I was listening to “News & Notes” on NPR a few nights ago, and the topic was coded racist language in Bill Clinton’s recent comments about Barack Obama. Specifically, his references to Obama’s lack of experience, and the remark that Obama’s explanation of his Iraq war stance was a “fairy tale.” Farai and her guests seemed to assume that the “coded” racial meaning in Clinton’s comments was self-evident, but they didn’t explain it explicitly that I heard.
Since then, I’ve seen the “fairy tale” quote come up in other articles and discussions about the role of race in the campaign, but I still haven’t seen an explanation. It seems to me that in different circumstances, Clinton might just as well have said the same things, using the same wording, about a white rival candidate. So, what am I missing? What is the connection between the phrase “fairy tale” and being black?
My interpretation of it was not that there was any connection to blacks and fairy tales, but some felt he was referring to Obama’s chance at the White House as a fairy tale, implying he felt only in a fairy tale could a black become POTUS.
If I’m not mistaken, the hubbub was not about any racist connotation of “fairy tale”. Bill Clinton quote thusly:
It isn’t completely clear whether the final sentence referred to Obama’s war position or Obama’s campaign. Some took it as a characterization of Obama’s chances of being elected president (and by extension any black candidate). Both Obama and his wife capitalized on the comment by responding to it as if it were the more offensive meaning.
Really the big racial “code word” was Clinton’s “electability” remark, which was taken by some to mean that Obama is unelectable because of his race. That’s the one that really stirred up the racial hornet’s nest.
I’ll admit I’m not particularly perceptive so how do the words ‘fairy tale’ have anything to do with race or being electable? (I’ve also taken my nightly sleeping pill so I am even more numb than usual.) Anyway, it seemed clear to me that Clinton was referring to any alleged significant differences in Obama’s voting record Vs Hillary’s.
Sorry, my mistake. I described 2 different disputed utterances. The first was the ambiguous fairy tale thing. At some other time Hillary made some comment about “electability” which many took to mean “a black man isn’t electable, so just to be safe, nominate the white lady”. (As if a female spouse-and-unelected-co-president of the most hated-by-conservatives president of all time is somehow more “electable”.)
As a democrat-leaning voter, quite frankly I have concerns about the electability of either of the two. I don’t know that America is grown-up enough yet to handle a woman or minority president, and I think there’s a very real possibility of President McCain in November. But that’s IMHO territory so I’ll stop.
In the south there are certain code phrases that people respond poorly to.
For instance saying a black man or woman is “articulate” was once a way of saying they didn’t at all speak like n*****s (what they meant). This dynamic still exists.
A few years back I had a co-supervisor comment to me that my black brother-in-law (divorce has since changed that) was well spoken and respectful. (We all worked at the same place.) Now to be fair, this guy had a black wife (as did I at the time)… but does that not seem at least a little… interesting?
It’s kind of a commentary in both directions, I suppose.
Long story short, there’s just some words and phrases one must be very careful using. In the south… we know what’s being said. And Bill Clinton is from south of the Mason-Dixon line.
It would be really presumptuous for you to tell another that she or he is “just seeing stuff.” It’s possible that you might be missing something – not “getting it.” Different people pick up on different clues and codes.
I don’t have a sister-in-law, but if I did and she had a habit of saying things like: “My professor is Hispanic but she’s very bright,” I might get the idea that my sister-in-law thought that Hispanics are not usually very intelligent. The red flag in her sentence is the word but. My sister-in-law would never even know that she is sending a little too much information whenever she says something like that.
I don’t deny Clinton is saying that. I don’t deny it could be coded. I do deny it’s relevant, especially since Bill Clinton isn’t running this time. I also question whether Bill Clinton knows all the same codes you do.
That’s what I was wondering about. If Clinton had referred to one of Obama’s positions as “voodoo” or “jive talk” or something, then the code phrase would be clear. What’s the operative code phrase here though, if there is one?
Bill Clinton, the “first black president” who was governor of Arkansas and beloved by the black population… and has a good understanding and IQ. Emotes and relates with others… You’re right, he must not understand. If only he’d been governor of Alabama or a REAL southern state… /sarcasm
And then… Hillary doesn’t distance herself from his comments. I’m sorry, she’s a strong woman. If she wanted to disagree with her husband… she would. And they’re smart enough to pull it off. But mysteriously… they didn’t.
I’m not saying they’re racists. Not at all. I am saying it was the equivalent of some flip comment in the middle of an argument that lands smack on a button of yours. Whatever it might be. For some it’s intelligence, for some it’s desirability… whatever. They knew the button.
They didn’t recognize that in zapping others. The others had a button, too.
Now that they’ve seen that approach not working as well… they’ve stopped. If it worked, do you think they would have stopped?
Does a President make some flip comment about another race? Does he/she allow a staffer to do so? I’d think not.
That’s all. Those who refuse to just acknowledge there was a double standard at work are the ones keeping this in the media. Allowing and forcing the argument to be made again and again.
It’s a double standard and was a hurtful statement to a large portion of the population - particularly in that state.
Jesse Jackson was the biggest problem source for me.
Until that point Bill was fine as his past of supporting minority efforts was standing as evidence that his words were NOT code for other things. And I still think he didn’t mean to be coded on the other stuff. All I’m trying to point out is that, for some, it’s a mine field and reasonable people CAN disagree.
On the “fairy tale” comment… I can understand both interpretations. The unelectable theme was already in the air. To the point, I think fairy tale was about the Iraq thing and I think most all reasonable people would agree.
“Fairy tale” = Bill’s fine, and it’s a fair point.
“articulate” = Bill’s still fine in my book. Obama creates a difficult challenge - he IS articulate, for ANY human. The past makes making that point an interesting thing… and it’s nice that the racial color (ohhh… that’s punny!!) is weakening on this point.
“Jesse Jackson” = Bill was making a salient if impolitic point. Were it not for a LARGE showing of the black population (that like in Jesse Jackson times voted their race), Obama might not have carried the state.
There are times I wonder if Bill isn’t the perfect foil for Obama. He’s hurting Obama in all the ways that Obama can need to be hurt… (As in… he’s helping Obama more than he’s helped his own wife.)