Oh Brother...

A Romney staffer's mother plays herself in the real-life campaign stop: "Romney Visits Economically Anxious Family." It's like when TV producers find an aunt with the medical problem du jour....

Rep. Charlie Rangel seems to call Barack Obama "stupid."

The Clinton and Obama economic stimulus plans seem to be making Democrats on the Hill a bit nervous.

Eugene Robinson has a theory.

Is it possible that accusing Obama and his campaign of playing the race card might create doubt in the minds of the moderate, independent white voters who now seem so enamored of the young black senator? Might that be the idea?

David Brooks has another.

First, this whole show seems stale and deranged to the younger set, as Obama and Clinton seemed to recognize when they damped down the feud yesterday afternoon. The interesting split is not between the feminist and civil rights Old Bulls, it’s between the establishments of both movements, who emphasize top-down change, and the younger dissenters, who don’t. Second, this dispute is going to be settled by the rising, and so far ignored, minority group. For all the current fighting, it’ll be Latinos who end up determining who gets the nomination.

Comments

Eugene's theory has been mine all along. Whatever side you are on, you have to admit Obama never mentioned directly the controversy until yesterday and there are only one or two - very mild - quotes that emanated from his campaign during the whole week over the brouhaha.
But somehow Clinton surrogates keep repeating Obama brought race up first therefore hoping to make that idea stick in people's minds and make it easier to turn them off of him later.
Yuck.

Posted by Benjamin | January 15, 2008 9:54 AM

Charlie Rangel said that Barack Obama was 'absolutely stupid' for starting the race mongering against Hillary Clinton. Charlie got it exactly right.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 10:05 AM

How is it that OBAMA started this up ? How did he start it ? I mean I don't get it. They made a few comments that were dubious (although I didn't really interpret the MLK one that way), some people in the African-American community started getting offended and that s where it started. How did OBAMA start this ?
Urgh.

Posted by Benjamin | January 15, 2008 10:11 AM

Keep it up, HRC. Your tactics will have the GOP is smiling all the way to November.

You call a truce and then send out your attack dogs to keep up the personal and vitriolic attacks. Is this what you meant by "the politics of personal destruction?" I guess you were so good at identifying it in the 90s because you were its biggest practitioners.

But that's OK. This is the price to pay to travel the road of greatness, right? Country be damned. While you tear the Democratic party asunder, the GOP cannot wait to run against you in the fall (particularly if they nominate McCain). Do you really think Newt and Karl write all of those fawning pieces about you because they like you? They are salivating at the chance to run against you.

And with your tactics that are more reminiscent of the George W Bush campaign in South Carolina circa 2000, you are proving their desires well-founded.

So what if you had to destroy one of the most promising lights in the Democratic party to do it? So what if your attacks on him were thinly substantive but otherwise personal, racial, tangential? You do what you have to do, right? But, in the end, you probably can't win a general election that way - and even if you do, you won't be able to govern. If anything, you will be re-uniting the GOP coalition that this current administration destroyed.

Great job...

Posted by Nathan Hale | January 15, 2008 10:17 AM

The media and the press have a vested interest in keeping some kind of contraversy going, after all it sells papers (etc) right? This didn't come from Obama (altho some of his lower level people did comment on it) and actually Clinton is right, it takes a President to get things done.

Posted by Ron J | January 15, 2008 10:34 AM

It takes a President to get things done.

Absolutely. Which is why I am looking forward to electing Obama. So he can get things done.

Posted by Benjamin | January 15, 2008 10:44 AM

How is it that Obama started this up?

Obama's campaign started, behind the scenes, calling Hillary's and Bill's remarks racists, that's how.

Charlie Rangel heard what Obama was doing and called him 'absolutely stupid' for doing it.

Obama is a rookie with a chip on his shoulder. He needs to have his actions match his rhetoric and fire those responsible for this stuff.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 11:07 AM

Eugene Robinson is dead right in his thinking, though he is being quite diplomatic and charitable in what he is saying.

Posted by RKA | January 15, 2008 11:24 AM

Charlie Rangel, Richard Cohen, Madeline Albright, David Gergen, Donna Shalala (she of the current UnitedHealth back dating of stock options scandal), Rahn Emanuel...are all Washington Insiders - so said Sally Quinn in a terrific piece on Washington Insiders published in '98.
This race-baiting, started and kept alive by the Clintonites, students of Lee Atwater-style politics, is meant to divide and conquer. Obama should stay on message: Change and Unity.
I love the posts that call Obama a "rookie". Now we're REALLY name-calling. To the Washington Insiders practicing best-in-class corporate cronyism, there's nothing meaner to say than someone is a "rookie". By the way, Richard Cohen et al, how do you like Limbaugh's Kingfish voice when he talks about Obama? Oops, sorry, Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes are off-limits at the Washington Post, aren't they?

