Joan Ganz Cooney | 05/12/2008 4:43 pm

Joan Cooney: It's Something I'd Expect From Karl Rove but Not Hillary Supporters

I’d like to add my two bits to the question Cokie and Lesley addressed about whether Hillary’s campaign is playing the race card in its desperate effort to win the nomination.

Click here to read Cokie Roberts on the Chances of an Obama-Hillary Ticket.

Click here to read Cokie Roberts: ‘Hillary Is Negotiating Her Withdrawal.’

I don’t think the campaign is race-baiting but it certainly means to draw attention to Obama’s skin color. One of her prominent supporters took me aside recently at a dinner party to whisper to me urgently, while gripping my arm tightly, "You do understand, don’t you, that he can’t win. He cannot win." I’m not accusing him of being a racist but her supporters and she certainly remind us as often as possible that we live in a country with a long history of prejudice against black people. It is, if nothing else, unattractive and particularly so when it is all within the Democratic Party. It is something I would expect from Karl Rove but not Hillary supporters.

Cokie also implied that sexism has been rampant where Hillary’s concerned. Maybe I’m insensitive but I certainly haven’t heard anyone in the Obama camp nor in the Democratic Party for that matter say that a woman can’t win the presidency. The reason Hillary didn’t lock up the nomination quickly was because she underestimated the desire for change within the party and had no plan B after she failed to lock it up Super Tuesday. No question that a lot of people, particularly on the Republican side, dislike her for a whole variety of reasons. One of those reasons, no doubt, is that they don’t like ambitious women who seek power.

And yes, they are sexists. However, given that she started out with a huge lead in the polls, it’s hard for me to believe that sexism played much of a role in her current situation.

Related Headlines

Everything I Hate About Myself I See in Hillary, by Judy Bachrach

Who Stands to Gain the Most in Indiana and North Carolina: Clinton, Obama or the Republicans? by Lesley Stahl

wOw’s Views on the News: Will Pinocchio be the Next U.S. President?

Marlo Thomas: The Media Steals Our Chances of a Fair Election

wOw’s Views on the News: Is Rev. Wright Leading to the Demise of the Obama Campaign?

wOw’s Views on the News: Is It Time for Clinton or Obama to Throw in the Towel?

Poll: Did Sen. Obama Clinch the Democratic nomination last night?

76 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I have heard a lot of anxiety among Democrats this year about how to win, what to do about people who simply will not vote for someone due to race or sex. I think there are far fewer of such people than 25 years ago, but I am sure they exist. I remember when Tom Bradley ran for Governor of California. The news organizations projected him the winner, based on exit polls. However, he lost narrowly. [This was 1982.] Later, commentators surmised that people had lied in the exit polls because they did not want to admit that they [Democrats presumably] had voted for a Republican. This even has a name: the “Bradley effect.” A shame, he was a good mayor and many of us thought he would be a wonderful governor. One friend of mine has muttered about the Bradley effect for months now. Still, Obama is winning in primaries where he was not “supposed” to win. He is doing well, and his campaign is very well organized. He has inspired a lot of people who had not been interested in voting before to actually come out and vote. [Still I am not sure there ever really was a “Bradley effect.” Maybe someone just miscounted the ballots.] I don’t think I am a sexist, but I did not support Hillary. I remember her from coverage of her speech at Wellesley in 1969 and later as Legal Services Corporation chair—she did a good job as chair. Throughout the eighties she kept getting named as one of the 100 most important lawyers in the U.S. I saw her speak at several ABA functions, and she was a fabulous speaker. But she disappointed me with her support for welfare reform that is causing a terrible crisis for the poor now that the economy has slowed down, with her support for Bush’s blank check on Iraq, etc. I get the impression that her campaign was not as well organized as Obama’s. I think in the end this was the critical problem. She might have overcome her dubious vote on Iraq if her campaign had been better run. The way in which Bill Clinton was continually making inappropriate comments in front of cameras when he could have been much better used in the way he has worked in the campaing in the last month, more face to face contact, was a mistake. I agree; I do not think it was sexism that spoiled her candidacy. She just did not run the best campaign. A year ago, I really thought she was going to win. So I am surprised at where things stand. I still think it is possible—though unlikely—for her to win even now. And she should continue through the next three weeks of primaries and see.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/12/2008 5:16 pm

