• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Hillary?s ?Southern Strategy? and the method behind Bill?s madness

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Very interesting stuff here.

Is Bill's outrageous behavior all part of a 'plan' to help Hillary?
Is Hillary and Co. embracing a plan that will get Hillary the white votes by allowing Obama to get all the black vote?

Will the same people who decry the Republicans for their ?southern strategy? do the same when Hillary does it?
Part 1, Dick Morris who helped Bill get elected.
link
January 22, 2008 -- WHY is Bill Clinton courting such intense publicity, in evitably much of it negative?
Is he crazy? Crazy like a fox.

He has two goals and is achieving them both spectacularly.

First, he wants to be the same kind of lightning rod for Hillary that she was for him during his run for the presidency.

As the 1992 Republican convention approached, Hillary ratcheted up her comments and profile precisely to attract GOP fire so that they would leave Bill alone. He and I discussed the plan.

Hillary's comment, for example, about "baking cookies and serving tea" put her squarely in the Republican Party's sights as the convention approached.

The Republicans fell for the lure big time and spent their entire convention going after Hillary. Bill was scarcely hit.

And the 1992 GOP convention is one of the few that afforded its party no bounce at all. Now Bill is returning the favor.

In the days before Iowa and leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary was the prime topic of political discussion.

She took shots for misusing Bill's record and trying to adopt it as her own, for minimizing King's contribution to civil rights, for crying, for attacking her opponents, and for changing her campaign style to become more likeable.

Now, she rarely gets hit anymore. They're hitting Bill instead.

Like a red cape, he is attracting the attention of the bull so his wife the matador escapes unharmed.

The other method behind his madness is that Bill wants to suck up all the oxygen in the room and dominate the coverage of the Democratic contest. By doing so, he cuts Obama out of the news, pushes him off the front page, and usurps the headlines.

Of course, he also crowds out Hillary, but that's OK, given her large leads in the national polls and in all the big states whose primaries are coming up.

If there were a newspaper and television blackout, Hillary would cruise to an easy win, so Bill, by injecting himself into the coverage and hogging it, is accomplishing the same goal.

His tactics now are reminiscent of those he used to black out John Kerry during the lead-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

By scheduling book signings and speeches in Boston, he effectively took the coverage away from the prospective Democratic nominee, a man who would have eclipsed Hillary's presidential ambitions had he won the election.

Ultimately, the Clintons are playing a game of jujitsu with Obama, using his own strength against him.

By challenging Obama for the black vote - by promising to go door to door in South Carolina in minority neighborhoods, for example - Bill is highlighting the question: Will Obama carry the black vote? Of course, he will. He leads, 4 to 1, among African-Americans now.

But by making that the central question, Obama's South Carolina victory will be hailed as proof that he won the African-American vote. Such block voting will trigger the white backlash Sen. Clinton needs to win.

Once whites see blacks voting en masse for a black man, they will figure that it is a racial game and line up for Hillary. Already, she carries white voters by 2 to 1.

The Clintons can well afford to lose South Carolina as long as the election is not seen as a bellwether of how the South will vote but as an indication of how African-Americans will go. It's a small price to pay for the racial polarization they need to win.

So to seize the limelight, take Hillary out of the line of fire, and to call attention to his head-to-head battle with Obama for the loyalty of America's blacks, Bill Clinton is seeking all the coverage he can get, positive, negative or neutral.
Part 2: Hillary, Obama and race
link
It has only been a week since it began in earnest, and I am already bored with the Democratic identity politics that will likely pervade the campaign into November. It may come in fits and starts ? with the Martin Luther King Jr. Day truce perhaps lasting through their South Carolina primary ? but it will surely come. I have heard too much for too long ? 30 years, give or take ? about the travails of blacks and women to be able to stomach eight more months of hearing the strongest black and female candidates in our nation?s history whine, affect umbrage, and pretend to have enemies where they don?t.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must know that Americans are either ready for a woman or a black man in the Oval Office, or they are not. And if not, identity-based appeals won?t work. Of course, there are lots of ways to raise race and gender issues short of straightforward appeals to women and black voters.