Posted by fougasseu | January 15, 2008 11:55 AM

For what it’s worth my opinion is that the whole argument over the rather silly questions of whether the Clintons have been racially insensitive, or whether Hillary denigrated the role played by Dr. King is drowning out the real story, which is that the Clintons have gone negative in a rather disturbing fashion since late December/early January, when it appeared that she was in danger of losing both Iowa and New Hampshire.

I happen to think that the answer to both questions is no, but this not account for low blows like repeatedly bringing up Barack’s drug use (at least he is honest enough to own up to it, unlike Bill Clinton and George W. Bush); downplaying his record by saying he’s just been a “part-time state senator for a few years” (Obama has worked as a public activist and a civil rights attorney since he got out of college and has served in elected office longer than Hillary); and calling Barak Obama “kid.” Barack Obama is the same age as Bill when he ran for president and if Barack Obama called Hillary “girl,” and I’m sure the Clinton folks would saturate the media with accusations of sexism.

However, because the media is framing the conflict in terms of race, the Clinton’s can simply beat the drum that they have an excellent record on race (which is true), while not having to answer to all of their other negative campaign tactics, misrepresentations of their opponent, the repeated personal attacks and insinuations etc. etc. I would also add that I personally find it rather unbecoming of Bill Clinton to be wielding the ax for Hillary and as a former president and the most prominent elder party statesman by far, I think he should be above trashing one of the Democratic Party’s most talented and brightest stars. Leave the hatchet jobs to the Mark Penns of the world.

Posted by jbentley | January 15, 2008 12:31 PM

I think Robinson is absolutely right, with the caveat that Sister Souljah had said something offensive, and Obama hadn't said anything. Lost in the coverage is the fact that he was silent on the issue as of her Meet The Press appearance, and the public backlash was from folks outside their campaign (for what its worth, all the black people I've talked to were pretty shocked).

I actually posted my similar take on the strategy yesterday - to me, this is the only rational explanation of the Clinton camp's behavior over the weekend, building up to Meet The Press. Otherwise, one would have to believe that seasoned politicians from Arkansas just had no idea that the comments would offend blacks and start a fracas. I don't think the Clintons are that naïve.

Posted by Thad Anderson | January 15, 2008 2:11 PM

John Lewis speaks and Obama folds like a cheap lawn chair:

"I think there has been a deliberate and systematic attempt by some people in the Obama campaign to really fan the flames about race and to really distort what Senator Clinton said. I understood and I think most right thinking people understood what she said.

"President and Senator Clinton have a record, a history, a very long history of bringing people together. No right thinking American would ever think that Senator or President Clinton would ever do anything that would use the race card"

"I must tell you...I'm trying to set the record straight...the Obama camp is doing something else, theyr'e sending out memos to the media trying to suggest that the Clintons are playing the race card."

-Rep. John Lewis on News Hour 1/14

Posted by dickie flatts | January 15, 2008 2:55 PM

I'm not sure what the Lewis comments prove, except that Clinton is banking on the sympathetic victim image again. We will hear more of that nonstop for the next two weeks. I still haven't heard an explanation of why, during the three or four days prior to Sunday, the Clintons bombbarded us a series of vaguely racially offensive comments - things no astute politician would ever say right before the sc primary if they were still trying to court the black vote.

Then, when she appeared on meet the press and accused Obama of injecting race into the campaign (even though he had not yet commented on the six or seven awkward comments), it finally made sense. Fortunately, Obama is taking the high road by calling for a ceasefire.

Posted by Thad | January 15, 2008 4:20 PM

We don't have any memos or statements from Obama attacking the Clintons with accusations that they were trying to make a racial issue out of Obama.

We do, however, have a lot of stupid statements made by the Clinton campaign and their surrogates directed at Obama.

Posted by Tyro | January 15, 2008 4:21 PM

"Second, this dispute is going to be settled by the rising, and so far ignored, minority group. For all the current fighting, it’ll be Latinos who end up determining who gets the nomination." -David Brooks

From a political standpoint, it' more about consensus within segmented and polarized subgroups, and the Latino group is huge. Calling Barack Obama's campaign a "fairy tale," drove home the first wedge. Subsequent squabbles over MLK and LBJ, further divide and polarize. Latinos don't have a dog per se in the fight. One thing's certain, neither Clinton is a respecter of persons. They'd throw MLK, LBJ, and Mahatma Ghandi for good measure under a bus to get elected: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | January 15, 2008 5:29 PM