e-mail alert

Thank you, Joan and Elizabeth for articulating so well exactly what I’ve observed throughout the primaries. I can’t say it any more clearly than you have, so I won’t even try. Just one- somewhat related -thought on Sen. Obama’s “electability.” I live two blocks from a very large high school in one of the “whitest” counties in California. During school hours there are at least two hundred cars belonging to students parked in the surrounding neighborhoods and almost every car bears an Obama sticker. Most of these students have either just turned 18 or will be 18 by November, and although they may not have been eligible to vote in the primary, they’ll obviously be voting in the general election. I hope the Obama campaign has taken this demographic into account. These student voters number in the thousands throughout the country and the majority of them support Obama.

By Maurine H on 05/12/2008 6:07 pm

e-mail alert

Obama’s campaign has taken every person not yet 18 years old into account. To the point where he bused them to ouIowa to vote for him in the caucuses. As you he was 5 - 8% above Edwards and Hillary. They are aware because they are ones bringing most of these people to the voting booth, by saying a, afterall the young don’t have a long attention span, talking about the issues was not important to the Obama campaign, just say hope and change and you have got them. The campaign has been very slick, spinning Bill Clinton’s remark to Carolina voters about the fact Jessie Jackson won in SC also. Implying simply that you could win the state but not the nomination, but it was taken as a racist remark because Jessie jackson happens to be black, give me a break. The Obama campaign is extremely diversive, his online supporters are mean and immature, it’s obvious that they have not participated in a campaign before. But the Dems will take as many voters as possible even if they are wrong in their decision and choice who should lead this country, afterall, anything but another GW Bush and Cheney. So Wall Street, Hollywood and the big corporations continue to give all their money to the Obama campaign, and some to Hillary, giving to Obama is a gimmick, he will not lead the country, only the people who have funded his campaign will, including any superdelegates that give him the final nod, if it comes down to that and it looks as if it will, since he has since surpassed Hillary in the superdegate category. Maybe Hillary shouldn’t have said what the AP said and she repeated that most of the White voters in W. Va. are voting for her and not Obama, well so far as the polls go, it happens to be true, like it or not. The polls and the media have made this about race, and if someone says it out loud, it becomes a racist remark. Well, that just plain garbage, if the remarks were true why not just say it out loud. This is a racist country, we are not post-racial at all, as Obama likes to spin it to liberal guilty white people. When is the last time any of the these people went to dinner or invited a black person they had met to their house, introduced a black man or women to their daughters, or simply socialized on a day to day basis, I bet it just has not happened on the whole. Sure a few, but nothing to really say, people are not looking at skin color. Sorry, it has not happened and with OBAMA in the White House, it’s not going change anything, in fact things just might get worst. And it willl be the second time Mrs Obama will be proud in her life.

