You may remember that Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) was pained to stay neutral during the primary in the Palmetto State. Clyburn is the highest ranking African-American in the Democratic Party, and he pulls a lot of water. I don’t know anyone, even Republicans, that have a bad word to say about him.
When race first came up, Clyburn was in the Middle East. When he returned to the States, he tried to intervene with the Clintons and restore some peace and civility. Here he describes his efforts on the Charlie Rose Show.
But his initial efforts failed as the Clinton’s became increasingly focused on explaining away an impending loss in South Carolina. A week after the Charlie Rose interview things had gone from bad to worse. By the time he was interviewed by the Huffington Post, he had already asked Bill Clinton to ‘chill a little bit‘. He pushed back on what he considered unwarranted racialization.
“There are more white people supporting Obama than there are black,” he said, with a charge of emotion. “Now that’s a fact. Just look at the numbers. Look at New Hampshire. How many white votes and how many black votes did he get in New Hampshire? How many white votes and how many black votes did he get in Iowa? Now add that to the black votes in South Carolina. There are more white people supporting Obama than there are black people. Now that’s a fact.”
The populations of both Iowa, where Obama won, and New Hampshire, where he finished a close second, are both overwhelming white. Moreover, Clyburn added:
“Look at endorsements here in South Carolina… John Matthews, Robert Ford, Darrell Jackson, three black state senators. They are supporting Hillary Clinton. I haven’t seen a single black state senator come out for Obama. So is she the black candidate?”
Yet, he struggled to stay on the high road, even as he warned Bill Clinton about the damage he was doing to his reputation with the African-American community.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, the longtime South Carolina congressman would not, as a member of the Obama campaign has, go so far as to compare Clinton’s actions to that of Lee Atwater, the famed Republican dirty trickster. But he did allow the idea that the former president had sullied his image within Democratic circles.
“I think that may be true,” said Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. “I mean, he is speaking out this way, taking hits on Obama. A lot of times these things happen. What you say may hurt the other guy but it also may hurt you.”
Mind you, this was all a long time ago, back before the Clintons sought to exploit Obama’s pastor’s more incendiary remarks and suggest that he can’t appeal to working-class white people in the general election. James Clyburn’s patience is now all worn out:
“Scurrilous” and “disingenuous” were among the words a top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives used on Thursday to describe Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics in her bid to defeat Barack Obama for their party’s presidential nomination.
House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.
“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.
Ever the southern gentleman, Clyburn said:
“I don’t think she ought to drop out.”
But he added, “There’s a difference between dropping out and raising all this extraneous scurrilous stuff about the guy (Obama). Just run your campaign … you don’t have to drop out to be respectful of other people.”
It’s hard to describe how damaging it is to the Clintons’ long-term reputation to get repudiated like this by someone with Clyburn’s stature and civility. The only thing that would hurt more is if John Lewis were to say the same things. And John Lewis has already de-endorsed Clinton and thrown his weight behind Obama.
For Clyburn to openly suggest that Clinton is engaging in a strategy to throw the election to McCain implies that there is now an almost complete lack of good-will between the Clintons and the Congressional Black Caucus. Given the stellar regard with which the CBC held the Clintons prior to the onset of this nominating process, this fall from grace is staggering.
It’s pretty obvious by now that the Clintons don’t care what African American’s think. But a less obvious thing, and something I firmly believe, is that the ‘powers that be’ don’t care either. In fact, I think the main reason they do not intervene, no matter what they say publicly, is that they don’t really disagree with these tactics, and would be pleased if Clinton did ruin Obama’s chances.
Let’s be honest here, the leaders of the Democrats are old white millionaires, who have saved millions in the taxes that Bush passed and McCain promises to continue. The last thing they want is a scary black man, with a scary black wife and a scary black minister, spoiling all the fun.
They don’t stop it because they agree with it.
nalbar
oh jesus. How about you name me three names of people you think fit your description who are not aligned overtly or covertly with the Clinton campaign.
Pelosi
Reid
Feinstein
Boxer
nalbar
Okay. Let’s look at your list. First, Reid and Pelosi.
