OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bill brings out worst in Clinton Camp
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Bassey Etim:
- Nanny state will end Dems' game (January 21, 2008)
- Religion: Does it benefit society? (November 29, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Obama's charisma essential to victory (January 29, 2007)
- Clinton has best plan for your pocketbook (January 24, 2008)
- Obama message will unite, right nation's future (January 24, 2008)
- Nevada caucuses expose flawed system (January 24, 2008)
- I'll take a female president, just not her (December 3, 2007)
by Bassey Etim
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Shortly after the Iowa caucus, a Fox News panel mused on how the campaign would evolve after Sen. Barack Obama’s surprising victory. They came to the consensus that the contest would get ugly, with the Clinton camp turning to backhanded racial conflict to solidify its base. I was sure they were wrong — the panel had a clear disdain for the Clintons, and the Democratic Party was surely above shameless wedge politicking.
That the Clinton camp purposefully sought to create a racial narrative is doubtful. The string of misunderstandings that led to the current state of dialogue between the campaigns was too subtle and built too slowly. The Clintons may be good, but nobody is that good. Now that the racial subtext to this primary has emerged, there is little doubt left that Bill Clinton and a number of top aides have run with it.
Many Democrats and Republicans are having a Kumbaya moment over their mutual disgust of Clintonian politics. The Clintons have dedicated their lives to public service and uplifted the poor and downtrodden with uniquely American ideas for decades. But even I couldn’t help but think, “No wonder conservatives can’t stand these people,” after hearing days of dismissive remarks by Bill being replayed on every news outlet.
It is certainly unfair to blame a candidate for everything surrogates say, but that doesn’t absolve a campaign from taking responsibility for irresponsible tactics. BET founder Bob Johnson — along with a number of prominent Clinton campaign representatives — denied raising Mr. Obama’s race as an issue, then placed the blame squarely on his camp. All the while, the Clinton campaign reaped the supposed benefits.
“They say they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as ‘the black candidate,’ something he has worked to avoid,” an Associated Press article said of Clinton strategists.
While Hillary’s campaign continues to deny using race as a wedge, Bill has belittled the intelligence of black voters by writing off Obama’s win in South Carolina and equating it to Jesse Jacksons’ in 1984 and 1988. Video of the incident makes it clear that Mr. Clinton volunteered the information, and the reporters’ original question had no racial subtext and nothing to do with Rev. Jackson. Ms. Clinton has said everyone on her team is worn out from the intense schedule, but it’s hard to believe people race-bait because they’re sleepy.
Make no mistake about it, and expect no apologies for the beloved former president: No matter where you stand in this race, it must be acknowledged that Mr. Clinton is attempting to brand all black presidential candidates as fringe niche offerings. It was deliberate and is further proof that the former president consistently values his ego over truth. Once he failed to manipulate the black vote in South Carolina, Mr. Clinton dismissed them as a herd of mindless sheep. The implication has been clear and undeniable.
The bottom line is that Bill diminishes Hillary by making it seem as if she needs him to fight her battles, and that’s unfair to her. There is no doubt Mr. Clinton has a feel for the political winds that can’t be underestimated, and his attempt to brand Mr. Obama as a niche candidate nearly worked. The price of party unity was none too steep. It’s become painfully obvious his principal objective is to get his wife elected at all costs, rather than put his party in the strongest position to win.
Oddly enough, the fracas may help the Democrats’ White House aspirations should Mr. Obama win the nomination. On the night of his South Carolina win, Fox News panelists — including Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes — couldn’t help but gush about him for taking the Clinton “machine” head on. For more anecdotal evidence, a cursory search of online news comment boards shows he’s seen as a principled, if misguided, politician among many conservatives. He certainly can hope to capture a larger share of independents than John Kerry in 2004.
Democrats are beginning to see the writing on the wall — Sen. John McCain will likely be the nominee, and he’ll be tough to beat. The guy’s pores ooze machismo and beside the Baghdad market incident, he’s got an unparalleled reputation for “straight talk.”
How could Hillary defeat him if the perception is that her husband needs to fight her battles? Ms. Clinton is stronger than that. Now someone needs to break the news to Bill.
Bassey Etim
(betim@badgerherald.com) is a senior
majoring in political science and journalism.
Anonymous (January 29, 2008 @ 8:41am):
Monica Lewinsky has not tarnished the Clinton legacy, but his wife's candidacy has.
Why doesn't Maria Schriver run for President? I'm sure the White House has a back door.
Anonymous (January 29, 2008 @ 2:17pm):
Part of the reason why McCain has an "unparalleled reputation for 'straight talk'" is because journalists, like you, keep reinforcing that meme. McCain is actually nearly as bad as a flip-flopper as Romney, changing his position on abortion, immigration, and tax cuts, and has falsely proclaimed we were "turning the corner" in Iraq and making political progress countless times.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