By Alessan O on 05/12/2008 9:57 pm

e-mail alert

HRC leveraged the AP article — and question — to ASK “hard working white voters” to vote for her and not Barack BECAUSE he is black…despite the fact this has been repudiated repeatedly by white voters, nationwide. So, in class “Southern Strategy” code language she/Bill Clinton are more than familiar with — the statement is a REQUEST and VALIDATION that this rationale is not only acceptable but a differentiating factor for HER superiority — based upon her being Caucasian. The cornerstone of the “Southern Strategy” is to devalue people based upon their ethnicity. HRC has been making this case behind the scenes w/the Super-Delegates for half a year. She tells them HE CAN’T WIN BECAUSE HE IS BLACK…as the basis of her case. Classic “Southern Strategy.” What makes this interesting is that heretofore, Democrats leveraging this strategy against Democrats, at the Presidential Nomination Process level…has been unacceptable due to the diversity of our Party. However, the Clintons dysfunctionally planned and executed a General Election Campaign during the Nomination Process — to QUICKLY remove ANY competition, replete w/a $100mil war chest and the very best PR/Consultants/NYC Media/200 Super-Delegates/2 Editorial Board members of the NYT from Pres. Clinton’s old staff — and the AURA OF INEVITABILITY OF A CLINTON RESTORATION/3RD TERM. The strategy for Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, had he lasted, was classic “Southern Strategy.” Except…the problems wrought by Republicans who had played THAT card so well for so long…were so BIG…that they became the focus instead of the business-as-usual concerns of race and gender impossibiliity at the Presidential level. HRC could play the “Southern Strategy” against Barack Obama after the shocking (to her) Iowa win…in SC. So, Bill Clinton, the ultimate good ole boy was dispatched to kill Barack in SC. He believed himself to be the REAL “first black President” - so the job would be easy. Jesse Jackson is a stealth Clinton backer and long-term personal friend whose ego would reinforce the comparison of a Barack Obama WIN w/his own, WRONGLY. Perfect setup, except African-Americans in the 21st Century had other ideas and — sadly for the Clintons — Jesse and Al don’t speak for us or our children. In the meantime, Barack has no shortcut strategies. Everything he does must be done the HARD WAY, and her performance must be flawless. Every African-American is experienced in this area. Women are too. You CAN’T afford ANY MISTAKES. Not one! He was prepared, having hired former Clinton operatives — for the worst they would dish — and the challenge of overcoming the angst of “white voters.” Barack’s executed plan re-draws the Nation and his focus. Tapping into the ZEITGEIST, he modeled and executed — w/out exposing his General Election plans/strategies w/precision — against Bill Clinton’s MACHINE. HRC is the final casualty. On deck…John McCain. The Republicans have no idea what they are up against, having gotten lazy and over-reliant on the now FAILED and transparent “Southern Strategy.” The American population is approaching 50% “minority.” Do the Republicans have a PLAN to challenge those numbers — and defend THE CASE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE US vs. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY???

By Renata on 05/12/2008 11:19 pm

e-mail alert

None of what you have said makes any sense at all, blacks in SC voted for Obama simply because Obama is black, nothing more nothing less. Not to mention Oprah endorsed him there and told the audience he is the ONE. Not so Obama is just a politician trying to get a job.

By Alessan O on 05/13/2008 8:36 am

e-mail alert

Alessan O I just read your post and i have to say it’s the most simple, clear and down to the point statement i read so far! Bravo! Not only is he trying to get a job, but the highest job so his frustrated and humble wife will be proud again! LOL

By cat lord on 05/20/2008 5:59 pm

e-mail alert

from paul krugman on friday, and yes, this reflects my own experience as well: “So what can be done to heal the party’s current divisions? More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal. ” yes, i’ve heard your accusations. by your version she is sleazy and slimy. by my version, she is the best chance we have to recover from eight years of dubya bush. renata, both you and suzanne pretend that a clinton and a bush are the same thing. you call it a dynasty. well, they are hugely different, and i hope that the democrats nominate hillary clinton to run for president. you seem to be able to forgive his mistakes but not hers. i think she would make a great president.

By mary lou s on 05/13/2008 1:48 pm

e-mail alert

Mary lou, perhaps since the premise of your post is healing divisions in one of the most hotly contested races in US history, you might try another approach than mischaracterizing others reasons for selecting a candidate. Good luck with yours.

By zut alors on 05/13/2008 3:11 pm

e-mail alert

You’re better at playing the race card than most Obama supporters, Renata, so I think it’s a case of calling the kettle “black”. It may have been politically incorrect for Bill Clinton to point out South Carolina Democrats’ preference for Jesse Jackson, but it was not racist. It’s fine for Obama’s supporters to explain her appeal in West Virginia based on race, but Hillary is supposed to excise the word white from her vocabulary. Find some new talking points. You’re doing Senator Obama no favors here.