Obama understands that his critical campaign task is to persuade white Democrats to support him on his merits, his image, and his promises ? with only enough hint of race to make the sentimental among them feel even better about the choice. This strategy was on brilliant display during Monday night?s CNN debate. He must hope that black voters respond to him without an overt personal invitation. Like the rest of us, he has seen how Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and company marginalize themselves by, essentially, asking for reparations for simply being black, instead of promising a new day for everyone. He is nothing if not inclusive in his rhetoric.

For her part, Hillary has eschewed direct feminine appeal ? aside from occasional references to ?making history.? In New Hampshire she learned that many female voters will coalesce around her if she is seen as an embattled woman with a dream, long deferred. However spontaneous her campaign-trail tears may have been, we can expect to see calculated flurries of emotion and expressions (however indirect) of female solidarity in future.

While each candidate must appeal to their own identity group with subtlety, it?s become increasingly clear that the Clinton campaign is willing to employ negative racial stereotypes against her opponent. Why else would surrogates including Bill Clinton, various campaign aides, and senior black politicians and leaders have raised questions recently about Obama?s credibility, teenage drug use, and professional experience? Why would Hillary think that is smart politics? Because it works.

The Clintons and their political allies have complained for decades that the GOP?s ?Southern Strategy? took advantage of white voters? fears of black crime, family disintegration, and enforced equality as emerging trends from which Republicans could protect them. There is some truth to the Clintons? claim, especially during the years of inner-city turbulence in the late 60s and 70s. (Of course, many of those ?exploited? fears were entirely rational.)

Through surrogates, Hillary can delicately stir up residual racism with impunity, because ? at the end of the day ? winning the primaries is all about numbers. Even if Hillary?s campaign were to alienate a majority of black voters by attacking Obama in carefully coded terms, as long as she ends up with a small majority of the women?s vote, she wins. There are 35 million black Americans ? and 150 million American women, about a third of whom are reliable Democrats. You do the math.

In my bleeding-heart conservative youth, I once complained to Spencer Abraham ? then the head of the Michigan GOP ? that Republicans didn?t try hard enough to attract black voters. He repeated the then-current wisdom of the great, hard-bitten GOP strategist Lee Atwater. Atwater was convinced that the very process of attracting urban black voters would cost votes from the GOP base ? not because the base was racist, but because white non-urban voters opposed the big-government programs that typically won black voters? allegiance. There simply weren?t enough black votes to make it worthwhile for the GOP to court them and risk losing their base. It would be a net loss if it worked. Case closed.

Democrats know that too. In the past it has been easy for them to garner black votes without doing much beyond perpetuating the welfare state and telling scare stories about what evil Republicans would do. To be fair, both Clintons have worked with black leaders on poverty and race issues, and developed genuine affinities in the community ? Bill was our ?first black president,? after all. Still, now that Hillary?s candidacy is threatened by a very appealing black competitor, how long will her scruples about exploiting race last?

While a charge of racism is always a risk, it may be that stirring up a quarrel that highlights her role as the putative ?establishment? (and white) candidate could make white, male swing voters ? especially working-class ones ? that much more comfortable with her. I am speculating here ? but who would bet that this question has not been poll tested thoroughly?

For his part, Obama has to hope that having his surrogates respond and engage on race ? only when pushed ? will remind black voters that they have a real choice this year, and it doesn?t have to be the first black First Lady.

Ultimately, this identity-politics line of attack ? that someone is an untrustworthy leader by dint of their race or gender ? is inevitable between these two candidates. For one thing, there isn?t a dime?s worth of difference between them on the issues: they both want to expand the welfare state and end the war. And, most important, neither has a substantive record to discuss, or a list of real accomplishments to weigh that would indicate the nature of their leadership. Neither of them has led anything larger than a Senate staff. And so it will come down to identities.

