Saying he was “concerned about the tenor of the race in these past few days,” Senator Barack Obama moves to quell some of the arguing over identity politics this past week.
Concerning Sen. Clinton’s LBJ history lesson: “‘I don’t think it was in any way a racial comment,’ Obama told ABC News. ‘That’s something that has played out in the press. That’s not my view.’ But, he said, the comment was revealing about her political character. ‘I do think it was indicative of the perspective that she brings, which is that what happens in Washington is more important than what happens outside of Washington,’ he said. He said he believes the quote betrays a belief on her part, ‘that the intricacies of the legislative process were somehow more significant than when ordinary people rise up and march and go to jail and fight for justice.’ He called that a ‘fundamental difference’ between them.“
Concerning Bill Clinton’s fairy tale: “[A]gain, Obama looked past the racial controversy. Instead, Obama directed his response to the dispute over whether opposition to the Iraq War was consistent. (Clinton has since reiterated that is what he meant when he invoked the ‘fairy tale’ line.) ‘Both he and Sen. Clinton have been spending a lot of time over the past month trying to run down my record,’ Obama said. ‘What particularly distresses me is this notion that I wasn’t against the war from the start. This is coming from a former president who suggests that he was and nobody can find any record of it,’ he said.“
A great, classy response. The Clinton strategy only really works if you play along. As my old employer, James Carville, was wont to put it, “Don’t waste your time wrestling with a pig. You just dirty, and the pig loves it.” (And, just to avoid confusion and just as McCain with Romney, I’m not calling the Clintons porcine, even if they have engaged in some swinish political tactics of late. It’s a figure of speech.)
Update: Senator Obama continues in the same vein at a press conference this evening. Speaking of a possible Bradley effect in New Hampshire, Senator Obama said: “I don’t think that’s what was going on…as I understand it, basically there was a big shift in undecided’s going towards Sen Clinton, particularly among women in the last minute. And keep in mind there was a big gap, a gender gap that cut both ways — I won among men and she won among women — there were more men than women who voted. If it had been a racial issue, there’s no reason why that would have been something that was unique to women as opposed to men, so I don’t’ think that is the case.”
Update 2: Speaking yet again of Clinton’s “fairy tale” rant, it seems another — substantive — deception has emerged from Clinton’s remarks (and Hillary’s statement on MtP.) Did you notice how they both keep mentioning anti-war opponent Chuck Hagel? “[T]he talking point appears to misconstrue the facts.”
Update 3: Sen. Clinton seconds the call for truce, although she then somehow failed to get word to Charlie Rangel.
Of course, on the same day, Clinton supporter and my congressman Charlie Rangel came out and said that Obama was the one who introduced race into the discussion. No idea what he was talking about, but yet another establishment Clinton surrogate stirs the pot.
Heh. I just noticed that myself. (Update 3)
To be honest, I’m not sure the Clintons know any other way of campaigning anymore. All the better, then, for Obama to confound them.
Speaking of which, I didn’t post on it here, but did you hear about Bill Clinton on the radio: “I’ve got before me a list of 80 attacks“? (It wasn’t subsequently released.) When in doubt, kick it old-school…
What irritates me the most about the MLK v. LBJ spat is that an important event occurred between the March on Washington (King making speeches) in August 1963 and the passage of the Civil Rights Act (Johnson passing laws) in July 1964: the assassination of John Kennedy. Kennedy was the president who addressed the nation following his standoff with George Wallace and said that civil rights was a moral issue facing the nation. JFK couldn’t break the filibuster in the Senate (hence the March) and pass the Civil Rights Act, but maybe even the skilled Johnson would have failed had he not portrayed the Act as a tribute to the fallen president. So my question is, who does Hillary want to see dead so that she can work her legislative magic?