Bill Clinton may have thought that Jim Clyburn and other blacks owed him their allegiance moreso than to any other person or idea, and to me, that's a little bit like saying, "I don't think blacks are equal to whites" because it says that no matter what, you should have behaved in the ways I've circumscribed for you. Uh, that's a little racist to my mind. He's not the kind of person who finds the presence of blacks loathsome, but he is the kind who finds their presence IN HIS WAY loathsome. But, maybe that's just his competitive side, and it doesn't have the "all a black man can do for me is shine my shoes" undertone that I'd heard during the primaries.
On another point, having seen the ABC interview, he's not nearly as dismissive of Obama as the media would have you believe. In fact, truthfully, he's kind of full-on straightforward.
Whatever. Bill and Hillary are still pissed that someone dared to question Hillary's right to the throne and so he's not thinking rationally.
Speaking a young person, I can tell you I've never seen a person/family tarnish their rep with a generation so quickly. A year and a half ago, my peers and I worshipped Clinton as like a flawed liberal prophet. The proto-Obama. Now he represents to us all the paranoid rantings of our parents generation that won't relinquish the wheel.
Its truly amazing how effective the 'race card' card has become. It has become a defense that is nearly impenetrable. Its also become a great way for McCain to race bait. The faux-offense they took to the dollor bill quotes are truly astounding at how effective they seem to be. Almost as astounding as how much the media has allowed the McCain camp to control the narrative.
I is in your blog (now dat you're at teh Atlantic), commentin on yer posts.
I'm sure Riise isn't alone. There are a lot of Clinton fans I know who have a sour taste after this primary, and Bill has no one to blame but himself.
And while, as you poibnt out, it is silly for a politician to get worked up at the Obama camp's tactics, it's much worse coming from a Clinton.
Nah, Big Dawg was doing what Big Dawg does: playing to win. He wasn't saying Barack doesn't deserve to win because he's black (he's black, right?), he was just pointing out that Barack, although he is well-spoken, won where another black, ultimately flawed and losing candidate won a temporary victory. And him pointing this out before a lot of Southern states were about to vote was just a peculiarity of the Democratic primary schedule.
But yeah, he was being racist, or playing a little racism to advantage, anyway. He was using racism to play a little hardball. And I say, Great! What do you think the Karl Rove/Steve Schmidt tag team is gonna do as the election gets nearer? McCain can't remember his record, much less run on it, whichever one he chooses to run on.
My white friends think racism in this campaign is horrid. My black friends think it is all too predictable, but that we should keep our eyes on the prize. And I think, fuck yeah, let them keep doing it, while Barack plays by Jackie Robinson rules, showing everyone that he's too competent to be derailed by this bullshit.
I say this is the grand inoculation. You know how inoculation works? You get a weakened strain of the disease injected into you so that you can build up an immunity and fight it if the hardcore strain hits you. That's what this is. Every racist attack is going to be destroyed by the reality of an Obama presidency. Bet.
Methinks you are being a tad bit to kind to former President Clinton. Sure, we can pretend that it was not a campaign decision to have Billy whatshisname mention "cocaine" in New Hampshire; and we can pretend the Bob Johnson "accidently" made the same mistake before South Carolina - but it was the Big Dog hisself who went on Charlie Rose and called Obama (and Obama alone of all the Democratic candidates - begging the exclusion of the unmentioned Mike Gravel) a "risky" candidate.
Risky, he said.
Apparently, because Obama had not been governor of a dirt poor southern state before running for President. Dollars to donuts on whether or not more people live in Obama's Illinois Senate district as compared to Arkansas. Just to pull out one issue they both faced: Obama worked to ensure that innocent people were not sent to death row on illegally procured evidence; Clinton executed a mentally retarded boy based on his confession of guilt.
Coincidence that the one black candidate in the field was the "risky choice"? Or was it a code phrase developed to mask an outright statement of, "sure, he talks nice - but count the silver after he leaves!"
Isn't race-baiting worse than outright racism?
After all, at least you know where the racist stands...
Bill Clinton knows that you don't play with this sort of stuff and the fact that he would make this statement now doesn't help his case. When stacked against McCain's assertions this smacks of a dogpile on Obama as the boy who cried racism. The racially tinged statements were probably born more out of opportunism than outright bigotry but I'm not sure if that's any better. Maybe it's all a part of laying the justification for a 2012 run, who knows?
