Media, Candidates Fan Flames of Race

As I reported Saturday, the mainstream media began pushing a "racial tension" narrative between Democratic Candidates. It appears that both campaigns are trying to out-cute each other in keeping this narrative alive.

Barack Obama responded directly, for the first time, to Hillary Clinton's remarks about Dr. Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson.

""Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement," Obama said in a conference call with reporters. "I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

Meanwhile, BET founder Robert Johnson, when introducing Hillary Clinton at an event in South Carolina, tried to revive the issue of Obama's long-ago drug use. The Clinton campaign, instead of repudiating the thinly-veiled remarks, issued a weak defense of them.

I was ready to give the candidates a pass on Friday, but both of them are doing exactly the wrong thing here, and they're playing the voters for suckers. Details ahead. Update: Clinton campaign responds to my follow-up question.

Introducing Clinton at an event in Columbia, Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said both Clintons "have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book." In "Dreams From My Father," Obama wrote that he used marijuana and cocaine as a young man. Johnson later tried to back away from his remarks, and the Clinton campaign issued a statement saying he was simply referring to Obama's days as a community organizer. Johnson said that to read anything else into his statement was "simply irresponsible and incorrect."

Now, because I was not delivered by stork, c-section, or otherwise within the last 24 to 48 hours, I have a hard time believing this. Equally mystifying is Barack Obama's purported inability to explain the true, misguided yet less incendiary, intent of Hillary Clinton's remarks.

Enough of this wink-wink crap. Barack, you know what she meant, and for you not to say that is wrong. Ordinarily, a candidate is not expected to explain his opponent's gaffes, but in this case, when you are trying to campaign for "One America", you owe it to your supporters to put a stop to this. Keeping this story alive only hurts you. You could have defended her against the charge of minimizing King's achievements, while highlighting the incredible stupidity of what she really was saying. Instead, you got cute.

What you should've said was, "Senator Clinton was clearly not trying to minimize Dr. King's accomplishments, that's an outrageous suggestion. I believe she meant to highlight the need for political power, which Dr King was denied, as well as inspirational power. Thank God this country has come far enough now that I am not denied the former as I strive for the latter." Boom! Home run.

On the other hand, the Clinton campaign's defense of Robert Johnson's remarks is even more mystifying. What does she gain by standing by Mr. Johnson's ridiculous defense? More importantly, what would have been the harm in a gentle repudiation? Something like, "We took the remark to be a misguided attempt at humour by a prominent supporter. If Mr. Johnson has another explanation, we'll have to take him at his word, but that's what it sounded like to us."

It's not as if BET enjoys universal support among politically engaged black folks. Far from it.
Johnson is another story. While he might not have been trying to reinforce a stereotype, he was most definitely trying to resurrect the spectre of Obama's admitted drug use. To say otherwise seems a little, shall we say, un-courageous.

I contacted both campaigns for comment. Barack Obama's has not returned my call yet. Hillary's campaign sent the following:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 13, 2008 Statement from Bob Johnson on His Comments Today in South Carolina "My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect. "When Hillary Clinton was in her twenties she worked to provide protections for abused and battered children and helped ensure that children with disabilities could attend public school. That results oriented leadership -- even as a young person -- is the reason I am supporting Hillary Clinton."

My followup, to which I am awaiting a response:

Thanks for this. To clarify, your candidate is saying that she stands behind Mr. Johnson's explanation of this remark: "...since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book." , that he was referring to Senator Obama's "time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else." Why would Mr. Johnson say, "I'm not going to say what he was doing..." in reference to the Senator's community organizing? Why would there be a need for discretion there?

This should serve as a warning to both candidates. If my readers are any indication, they don't want to see this kind of campaign. Knowing the depth of racial divisions in this country, I find it deeply disturbing that neither campaign is putting a stop to this. knowing the immense challenges facing this country, I urge voters to ignore this crap and focus on the substance, and on the joyous task of selecting a replacement for George W. Bush.

Update: A Clinton spokesperson responded to my follow-up email via telephone, stating, "Mr. Johnson asked us to put out the statement and that's what we did."

Asked if the candidate found the explanation credible, the spokesperson responded, "We take him at his word."

When I asked why Mr. Johnson would need to be discreet about Obama's community organization efforts, I was referred back to Mr. Johnson's statement.