Obama Compared To Dukakis; Willie Horton Makes An Appearance

With the headline "Democrats Play Dirty In Charleston," the Palmetto Scoop blog published what it said was a flier found affixed to fence posts near the Citadel, the location of Monday night's Democratic debate.

The pamphlet, suggestive of an appeal to racial prejudice, visually links Barack Obama to Michael Dukakis and to Willie Horton, the convicted rapist whose furlough in Massachusetts became a controversial television ad during the 1988 presidential race, and it goes on to accuse Obama of favoring early release for sex offenders.

The charge leveled at Obama lacks evidence and the citation appears to distort a 1999 state senate vote on prisoner sentencing. The legislation expanded "good times credits" for convicts.)

When it first aired in the fall of 1988, the Horton ad was immediately criticized for exploiting latent racial prejudice. (It was created by ad maker Larry McCarthy on behalf of the Virginia-based National Security PAC; McCarthy and the PAC denied any racial intent.)

Of the Obama-Horton flier, a witness, Felton Barns, e-mails to say that

"It was all over the area surrounding the debate. ... [T]he road leading up to the citadel gates with all the candidate yard signs was lined with these flyers. The high school band group chanting Obama's name was tearing these flyers down and leaving them."

So who's behind the flier and what's the intent?

The Palmetto Blog post says that Obama's team blames Hillary Clinton's campaign.

That's not true. Obama's South Carolina campaign doesn't know where it came from and therefore has no one to blame. Clinton's campaign disclaims any knowledge.

Shenanigans are common in South Carolina politics. But this is a few steps beyond the norm. Is the culprit a misguided, Machiavellian supporter of a rival candidate who thinks he or she knows how to move a message but winds up embarrassing their candidate of choice? Maybe it's a member of the opposite party trying to start a fight? This being South Carolina, it might be something else entirely.

A side note: coincidentally, Obama's campaign launched its first radio ad in the state yesterday. The 60-second spot describes Obama as a Christian and civil rights leader.

Comments

What did Ghandi say? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Will Obama get to that 4th step? I don't know. But between Hillary distorting his debate comments and now this, I think we can safely say we're at stage 3.

Posted by Michael | July 25, 2007 8:01 AM

Anyone who believes this is the work of someone who is connected with Hillary Clinton instead of the work of someone who is connected with Karl Rove has been in a coma for the last decade.

Posted by Jan | July 25, 2007 8:19 AM

Jan, There is becoming less of a difference (Clinton/Rove)

Posted by Lyn | July 25, 2007 10:35 AM

In the 1988 Primaries, it was Al Gore who first accused Michael Dukakis of being soft on crime because of the Horton weekend furlough. Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media conveniently forget this fact. Of course, they prefer to blame the Republicans for re-using the issue later in the year. But Al Gore led the way!

Posted by Paul | July 25, 2007 12:03 PM

Yeah, let's not be a bunch of pollyannas here. The Dems are fully capable of all sorts of slime. Whether this is one of those cases or not, I can't say. But I seriously doubt the Repubs are plastering fliers now. This coming from a Democrat. Whether its someone independent of a campaign or not, I have no idea, though it certainly sounds like a cheap campaign trick to me.

Posted by Michael | July 25, 2007 12:16 PM

In the 1988 Primaries, it was Al Gore who first accused Michael Dukakis of being soft on crime because of the Horton weekend furlough. Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media conveniently forget this fact. Of course, they prefer to blame the Republicans for re-using the issue later in the year. But Al Gore led the way!

Not quite. Gore did criticize the furlough program in one debate. But the issue's "Hortonizing" was entirely a Republican creation. More details at the Daily Howler.

Posted by Chilly | July 25, 2007 12:43 PM

golly gee! I wonder who could be behind this kind of dirty campaigning and smearing?????

Posted by vwcat | July 25, 2007 12:57 PM

What everyone forgets, though, is that the Willie Horton Ad was TRUE. Some author won a Pulitizer for writing about Dukakis's prison furlough disaster, for example.

Posted by litigator | July 25, 2007 1:06 PM

I see you've answered my question from the previous thread, it's Obama you're trying to 'bury' these days.

Posted by mz | July 25, 2007 1:44 PM

Whenever the race issue has been raised lately it has either been from one of two sources. Someone with an active or subliminal racist agenda, or alternatively from someone who would rather distract us from the immediate issues confronting America: the war in Iraq, the threat from al Qaida, healthcare, education, energy, environment, etc. These are divisive tactics, and I think that most Americans are just plain sick and tired of this old way practicing politics.

Posted by Mark in Burlington | July 25, 2007 1:56 PM

"This being South Carolina, it might be something else entirely."

I think you're on to something!

Posted by OxyCon | July 25, 2007 2:23 PM

I think you guys have missed the most obvious suspect: Obama's campaign, or supporters of it.

Planting arguably-racist flyers lays the groundwork for them to play the race card and undercut criticisms of him. He's now the "victim," and we all know that victims can do no wrong.

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | July 25, 2007 2:39 PM

Another day, another liberal mysteriously finding quasi-racist "fliers". Really, do a search....seems that the only fliers made any more are ONLY ones that are ONLY in posession of liberals who ONLY came across them by accident and who run to the press with them. Interestingly enough, the fliers are always placed were groups of Democrats/NAACP offices are located.

Funny, that.

Posted by Not the Barebacking Andrew | July 25, 2007 3:27 PM

Personally, anything bad for South Carolina is ONLY GOOD for America. Screwing the rednecks should be a national pastime.

Posted by Brod | July 25, 2007 4:18 PM

I'm from South Carolina, and I wouldn't live there now to save my life: it's the MOST racist and the MOST militarist place in America. Unfortunately, it also enjoys too large an influence in national politics because, there, incumbents hold on to their seats forever (by suitably impressing the wretchedly poor rednecks with their largesse), and also because they hold their political primaries so darned early. The rest of the country should pay ABSOLUTELY NO ATTENTION to what the people of South Carolina want in a President, because what they want isn't acceptable to EITHER philosophical "conservatives" or philosophical "liberals": what they want is a "Commander-in-chief" (war and pork) at the expense of every other function of a head of state or chief executive.

Posted by digbydolben | July 25, 2007 6:53 PM

Perhaps it was the Romney-campaign, trying to soften up Obama if he were to win? Considering he's softening up Fred Thompson, as well as having already had spats with Obama.

With Obama having cross-party appeal one could perhaps see towards Giuliani or Romney as trying to 'help' Hillary?

Posted by Hustveit | July 25, 2007 6:57 PM

My Best Comment:

What did Ghandi say? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Will Obama get to that 4th step? I don't know. But between Hillary distorting his debate comments and now this, I think we can safely say we're at stage 3

Posted by Diamond | July 25, 2007 9:45 PM

Who benefits from the poster-leaflet and the publicity about it? Obviously Clinton, but also Edwards.

And yes, Algore began the hulabaloo about Willie Horton and it WAS true!! That's why it was so effective!

And it's good to see that Mike Dukakis STILL has traction after all these years. His memory just won't go away!

Posted by David S. Levine | July 25, 2007 10:38 PM

Thanks for the comments. I know that South Carolina has a history of dirty racial politics, but it's less common nowadays -- thankfully. Note how the author of this piece went so far as to link Obama to Dukakis to try and avoid the racist tag... I don't buy it. Assuming the author has a point about the underlying legislation (and I don't think the author does), exploting racial animus to get the message across makes me want to ignore the messenger.

Posted by ambinder | July 26, 2007 1:15 AM