Is it dog whistle politics if a white liberal does it?

[Coexist]

When ‘Isolated Incidents’ cease being ISOLATED & INCIDENTAL

They form a PATTERN.

Accept what the PATTERN tells you.

I am a straight, white female. Two of my children are mixed race, but you know what? In my opinion I have no credibility speaking about what is racist and what is not, because I have no true experience with being on the receiving end of it. When I lived in St. Thomas for a few years, I thought I would see what it was like to be a "minority". But whites on that island are the ones with the money and the land and life was actually easier for me there than here in Florida. Hotels and bars were thrilled that I applied, and getting a job was no more difficult than walking in the door.

Did I feel this was racist... yes. I was never specifically told I got the job because I was white, but somewhere in my mind, I knew it. All I can do is trust my gut about to guide me, and generally its pretty easy. Wrong is wrong - it gives you that uneasy feeling, you lose your appetite if you hear those comments over a meal. You can no longer make eye contact with the person spouting what you feel is racist. You feel the disappointment in a person you may have once respected.

So the Clinton campaign is once again accused of race-baiting, and I have to decide if I agree.

I went back to the beginning and I do see a pattern. I do see code words. Is it overt racism, is it race-baiting, is it conscioius, unconscious? I don't know. I do know that it makes me uncomfortable. It does. It makes me uncomfortable in my own party that one of us panders to something bad in other Democrats. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but for me, I have to come out and say it. Its not okay.

Its not okay to do it once, its not okay to do it twice, its not okay to do it because you see a bigger picture 'for the good of our country'.

Its not okay when the Republicans do it, and its not okay when the Democrats do it.

Think back to the beginning of the accusations, it was not just one incident.

We got a drug dealing reference.
We got a Muslim reference* along with a “he’s so articulate” smear.
We got a “boy” reference.
We got “shuck and jive” and “a beautiful symbol”.

As Black people in this country, we’ve grown up with these smears and denigrations. We’ve had to deal with being insulted because there are way too many White people who think that all Black people use and/or sell drugs. There are way too many White people who think that Black people are children. There are way too many White people who think “you’re so articulate” is a compliment. And Lord knows that I’ve been used a symbol by White people who think that having this articulate Black woman on board means that they aren’t racist, meanwhile dismissing my contributions or suggestions and taking full credit when they get implemented and work.

That was a pattern. And it cost them big.

I read this at Americablog yesterday, and it feels ugly again, like the Clinton campaign decided, 'we're not getting the black vote, so screw 'em, lets get the anti-black vote.

Let's face it, had this come from anyone else, we'd strike it up to a coincidence. But when Hillary Clinton, a top staffer and a top supporter start dissing the black vote within 24 hours of each other, I smell talking points.

First, last night, we had Clinton friend and supporter Paul Begala knocking Obama's supporters because they're mostly, according to Begala, "eggheads and African-Americans." Democratic SuperDelegate Donna Brazile, who is black, took umbrage at Begala's words. You can watch the video here.

I know Begala, and I like him. And I don't think he was trying to slam blacks. But after hearing what Hillary said today, I'm starting to wonder what's up:

At a Q&A in Shepherdstown, Clinton continues to make the case that her base -- working class whites, women, and Hispanics are the key swing voters.

"The base I've put together in this primary is a stronger place to start from," she says.

Hillary is saying that her base is better than Obama's base. And we all know who Obama's base is: Blacks (and elitist latte sipping pansies from San Francisco who don't have testicular fortitude, but Hillary doesn't mean gays, she means other effeminate pansies from San Francisco).

<snip>
As Ben notes, the campaigns don't usually refer to "white" voters - so when they do, it's interestingly intentional.