By wild heather on 05/14/2008 4:59 am

e-mail alert

Joan, Senator Obama’s win of the WH will be looked upon as historic in many ways. But first to answer the questions: 1) Yes, there is absolutely race baiting. The NYT’s recent editorial “Low Road to Victory” called for superdelegates to select the nomination specifically due to Clinton’s extra-dirty tactics. Clips from various news organizations supporting this follows below. 2) No, sexism isn’t a show stopper. The right woman can become the Democratic nominee. 3) Nancy Pelosi’s 8th District is a bellwether in this election. San Francisco was Clinton country and HRC’s to lose. The 8th District is diverse with 50% female, double the national average income, educated, 50% white, 25% asian, 15% hispanic, 8% african american. It went 70% Obama. A poll of Californians, who elected a Republican Gov, reveals the state would go for Obama today by 7 points, same with New Jersey. He is wearing better, and different voters vote in primaries than in the general elections. http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3254 4) In this Age of Transition, the Environment, and Technology. Senator Obama is one of six Ill State Senators with a 100% voting record from the Ill Environmental Council. Obama’s campaign raised a record breaking $58 million during the first 6 months of 2007 exceeding all previous records. In the first month of 2008, his campaign brought in $36.8 million, the most ever raised in one month by a presidential candidate in the primaries. HRC is $20M in debt, while Obama is bringing in $1M a day. He has a 50-state, 6-month voter registration/volunteer drive underway. All the top progressive political and anti-war blogs are on his side representing tens of millions of techy activist. Obama’s campaign is a master of the Internet. He has the best, most dynamic and nimble structure and is building on it daily. 5) Senator Obama has started a youthquake in the US. And is a rock star in Europe, where people compare him to JFK. They are excited and avidly following the race on TV, and buying his books. He is especially favored in the EU as with 1/2 the US Democrats for his unambiguous stance on the war. 6) With a VP that balances the ticket with decorated military experience like Rhoades Scholar and former supreme head of NATO, four star general Wesley Clark, Obama has everything he needs to beat McCain, and bring aboard disaffected Republicans. 7) According to a Frontline investigation and the History Network, the factors that predict presidential success are: a) Communication. The best presidents were FDR, JFK, and Clinton. Obama is in the caliber of our greatest communicators. b) Organizational capacity. c) Political skills. d) Vision. e) Cognitive style: absorb, process, strategize. f). Emotional intelligence. I could write a separate paper on why Senator Obama has superior skills compared to the other two candidates, but the fact that he is where he is and so popular around the world already proves these points. 8) The presidential oath of office is very clear: The president swears to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution and faithfully execute his office. Senator Obama, like JFK, reveres the Constitution and taught constitutional law for seven years at the University of Chicago Law School. He headed the prestigious Harvard Law Review, and was voted most likely to become US president by his Harvard Law School Class. 9) Red States and Independents are souring on HRC. “I believe that Obama is the most electable, both in Virginia and elsewhere,” said Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. “To win you gotta get independent votes….Independent voters like people who they don’t believe are defined by political orthodoxy.” More on Senator Obama, whose voting and legislation record, and service on committees is as distinguished as HRC’s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama I am extremely proud to be supporting Senator Obama and will be working hard on his campaign. A HUGE list of his endorsements including many Clinton close associates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_… 10) His voting record meets or exceeds Hillary Clinton. He was re-elected twice as State Senator of Ill: ________ MEDIA QUOTES ON HRC’S RACE BAITING INCLUDING FROM NY TIME’S EDITORIAL: NY Time Editorial “The Low Road to Victory” April 23, 2008 The Pennsylvania campaign…was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election. If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs. _____________________ NY TIMES: “South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, one of the most influential black leaders in Congress, and a superdelegate, said the Clinton’s racially charged comments over the course of the presidential campaign have “incensed” the black community. and almost unanimously believe the Clintons “are committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.” _____________________________________ From Capitol Hill Blue, the paper of Capitol Hill Hillary Clinton’s racist appeal April 25, 2008 - By DOUG THOMPSON One expects racism from Republicans. The party of the elephant could merge with the just about any white supremacy group and not miss a beat. Hell, most people wouldn’t see any difference. But overt racism from a Democrat is something else, although it should not surprise anyone that Hillary Rodham Clinton would use racism in her anything goes quest for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania because she pandered to the overt racism that exists among blue collar whites…She won because the bulk of her appeal comes from the less-educated, the less-tolerant and the less-intelligent among us. If you’re a stupid, illiterate, gun-totin’ white hick you probably voted for Hillary. And so did your ignorant, baby-popping, big-haired wife as well as that bleached-blond bar maid that you’re seeing on the side. __________________________________________ Eugene Robinson- Prominent Washington Post Writer’s Group reporter “….Clintons took it as a sign of African-Americans’ unconditional fealty, they were mistaken. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that black Democrats nationwide now support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination by nearly 2 to …It’s surprising that the Clinton campaign has been so aggressive in keeping the race issue alive.” Keith Olbermann called Clinton’s actions “unacceptable” and “unbelievable.” Newsweek writer Howard Finneman, appearing on Olbermann’s show, said Clinton has clearly “broadened her kitchen sink” attack strategy to play the RACE CARD and has escalated the level of nastiness in an already dirty campaign.. My generation of black voters is politically savvy and well educated. We couldn’t care less about outdated notions of party loyalty. We are not our grandmothers, and no amount of candidate appearances at black churches is going to influence how we vote. We will certainly not sit back and allow Democratic candidates to engage in Willie Horton-style tactics, even if the tactics are Willie Horton lite. Marjorie Valbrun, Washington Post _________________________________ From the Black Star News   The Black Star News excoriated Senator Clinton for her ugly tactics for months. “Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton have used the most despicable, reprehensible, crude, ugly and dishonest tactics: The Clintons used race-baiting, by appealing to some white peoples’ fears about Black people, to tarnish Senator Barack Obama” Black Star News: ”2,025 delegates are required for nomination and Senator Clinton can’t surpass Obama’s insurmountable lead in delegates of 1,681 to 1,544.  We have advice for Senator Clinton, Pack it up.”