In other words, they want Clinton out yesterday.
Now that we’ve dispatched your first two, what about our California senators?
Well…they both endorsed Clinton. Therefore they don’t meet my minimum test that your list not include people overtly aligned with Clinton.
Got anyone else?
Yeah but Pelosi Reid and others need to stop whispering. They are powerless to stop the Clintons.
What is even worse, the media publicize perception – the media loves perception. They’ve given Clinton a new lifesaver.
In unison, the major media have jumped from Obama to her: TIME, WAPO, NY Times, Politico, TNR.
Obama is the next McGovern.
Spineless this:
I read something that said that analysis was stupid. McGovern lost the college vote and Obama won’t for one and McGovern’s running mate was a lunatic that McGovern didn’t jettison immediately.
Has Hillary denounced the McGovern comparison? He has endorsed her.
I think Bill Clinton is ill since his heart attack and I question if he knows what he is saying from day to day.
Hillary and her campaign staff know exactly what they were doing when they began the Southern Strategy on Obama.
In keeping with the increasingly deranged and irresponsible rhetoric of the Hillosphere, Armando calls Clyburn a “crazy conspiracy theorist”.
Nice.
Keep it up. 8% of the black vote in PA wasn’t pathetic enough, apparently. No respect for one of the people we have in government most deserving of respect. All because he doesn’t like race-baiting.
Someday we’re going to discover why you are so obsessed with Armando.
But … in the meantime. I clicked your link and your summary is a bit misleading and doesn’t get to his central argument. He thinks Clyburn hurts Obama with white voters by “sounding” like a conspiracy theorist. Oh, I’m sure you will claim Armando doesn’t really care whether Obama is hurt or not, but let’s at least look at his claim.
oops. Unfortunately, we can’t really examine his claim. He’s short on analysis and presents no facts to show that white people are turned off in some way by conspiracy theories. My experience is the opposite. White people love conspiracy theories and can entertain themselves for days, weeks and sometimes years with them. 🙂
In truth, I think Clyburn is passing along a conspiracy theory. But it doesn’t bother me because that theory has been making the rounds and I heard it in R/L from two people today. So he’s not doing anything that lots of white people aren’t already doing around the water coolers.
Oh. Okay. He ‘sounds’ crazy. He isn’t really crazy, only sounds that way.
I don’t really care if Armando thinks it will hurt Obama. That’s ridiculous. It won’t hurt Obama.
What matters is what it means for the people that actually give a shit what Clyburn thinks.
someday this election will be over and you’ll find your sense of humor again.
But at least you responded clearly and concisely to his argument:
g’night 🙂
Teasing.
Congressman Clyburn isn’t the only one who’s heard people talking about Senator Clinton campaigning for 2012, trying to destroy Obama so McCain wins and further screws up the country and gives her the election next time. I’ve heard that talk, too, and I’m certain that he and I haven’t been talking to the same people.
Please reread my post,
I said ‘no matter what they say publicly’.
Boo, I have tremendous respect for you, and I read you every single day. You absolutely changed my opinions on a Clinton candidate.
But you, and virtually every web site I go to from Juan Cole to Helena Cobane, completely under estimate who the REAL enemy is. Who we are REALLY fighting. The web sites have a tendency to make excuses of why things don’t ‘change’. The idea that Democratic leadership shares the core values of the Republicans seems only to be addressed sidewise. They do NOT particularly want ‘change’. Obama threatens ‘change’, some of it at a deep institutional level. His very existence, from the way he raises money, to his relatively swift ascent to the top, threatens them.
I don’t pretend to be able to write the way you can. I can’t express my thoughts as well as you. You are a pro. You will wipe the floor with me in any disagreement. But there is no way the establishment accepts the Obama’s as equals. It’s not just color (although I am sure there is plenty of that), it is what he is. He is not ‘bought’ yet, in the way the Clinton’s are. He will expose American, just by his existence, for what we really are. A divided electorate, ruled by elitist millionaires who only want a bigger piece of the pie.