Republicans need only sit back and enjoy this battle between democratic interest groups. They shouldn?t moralize. And they need to keep the laughter down. Because if Obama is the nominee, everything Hillary does to soften him up now is something the GOP nominee doesn?t have to do later. And if Hillary is the nominee, she may not be able to count on the easy black votes that the Democrats need to win the White House if she antagonizes them now.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Rush also talked about this today, although I did not hear it myself.
The transcript:
RUSH: I'm looking at South Carolina. Mrs. Clinton has pulled out of there. The story is Mrs. Clinton's conceding it. She's left. At the debate last night, she got aboard the charter jet (paid for with Norman Hsu money), and flew out to states getting ready for Super Tuesday on February 5th. Of course, the conventional wisdom is that Mrs. Clinton knows that Obama's going to win the state of South Carolina. Why? Because of the black population. Now, what a coup it would be for Mrs. Clinton to win this thing Saturday while not even there. They've set up all this conventional wisdom that Obama is going to clean up -- and he probably will. But I wouldn't put it past these people to have the whole thing staged like they did New Hampshire, and for her to end up winning, "I had no clue. (sobbing) I love the people of South Carolina so much," and there's Barry left regretting he ever brought up the fact that she served on a Wal-Mart board. It's unlikely.

Now, when Barry wins South Carolina -- say he wins South Carolina -- what are the Clintons going to do then? (stifling laughter) Is she going to sit there and just take it that a majority of black people, Democrats, voted for Obama; when Bill Clinton's "the first black president"? So you'll have some version of the Clinton "southern strategy," and it will go something like this. These will not be the words that they use. But when asked about it, somebody like Howard Wolfson or Terry McAuliffe, somebody at the Clinton organization will say to the press asking them about it: "Well, what do you do expect? A lot of blacks in that state." Thud. Duhhhh. Giving nothing to Obama, blaming it all on racial identity politics, or crediting it for that. You watch. They'll do something
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
weee.

more baseless accusations.

this political correctness crusade that obama's surrogates and the anti-clintons are scamming is making berkley look like archie bunker.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Oh, well if Fox News parent owned NY Post, Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, and ProfJohn all repeat the same Clinton bashing argument, it must be true.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
NYPost + Dick Morris + ProfJohn = Clinton hating trio :D
Good point, but you do have to admit that Dick got Clinton re-elected twice, as President once and governor once. So he knows what he is talking about.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
last article on this:
Clinton in it to spin it in South Carolina?
link

Hillary Clinton once said she was "in it to win it," but that may not be the case in South Carolina, where Democrats hold a presidential primary Saturday.

After participating in Monday's debate in Myrtle Beach, the New York senator won't be back in the Palmetto State until Friday, campaigning instead in California, Arizona, New Mexico, New Jersey and New York, all of which vote Feb. 5.

Clinton was to attend a Martin Luther King Jr. Day march Monday morning to the state Capitol in Columbia, but her chartered flight arrived too late. Her principal rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, did march and received a rock-star reception from thousands of participants. Clinton spoke later at a statehouse rally, as did Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

"Maybe she's pulling a Romney, pulling out and going where there's more ducks to hunt," said Don Aiesi, a political scientist at Furman University in South Carolina, referring to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's late decision not to compete heavily in the state's Republican primary.

Doing so would allow Clinton to try to minimize South Carolina's importance by downplaying Obama's win as that of a black candidate in a heavily black state, Aiesi said. "That's the only thing I can say that would explain why she wouldn't go full-stop here, because this is the race of the week. She knows something's happening that's not to her advantage."

Alternatively, Clinton may be trying to manipulate expectations, especially in the news media, as her campaign did in New Hampshire and Nevada. If she loses South Carolina, but narrowly, after having left the state for three days this week, she may be able to spin the media into proclaiming that she did better than expected.

The Clinton campaign says she isn't giving up on South Carolina.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I've said all along that the Clintons were planning to bring "The Race Card" into the campaigns without making it obvious that they did so. Ever since the first moment ANY racial issue became a headline, Obama has been forced to fight an uphill battle. The very instant that Obama's race became a factor, even with the smallest spark, and even though it was a Clinton who sparked it, I knew that Obama would be forced to wade through quicksand for the remainder of the race...

So be it. If the Dems a fvcking dumb enough to nominate Hillary, I'll be going out - along with millions of others - to do everything in my power to ensure she never gets elected. Because of her parties' fvcking ignorance, I will be forced to cast a vote against someone, rather than for someone - and I won't forgive them for that.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
NYPost + Dick Morris + ProfJohn = Clinton hating trio :D
Good point, but you do have to admit that Dick got Clinton re-elected twice, as President once and governor once. So he knows what he is talking about.
He has also made a career of going on TV and writing books to bash the Clintons.
He knows what pays his hooker expenses :D
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Oh, well if Fox News parent owned NY Post, Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, and ProfJohn all repeat the same Clinton bashing argument, it must be true.
Can you refute the points made by Morris?

