Competitive Victimization
- 01.14.2008 - 9:34 AMThe Hillary/Obama race vs. gender dustup has just given the country a taste of why the Democratic Party spent so many years in the wilderness. The game of competitive victimization reminds swing voters in general and white men in particular why the Democrats can be problematic.
The night of her unexpected New Hampshire victory on the basis of a strong turnout from blue collar female voters, the press began to explain away the polls that had pointed to an Obama landslide by referring to “the Bradley effect.” That refers to the experience in Los Angeles where Tom Bradley, L.A.’s first African-American mayor, who did far better in public opinion polls than at the ballot box where he failed to win the governorship in 1982. The thesis was that white voters, not wanting to appear racist are reluctant to tell pollster about how they truly feel about black candidates. The implication–laid out without clear evidence by Andrew Kohut, a pollster for the Pew Research Center and picked up by the likes of Maureen Dowd–was that Clinton won on the basis of the racism of lower-middle-class whites.
This is something the many Obama admirers in the press picked up and ran with. The problem, as John Judis shows in a detailed New Republic piece, is that “Obama’s support among New Hampshire Democrats without college degrees slightly increased from the pre-election poll to the exit poll.” Clinton’s late gains, Judis notes came from well educated women who might well have been responding to the now famous incident in a dinner where the former First Lady seemed to tear up under the weight on being doubled teamed by Obama and Edwards.
And that’s when matters began to heat up. People around the Obama campaign, though not the candidate himself, suggested that Clinton had played on her supposed victimization as a woman, to win an election driven by economic anxieties. Obama in this view had been victimized by both his race and his gender. As for race; the supposed “Bradley effect” as well as statements by Bill and Hillary which may or may not have had double meanings regarding Lyndon Johnson’s role in achievements of the Civil Rights Era and the constancy of Obama position on Iraq have led to implausible accusations of racial insensitivity on the part of the Clintons.
In the short run, this is good news for the Obama campaign which has done its best to keep its fingerprints off the matches being lit by the press but stands to benefit greatly in the upcoming South Carolina primary if the accusation shift African-American voters away from Hillary Clinton.
On one level none of this hair-trigger “sensitivity” should be taken too seriously. All the parties involved are marvels at playing double games. A practical effect of the race versus gender game may be increased pressure on Hillary Clinton to choose Obama as her running mate should she win the nomination. But it raises the issue of whether Americans who are neither black nor female will be allowed to ask serious question about the two leading Democratic candidates without potential accusation of bias of one sort or another.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
January 14th, 2008 at 10:42 AM
“…being doubled teamed by Obama and Edwards.”
I could probably go without ever seeing that in print again with reference to Mrs. Clinton.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:08 AM
It’s already practically conventional wisdom that the racism most damaging to Obama, and most beneficial to Hillary, comes from Hispanics. So I’m thinking either Hill will offer Barry
the VP slot while going all-out for open borders, or she’ll choose Bill Richardson and hang closer to the middle to reassure blacks already swamped by illegals. Or maybe Barry can announce that he’s actually from Cuba?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Race always trumps gender. Barack Obama must be the Democratic Party’s nominee. Hillary Clinton is merely a woman and therefore a second-class citizen. People of color are inherently number one on the politically correct victim list. It does not really matter whether a significant number of poorly educated white voters hesitate to vote for a black man. The conspiracy theories and the sense of victimization are already widespread with the black community. These blacks demand that Obama get the nomination. They feel entitled and will not accept anything less. Never forget that the Democrats need every bit of their normal ninety percent black turnout. Even a drop of a mere six to ten points will likely prove disastrous.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Excellent article.
Unfortunately, it is true that race trumps gender and that’s why, if the democratic nomination goes to an inexperienced, unvetted, unscrutinized Black male, I will switch parties and vote Republican for the first time in my life and so, I suspect, will a lot of my ‘well-educated’ women counterparts.
Personally, I am deeply offended by Obama’s use of the ‘race’ card. That ploy may have worked in the 1970’s, the 1980’s the 1990’s, but this is the 21st century. Non-black citizens are SICK to death of hearing that racism is responsible for everything from the disproportionate number of black males in state and federal prisons, to allowing black rappers to use sexually and racially offensive language off-limits to their white counterparts in any branch of the media and now, this! The ultimate insult; justifying the bestowal of a free pass to a candidate for the presidency of the United State.
And let’s not forget the inconvenient and overlooked fact that every man in this country got the right to vote a half century before the same right was extended to any woman of any race.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Obama is a crook politician like many before him. He plays the race card now and try to blame on the other.
What a shame. I always voted for Dem I will vote for GOP if he get nominated
January 14th, 2008 at 5:35 PM
If Hill beats the Con Man in the primary the African American turnout at the Nov election will plummet.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Pardon me my schadenfreude, but as a white male, I get a particular pleasure out of seeing the Democratic party getting a taste of its own medicine. The party frequently appears to be founded on groups’ feelings of victimhood. It is proficient at finding fault in Republican’s insensitivity, real or imagined. Now it is hoist on its on petard. I hope this runs through the general election.
–Jon
January 14th, 2008 at 5:43 PM
A lot of people may not like Hillary Clinton because of her policy stands, BUT you have to give her credit for not voting “PRESENT” 130 times. She may waffle at times, but eventually she settles on a side…unlike some folks who waffle and still never pick a side….then again, perhaps they are too busy shooting magazine covers.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Hillary’s comment comparing MLK to LBJ clearly was insensitive to the feelings of Black Americans, as evidenced by the strong reaction from many members of the community who have no connection to Obama’s campaign. The Clinton attempts to turn this into an attack on Obama for supposedly manufacturing an authentic negative reaction only exacerbated the problem. These missteps were aggravated by Hillary’s appearance with Robert Johnson, recently of BET, who is intensely disliked by many Black Americans for turning BET into a virtual empire of the exploitation of Black women, not to mention his various gambling businesses that target Black customers. Johnson’s transparent dishonesty following the appearance, accompanied by the Clintons’ willingness to accept it, capped off a truly dismal interlude for the campaign.
The real question is whether Hillary is truly this out of touch with so many Black Americans, or whether she is deliberately trying to turn the Democratic primaries into a race-baiting contest. If successful, the latter would almost certainly work to Hillary’s advantage in the primaries, although it would hamstring the Democrats in the general election, to say nothing of the effects on the nation at large. Personally, I hope that all this has been accidental, but the Clintons are too politically capable, and too experienced, for me to easily believe it.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Can anyone show me where Obama played the race card? This whole thing has blown up without his involvement, and is unfairly tainting him as a result. It was the hypersensitive media talking heads that started this whole brouhaha, not Obama. Can we please leave the ridiculous identity politics out of this campaign?