They are afraid of him.
nalbar
nalbar, you are hitting on an important insight, but you are taking it too far. Yes, there is tremendous institutional resistance to Obama’s candidacy. You are right about that. You are also right that they is a major element of both parties being essentially bought off by a ruling elite.
But…
Individual politicians differ on which one of these candidates benefit them personally. The majority of them believe that Obama benefits them, but he doesn’t benefit all of them, and he doesn’t benefit those that stand to gain from a Clinton restoration.
In some districts, an Obama candidacy will be an anchor. Freshman Democrats Jason Altmire, Chris Carney, and Heath Shuler are dealing with this reality. But in other districts, Obama will help tremendously by driving up the youth vote, or driving up black turnout. So, each politician is doing a selfish analysis, as well as doing what human do…figuring out what’s best for the country.
The reason this race is going on is because the risk/benefit analysis differs so much for different people in different situations.
Part of it is resistance to institutional change, but that is only a medium sized part of it. Very few people, except for people in the Clinton’s orbit, are holding out because they benefit from Bush’s tax breaks and ‘obliterating’ foreign policies. They are just doing what they think is best for them.
There is certainly not much I can disagree with there Boo.
I was perhaps overwrought (being overwrought is going around right now) on the money part. But I think the institutional resistance is more important to the ‘leaders’, meaning those that have the power to push Clinton out. Nobody is going to listen to a ‘little fish’.
Who can effect Clinton more right now, Pelosi or Feinstein? I believe Feinstein, because if she switches not only does Obama gain a SD, Clinton loses one. Why doesn’t she then switch? The math says there is NO chance of Clinton winning without ‘losing’ the hearts of african americans. Why would anyone who cares about the party stick to their guns?
In other words, right now there appears to be no personal gain for Feinstein, because if Obama wins the nomination, she loses influence that she may need (because Obama, if he becomes president, might be upset at the tactics and those who stood by), if Clinton wins the nomination she possibly loses african americans, and certainly Feinstein won’t be able to depend on them in the future.
Yet I agree with you, for all of them there is a risk/benefit ratio, and it is personal. What could Feinstein’s be? Math says there is no political gain, even if Clinton wins (because of the damage).
My conclusion is that it’s that she AGREES with Clinton. She is fine with the tactics, with the ads.
And add to that, she does fine financially if a Republican is president.
I know Boo, you dismiss Feinstein because she is in Clinton’s ‘orbit’. But the ‘orbiteirs’ are the ones that can REALLY end it. They start switching, it is over. Yet they do not, even with the semi-racist stuff.
BTW, I picked Feinstein at random. It could be any one of the ‘leaders’ of the party. You separate the players by a Clinton/Obama orientation. I do not. Pelosi and Reid benefit from a Republican administration just as much as Feinstein does. You are VERY concerned with the coat tails of Obama (you have convinced me), my point is that Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Reid, etc… do not care about that. The only way they ‘lose’ is with Obama, because he is a mystery wrapped in a riddle, but most of all because of where his money is coming from.
I wish I could make my point without repeating myself, and with fewer words. Sorry.
nalbar
Thanks for posting this. What Rep. Clyburn is saying is precisely why (and when) my mom was able to commit to Obama. She said Iowa & New Hampshire voters — White voters — made Obama viable where she didn’t feel she was “wasting her vote”. It was really sweet listening to her talk about past Black presidential candidates & why she couldn’t vote for them. If you’re Black it was important not to waste your vote. Now she was going to vote for Obama “come hell or high water”. IMHO, one-dimensional coverage of the Black vote doesn’t explain all of these dynamics.
Came across a quote by James Baldwin today, The American Dream is at the expense of the American Negro. I hope the Democratic presidential nomination doesn’t have the same price.
The American Dream is at the expense of the American Negro
The end of the dream will be rightly blamed on the American bigot.
Bill Richardson is not too pleased either. I just saw this clip of him on Larry King kicking James Carville’s butt. Carville would be a lousy poker player. Just look at the rage and fury in his gestures while Richardson is talking.