So, there you have it. Black voters are bad (like "eggheads" are bad). White voters are good (like, uh, white skin?). We learned months ago that when the Clintons start invoking race, it's intentional.

and today:

There sure is a pattern emerging here. The Clintons are using racism to try to win the nomination against a black man. And our party leaders are okay with it. (Well, in all fairness, our congressional leaders said that Hillary had better not adopt a "negative tone." They never said she couldn't adopt a racist one.) Is it any wonder blacks aren't voting for Hillary? They shouldn't vote for Hillary, ever again. If our party continues to give a thumbs-up to race-baiting in American politics in the year 2008, race-baiting in our own party, I'd be very surprised if blacks came out for us in November. Nor should they.

There is a pattern. And I have to accept what the pattern tells me.

[lapfog_1]

1. What makes you think that HIllary is a liberal?

She certainly isn't a Democrat.

[krkaufman]

27. Yeah, that's what threw me off in the post. What liberal Democrat are they talking about? n/t

[Lerkfish]

2. kicked and reccmded

the REAL bizarre thing is if you call them on it, YOU"RE accused of racebaiting.

[Independent-Voter]

3. Yep. Damned if you do or don't call out her low-info supporters.

[SoCalDem]

5. That's why it "works".. It's similar to the "democRAT senator"

thing.. It's passive-aggressive technique made most sinister.

the aggressor says the euphemistic code word, which on its face is not necessarily racist, and is bland enough that they feel they can get away with it or spin it away.. the code is sent & received by the intended to the intended.. Those of us overhearing it, and taking offense at it, are labeled "touchy" or overly sensitive if we bring it up.

By being the aggressors, they put any detractors automatically on defense..

[Coexist]

7. very well put.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Good post

as was the OPs.....

[americanstranger]

4. K/R.

Good post.

- as

[Spazito]

6. Exactly, it is not a phrase spoken in isolation that indicates direction, it is...

when one takes the totality of inferences, phrases, etc, one can clearly see a deliberate pattern and the pattern you lay out is ugly, very ugly.

[Coexist]

20. it is a pattern.

[Spazito]

21. Yes, it certainly is, a pattern that had shown itself even before this latest statement...

her words:

"that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

only add to the already existing pattern, imo. Again, an ugly, ugly pattern.

[Coexist]

22. Pam's House Blend has an excellent analysis of this

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=00F19011FF3238F1944CC67ACBA9FCA0?diaryId=5311

I want to believe that it wasn't a purposeful slip of the tongue because it's too painful to contemplate that the black vote is now perceived as a "problem" because it skews to Obama, and because there are more white voters who have a problem with him based on his race, we have to nail that demo. Remember, the black vote has been the most reliable Democratic vote, not the Reagan Democrats. Black voters don't turn out for Obama solely because he is black. I've blogged before about this bizarre train of thought -- if the affinity vote is so powerful we would have seen a bum rush for Alan Keyes. What Clinton is saying is not inaccurate (polls slice and dice this way), but its use here is inappropriate and inflammatory. It's because the last core demo left for her to appeal to is resistant to Obama for reasons that have little to do with policy differences, or 3 AM readiness. She's brought the microtarget out into the light and it's one many of us don't want to face talking about, with a different name -- scared white people.

She is naming her remaining trump card, and considering our country's pitiful history of not frankly dealing with or discussing race -- aside from painful, fumbling defensive fits and starts -- we're left to deal with the fallout of a "poorly worded" statement, lacking a sufficiently stocked toolbox to deal with the ramifications of courting a vote with implicit and explicit biases.

The question never explored is why are these people scared more about a black president (regardless of political viewpoint) than the prospect of a McCain presidency and four more years of failed economic policies that have left this very demographic high and dry? What do we want to do about this as Americans? Apparently nothing, that's a third rail topic and there's an election to win.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. Kick!

[Spazito]

24. That is an excellent analysis, thanks for posting it!

Honest discussion of the racial divide with the intent to reducing it as opposed to exacerbating it for political expediency.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. There was a USSC case that explored your "unease" with exploiting others' racism

for personal benefit. It was called Palmore v. Sidoti, and another DU thread explores its applicability to Hillary's "racial backlash" strategy to poison Obama's chances in November.