You mean you haven't seen this?
http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html
Meanwhile, maybe Sen. McCain should take Billy Dee's place as spokesman for black folk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1AjO-IxfMY
After all, he did fight to recognize Rev. King's birthday as a holiday in Arizona amongst his many other efforts.
Right?
I'm a middle-aged mid-western white woman professional, and I was really torn between Clinton and Obama in my state's primary. I went with Hillary, and the Clinton folks went all race-baiting the following week. It hasn't been fun facing the we-told-you so looks from my husband and kids this spring and summer.
Hey, you need to get a link for this blog in the top "Voices" tab. Sort of hard to remember your link, you see :)
Bill Clinton doesn't have a racist bone in his body, and his remark in Carolina was an off-hand sour grapes moment as he was coming to terms with the fact that Hillary suddenly had a real contest on her hands. I've been an Obama supporter since Day 1, but how is it "race-baiting" to note that both Jessie and Barack had an advantage among African Americans in South Carolina that might not be entirely "deserved" in the sense of being attributable only to their positions on Social Security or taxes?
I think there are a lot of people (mostly white, I'd imagine) that don't make any distinction between acting in a racist way and being a racist. My sense is that most black people expect everyone to be a little racist in some way, and are therefore much more tolerant of the occasional mistake. I think that for white people it is more of a black and white issue (heh). Once a charge of racism is made, as long as there is enough evidence behind it, there is no way to completely rebuild one's reputation in their eyes. Not that that is necessarily what happened here, of course.
Robert,
Suppose Obama or someone on his team had said "well, it's no surprise Hillary won in State X--the voters there are mostly white." (Could apply to any state she won, since the statement is true of *every* state). Suggesting that her votes weren't entirely attributable to her position on Social Security, but because of the color she shared with those voters. Does that sound just as fine to you?
Deriding Obama's identity as a guy who consistently opposed the Iraq War as a "fairy tale" is not only fair, but actually kind of true.
But that's the problem, Ta-Nehisi. Bill was doring more than that and included more than that in the "fairy tale" context.
So I'd like to hear what this was about:
"I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure..."
That was the prelude, the clause that led to Bill attacking Obama's "anti-war" identity. The bolded clause also followed Bill's issue with Obama's rapid "did wait his turn" rise from Illinois senate to short-term US Senate to presidential candidate. And there was other things wrapped and weaved into that "fairy tale" episode which was an on-going thing with Bill and was part of the "symbol vs. substance" angle Bill and the campaign took evidence by Bill's interview in Dec. 2007 on the Charlie Rose show.
Bill was patronizing towards Obama in that interview like a New Yorker style racist, perhaps. IMO, Bill's patronizing remarks in the interview pretty much gave Father Pfleger everything he need for his White Entitlement sermon.
So, I'm co-signing Mario: white people want to use the KKK scale (or, if they are Democrats, the Republican/conservative) for who is and who is not racist instead of actually evaluating things on their merits or in complete context. Context also seems to be a problem for Ta-Nehisi here.
I mean, Bill did give us the "Sister Souljah moment" along with other things where it's clear Bill (and Hillary after her campaign) have no qualms using race-baiting, etc. for political gain which, even in the case of Barack Obama, can't be seen as someone who doesn't have a "race" problem.
Note: Bill also launched into what is now, McCain's zone, where he tried to say, in that same "fairy tale" Q&A where his statement was supposedly only about Obama's war-judgment stance, that Obama's campaign was the dirty one and not the Clinton campaign.
Have to agree with Nquest.
Let's remember we're talking about somebody who was the most powerful man in the world and was still trying to argue what "is" is to squirm out of an admission that he was caught playing Big Dawg in the Oval Office.
http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/
You will never be able to pin this man down on whether he was race baiting or not. Each word is measured before and after.
It's not really that surprising.
1) Clinton is famously short-tempered and sensitive to his place in history.
2) Calling someone a racist is bound to offend them - it's like calling someone a liar or a date-rapist. (Obviously they're not equal - they just are on the same continuum of things that damage reputations and are bound to offend people).
Bill Clinton is the first black president. He said it so it must be true. How dare you question his credentials on race! Just look at all the landmark legislation he passed to make life easier for black americans, improve public schools and reverse urban decay....
(still waiting)...
nevermind.
I disagree with you about Bill Clinton. I'm sorry Ta-Nehisi, but I don't care if Bill Clinton claims he's not a racist.
If you're willing to racebait a Black person in order to defeat them, using racism, what's the difference?