I’m thinking more and more that Richardson would be a great choice as Veep. What a great match for Obama to campaign with.
It would also be a big “F You!” to the Clinton camp – something that would put a big smile on my face but something that also makes it unlikely that he’ll be selected as Obama tries to unify the party heading into the general election.
is tinfoil hat insanity.
The Obama camp is showing desperation as they feel this thing slipping away. They’re getting the same sense of entitlement that the Clinton camp was rightly accused of months ago.
The nomination will be decided where it should be – at the convention. Why IS there an Indiana primary if we demand that the issue be settled before May?
Come 2012, if Senator Clinton decides to run for re-election to the Senate, she will face a primary challenger, and I have to think that such a challenger will be well-funded…
Clinton can’t catch up so there is no desperation. You think of it in political terms because that’s your privilege. Clyburn and other of us black folks think of it in much larger terms.
Ed, forget the merits of the theory. The NYT’s piece makes it a little clearer what Clyburn is saying.
Clyburn is communication more of a fact than an opinion. The damage is done.
the way Mr. Clyburn says they do, but that certainly doesn’t mean the theory has any merit.
To think that Hillary would go through a torturous campaign like this on the off chance that it could, maybe, possibly pay off four years from now is lunacy.
However, if she sees this as her only opportunity to become president and becoming president is more important to her than defeating John McCain then it makes perfect sense that she would do anything – including making Barack Obama radioactive to a large portion of the electorate – to win. It is not a far stretch from there (Hillary doing anything to win this year) to seeing how she could consider a seriously wounded Obama as opening up an opportunity for her in 2012, either with Barack as the 2008 loser or as a failed president (elected without a mandate in 2008) in 2012.
That’s not lunacy, that’s logic based on a fairly sound assumption – Hillary Clinton will do anything to win in 2008. Everything else flows logically from that assertion, even more so when you consider why the DLC was founded in the first place…
A “failed president”?
Now you’d like to blame Hillary if Obama gets ELECTED and then FAILS?
Talk about a teflon man. Is Barack responsible for anything?
We’re talking about her thinking, not reality – we’ve already seen that there’s little connection between the two…
Your believe that the Majority Whip is engaging in “tinfoil hat insanity” is patently naive. Their actions speak quite loudly; you need only listen.
She paved the way for Teflon John and others to attack him. Save the Well, rethugs will do it line–the point is that a “fellow Democrat” shouldn’t build up the republican in a primary contest.
But back to Rep. Clyburn’s point: you can’t say the things that they have been quoted to have said and think that people will turn a blind eye to it.
Or put another way: Don’t piss on my back and tell me it’s rain.
It’s too late.
for what it’s worth, the Clintons, in taking the low road, have blown our chances in November… defeat from the jaws of victory. ALL who could’ve made a difference in speaking out – publicly calling out the Clintons are afraid. AFRAID of the Clinton thuggery – McAuliffe, Rendell, Penn, Ickes and icky types.
Gore and Edwards remain silent. Why?
We’re a demoralized party. A shade of humpty dumpty. ..a fractured party. Even if either pleads on their knees, Clinton supporters will not vote Obama and Obama supporters definitely will not vote for Clinton.
Can you see Clinton getting up on the podium in Denver and sincerely say she supports Obama – that he’s fit to be CoC, he’s not a Muslim, Rev. Wright is a good man – came to the White House during our travails with Monica, that Bill praised Farrakhan in 2005. That speech would be insincere and too late.
Watch out. 38% will stay home and independents, if they do vote, will vote McCain.
We’ll need a decade to heal. Beyond April 23, many Obama supporters are turned off with the politics of destruction. His message has him cornered, he cannot defend himself from vile attacks without being described as going negative.
Americans love to destroy…that’s the country we’ve become.
Why indeed.
I don’t think it’s too late though. Obama is an organizer. He can get out the vote.
And depending on his VP pick (though I know people don’t vote for the VP but it might make some folk more comfortable) it could take the edge off of some of this.