By zut alors on 05/13/2008 4:32 am

e-mail alert

The Black News,” to make Obama look tarnished”, oh please of course he’s tarnished, he’s running for the highest office in the land, and he’s been a politican since he got out of school, he’s as tarnished as you get working for the government, corrupt in everyway possible. The mayors and governors of the states lying, stealing and cheating politicans in DC, both republican and democrat are many in numbers, and Barack Obama, trys to say he is not one of them, well he is, why else would the House and Senate be promoting him so heavily.

By Alessan O on 05/13/2008 8:48 am

e-mail alert

suzanne, please tell me what your expert on the constitution is likely to do to restore to me the voting rights he stood in the way of. i voted in a democratic primary which the central committee singled out as punishable by taking away the delegates we elected. obama had the opportunity to approve a revote administered by the state election system, but he backed off and thus killed the measure. if this is how barack obama supports the constitution, i do not want him running this country.

By mary lou s on 05/13/2008 2:03 pm

e-mail alert

Mary lou, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. If you live in one of the two states the DNC Rules Committee removed from the primary because they began before Feb 5, they are now reconsidering reinstating the two states. However it seems unlikely because even with those to states added, and then pumping up the numbers of total delegates needed to secure the nomination, HRC would still be behind 100 votes as of today even presuming her win in WVA, as everyone expects as she is far ahead in the race.

By zut alors on 05/13/2008 3:00 pm

e-mail alert

Just what century is it that you expect the “right” woman to be elected president, Suzanne? Obama will choose a woman as his running mate if he has a lick of sense. If not Hillary, who?

By wild heather on 05/14/2008 5:10 am

e-mail alert

Like many Californians that year I voted against Bradley because he was too liberal. I think racism is dead in America. For those who rattle on about it 24/7 it’s a business to sell publications and raise money. I’m no fan of feminism but that wouldn’t stop me from voting for Clinton were she someone I trusted and offered new approaches. America simply won’t vote for yesterday’s failed policies.

By Dr. Mark Klein on 05/13/2008 9:04 am