You would probably find this DU forum from yesterday as eye-opening as I did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5876600&mesg_id=5876600

Enjoy!

[Coexist]

9. thank you so much for that link!

that was a fascinating read, and explains it (much better) than I do. Its just not right that Democrats appeal to ugliness.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. Glad you got to read it--I thought it would be especially meaningful to you

[Shakespeare]

11. Of course. And it doesn't mean she's racist--what it does mean...

....and in a way, this is even worse: she's opportunistic. She'll play that bigot card for all she's worth NOT because she agrees with it at all, but because she knows it'll draw votes.

edited for typo

[Coexist]

12. exactly. execpt

it is racist to stir up and encourage racism. I read the reply to my post below and thought better on it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. What about the "dog whistle" politics you mentioned in your title?

Can you not be racist yourself yet consciously STIR UP and INCREASE racism among the "booboisie"? Wouldn't old-line southern racist politicians from the 50s like Eastland, Stennis, Bilbo, and Thurmond claim the same mantle of innocence you're granting to HRC? "Moi? A racist?"

FLDem5, are you being inconsistent?

See also my thread on the Clintons' perhaps conscious HISTORIC attempt to bring back the "good ole days" of Dixiecrat and white ethnic backlash politics, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5885383 .

[Coexist]

16. I see your point - my agreement with that poster was

for, whether conscious or not (as I mentioned in my OP), there is a consistent pattern. The poster, to me, was saying "whether Clinton is racist or not, she is appealing to racists."

How do you see it? And yes, it is racist to encourage racism. You are absolutely right, I edited my post. Thank you for pointing that out.

As a Floridian, I cringe at Dixiecrats. I don't ever see them voting Democratic in any election above local (for other dixiecrats like themselves).



(Oh, and I don't know what "booboisie" means. So I can't really respond to that).

[ProgressiveEconomist]

18. "How do you see it"? I see Hillary and Bill Clinton as amoral opportunists

on a slippery slope.

They got tremendous Black support in the 90s at the same time they were shredding the historic social safety net ("welfare reform") and accelerating massive incarceration that has destroyed millions of other Black families.

The Clintons are very slick but they may have been harboring hidden racist feelings and acting on them all along, while appearing to be the Black person's best friend for political expediency.

The way they turned on a dime to racial dog whistling ("Fairy tale", "naive", "elitist" = "uppity", etc) when Obama became a political threat makes me reexamine their whole political history.

Maybe the Clintons really aren't all that different from their Arkansas predecessors the Faubuses .

[Coexist]

19. what bothers me most, I think, is my embarassment at being "had"

by the Clintons. I defended them blindly during all of their messes. And now all I think about them is "was the right correct?" That's sad.

Their books were removed from my bookshelf, because I can't stand seeing them when I sit down. My husband wants me to donate them to the library. I want to destroy them. I moved them to a different room until after the Primary. Sort of a "cooling off" period.

I wonder if their current (inside) supporters feel "dirty" but think it too late to change. Some of the SDs that switched cited the "tone" of the campaign. That is telling.

[anigbrowl]

17. I agree. .nt

[redqueen]

14. K&R

[The Night Owl]

25. About patterns... When astronomers started observing Mars through telescopes...

About patterns... When astronomers started observing Mars through telescopes, they became convinced that Mars was covered with canals. They were wrong.

Just because you see a pattern does not mean there is one.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Yessir, those poor WHITE folk AND BLACK folk are easy to pit against one another.

"Spade Work" is part of the code. :thumbsdown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oRwZQLdhEw

Randall Robinson, "An Unbroken Agony." I distrust HUGELY Senator Clinton. We been expoited so many times by democratic politicians. They can't get elected without AA vote. However, after the election, they don't do nothing but "give out a few jobs." When the "first black president" and his wife ran Arkansas, the NAACP sued them for intimidating black voters at the polls.