Especially the bit where he says him and Bill talked about Hillary doing the same thing in 1992. It makes HUGE sense. All the attention right now is on Bill and not Hillary, especially the negative attention.

You know we see similar stuff on P&N all the time. Someone makes a reasonable thread and then someone jumps in and makes some crazy off the wall comment and everyone focuses on the crazy comment and ignores the original purpose of the thread.

Bill Clinton may have in effect thread hijacked the Democrat nomination process.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Oh, well if Fox News parent owned NY Post, Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, and ProfJohn all repeat the same Clinton bashing argument, it must be true.
Can you refute the points made by Morris?

Especially the bit where he says him and Bill talked about Hillary doing the same thing in 1992. It makes HUGE sense. All the attention right now is on Bill and not Hillary, especially the negative attention.

You know we see similar stuff on P&N all the time. Someone makes a reasonable thread and then someone jumps in and makes some crazy off the wall comment and everyone focuses on the crazy comment and ignores the original purpose of the thread.

Bill Clinton may have in effect thread hijacked the Democrat nomination process.
It's innuendo, nothing more. As usual.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Oh, well if Fox News parent owned NY Post, Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, and ProfJohn all repeat the same Clinton bashing argument, it must be true.
Can you refute the points made by Morris?

Especially the bit where he says him and Bill talked about Hillary doing the same thing in 1992. It makes HUGE sense. All the attention right now is on Bill and not Hillary, especially the negative attention.

You know we see similar stuff on P&N all the time. Someone makes a reasonable thread and then someone jumps in and makes some crazy off the wall comment and everyone focuses on the crazy comment and ignores the original purpose of the thread.

Bill Clinton may have in effect thread hijacked the Democrat nomination process.
There's little to refute since Morris' opinion is mere conjecture based on a 16 year old strategy, one that doesn't even apply today since HRC is getting plenty of attention herself. Frankly, more than Bill, unlike 1992 when he was the lightening rod. So it's not even applicable in that sense.

And for god sakes, stop posting garbage from the national review. You look desperate.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
85% of blacks in Nevada voted for Obama and the Clintons get blamed for making the primary about race? uh huh. It's the voters, stupid.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
85% of blacks in Nevada voted for Obama and the Clintons get blamed for making the primary about race? uh huh. It's the voters, stupid.
85% voted that way because the Clintons injected race into the primaries and then tried to blame it on Obama. The voting split was nowhere near as dramatic in New Hampshire or Iowa.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: sirjonk
85% of blacks in Nevada voted for Obama and the Clintons get blamed for making the primary about race? uh huh. It's the voters, stupid.
85% voted that way because the Clintons injected race into the primaries and then tried to blame it on Obama. The voting split was nowhere near as dramatic in New Hampshire or Iowa.
Could it be because Obama didn't play the race card in those states, seeing how they are all white. Seems to me like he wants the benefits of blacks voting for the race, without the drawbacks pf alienating other voters. Trying to sit on two chairs at once, could be perilous.

 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: sirjonk
85% of blacks in Nevada voted for Obama and the Clintons get blamed for making the primary about race? uh huh. It's the voters, stupid.
85% voted that way because the Clintons injected race into the primaries and then tried to blame it on Obama. The voting split was nowhere near as dramatic in New Hampshire or Iowa.
Could it be because Obama didn't play the race card in those states, seeing how they are all white. Seems to me like he wants the benefits of blacks voting for the race, without the drawbacks pf alienating other voters. Trying to sit on two chairs at once, could be perilous.
Typical Clinton tactic. Do something then accuse the other side of doing it first. It was the Clinton's who brought race up, not Obama.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: sirjonk
85% of blacks in Nevada voted for Obama and the Clintons get blamed for making the primary about race? uh huh. It's the voters, stupid.
85% voted that way because the Clintons injected race into the primaries and then tried to blame it on Obama. The voting split was nowhere near as dramatic in New Hampshire or Iowa.
Could it be because Obama didn't play the race card in those states, seeing how they are all white. Seems to me like he wants the benefits of blacks voting for the race, without the drawbacks pf alienating other voters. Trying to sit on two chairs at once, could be perilous.
Typical Clinton tactic. Do something then accuse the other side of doing it first. It was the Clinton's who brought race up, not Obama.
bill clinton's comments weren't framed as "racist" until the Obama camp did it.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
I love seeing the clash of racial politics and gender politics in the Dem primary. There's something schadenfreude-like seeing Dems use the identity politics on themselves that they've used against their opponents for decades.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
100
106
Originally posted by: Queasy
I love seeing the clash of racial politics and gender politics in the Dem primary. There's something schadenfreude-like seeing Dems use the identity politics on themselves that they've used against their opponents for decades.
Shouldnt surprise you. Dems had no bones about making racial jabs at Rice and Powell. Seems if you dont vote dem, your not really black.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
There is one thing that blacks in South Carolina can do to foil Hillary's "southern strategy" as you HBSers describe it. Vote for her :D
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Good luck with that, Senseamp. Hillary lost Nevada's black vote 86 to 14 :laugh:

The playing of the race card by the Clinton machine was no surprise, but this early? I think they shot themselves in the foot.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: sirjonk
85% of blacks in Nevada voted for Obama and the Clintons get blamed for making the primary about race? uh huh. It's the voters, stupid.
85% voted that way because the Clintons injected race into the primaries and then tried to blame it on Obama. The voting split was nowhere near as dramatic in New Hampshire or Iowa.
Could it be because Obama didn't play the race card in those states, seeing how they are all white. Seems to me like he wants the benefits of blacks voting for the race, without the drawbacks pf alienating other voters. Trying to sit on two chairs at once, could be perilous.
Typical Clinton tactic. Do something then accuse the other side of doing it first. It was the Clinton's who brought race up, not Obama.
bill clinton's comments weren't framed as "racist" until the Obama camp did it.
Bullshit, it was the media that did it and now according to the Clinton supporters it's all Obama's fault. The minute Billary lost Iowa the Clinton's began to play dirty, that include threatening an elected official with a primary challenge in New Hampshire if he didn't toe the line, and it included playing the race card and accusing Obama of doing it.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: sirjonk
85% of blacks in Nevada voted for Obama and the Clintons get blamed for making the primary about race? uh huh. It's the voters, stupid.
85% voted that way because the Clintons injected race into the primaries and then tried to blame it on Obama. The voting split was nowhere near as dramatic in New Hampshire or Iowa.
Could it be because Obama didn't play the race card in those states, seeing how they are all white. Seems to me like he wants the benefits of blacks voting for the race, without the drawbacks pf alienating other voters. Trying to sit on two chairs at once, could be perilous.
Typical Clinton tactic. Do something then accuse the other side of doing it first. It was the Clinton's who brought race up, not Obama.
bill clinton's comments weren't framed as "racist" until the Obama camp did it.
Bullshit, it was the media that did it and now according to the Clinton supporters it's all Obama's fault. The minute Billary lost Iowa the Clinton's began to play dirty, that include threatening an elected official with a primary challenge in New Hampshire if he didn't toe the line, and it included playing the race card and accusing Obama of doing it.
Obama was going around telling everyone that he was black enough for blacks to vote for him for the longest time.
It worked with black voters, but now he doesn't want to be the black presidential candidate. Looks like he wants it both ways. He's black presidential candidate for black voters, but not for all other voters.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Good luck with that, Senseamp. Hillary lost Nevada's black vote 86 to 14 :laugh:

The playing of the race card by the Clinton machine was no surprise, but this early? I think they shot themselves in the foot.
Clintons aren't playing the race card, Obama is. Why do you think he's leading by 4:1 among blacks?
Looks like he wants to have all the benefits from playing the race card, but none of the drawbacks. It doesn't work that way. If he wants to use race to appeal to black voters, then he shouldn't be surprised if other voters also make their decisions based on race too.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
^^ You are missing the point.

It is NOT about playing the race card to get black voters; it is about playing the race card to get white voters.

When Obama wins the vote of 86% of blacks it gives the impression that he is the ?black; candidate instead of a candidate for everyone.

The idea of pulling out of South Carolina is to let Obama win the state with its large black vote and then use his victory to send the message that he only won because blacks voted for him. Then all the little white Democrats see this and go ?I don?t want to vote for a guy who will represent blacks, I want someone to represent ME? and they will then vote for Hillary.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY