Will Clinton's "paint him black" strategy work?

[Anduril]

@Damuri Ajashi

Why wasn’t it groundbreaking? Because Obama is black and Jesse jackson was black? I said it was subtle.

Nope. Not racist. Even Jesse Jackson didnt’ find it to be racist.

You make such a big deal of the use of words and phrases used by Malcolm X (which I don’t think I would have recognized unless Obama said “By Any Means Necessary”) as some sort of shorthand that Obama is using to remind people he is black.

I’m not making a big deal about it. I’m just saying that it paints you more as a black candidate than any statement from the Hillary camp.

Why isn’t the use of the phrase “fairy tale” reminiscent of the doubt many African Americans feel about the electability of a black man to the presidency? You seem to be using two measuring sticks to measure spin and subtle use of language, one for Obama and a different one for Hillary.

Did you listen to the entire statement? The context is clear and is opaque only to Obama supporters and people suffering with White guilt. It has nothing to do with race.

Obama had little to do with Hilary’s dimunition of Marin Luther King Jr. Hillary shot her own foot in an attempt to distinguish inspiration from perspiration. She was soundly criticized by people who were not even remotely connected to Obama’s campaign because she shoved her foot so far down her throat she could kick her own ass.

But he could have stopped the ugly race baiting, but he didn’t. Why should he? It’s helping him out in the polls. The question is, who’s using race to further his/her candidacy? The answer: Obama.

[Zoe]

Anduril: The question is, who’s using race to further his/her candidacy? The answer: Obama.

White men have been successfully using their race to further their presidential ambitions since the American Revolution. I can’t think of any candidates who aren’t using race to their advantage. Considering racial statistics in this country, I would say that Obama is probably using it less than any of the candidates.

Anduril:Even Jesse Jackson didnt’ find it to be racist.

Jackson’s public comment is in keeping with the idea that he didn’t find it racist. However, according to Katharine Q Seelye’s blog in The New York Times:

In his conversation with Mr. Obama on Saturday, Mr. Jackson said, “He told me what Bill had said. And I said to Barack, as a tactical matter, resist any temptation to come down to that level. There may be temptations, especially when the media keeps saying ‘Barack is black,’ and they never said ‘Dukakis is white’ or ‘Hillary is white,’’ he said, referring to Michael Dukakis, who won the Democratic nomination in 1988.
But, Mr. Jackson said, “Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments.” He said his chief concern was that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton not “bloody themselves” so much that they can’t unite against the Republicans in November.
Several other prominent Democrats had also talked with Mr. Clinton earlier in the week, urging him not to escalate racial tensions within the party. One, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, said on CNN that Mr. Clinton should “chill.”

<snip>

In his comments Saturday, Mr. Clinton admitted to getting a little “hot” in some comments…

[Anduril]

@Zoe

Jackson’s public comment is in keeping with the idea that he didn’t find it racist. However, according to Katharine Q Seelye’s blog in The New York Times:

It is clear, however, even from Katharine Q Seelye’s blog (and we really can’t assess the accuracy of that considering that JJ’s public comments do not support it - it’s so deniable), we can see that JJ agrees that there is a more innocent interpretation of Bill Clinton’s statement. And since there is, how could we say that it is without any other evidence. Whether it was jerkish, as another poster pointed out, that’s debatable - but the fact that there is an innocent explanation compels us to take the innocent interpretation.

[guizot]

Obama doesn’t need to actively refer to race, simply because, as noted above, he’s the first viable presidential candidate to be (half) black. I don’t know what the “bamboozled” statement is in reference to, but I think he typically tries to avoid talking like civil rights activists such as Jackson, apparently because they usually don’t get far in presidential elections. They’re considered (unfairly or not) “dividers,” not uniters. I suppose (Bill) Clinton’s remark could be taken two ways: “Obama won in SC because he’s black,” or “Just because you win in SC doesn’t mean you’re a viable candidate.”

In general, though, I think they’re trying to get Obama to say something that will mar his “Mr. Nice Guy” image. It probably was designed for Feb. 5, and I’m sure it’s no accident that he’s saying it and she’s not. Whether it will work or not is hard to tell now; the two candidates are banking on image alone, so it’s a risky move.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Anduril

It is clear, however, even from Katharine Q Seelye’s blog (and we really can’t assess the accuracy of that considering that JJ’s public comments do not support it - it’s so deniable), we can see that JJ agrees that there is a more innocent interpretation of Bill Clinton’s statement. And since there is, how could we say that it is without any other evidence. Whether it was jerkish, as another poster pointed out, that’s debatable - but the fact that there is an innocent explanation compels us to take the innocent interpretation.

No matter how much you rant about how the Obama supporters are all crazy (which we all find endearing), the tactics used by the Hillary campaign were offensive to us and it moved a lot of us one step closer to staying home in November if Hillary is the Democratic candidate.

Lets just call it water under the bridge.

[MovieMogul]

I think Jon Stewart made the case pretty well…