Not a damn thing as far as I'm concerned.
There's nothing here--not a thing. The Clintons' comments, all of them, were perfectly innocuous, and the Obama campaign decided to invent a narrative of race-baiting because the South Carolina primary was coming up and Hillary Clinton was way ahead among black voters.
There's nothing more to say about it, so far as I know.
Bill is just pissed because the South Carolina statement was from Mark Penn inside the campaign. It's the kind of 'look at this anecdote - doesn't it make you feel better?' crap that Penn constantly peddles. Bill just repeated it trying to look informed and took it from a private, internal statement to a public one, which I think even Mark Penn would have recognized as being in poor form.
Bill is defending his intentions. He knows those words didn't belong to him and he's trying to mend the facade. It was dumb, he knows it was dumb, and Bill can't stand to look dumb, but I don't think Bill was ill-intentioned. That may well have cost Hillary the nomination though - damn if it didn't piss a lot a people off.
I don't know, it looks like Clinton's reaction was irrational and deeply wounded. It would take a psychiatrist to unravel what has happened to old Bubba. He started that interview by trying to stay away from the old fight but then something was triggered and he reacted like a Pavlovian dog.
Most Dems look at the Clintons and it's like a Rohrschach test, each person sees what he/she wants to see.
My personal take is that Bill knows he screwed up his legacy by fooling around like Monica and it aches like an old war wound. He wanted Hillary to save his legacy and when he saw Obama take the primary season away from Hillary, it hurt bad.
Also there's this - Obama challenged Bill's Alpha Dog status, in fact, is trying to erase his Alpha Dog Emeritis status, by praising Reagan while denigrating Clinton, by talking about leaving the old party battles behind, battles that gave Clinton his battle scars. I think Obama consciously did this in order to win control of the Party but it was divisive as hell and now Obama must pay the price for dividing the party.
And the party IS divided. For Obama, the question is whether his group is big enough to win the election without the Clintonites, or whether he needs to make the peace overtures to the Clinton faction to unite the party again. Big question, answer still unknown.
Clinton ran off the rails in New Hampshire with the LBJ/MLK comparison. A week before South Carolina was a bad time to offend African Americans, and two weeks before Super Tuesday was a bad time to offend the Kennedys.
Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment was an ill-considered attempt to preserve "inevitability" and by minimizing their loss in SC. And it would continue to haunt the Clintons through the remainder of the campaign -- there was significant support in the African-American community for Obama, but 90-10 vote splits speak to anger rather than love or hope.
The tragic irony of the Clinton campaign is that they didn't have enough faith in their African-American support to contest the black vote: the "hard working Americans/Dunkin' Donuts Americans" trope was a powerful attack on Obama's legitimacy as a leader of the core Democratic constituencies.
But they didn't have the courage 'of their convictions' to keep pushing that line in the black community, even in spite of defeats in South Carolina.
It's interesting to note that the hammer finally came down on the Clinton campaign when Rangel informed Senator Clinton that continuing the race would enable primary challenges against some New York African American politicians who had endorsed her -- against the wishes of her constituents.
Bill CLinton had the race card played on him by hacks of his own party. Of course he's outraged.
He is a genuine american who struggled to better this country, despite his shortcomings as a person.
The new candidate of his party is a phony to the bone: a contrived "black" man; empty-suit celebrity whose very word rings with mendacity and artifice. His Berlin speech was laughable.
Can we have a PSA to all white people stating that being "called out" for being racially insensitive is not the same as calling them racist.
If i make a joke about a mentally retarded kid that doesn't mean I hate all people who are mentally challenged, it just means i was horribly insensitive.
Bill Clinton took black support for granted. He believed the hype that playing sax, having black friends, and working in Harlem gave him immunity. Its obvious that he was making a dig at Obama. That is to say that his motives were revealed in his discourse; motives of deriding a black candidate for getting press for doing something that had already been accomplished by a black candidate.
I know i'm mad late but hey.
PEACE
Jozef,
What does being a genuine American has to do with discussion?
Clinton ran off the rails in New Hampshire with the LBJ/MLK comparison.
That was a good example of Obama supporters deliberately trying to find "racism" where none existed. To say that it took a president to twist arms and push the '64 Civil Rights Act through Congress was absolutely the truth. I doubt that anyone other than LBJ, certainly not JFK, could have accomplished that feat. That's no reflection at all on MLK -- he wasn't in a position to push any legislation through the house and senate ... he wasn't the damn president.
I was an Obama supporter from the beginning for various reasons, but during the primaries, I had to stop listening to my beloved lefty radio, I was so sickened by the treatment of the Clintons. I still think that Obama's a fantastic candidate, I just wish that I didn't find some of his supporters so irritating. I suspect that may make me a racist or maybe, since I can't listen to Randi Rhodes anymore, it makes me anti-semitic.
J Bean, the LBJ/MLK was shades of Pat Buchanan type of racism; shades of the kind of racial narrative that tells Blacks that Pres. Lincoln was their Great White Benefactor/Savior that and all the White men who fought in the Civil War. If you don't see or understand the racism in that then you need to leave the conversation alone.
It's the same narrative that's popular in movies -- someone White is always the hero. And then no one wants to discuss (1) what MLK, e.g., thought about the Civil Rights Acts and how Sen. Clinton's idea of the esteem of them don't match his, let alone LBJ's racism, so evident before 64, and his relationship with MLK after 64 AND (2) what MLK had to say about the White moderate and their shallow understanding.
And re: the "he wasn't the damn president"... I'm laughing because that was the very point. Barack Obama was/is running for president and isn't comparable to MLK even as Clinton positioned herself as an LBJ-type. She f-cked up her own analogy, by mistake or on purpose. In either even, she couldn't bring herself to say Obama "could be that president."
Clinton demeaned MLK by turning the history on it's head because LBJ didn't just wake up one day and decide it was a good idea... He was forced to.
The idea is akin to crediting Pres. Bush with coming up with a Time Horizon regarding Iraq... Missing in all this is how come we're not talking LBJ/JFK.
Obama mentioned both MLK and JFK as great leaders who gave great speeches. JFK wasn't the president who passed the 64 CRA either but Clinton didn't see fit to make Obama analogous to JFK. I wonder why...
And considering what she had to say about the Civil Rights Acts after LBJ/MLK statement, it's clear she has a shallow understanding. Back to the original observation... the historical truth of White liberal paternalism comes from, perhaps, an unlikely, likely source:
The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results.
Forty years ago, that arrangement -- white president enacting African-American dreams -- was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement -- white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty -- is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly.
The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African-American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen -- and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African-American dreams still have to go through white liberals?
Krauthammer: Black Dreams, White Liberals
Now did you catch the part about LBJ existed at a time when RACISM ITSELF made an MLK presidency impossible. Then you had Bill on Al Sharpton's radio show trying to explain the "fairy tale" thing speaking in the same White liberal paternalistic vain.
Bill patronizingly talked about Obama being a source of (race) pride among African-Americans -- which communicates the idea that Blacks aren't sophisticated enough to support Obama for policy purpose and based on his record (see Senate record again). Bill went on to say that African-Americans should choose Hillary over Barack because she would be "better for your life and your future." Yeah, Obama is somebody African-Americans could be proud of but a White liberal knows best and would be better for them.
The ONLY race-baiting meme that you point out came from the media's and Jim Clyburns's and Donna Brazille's interpretaion of words and their strategy for destroying the African American support that has historically gone to Bill Clinton. Those words were never uttered by the candidate, Hillary Clinton either. Instead, we got the talking points that the DNC wanted to convey to put their candidate, Obama, over the top through rigged caucus'. The states that held primaries, 1 vote/1 person, went overwhelmingly for Clinton. Include Florida and Michigan in the mix. Add to the Iowa result where John Edwards came in second when he knew that he had deceived the electorate. Those would have been Hillary's supporters and she would now be the nominee without the votes of the Superdelegates. This is not over. The convention is coming and we only have a presumptive nominee. If Donna Brazille gets her way, Clinton will not get the roll call vote and Barry will be crowned. The problem here is that Obama is not African American. He has not lived the AA experience in the US. He has lived a charmed life. The only racial prejudice he has experienced has been in his own head. Talk about a flawed candidate. Once again, the DNC is gonna tank just like when John Kerry came out and "reported for duty" (salute). What a farce.
Before Obama became a candidate, the black voting block loved the Clintons. If Obama wasn't on the ticket, the 90% of blacks voting for him would all be voting for Hillary. But, as soon as a black candidate was actually in sight of the nomination, it was time for blacks to throw the Clintons under the bus, and play the race card. These latter comments by black leaders putting the blame on Bill Clinton, are extremely disengenuous, and are merely attempts at damage control, as well as attempts at solidarity for the black candidate, at the expense of the Clintons.